I can't wait for the day when I can walk to my local dump and move into a mcmansion somebody threw out because the paint was the wrong color... And I am only half joking.<p>Go into your local thrift store and try not to gasp as you walk past $300 pair of designer jeans after $400 dress, some of them still with tags on them as they've never been worn, and most all of them in seemingly brand-new condition.<p>It's a consumer's dream world out there, baby.<p>And we can't seem to get enough.<p>Storage units weren't even a thing 75 years ago. Now they're ubiquitous.<p>The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity. (It still is imho).<p>I'm going thrifting right now, actually.<p>To everybody else in the world, if you could take a break from buying more brand new clothing, to consider why you might not need to buy more brand new clothing, we would all be a lot better off imho.
Ecologically speaking maybe Steve Jobs/Star Trek respectively were onto something. A high quality minimal personal style that involves orders of magnitude less garment churn and waste with the added benefit of just not having to spend time on what to wear each day (insert pithy Jobs quote).<p>But seriously if I was to explore finding a personal style that I could wear as my day to day work/life “uniform”, where to look, where to source from. Are there any companies focussed around this?
10% of global emissions are for clothing. Wow!<p>And growing..."If the fashion sector continues on its current trajectory, that share of the carbon budget could jump to 26% by 2050" (from the article)<p>Flights: 2.5% of global emissions [1]<p>Maritime shipping: 4.0% of global emissions [2]<p>[1] <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissions.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissi...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...</a>
We really need a better industry around re-use of essentially everything.<p>Let's say I need some X. Last week I bought a base layer because it's getting cold here.<p>I can order, or buy in a store, a brand new X trivially. I don't actually need a brand new X. A used X would do me just fine.<p>But the difficulty in doing so is ridiculous in comparison. Cottage industry eBay stuff (that you have to order online) vs. an entire infrastructure built around producing and selling new stuff.
This article has a bit of an underhanded motive. It pretends that is all pro environment but it comes out as an attack on fast fashion.<p>One can argue that fast fashion is bad for the environment. One can argue that it encourages people to throw away clothes, that fast fashion clothes are cheap and wear out very quickly, etc. But that does not have to be the case.<p>The ideal of fast fashion is that it is about putting clothes out in the stores and letting the customer decide what to wear and then quickly creating new designs based on customer demand, rather than the old system where the clothing industry would change collections only four times per year and more or less force the customer to like those collections based on a massive top down system of advertising, fashion magazines, models, movie stars, etc. A side effect of this system of making people like the new fashion is by bombarding with ads with beautiful people is that you also make people hate themselves.<p>So fast fashion does not necessarily have to be low quality or low durability. And having a large number of collections does not necessarily suggest low quality either. Personally I cannot say much about fast fashion darling ZARA, because nothing there fits me, but I wear a lot of GAP, Banana Republic and some Uniqlo, and those clothes have been generally quite durable.<p>That being said, if certain companies do make low quality clothes they should be called out.<p>To change the subject, one accurate thing about the article is about how bad plastic clothes are. In addition to being bad for the environment they just feel worse on your body. I would just avoid buying artificial fibers as much as practical.
That's interesting. I was thinking about this a lot over the past 2-3 weeks. The sheer amount of clothing lying in all the shops across the world.<p>Talk a walk into any Macy's / Bloomingdales / Hudsons Bay and count the number of items of clothing.<p>Then multiply that across that one store's chain of shops. Then realize there are multiple chains like that.
Then realize there are multiple stores not in chains.
Then realize that's just the geographic area you're aware of.
Then think about other cities, counties, regions, provinces, countries.<p>Then remember all the clothing you have at home already...
To me men (not all 100%, the majority) are stoic: few garments, the necessary. How many of you are the opposite to this? My GF is a machine of buying clothes. Her friends too. I don't see my friends buying that much each month. When I go to a shopping center the majority of stores are women oriented, the entire fashion industry is run for them to ludicrous levels.
Generally, it's a good article, but it lands on a sore point for me with many environmentalist articles - treating "water use" as if water disappears when used. Generally, water doesn't cease to exist - it just gets temporarily stored.
Seems like we need to bring back "Make Do and Mend": <a href="https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html</a>
The article references this report from a year ago: <a href="https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion" rel="nofollow">https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting...</a> (2018)<p>“ The fashion industry produces 20 per cent of global wastewater and 10 per cent of global carbon emissions - more than all international flights and maritime shipping. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of water globally and it takes around 2,000 gallons of water to make a typical pair of jeans.<p>Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned. If nothing changes, by 2050 the fashion industry will use up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. ”
Flights are currently "used" by a tiny % of the global population, whereas clothing is a necessity for 100% of the population.<p>What does that comparison says, exactly? Changing the habits of a few persons would have much impact on the environment as changing the habits of every person on Earth? Which change should we prioritize? Mmmh...
Bought a H&M zipper jacket by the start of this year, somehow now it's is as worn down as a Adidas one I bought in 2011! H&M mostly sells disposable clothing, and they have the never of making "conscious" fashion ads.
You don't even have to reuse to lower carbon emissions, just buy something durable. I have a shirt from RL that still looks new and I bought it in 2009.<p>I still run with a pair of Nike socks from 2012, although I bought a new pair just this summer and they had holes just after 2 months, so I guess quality went down while price went up for this brand.<p>Vote with your wallet for things that are durable. The market will follow. See Forever 21 going down the drain [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21</a>
<i>In Europe, fashion companies went from an average offering of two collections per year in 2000 to five in 2011.</i><p>And a lot of it is zany garbage.<p>Plus, fashion helps promote a lot of warped body image issues.
I’m glad this finally got the attention it deserves.<p>Forever21 went into reorganization bankruptcy because they were not “fast enough”!<p>That’s lunacy. Make things that last, in other words durable. Make them timeless. Bigger upfront investment, lower total cost. Lower impact on environment.
this is the reason we need carbon & pollution tax! this is like whack-a-mole, way too many industries lurking under the radar & polluting our common resources for private profit. unless we put a price to it they will not factor in the cost to the rest of us.
Money spent = Emissions generated (direct or indirect by further spending)<p>If you want to save CO2, then save as much money as you can in paper form. Don't spend, don't invest. Instead keep everything as cash. This also has indirect effects by slowing down the economy which reduces money flow for other people, too.
The source appears to be this report by Quantis:<p><a href="https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measurin...</a><p>Specifically page 18:
«<i>Together the apparel and footwear industries generated between 5 and 10% of global pollution impacts in 2016. Footwear alone represents approximately one-fifth the impact of the apparel industry, about 1.4% of global climate impacts (700 million metric tons CO2eq), while apparel represents 6.7% of global climate impacts (3,290 million metric tons CO2eq). Combined, they account for an estimated 8.1% of global climate impacts (3,990 million metric tons CO2eq).</i>»
My gripe is with tennis shoes. Back in the day (70's), tennis shoes always had a piece of rubber across the toe to prevent your toe from wearing through the fabric.<p>Now, tennis shoes either don't have anything covering the toe, or even more ridiculous (Under Armor), there is a small piece of leather/vinyl on the outside edge of the big toe, but it strategically doesn't cover where your toe actually comes through the fabric after a year.<p>It used to be that tennis shoes could be worn until the soles were worn through. Now, the upper portion wears holes through in a year, maybe two if you're lucky, and the sole looks almost new.<p>And it's not just the fashion industry who are making products designed to fail: I just replaced a water heater after 7 years that had a 6-year warranty - surprise! The gas valve stopped working. Water heaters used to last <i>40 years!</i> It's sickening to me that every household in America is sending a water heater and other major appliances to the landfill every 5-10 years, just so manufacturers, supply houses, and installers can make more money.
This article reads like a twitter thread. I wasn't sure if I was reading one article or multiple. I wasn't sure what was a image and what was an ad.
Need incentive to buy less clothing, especially fast fashion?<p>Watch <i>The True Cost</i>, available free here: <a href="https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost" rel="nofollow">https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost</a>.<p>Here's the trailer: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M</a>
>85% of all textiles go to the dump each year<p>So only 15% of textiles make it into someones home or office and doesn't get thrown out. Where is the waste? I assume it is 1) Unsold stock, 2) Unusable material during manufacturing, and 3) Consumers throwing clothing away in the first year of ownership.<p>Could we reduce waste most significantly by moving to on-demand clothing manufacturing?
I'm glad to see growing awareness concerning plastic in clothing. The article mentions problems with cotton production as well.<p>With clothing I feel the same way I do about food, and the same way many people have felt for decades: I've been duped! It's not difficult, but it takes time money and effort to make good purchases, and that can be frustrating.
It aint even a problem we cant solve. My buddy here in Goa, India realise most of that water and land pollution in her home state came from chemicals used to dye these fabric pink, purple, blue, etc etc.
Guess, what she did, she learnt the traditional art of natural dyeing and now, book she and all her friends wear clothes that have footprint of less than a q-tip. Unlike consumption of meat, fashion is something that can be solved by demanding different. Different chemicals. Different production methods. Different efficiency.
Fashion is such an inscrutable practice to me. My closet is full of clothes but aside from my formalwear every shirt matches every pair of pants. When I get up I pick a set at random and go about my day. I don't own anything I don't like and I don't keep anything I can't wear so what's the point of choosing what to wear when it doesn't matter to anyone else? Throwing away a shirt to make room for another shirt is like throwing away a hamburger so you can buy another hamburger.
Most places that do alterations can do repair. But someone who is very good at repair is worth extra. Good repairs are strong. And they'll see weak areas needing repair before a hole starts, which might require patching.<p>Buy that cashmere sweater and repair it. I've got two over 20 years old, one pair of jeans over 5 years old I wear so often they got crotch holes in them, easily and authentically repaired.
technology / D2C / supply chain startups are desperately needed in this area to solve these problems.<p>At unspuntech.com (where i'm employed) we're working on creating high quality denim garments using 3D body scanning as the basis for custom fit. This allows us to go 0 inventory, and consumers generally don't mind a 2-3 week wait time for manufacturing thus far. up to 10-30% of garments end up unsold, so 0 inventory can have a large effect. We're also working on robotics solutions to remove steps from the manufacturing process, and eventually to reuse parts of the garment that get worn out.<p>More thought has to be put into the fast fashion part of the equation -- consumers (moreso women than men for clothing) want a large variety of options, and if they can get them at the cheapest prices, why not? There either needs to be a shift culturally (maybe look at how organic foods became prevalent at super markets) or through some sort of regulation (not ideal).<p>if any hner's want to talk more about these issues, please email me!
If you're a man you can immediately stop contributing to this by opting out of fashion and buying high quality garments that will last you a decade or more. Buy handmade shoes that are worth resoling. Buy shirts and only wash them when necessary. Stop wearing printed t-shirts that degrade quickly. Don't wash your trousers.
I'm surprised there's no viable business model in just renting clothes at this point. I know there's "Rent the Runway" for women, though unsure if their customers are renting the majority of their clothes or just using them to rent one off pieces for special events.
The problem with carbon footprintting is that it suffers from a variation of the coastline paradox. It's impossible to meaningfully determine the carbon footprint of a t-shirt, for example, because you can also find another level of externality.
First I was shamed for driving a car, then flying, now wearing clothes.<p>Fine, I'm a terrible person. I'm going to stop trying now. <i>sarcasm</i>