Tax Incentives

The government must give incentives for textile companies to change their businesses through the better. The government must do this in two different ways, grants and tax incentives. This way companies could save money, or receive money in return for changing their ways. Companies would change because it would save them money. They would receive tax incentives or breaks, meaning they would have to pay less. Also, grants would pay the companies for changing to have recycling programs, safer agriculture, and greener production. The government must offer incentives through tax incentives and grants.
On the other hand, some may say that Congress must not interfere with business: laissez faire. It is said that it is not the proper for those in Washington
to step in and control what businesses do. It is believed that it is the company's place to decide what they will do with their business. They believe that if the companies need to change things, they will change it on their own. It is seen some companies have changed, for example, Patagonia has been working on being greener (Scott).
However, large scale change in most if not all textile companies will not happen without lawmakers incentives. Those in charge of this country must step in to offer incentives to the companies or else nothing would ever change. If things are going to change, those in charge must step in, companies will not do it themselves. Companies want to make money, and change costs money, but the incentives would compensate them, or give them money. Therefore it doesn’t cost the companies to change, and they will change to earn the incentives. Clearly, the government must not remain hands off, and must offer incentives for companies to change
With all the facts presented, it can be seen why Congress must offer incentives for textile companies to have recycling programs in store, natural processes in agriculture, and green chemicals in production.
The government must offer incentives for companies to have recycling
programs for their textiles, primarily. With recycling programs being offered by stores, people could easily access them. These recycling programs would allow for a clean way for people to get rid of the clothes. If the company themselves offer the recycling, people would take advantage of it. People go to stores all the time, so on their way to purchase new clothes, they would drop off their old ones to be recycled. With store side access to recycling programs, people would have a simple and easy way to drop off their old worn clothes to be recycled. Easy access would be essential in large cities where it can be difficult to transport old clothes to farther away places. Another reason for legislature for incentives to companies to develop and offer recycling programs is because it would cut out a major part of the waste that is in the textile industry. The clothes that would originally be thrown away would be put into new clothes instead. Not only that, but just scraps from factory floors could be recycled as well. Waste could entirely be cut out of the textile industry. If companies had a recycling program, they would eliminate waste from their store, The businesses would be keeping landfills and the Earth cleaner because they would keep the fibers out of the landfill. This would improve the quality of the Earth by eliminating a source of pollution. Companies creating and offering a recycling program would improve the Earth and keep landfills cleaner. Finally, dyes and other chemicals would be reduced. Recycling programs would make it so garments would not go into landfills. The chemicals in the garments would not be given a chance to leak into the Earth. Companies would protect the Earth and water from pollution by keeping chemicals and dyes out of landfills, and not allowing for used garments to pollute the landfill. Clearly lawmakers must offer incentives for companies to develop and install recycling programs. Congress must offer incentives for companies to use safer chemicals in the agriculture of the textile industry in addition to recycling programs. The chemicals used such as pesticides and herbicides can harm humans, animals, and the Earth. Using safer chemicals would protect the humans from harmful chemicals. It would protect those in Tasmania where cancer rates increased by 200% by use of pesticides (Salina). It would also prevent from cancer spikes in places where pesticides are used, where something like what happened in Tasmania from happening again. Safer chemicals could protect from birth defects in babies in places with agricultural areas, like in Mexico, where birth defects did increase (Salina). Safer chemicals in agriculture would protect human health. Agriculture would go from hurting humans to helping farms grow crops without harming humans or the environment. Second of all, lawmakers must make incentives for companies to use safer chemicals in the agriculture of textiles would help to keep the Earth and water cleaner. When crops are being grown for textiles, such as cotton, pesticides are normally used. GMO cotton is widely used crop in farms growing for textiles, and GMO cotton requires herbicides. Pesticides are used along with herbicides in plants, and both herbicides and pesticides can be harmful to the Earth. When the plants are watered, these chemicals work into the Earth and water; this causes pollution of the water and the Earth. The chemicals come off from the plants and work their way into the Earth, polluting it. Pollution is dangerous to the Earth, animals, and humans. Safer chemicals would prevent pollution from happening, keeping the Earth, humans and animals safe. Clearly, the government must offer incentives for companies to use greener chemicals in the agriculture of the textile industry. Finally, the lawmakers must offer incentives for companies to use greener chemicals in the production of textiles.
Natural chemicals and dyes would mean that garments made from natural fibers would break down. Cotton and linen do originally break down, so therefore, natural chemicals would allow for garments made out of natural materials to completely break down. Chemicals that are currently in textiles are harmful to the Earth. By replacing the harmful chemicals with eco-friendly chemicals, the Earth would be cleaner and safer. Incentives from the Congress for safer chemicals in the production of textiles would also mean water would be protected. If the chemicals are made of natural materials, it would be acceptable for them to end up in the water source. Nutshells and rosemary leaves that make up some new dyes (Scott) would break down naturally in the water. They are natural materials, they would just go back into the Earth without polluting it. The Earth would be protected from pollution from the textile industry. Also, the Earth would be cleaner overall because the incentives would entice companies not to use harmful chemicals. The government must offer incentives for companies to use chemicals in the production of textiles,
obviously. As one can see, the legislature must offer incentives for textile companies to have recycling programs in store, safer chemicals in agriculture, and greener chemicals in production. The changes that would be made in companies would protect humans and the Earth. If the lawmakers wants to keep this country, this world safe, they must offer incentives for the companies to change. If there are no changes made, the Earth will end up paying greatly for the pollution the textile industry has caused. Congress, the leaders of this great nation, must do their duty to protect our country, and protect the citizens of the United States of America. People are being affected by the textile industry and not in a good way. Legislature must offer incentives to keep this nation safe and in the process, help protect the Earth.