CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Fast Fashion And Clothing Waste Rules

Canadians are buying more clothing than ever and discarding it just as quickly. The average British Columbian sends about 12 kilograms of textiles to landfill annually, much of it inexpensive apparel worn a handful of times. The province is now contemplating an extended producer responsibility program that would shift the cost of disposal from taxpayers to clothing brands. Any company selling more than $2 million worth of clothing in B.C. each year would pay a fee on every item, financing collection bins, sorting centres and recycling.

Environment Minister Paul Dufresne notes that comparable schemes already govern electronics, paint and beverage containers. Currently, he observes, a brand can sell a six-dollar T-shirt that disintegrates after three washes while the municipality pays to bury it. “That isn’t a free market,” he contends. “That’s a subsidy.” Reduced fees for durable or easily recycled garments would nudge manufacturers toward better designs.

Sandra Kim, a spokesperson for the Canadian Apparel Retailers Association, predicts trouble. “Those costs will migrate onto price tags,” she warns, “and families on limited budgets will feel it.” Many of her members already operate voluntary take-back programs, which she would prefer be given time to expand.

Tariq Hussain, who researches textile recycling at the University of British Columbia, considers collection the straightforward part. Most garments are now cotton-polyester blends, which are notoriously difficult to separate, and few facilities in North America can convert them into new fibre. Without investment in such plants, he warns, much of what is gathered will be exported or incinerated. He nonetheless endorses the program, provided a portion of the fees funds research.

Monique Lavoie, who manages a charity thrift store in Nanaimo, confronts the problem daily. Her volunteers sort hundreds of bags weekly, and nearly half the clothing is too worn or shoddy to resell, so the charity pays to landfill it. Brand-funded collection appeals to her, though she fears that new bins in shopping-mall parking lots could intercept the better-quality clothing that keeps her shelves stocked.

Jasmine Cho, a nineteen-year-old Surrey student, buys most of her wardrobe online from budget brands. “It hardly helps the planet, I know,” she admits, “and if prices rose slightly, I’d probably just buy less.”

I’ve waited years for a policy like this. Ms. Kim warns that the fees will 6. Choose…pay for university studiesshow up in what families payfavour longer-lasting garmentsspare the smallest sellers, yet families already pay through their property taxes every time the city buries a flimsy T-shirt. For decades her members have enjoyed 7. Choose…a free marketa voluntary programa level playing fielda hidden subsidy without anyone calling it that.

That said, Dr. Hussain’s warning deserves attention. With 8. Choose…barely a handful of plantsplenty of sorting centresdozens of new factoriesenough charity shops able to turn old garments into new fibre, the province must invest in them or we will simply export our waste. I would also design the program so that charities like Ms. Lavoie’s 9. Choose…raise their pricesturn away donated goodsgain from the programpay a fee per item instead of losing their best donations. And if a slightly higher price leads to 10. Choose…fewer impulse purchasesmore bargain huntingbigger clearance salesmore loyal customers, the planet wins.