Latest news with #CaliforniaChamberof
Business of Fashion
7 days ago
- Business
- Business of Fashion
Dear Fashion CEOs, Stop Undermining Climate Action
We have reached a pivotal moment in the fashion industry's understanding of what true climate leadership means. Leadership was once defined by voluntary corporate commitments — a new sustainability pledge or climate goal. But these voluntary efforts have done little to move the needle, rarely graduating beyond pilot programmes, and often amounting to little more than greenwashed marketing. Short-term self-interest and a market that rewards quarterly growth have driven many players to underinvest or stall action. The result is collective stagnation. For the last few years, the belief among climate advocates and progressive executives has been that regulators would step into this void and drive momentum in the movement. Now that is on shakier ground. In the US, the Trump administration is dismantling environmental programmes, even as individual states forge ahead with their own regulations. In the EU, which has led the way on green legislation, concerns about competitiveness are threatening to erode policies that have already been formed. In a period of economic and political uncertainty, businesses are stepping back, greenhushing and deprioritising climate programmes. It is clear change won't come without political support. Real climate leadership from brands means recognising this, speaking out and calling for regulatory change. Instead, many trade groups — including those that represent brands with publicly progressive climate policies — are actively lobbying to undermine tougher environmental regulations, leaning into the political narrative that stiffer oversight is bad for business. Brands that are already doing the work know this is not true. Smart regulation can be a way to level a playing field that is currently stacked against companies that operate more responsibly, while also incentivising and accelerating change. But it won't happen if companies and their lobbyists don't step up to loudly and boldly declare their support for the regulatory change that will enable more meaningful action. As the industry convenes this week at the Global Fashion Agenda's annual sustainability summit in Copenhagen, it's an opportunity for leaders to move beyond the climate blah blah and chart a path forward. The issue is increasingly urgent. In the last six months alone, we've witnessed climate impacts that make inadequate action indefensible: historic wildfires in California, temperatures reaching 48°C in India and Pakistan, and a glacier collapse wiping out a Swiss village. The stakes are not theoretical. I saw the corporate doublespeak firsthand while testifying in Sacramento, California in support of the Fashion Act, a bill that aims to address the climate and chemical footprint of the industry. Alongside me was a persuasive college student; in opposition were business lobbies the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Retailers Association and the American Apparel and Footwear Association. Their argument? That requiring companies to set and meet absolute emission reduction targets would mean increased costs for consumers, even though companies like Gap, VF, and Nike have already made voluntary commitments to such targets. We brought data from McKinsey showing that industry-wide decarbonisation, once co-ordinated, is not only feasible but affordable. The Committee listened, the bill progressed, though it must still pass through several other stages of approval by January in order to make it into law. In New York, lawmakers have been working on a similar legislative proposal since 2022. This is why brands who say they favour a greener industry need to step up. The Fashion Act is gaining traction in California. But to move it across the finish line and into law, we need industry voices to be present in the room and use their platforms to publicly support it. That's why New Standard Institute, the industry think tank I run, has launched an advocacy arm — to enable us to meet anti-regulation lobbying with equal force. This is a model not just for the Fashion Act, but for future legislation that sets smart incentives — both sticks and carrots — aligned with the sustainability commitments many brands already claim. To the companies that have signed on to support the bill, thank you. In the months ahead, we invite more of you to move beyond pledges and pilot programs. We also call on current supporters to step up their engagement: be public, be vocal, and advocate clearly for the Fashion Act. Join us in supporting infrastructure that can match lobbying power with lobbying power. Show legislators that industry — the forward-looking, innovation-driven side of it — is ready to lead. Navigating the turbulence of tariffs and shifting global standards is a challenge. But leadership isn't about waiting for clarity. It's about showing up in the storm. Let's lead. Maxine Bédat is the founder and director of fashion think tank New Standard Institute. She has helped spearhead bills focused on regulating fashion's environmental impact in California and New York. The views expressed in Op-Ed pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Business of Fashion. How to submit an Op-Ed: The Business of Fashion accepts opinion articles on a wide range of topics. The suggested length is 700-1000 words, but submissions of any length within reason will be considered. All submissions must be original and exclusive to BoF. Submissions may be sent to opinion@ Please include 'Op-Ed' in the subject line and be sure to substantiate all assertions. Given the volume of submissions we receive, we regret that we are unable to respond in the event that an article is not selected for publication.
Yahoo
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
California tries Trump-proofing by another name
SACRAMENTO, California — California politicians are still trying to protect themselves from President Donald Trump — they're just being quieter about it. The latest example is a trio of Democratic state bills that would enshrine pre-Trump federal water protections in state law. The key context is Trump's promises to undo federal environmental protections, but lawmakers are avoiding making it all about him. 'We have purposely not been communicating that this bill is a Trump resistance bill,' said Sean Bothwell, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, of a measure to insulate the state from any weakening of the federal Clean Water Act, as Trump did on Wednesday. Lawmakers during Trump's first term explicitly billed a previous version in 2019 as 'Trump insurance.' This time, they're going with 'future-proofing.' State Sen. Ben Allen, the author of this year's bill, said in a release Thursday that Trump's move makes his proposal 'now more important than ever to future-proof these precious natural resources.' 'If you care about water supply, as we do, and the president says that he does, you got to care about making sure it's a clean water supply for farmers, for personal use and everyone else,' he said at a press conference last week. Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, meanwhile, has a bill to require the state to adopt emergency rules limiting PFAS in drinking water, going further than the federal limits set by the Biden administration. He said he was inspired both by industry's attempts to block the Biden rules in court and the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts. 'Prior to the presidential election, there was already an effort to weaken these regulations,' said Gabriel. 'This is about making sure that we, regardless of what happens in Washington, regardless of what happens in federal courts, that Californians can feel safe.' The trio of bills is rounded out by Assemblymember Nick Schultz's proposal to broaden a law that his predecessor, now-Rep. Laura Friedman, passed during Trump's first term to bolster state protections for rivers if they lose their federal 'wild and scenic' designation. He called it 'proactive' on introducing it on the first day of the legislative session. To be sure, lawmakers' softened rhetoric will do little to lower hurdles from water agencies and business and agriculture groups, who all sought to moderate previous versions of the measures. The California Chamber of Commerce is already opposing Allen's bill, and its policy advocate Kristopher Anderson said in an email the bill 'goes beyond insulating California from federal efforts to roll back water quality protections. It will disproportionately burden many industries throughout the state and drive up costs for Californians.' But the tactic could help get the bills past Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been broadly tacking to the right and vetoed the 2019 bill to enshrine Obama-era water and wildlife protections in state law because urban and agricultural water users argued it would limit their water deliveries. His office didn't respond to a request for comment on the new bills. ''Trump-proofing' are not my words — they're someone else's words,' Newsom told reporters in December in reference to his proposal to allocate more money to the state's legal defenses. ''Resistance' is your word, not my word. I'm just making sure we're prepared.' Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.
Politico
14-03-2025
- Politics
- Politico
California tries Trump-proofing by another name
SACRAMENTO, California — California politicians are still trying to protect themselves from President Donald Trump — they're just being quieter about it. The latest example is a trio of Democratic state bills that would enshrine pre-Trump federal water protections in state law. The key context is Trump's promises to undo federal environmental protections, but lawmakers are avoiding making it all about him. 'We have purposely not been communicating that this bill is a Trump resistance bill,' said Sean Bothwell, executive director of the California Coastkeeper Alliance, of a measure to insulate the state from any weakening of the federal Clean Water Act, as Trump did on Wednesday. Lawmakers during Trump's first term explicitly billed a previous version in 2019 as 'Trump insurance.' This time, they're going with 'future-proofing.' State Sen. Ben Allen, the author of this year's bill, said in a release Thursday that Trump's move makes his proposal 'now more important than ever to future-proof these precious natural resources.' 'If you care about water supply, as we do, and the president says that he does, you got to care about making sure it's a clean water supply for farmers, for personal use and everyone else,' he said at a press conference last week. Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, meanwhile, has a bill to require the state to adopt emergency rules limiting PFAS in drinking water, going further than the federal limits set by the Biden administration. He said he was inspired both by industry's attempts to block the Biden rules in court and the Trump administration's deregulatory efforts. 'Prior to the presidential election, there was already an effort to weaken these regulations,' said Gabriel. 'This is about making sure that we, regardless of what happens in Washington, regardless of what happens in federal courts, that Californians can feel safe.' The trio of bills is rounded out by Assemblymember Nick Schultz's proposal to broaden a law that his predecessor, now-Rep. Laura Friedman, passed during Trump's first term to bolster state protections for rivers if they lose their federal 'wild and scenic' designation. He called it 'proactive' on introducing it on the first day of the legislative session. To be sure, lawmakers' softened rhetoric will do little to lower hurdles from water agencies and business and agriculture groups, who all sought to moderate previous versions of the measures. The California Chamber of Commerce is already opposing Allen's bill, and its policy advocate Kristopher Anderson said in an email the bill 'goes beyond insulating California from federal efforts to roll back water quality protections. It will disproportionately burden many industries throughout the state and drive up costs for Californians.' But the tactic could help get the bills past Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has been broadly tacking to the right and vetoed the 2019 bill to enshrine Obama-era water and wildlife protections in state law because urban and agricultural water users argued it would limit their water deliveries. His office didn't respond to a request for comment on the new bills. ''Trump-proofing' are not my words — they're someone else's words,' Newsom told reporters in December in reference to his proposal to allocate more money to the state's legal defenses. ''Resistance' is your word, not my word. I'm just making sure we're prepared.' Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO's California Climate newsletter.
