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.