top of page


Watch an interview with Chris Fischer, project superintendent at RGB, a California-based construction firm known for its climate-conscious actions.

In 2020, Governor Gavin Newsom unveiled an executive order that represented California’s most ambitious move in its crusade to combat climate change. By the year 2035, all passenger vehicles (cars and trucks) must be zero emission to be sold in California. What does this mean for the environment? The monumental shift from gas-powered cars to rare earth materials-based batteries represents a unique opportunity to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Tailpipe emissions have been the cause of poor air quality in urban centers, and it is an indisputable fact that man-made pollution has been the single driving factor for quickly accelerating climate change.

However, it would be short-sighted to limit our analysis of electric vehicles to the local impacts on air quality and reductions in greenhouse gasses in the United States. Climate change is a global problem and should be viewed through the lens of a cost-benefit analysis. What this means is that we must look at all of the implications of a certain policy and contrast it with the entirety of its detriments.

First, let’s begin with a general analysis. This two-prong initiative (the executive order and legislation introduced) would reduce tailpipe emissions on a local basis and would more than likely reduce smog and improve air quality. Simple logic dictates that if a majority of cars in an urban or suburban setting don’t have a tailpipe, then there simply is no possibility for carbon emissions to be released.

Similar to how most disapproval of conventional cars centers around the usage of fossil fuels, the criticism of electric vehicles will similarly be centered around its power source: batteries. There are serious environmental impacts in the mining, manufacturing, and disposal of these batteries. Keep in mind that a state like California, which has the highest amount of vehicle registrations at 14.2 million, serves as a microcosm of what environmental policy could look like when translated on a federal or even global scale.

An article written by MIT’s climate portal finds that 15 tons of carbon dioxide are emitted into the air for every ton of lithium mined. The authors also found that mining these raw materials can leave long-term contaminants like toxic chemicals behind in local communities. This assertion is supported by a 2020 report released by the Institute for Energy Research which cited numerous examples from Australia, South America, Asia, and North America in which wildlife were harmed in the vicinity (up to 100 miles in some cases) of lithium mines. The MIT panel also stated that lithium mining requires enormous amounts of water, and the same IER report sets that number at 500,000 gallons per ton mined. It is estimated that between 2021 and 2030, about 12.85 million tons of EV lithium ion batteries will go offline worldwide, and over 10 million tons of lithium, cobalt, nickel, and manganese will be mined for new batteries.

We must also consider the environmental impacts that manufacturing the batteries for commercial use has. Manufacturing lithium ion batteries has a CED, or cumulative energy demand, three times as high as a conventional car battery. About 40 percent of the climate impact from the production of lithium-ion batteries comes from the mining and processing of the minerals needed. Mining and refining of battery materials, and manufacturing of the cells, modules, and battery packs require significant amounts of energy which generate greenhouse gas emissions.

Lastly, recycling these batteries is problematic with the technology that is currently available. Recycling of lithium-ion batteries is being pushed by governments due to the environmental waste issues associated with them and the growing demand for batteries as more and more electric vehicles are sold. Only about 5 percent of the world’s lithium batteries are recycled, compared to 99 percent of lead car batteries recycled in the United States. Recycling lithium batteries, however, can be hazardous. Cutting too deep into a cell or in the wrong place can result in it short-circuiting, combusting, and releasing toxic fumes. Because batteries differ widely in chemistry and construction, it’s difficult to create efficient recycling systems.

California’s ambitious move to electric forms of transport by 2035 has its benefits in terms of reducing carbon emissions, but a more efficient system to create and recycle batteries is needed in order to ensure a smooth transition to carbon net zero.

If you’ve ever been inside a shopping mall, you’ll notice the brightly-clad mannequins inside storefronts, the racks of bold clothing, and the affordable price tags. Maybe you’ll even glance inside and see a sale happening as the store clears out its inventory for new trends to roll in. While it’s common knowledge by now that many of these clothes end up in landfills, scientists have recently been interested in the harm these clothes do—not at the end of their usage, but during it.

Within the last few decades, production has sped up for many things, but perhaps one of the most prominent advances in our lives is fast fashion. The idea of fashion being “fast” refers to a number of things—the changes in trend, the production of such garments, as well as the duration of time that clothing is worn for.

While there are many harmful implications of fast fashion, one of these is the synthetic materials fast fashion increasingly relies upon. Polyester, nylon, and acrylic, for example, are heavily processed fossil fuels that are cheap to produce. While recycling the fabric can reduce waste, that does nothing for the problem of microfibers, which are tiny strands of fabric released from clothes. These microfibers are released to the air or to waterways, where they can be ingested by animals and cause the overall health of the ecosystem to decline. Furthermore, the microfibers can end up in us as we eat the animals.

Although microfibers can shed off clothing simply from everyday wear, many point to microfibers shed in the process of washing as a majority of the problem. When clothes are laundered, the churning of the washing machine and the friction from other clothes causes the production of microfibers. In fact, “just a single load of laundry can release up to eighteen million microfibers” according to Dr. Anja Brandon.

To combat this, Assembly Bill 1628 was introduced by California Assembly Member Tine McKinnor. In March 2023, the California State Assembly committee held a hearing for the bill, and it was passed. This would require the installation of microfiber filters with a mesh size smaller than or equal to 100 micrometers on new washing machines sold in California by 2029. The hope is that by collecting microfibers at the source, less of them will make their way into freshwater and the ocean.

The effectiveness of the solution has yet to reach a clear consensus. Some are optimistic about the outcome, but others are skeptical. Initial studies seem to suggest that microfiber filters themselves are effective — capturing up to 87% of microfibers when tested in a lab, but that number seems to drop when tested in homes. One study conducted by the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers found that the filters were only 26% effective. They were also concerned about the increase in energy needed to wash the clothes, leaking that might occur around the filter, and the cleaning that the filter required every few cycles.

The bigger pushback, however, comes from disapproval of the legislature’s focus on washers, arguing that what’s needed is a more comprehensive solution. While there’s limited research on exactly when clothes shed the most microfibers, many theorize that the friction of just wearing the clothes is enough to shed as many microfibers as are produced in the wash. Others suspect that many of the microfibers in our environment are produced in textile mills, as the clothing is being produced.

The biggest problem then, it seems, is the lack of research and technology currently available. To find a comprehensive, effective solution, more studies need to be conducted, and research and development, which already seems to be fully underway, needs to continue.

Although the average citizen cannot pass legislation that revolutionizes the clothing industry, there are a few things they can do to reduce the amount of microfibers their clothing sheds in the wash. Washing clothing less and washing it in cold water has been shown to reduce microfibers, as well as washing in a front-loading washing machine with full loads of laundry to reduce friction. Dryers are also theorized to create microfibers, so one can choose to air dry clothing or install an outdoor lint trap. Natural fibers also shed less than synthetic materials like nylon and polyester, so buying clothing made of cotton, linen, and hemp could also reduce microfibers.

So next time you’re at a mall, remember what the flashy clothing and bright lights don’t show—that these new materials have already shed, and will shed, microfibers into our waterways and environment. Although we are not all politicians, we can and should each do our part to be mindful of the earth—it’s the only one we have.


Bill Tracking in California - AB 1628 (2023-2024 Legislative Session) - FastDemocracy. Accessed 23 July 2023.

“California AB1628 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session.” LegiScan, Accessed 23 July 2023.

Erdle, Lisa M., et al. “Washing Machine Filters Reduce Microfiber Emissions: Evidence From a Community-Scale Pilot in Parry Sound, Ontario.” Frontiers in Marine Science, vol. 8, 2021. Frontiers,

Nieman, Bob. California Bill Would Require Microfiber Filters on Washers - PlanetLaundry. 31 Mar. 2023,

Rahim, Saqib. “How Do You Tackle Microplastics? Start with Your Washing Machine.” Grist, 19 Apr. 2023,

Reducing Laundry Microfibers (U.S. National Park Service). Accessed 23 July 2023.

“What Is Fast Fashion and Why Is It a Problem?” Ethical Consumer, 5 Sept. 2019,

bottom of page