Spinning And Clothing Industry: Emissions Of Specific Toxic Substances Are No Longer Serious.

The supply chain is complex and cost pressure is high.

Developed countries: pressure on law to adopt alternatives

In the global textile and apparel economic map, although the production of textiles has mostly been pferred to China and other emerging economies, the European Union, the United States and Canada are still the world's leading textile exporting countries and regions.

These developed countries still retain part of their production capacity, and they have experienced a gradual process in terms of laws and regulations and the implementation of pollution prevention and control plans.

At present, the textile industry's emissions of specific toxic and harmful substances are no longer a serious problem.

As early as the 80s of last century, the textile industry in North Carolina (now migrated to India and China) flourished, and most of the wastewater from the public sewage treatment plant in the state came from the textile industry.

Because the waste water discharged from the textile industry is toxic, it can not pass the toxicity test of the sewage treatment plant, and the waste water is also difficult to process. Therefore, the polluting enterprise must pay the sewage treatment cost.

According to the state's "pollution prevention charge" plan, the root of the problem is APEO, especially the nonylphenol polyoxyethylene (NPEO).

Linear polyethoxylates (LAEO) have the same function as NPEO and lower toxicity, but their cost is about 30% higher than that of NPEO, so the textile companies did not use LAEO at that time.

In order to solve the waste water problem in the treatment plant, the first attempt in North Carolina was delayed aeration and later activated carbon, but these expensive methods could not prevent pollution.

Later, the pollution control charge plan proved that the use of LAEO instead of APEO and NPEO could solve the problem of toxic and harmful emissions.

The state's textile enterprises immediately switched to LAEO and passed the toxicity test of the plant successfully.

This practice not only improves the quality of the environment, but also prevents stakeholders from spending heavily on the law.

At that time, if the alternatives were not adopted, the high cost of sewage treatment would make it impossible for the relevant companies to continue operation.

Thanks to a successful alternative, more than 100 companies continued to operate for more than 10 years.

In Canada, when the national laws confirm that NPEO is a toxic and harmful substance, the consumption of NPEO in the domestic textile industry has dropped significantly.

By 2006, most textile mills met the target of 97% reduction in Canada's Ministry of environmental protection.

Currently in Canada, NPEO is mainly used in the oil of knitwear and knitwear production equipment.

HafnerInc is Canada's largest manufacturer of furniture and elastic woven fabrics. Its annual emissions from NPEO dropped from 6800 kilograms in 2001 to 68 kilograms in 2003, while its chemical oxygen demand decreased by half, thereby saving 15000 of the company's sewage charges annually.

Electronics industry: leading enterprises take the lead in improving

The popularity of electronic products has also caused the electronics industry to face pollution problems. However, the leading enterprises in the industry have taken the lead in improving their products and greatly promoted their green process.

In recent years, the electronic product industry has taken measures at the two stages of the product life cycle, at the design and processing stages, to reduce the toxic and harmful substances emitted by the disposal or recovery of abandoned products (also known as electronic waste).

The emphasis is on reducing the use of brominated flame retardants (BFR) and polyvinyl chloride (PVC).

These substances exist in e-waste and produce a large number of toxic by-products, and these by-products are released through the "informal recycling" commonly used in countries such as China and India.

The release of these by-products will endanger the local environment and the health of the workers.

To this end, NOKIA, Sony Ericsson and apple and other leading mobile phone companies took the lead in redesigning their electronic products in order to stop using the above two kinds of toxic and harmful substances.

It is estimated that by 2012, more than half of the mobile phones and personal computers in the market will no longer use PVC and BFR.

The actions of these brands are even more advanced than the requirements of EU electronic product regulations. At present, EU electronic products regulations are not restricted to BFR or PVC.

Moreover, a number of international electronic brands are also implementing recycling projects in the countries where their products are sold and those which do not exist relevant recycling laws, such as the EU Directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment, and recycle their electronic wastes.

These cases prove that it is feasible for a brand enterprise to voluntarily assume responsibility for the environmental impact caused by its products. This practice is practical and feasible, especially before the relevant laws are promulgated.

Especially for countries that cannot implement relevant laws or laws in the near future, the voluntary behavior of enterprises is particularly important, which plays a major role in the formulation of laws and regulations.