https://www.harpersbazaar.

com/uk/fashion/fashion-news/a26402507/penny-tax-clothing-waste/
Many problems are associated with economic evaluation and provision of public goods. How should the
government, producers and consumers proceed with reducing the waste of textiles without harming the
environment where Marginal Social Cost is equal Marginal Social Benefit (MSC=MSB). In this article,
demand on non-ecology brands represents as a demerit good, because it hurts the environment and yet it
still has a great demand and supply.
The reduction of clothings is public good because it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous. The production
of textile which is not recyclable has negative externalities since it badly affects the environment and
society itself. 

The MSC curve represents the supply curve of losses because of a polluted environment. The Marginal
Social Benefit, or demand curve does not intersect with the MSC curve because reusing clothes
innovations is a public good. This means that the production of this kind of product will have a bad effect
for everyone from the consumers themselves to the government, because as shown in the welfare loss
diagram above the demand curve, if the price rises, the quantity of the goods purchased will only
decrease. This diagram shows that it would be better if everything remained at the first option with Q1
where MSB intersects with MSC.
Therefore, the MSC curve will drop. Simultaneously, the efficient quantity of recyclable textile the
producers ought to acquire will increase from Q1 to Q2. From the diagram, it can be seen that the
government can raise the price and at the same time obtain less.

This diagram now shows that the MSB is still the demand curve and the MSC is the supply curve. They
still have the same meanings, only now this is a diagram in case there was a law on taxes on hard-to-
recycle textiles, as was previously stated in the article. The diagram clearly shows that at the first price of
P0 Q2 is the lowest among all the indicated quantities, but if you raise the price of P1 with the help of
taxes, then the quantity will also increase and the most possible option was that if you raise the price even
higher, then Q should definitely fall, but it is not. If you increase the price, then the quantity becomes the
same as at the beginning, that is, it means that even if the sellers do not go into profit, they will definitely
not lose their previous income, but at the same time it will contribute to the environment.
Social efficiency in this case means taking into account all the private and social costs and benefits of a
policy decision, that is, in this situation, everyone will benefit and no one, even consumers, will lose
anything. Social welfare is optimized when marginal social benefit = marginal social cost. And this is
clearly seen in the diagram.
In this case, even the free market can determine this, because everything returned to where it started
without loss.
Finally, all curves and points on the models are of good quality;  although they reflect shifts in direction,
it is not possible to determine the monetary value of negative and positive externalities. Therefore, it will
be unrealistic to apply corrections based on these static models.
In this text, the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee encourages people to repair and reuse
clothing, while not giving an exact answer whether they change the law, which is much more effective. 
Because no matter how correct her statement is, not all people will do as Mary Cray wants. People are
still different and tend to update their wardrobe.  Even referring to the text, the UK throws away clothes
in the amount of 140 million euros with a population of 67 million people, this is a lot for such a country
and it’s scary to imagine how much America or China spends.
In the article, the government calls retailers to decrease supply of some types of textiles and introduces a
recycling tax. It is difficult for some companies because of the price. It is worth thinking about the fact
that the suppliers and companies themselves may be uncomfortable because of the price, because,
unfortunately, ecological textiles cost more money than ordinary ones.
This policy has a short term effect. Even if the government changes the laws, it will not help for a long
time, because producers will find methods to circumvent the law. They can find an analogue of eco
textile, which would be cheaper, as a result the government couldn’t check if it is recyclable or not.
In conclusion, the analysis shows that setting certain rules or increasing taxes in some cases will save
costs and minimize negative externalities. However, to improve distribution efficiency, cities must
carefully monitor societal impact and citizen feedback to make decisions based on reality, not just
abstract ones that will benefit our environment.