Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined
businessinsider.com
businessinsider.com
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.
It's a consumer's dream world out there, baby.
And we can't seem to get enough.
Storage units weren't even a thing 75 years ago. Now they're ubiquitous.
The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity. (It still is imho).
I'm going thrifting right now, actually.
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.
I've furnished my entire house with free stuff. It takes a log longer than just throwing your credit card at Ikea but the stuff fits my house so much better anyway. It's not clapped out junk either. It's mostly nice stuff from people moving and empty-nesters downsizing.
The news will always tell you there is a Major Crisis, and things are Going To Hell.
That's what sells, and as long as you understand that, consuming news can be informative. But be careful to not base your worldview on the news.
Here is a "debunking" I like, from someone who actually read the IPCC report:
https://reason.com/2019/08/01/despite-what-democrats-said-at...
It's like the typical criticism that young people complain about their salaries but buy flagship smartphones. Yeah, iPhones and the like are technological wonders and 50 years ago they would have been a dream, but in many places they cost the equivalent of two weeks of rent... so why in hell would they not buy them? To save for two whooping weeks of rent?
However, these items are definitely not evenly distributed all over the world.
For example, the second-hand electronics market on craigslist in the Bay Area in California is much better than in, for example, Miami Florida (I'm guessing)
I live in Brooklyn and go thrifting a lot, mostly because it's a fun activity and because you find things you wouldn't normally think to look for. But 9/10 times I'm leaving with nothing. And for all the time I spend thrifting I could take up just as many hours doing freelance web development, use that to buy things I want brand new, and still have extra money left over.
Personally, I'll stick to my durable denim that I can keep for three years or more.
They were completely, utterly dumbfounded on why one would destroy brand new clothing like that, and no amount of explaining could make them see why these crazy Westerners would prefer wearing shabby clothes.
So first there are luxury jeans. Not going to expand on these since the name explains it all. For 1000$ you do get a very premium product.
Then there are e.g. all the japanese brands : Momotaro, pure blue japan, samurai, studio d'artisan, evisu, etc.
Pretty much all the japanese jeans are made out of denim that has been fabricated on very old machines.
Why ? They have a lower yield (which partially explains their price) and also they do create very interesting denim variations that the more efficient machines used by fast fashion are not (yet) able to reproduce. They are also very well made with lots of more or less useful details. E.G. customized rivets with the brand logo are very nice but not something only the wearer will see.
With use, these jeans fade and are truly beautiful. It is fitting that many japanese brand do this, it is very wabi sabi. To be clear, while the construction and fit are very good, it does not make a 200$ jean magically last twice as long as a 100$ one. However, they come in a variety of fabric density, most of which are way heavier than what typical fast fashion offers. The jean will still break over time at its main pressure points, typically in the crotch and at that point it is expected that they will be mended.
There are also pants made of technical materials, like e.g. what outlier is doing. These are truly awesome to wear when it rains : they are breathable but repel water.
All of these are roughly in the $200-400 range but often closer to 200.
Then, you can also go to levi and they will make you a pair of denim tailored for you. It will roughly cost $500.
Another thing I'd like to emphasize is ethical labor practices and material sourcing. Paying workers in places like the USA or Japan is really expensive compared to getting jeans made in China or etc. That includes getting the denim as well, if you want selvedge denim I don't believe there are any selvedge mills left anywhere in the world outside of Japan or Italy.
Then add on what you mention about older machinery and slower production runs. Additional handmade details add more labor time. And quality control is generally much higher, you can line up 5 pairs of the exact same model/size and they'll line up perfectly. With the lower end of Levi's models (not Made&Crafted), you can get 5 "identical" jeans and they'll have a variation of about an inch in both length and waist. Not a huge deal to some, but it's another thing that adds more time to the production.
Even Levi's own Made in USA and Made in Japan lines are in the same price range, $150-$300 dollars.
Great place to try them on: https://www.selfedge.com/index.php?route=information/about_u...
- produce shirts in the EU and not in countries with child labor
- use 60%+ wood fibers for their shirts (which is more expensive, but ecologically better)
- feel great with high quality
So, while 30 bucks for a t-shirt seem expensive when you can get others for 5-10 bucks, they actually are better in many ways.
Of course, this isn't true for most expensive designer stuff ;)
What was happening in NYC in 18xx ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Day_(New_York_City) ) , happens in Boston in 2019.
Also it helps if your standards are lower than those of the people throwing things out. I'm pretty sure every piece of wood furniture I have "should be refinished" according to someone but it's all as nice as the stuff the people I hang out with have so why bother.
It would be better if people thrifted more rather than always buying new. Thrifting is hit or miss though depending on where you are and what surrounding area the donations are sourced from.
Go thrifting in around a big city or rich suburbs and it's more likely to find "diamonds in the rough" like designer brands and basically unworn clothing.
But go thrifting in an area with a worse GDP (i.e. poorer), and the finds are a lot of stuff like ugly free t-shirts from random events and average clothes that are already >50% through their lifespan.
I buy new clothes because I can quickly find a wide selection online, filter through it by size, price, etc, and be done buying a whole new set of clothes (that replace worn-out clothes) in the same 2-3 hours it takes to go to a thrift store or two, and find 1-2 pieces that fit.
I'm fashion-oblivious though; for people who want to look just so this approach would be rather expensive.
He loves things like banning plastic straws, which have very little impact, but is always looking to be stylish —but I don’t see him pulling a David Axelrod or James Traficant.
Same concept, and you can find some incredible things because they’re often coming from pre-war mansions, high end renovations, props from movie shoots, etc.
(A county with a population of ~40,000, there's no short term time frame where growth will reach the spots where they are built)
That’s hoarding by another name. Storage can be used intelligently.
There are things one uses seasonally, or from time to time, where owning makes sense. (For example, my winter wear and scuba gear.)
Using prime real estate to store those items is expensive. If they live in a cheaper zip code, however, that lets one save rent by choosing a smaller apartment in the pricey neighborhood.
The only time I've rented a storage unit was last time I moved. We sold the apartment and could not move into the new house until two months later, so we stored all our stuff in a unit close to the new house and stayed at our (very old, tiny and inherited) summer house for the duration.
So they have their use, but I can't imagine having one permanently.
My daughter is in a brass band (they're quite common here in Norway), and we participate organising flee markets to raise money for the band and the amount of stuff people give us to sell is insane. I'm not surprised at all by what you're writing.
Not sure how prevalent it is in other countries especially the first world, but self-storage facilities in the US surprise me (I am an Indian). Given the average house size in USA which is second highest after Australia, I wonder what kind of useful stuff gets stored in these stores.
Any suggestions? I’d love to not have to do this anymore.
Don't let your cat knead your stomach with her claws: You'll eventually find little holes. That might just be me, though :)
Granted, all of this might not get you all that far, but is worth a shot. I generally have fewer shirts than you that last at least a year (some are long sleeve, some short, all black).
The thing is, I'm not the one buying the items usually. They're gifts. And it doesn't matter how many times I tell family not to buy this or that, they do. Christmas is crazy, I hate it for all the wasted money and excess things to deal with. I hate my in laws showing up with well made furniture that I nevertheless hate the design of and don't need. I hate being the caretaker of other people's anxiety manifest in things.
Also, I have little time. So when clothing nmanufacturers do stupid sizing things to save a buck, and it doesn't fit me even after trying to get a tailor to fix it, I'm done spending time on it. It might fit someone else.
I've learned ironically used things on eBay often fit me better because the particular item's exact measurements are provided. I don't have to guess what "medium" means, or whether or not a 27.5 in length actually means 27.5 inches.
I guess my general point is a lot of these excesses are actually about inefficiency and broader societal norms. Even when you have someone who just wants a few nice fitting long lasting items, it can be hard to do that unless you can afford a personal tailor and no gifts to deal with.
It's a complicated topic. Clothes and linens are more cheaply made, even when you look hard, even in my lifetime. I'd argue people often don't even know what something well made in a category looks like often anymore, which distorts demand and therefore supply.
But I'm not getting the 400 bucks stuff either.
And they kept on with the (bulky, usually mass-produced) gifts.
I don't hate gifts. But I would love a way to share that ritual with people without encouraging consumption. One problem I've had is the alternatives I suggest, like food, some people don't think cost enough money so they don't like giving it. Are there expensive consumables that people would feel higher status giving?
Wine and liquor seem the obvious ones to me. There’s some pretty expensive stuff out there.
That said if you’re not a heavy drinker you might find trouble getting rid of those too :-) I’ve been given liquor a few times and it has a tendency to sit in the cabinet since I don’t drink much.
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?
Regarding your serious point, I'd like to know too. I'd pay for a service that would help me find a style that looks good on me, with associated supply of quality clothes in this style. My current clothing choice pattern is "random, with a pre-filtering done by my wife".
You make the decision on what goes together and looks good at the store. You try stuff until you find what works.
When it works, you buy the whole outfit. Possibly in multiples.
No more decisions when getting dressed. You have predetermined outfits for whatever activity you’re doing that day.
Refresh every few months or years as your life and personality evolves.
That was added to hide Roxanne Dawson's pregnancy, which I guess sort-of addresses the point about the standard jumpsuit uniforms not being the most flattering.
So what’s stopping you? Copyright law?
(And, I don't feel I meet Starfleet standards of excellence, so I don't deserve to wear one.)
Some 12 years ago I got together with a group of folks, intending to shoot a fan Star Trek series. We got as far as the dialogs, some CGI work, green-screened bridge set, few props and... few uniforms. One of the folks had a friendly tailor who was willing to make them, but as a ~18 years old, I didn't have the money, and eventually drifted away from the project. I still regret that. After I left, I think they've managed to release a long trailer, and then the project died.
These days, I scratch my Trekkie itch by figuring out how to make LCARS interfaces actually ergonomic for real-world uses.
I'm still too big a whuss to actually wear anything like that though, even if it was reasonably priced.
https://www.volantedesign.us/pages/star-trek-collection
So from the pre-Abrams reboot series, they only have their interpretation of the TNG-era uniform. It actually does look pretty nice. $300 is a lot for a jacket, though. Thanks anyway!
They're probably the nicest set of clothes I ever bought.
It's machine sewn.
Nice thing is that if you end up not liking the 100$ worth of clothing you bought (WHICH IS ALOT OF CLOTHING!), and say, return 40% of it after 3 months... would've been same as buying 1 fancy shirt at your local department store.
These days suits appear to be worn less often, mostly in business environments, very formal life events, and by fashion enthusiasts. But ironically, maybe one of the greenest ways to dress (for men) is to get a secondhand suit or two from a thrift store, in a natural material like wool or linen, have a tailor or dry cleaner alter it into a stylish cut that fits your body, and wear it every day. They can be altered to fit literally anybody in a flattering way, different materials can be either warm or surprisingly cool to suit your climate, and there's so much more to suits than the depressing shiny blue/black polyester business suit we all picture these days.
Want to be green and look great? Drop the Patagonia fleece and cotton t-shirt swag from last week's startup, and buy a used suit in a nice natural material!
I made the mistake of getting slim cut jeans this time, when they wear out I'm going back to regular cut, maybe go 50/50 blue pairs and black pairs.
I have way too many band shirts, most of which I really wouldn't ever wear to work. I'm slowly replacing them with good quality polo shirts instead. They seem to last much longer.
That Patagonia “fleece” would feel nicer, function better, and last longer if it were actually made out of a fleece and not out of plastic. I can’t really understand how that happened.
You're not talking about the outer layer of the down jackets?
I do make a lot of winter trips like the one in the photograph (long winter backpacking trips) and am an instructor and I only use wool for my socks and other undergarments, and jackets. Down for sleeping in. Synthetic underpants though!
Other than that, a wool felt is quite nice.
But at least wool can be repaired.
Yeah and people who buy Patagonia fleece expect it to be made from recycled water bottles
Seems like a weird choice of brand to pick on.
I mentioned Patagonia simply because they were already under discussion. There are plenty of other offenders.
One token of this emphasis on repair is, oddly enough, the button fly. Buttons are much easier to repair than zippers.
Isn't this just clothes? Just buy multiple of what sparks joy, right? Is there something I'm missing that makes an outfit a "uniform"?
These days, a man can get made-to-measure shirts for ~$50/each. Ten of those in different colors will last you 5+ years and not go out of style. Four made-to-measure suits at $300-$400 each should be good for 10 years. I think Brooks Brothers and JoS.A.Bank have decent shirts and slacks, if you really wanna stick to store-bought stuff.
For casual/outdoors wear, add some Patagonia, North Face, or basically any law enforcement supplier (5.11 Tactical, Propper, LA Police Gear). Rugged clothes that will also last a decade. A fleece pullover, a moisture-wicking Polo shirt, and a pair of khaki tactical pants is the 21st-century "Plaid shirt and bluejeans" IMO...
I never have to think about what to wear. I never have to worry if it matches, it wears slower, I can buy fewer but more quality items without having to shop a ton.
The only downside was being "the guy in black." However that hasn't affected work performance or any other aspect that I can find that is measurable. I could have as easily picked a different color combo but didn't want to have to do separate loads of laundry.
Formal or informal, cold or warm (more or fewer layers e.g. a blazer), sorted.
Flat coloured long sleeved tops are my go-to on more casual days.
Branded stuff, slogan shirts etc go out of style.
For life outside of work, comfortable shoes and socks not necessarily black but subdued color, jeans and a button down shirt as well. Here the button down shirt may be of brighter colors or coarser materials, etc.
BTW How about animal welfare for producing Merino wool?
[0] https://open.spotify.com/episode/3X5VBJaRvo1jjVElTjxnnP?si=B...
I would love more of #3 but the rest were expensive disappointments.
It depends how thoughtful you want to be about your style though ?
If you do consider that your style is your public API and a mean of personal expression, it needs a good amount of trial and error. The first english speaking place that comes to mind for this is the subreddit malefashionadvice .
There are also companies (that actually target engineers because it is a very engineery thing to do) that will sell you a "uniform" made of 3 times the same chino, 3 times the same hoodie (maybe some color variation), some simple tshirts and undergarment and done.
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)
Flights: 2.5% of global emissions [1]
Maritime shipping: 4.0% of global emissions [2]
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-emissi...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...
The pollution problem from shipping is not in the form of carbon emissions. It's in the form of oil spills, NO2, SO2, etc pollution, and it is difficult to accurately estimate. [1]
On the other hand, estimating ship carbon emissions is easy - count how much bunker oil gets produced, world-wide, and assume all of it gets burnt in the engines of cargo ships.
[1] This is why occasionally, you see anti-environment publications push nonesense like 'Gas taxes are stupid, because one cruise ship produces more pollution then every single car in this city combined.'
Yes, in NO2 and SO2. [2] No, not even remotely in terms of CO2. And carbon taxes are intended to... Reduce emissions of CO2, not NO2 or SO2.
[2] Those gases are pollutants, they cause health and environmental problems, but they aren't very important in the context of climate change... Which is what carbon taxes try to address.
Other than that, I agree. Home nanotech for everyone!
What are the alternatives of transport mode A to transport mode B?
What are the alternatives to transporting inputs, outputs, and/or wastes?
Per ton-mile (or tonne-km) nothing matches marine shipping. The alternatives to shipping entirely might merit consideration though.
And induced consumption (shipping of X is now so inexpensive that consumption of X increases manyfold), a/k/a the Jevons Paradox, is another major factor.
Bunker fuel is also heavy in contaminants, including heavy metals, which can also affect local regions (ports, shipping lanes). Most (though not all) are fairly short-lived in the biosophere, at least compared to CO2.
Otherwise largely agreed. I'd commented similarly about 10 days ago:
Let's say I need some X. Last week I bought a base layer because it's getting cold here.
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.
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.
eBay is full of their used stuff and some neat retro gear.
That might be an improvement over what we have now? But I suspect that it's hardly ideal. Unless you were geographically restricted in what you could order. (ie - No ordering some wiz-bang base layers from a family that happens to be in Norway when you live in Minneapolis.)
You might have trouble finding a used A/C in the middle of July, and you might have to try a few locations to find what you're looking for, but it's less trouble than plenty of stuff that people do to be more eco-friendly.
The example I hear a lot for some reason is power tools. Yeah it would be great to share power tools because you only need them once or twice... but you only buy them once or twice otherwise. It’s a good idea to help poor communities consolidate resources but it’s hard to help large communities reduce their eco foot prints
Wouldn't the money going to clothing just go to something else? It's not like the workers or company owners would sit on their hands when fashion stops being profitable.
The people... well this hypothetical is extreme so it’s hard to say. But populations of workers have been abandoned in the past before and it varies. It’s fully believable that they would just not have anything to do and would... idk... protest.
Yes, that's the point! I take the world without the economic growth where people are happy with what they have over one with economic growth and unsustainable level of CO2 emissions.
You know, people of poor and underdeveloped countries have the right to aspire to a better life (and yes, that means owning more than a couple of ragged t-shirts and eat meat often than twice a month)
That is to say that I don't actually think it drives economic growth overall. It may do within a specific sector at the expense of others.
If something is bad for economic growth, whose growth matters? Ecological arguments are perhaps one of the better things to consider because at the end of the day it may kill everyone. shrug
A crappy shirt or dress can’t get upcycled or recycled whatever. It ends up in a dump and people need to buy new fashionable stuff.
Movies, TV shows, celebrities and currently [social media] influencers are the ones creating this demand, sometimes with their own overpriced crappy brands.
Amazon also sells 'Warehouse deals' of returned product at a discount.
There are also chains of 'buy/sell/trade' stores like Buffalo Exchange, and many local vintage and consignment stores.
But there are significant challenges when you introduce all the ways that used products can deteriorate, plus the challenge of discovery and managing a stock that can potentially include 'everything ever produced in history' rather than 'this season's SKUs'. Plus the 'Market for Lemons' issue that many people generally get rid of things when they've failed somehow, and only sometimes is the issue 'I don't like this thing's style anymore'.
I generally thrift & vintage stores more interesting than new clothing stores, and enjoy the thrill you get when you find something you could never find new for a very good price, but the tradeoff is that it takes significant effort to find clean reliable basics in your size in the used market, as people generally keep those things until they wear out, and it's basically impossible to keep a full size run of anything used in stock.
Part of the problem is the number of clothes that don't last long. They are expensive and wear out quickly.
Another part of it is culture. How many people can pull off wearing clothes from 10 or 20 years ago without being judged for doing so.
This is a larger problem than sharing and availability. It's cultural.
Buying a used base layer on eBay is not ridiculously difficult as compared to buying a new one from other online retailers. Amazon is certainly easier but compared to going to an online store like REI, I'd say it is comparable.
Are you saying that the brick and mortar stores? REI I believe has used gear in their brick and mortar store, the selection is probably going to be all over the place but I'm not sure how a single store would guarantee a used stock. I think their used inventory is listed online. There's also good will and other consignment shops and things like that.
I'm wondering if what you really want is better marketing for used services to increase awareness. That seems pretty legit. Maybe there's an opportunity there to really blast out a marketing/propaganda campaign to get this concept burned into consumer's minds?
Walk into an REI and there might be five or ten choices, all probably pretty good, and you can try them on right there and read reviews and specs and information about the materials.
On eBay there are probably (I'm guessing) millions of nondescript black base layers in any number of condition, with an enormous range of fits for the same "size", fabric of unknown type & performance, total lack of reviews, etc.
It's an interesting sort of problem. There's surely countless garments that would suit you fine for a tiny amount of money, but finding them in the ocean of garments that would not is a miserable chore.
The first group will never consume enough cloths to make use of what the second group discards.
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.
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.
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.
That being said, if certain companies do make low quality clothes they should be called out.
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.
I don't think this is true anymore. I am a huge fan of cotton, but for athletic activities there is nothing like a modern, wicking, synthetic shirt. The 32 Degrees brand really sold me on synthetics a few years ago. Yes, it is bad for the environment... I'm just saying that synthetics aren't like they were in the 80s.
Talk a walk into any Macy's / Bloomingdales / Hudsons Bay and count the number of items of clothing.
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.
Then remember all the clothing you have at home already...
Each of these products is trying to convince you of their value, excess value really, so you will spend your money on them, yet the expense of the product isn't worth much. You need a house to protect you from the weather and other people. After having done that, the rest is extravagance. Jewelry is absolutely no value. If you can call, text, and browse the internet, you're good. If a car gets you from A to B and doesn't need a lot of maintenance, that's sufficient.
I remember a Sex in the City scene where Carrie was talking about her $40,000 worth of shoes.
Beyond providing the basics, these products aren't worth more except for their display of wealth.
Meanwhile, we destroy the planet a little more each day to prove we are worth mating.
In Carrie's case I would say it's worse just because she never struck me as the type to wear them for more than a single fashion season. Love the show, hate the movies.
There is simply no way that a person could spend that much on shoes in a lifetime and it be a good idea. One thing I am considering is going slightly up and getting a pair of $600 leather boots since I know someone who has been wearing the same pair for 10 years now and just has the sole replaced.
I'd wager 1 pair of $600 boots removes the need to buy 4 or 5 pairs of cheaper boots – and lessens the impact on the environment.
It's difficult though for the majority of people to afford $600 up front; so the argument of eco-friendly vs economics is not a choice for most people.
It's cheap synthetic and won't last long but who cares, you paid ten bucks for it.
And so each season you buy 3-4 new ones...
The diktat should be "Buy cheap clothes but not very often". You don't have to go all the way to a suit with matching tie and shoes. Polos, shirts, jeans, chinos can be had for cheap too, and they last long.
That said, is art (or having a beautiful environment) worth, in this particular case, filling the oceans with junk and killing people, probably not.
But let's not pretend that fashion is a worthless status-seeking endeavor but playing video games is a window to a new world here.
Ecologically speaking, yes, there is zero value whatsoever in aesthetics.
And yes, I do understand I look like an insane homeless man with my unkempt hair and decade old college outfit :)
What's the relative pollution of production of an article of fashion wear vs a game download? It's going to be something like a 100k times more pollution from the clothing, surely?
Fashion, by which I include clothes, jewellery, accessories, etc., is not a single uniform thing. Fast-fashion, in particular, is categorically not art, and is particularly egregious in terms of the environment.
But, on the other hand, I just got a sweet deal on an absolutely beautiful motorcycle jacket (that I will wear whilst motorcycling, not just for show!) that, even on sale, was as expensive as my my winter jacket and trousers combined, but will probably last me a decade or more if I stay roughly the same shape.
Is that art?
I don't know, it might be: it definitely looks really awesome, and it's probably still going to look awesome in 10 years' time.
Then you've got handmade stuff, in terms of both clothing and jewellery. I don't tend to go there because it's generally way beyond my budget, but it becomes hard to deny that it's not art.
And whatever you may think about the value of it, there is something to be said for wearing nice stuff: the trick is to reach the point where you can do it for yourself without caring what anyone else thinks, and to make sure you buy things that are going to last, and ideally have a certain amount of timelessness to them.
Even when someone buys me something I tend to just pick a favourite and stick to it. I have a few pairs of shoes but pretty much just wear one unless the occasion says I shouldn't.
And then there are the gamers with their "Fashion is the real endgame!" attitude which I've found in a few games. I seriously don't care if I look like this (http://i.imgur.com/SfYDtUO.jpg) when playing. Just gimme the stats I need.
The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy.
Actually, it does.[1]
> The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy.
The main reason you see all water use lumped together is because the water users do not collect or share figures on discrete uses. Environmentalists would love to have that data.
1. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-res...
It comes back to a thought I've had in mind for a while about margins.
Margins are often set as a multiple of material cost. 10x, 100x, something like that. That rather large multiple handles the materials obviously, but also manufacturing, shipping, QA, marketing, overhead, etc.
To make a price competitive product, you minimize your material cost and then use that multiple to set price.
The problems lies in that if you use 2 cent nails instead of 1 cent nails, everything upstream does not double in price. There would be a small increase in cost-of-capital, and other losses related directly to the merchandise, but many many things aren't related at all.
When your product is all the way at the bottom of the quality,price bracket, doubling your materials cost doesn't double your actual marginal cost and shouldn't double your price, but so often it does and stupid quality decisions are made which results in it being very difficult to find decent products.
You end up having to pay super premium quality prices to get things designed and built as they reasonably should be. Or you end up paying hundreds of dollars so the one part that matters is up to spec when the actual difference in cost of that one part was maybe two or three dollars.
“ 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.
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. ”
How many pairs of jeans do you think a person buys each year?
I buy 1 pair of Levis and just wear them about once or twice a week (never washing them) and throw them out after 2 or 3 years.
https://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/ https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.ht...
To the extent that the beef industry burns fossil fuels, that's something you could criticize, but it's hardly unique to the beef industry. Cattle would eat less intensively-cultivated corn and more grass if the corn farmers weren't subsidized so much. If no corn was cultivated at all, cattle would still be a pretty efficient way of sustainably extracting food from marginal grassland.
Regarding the parent's comment, the 1800 pounds-of-water-for-pound-of-beef figure seems to be sourced from https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report-48-WaterFo... (which won't say 1799 because it's metric) https://www.watercalculator.org/footprints/beef-king-big-wat... seems to aggregate various estimates.
To direct the conversation towards solutions, Project drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org) mentions Silvopasture practices (closely related to Joel Salatin style farming). That said, reducing the amount of intensively-cultivated corn grown ultimately still means reducing the number of cattle (we're ~80-90% more than 100yrs ago) and seemingly less meat consumption per capita.
> it takes around 2,000 gallons of water to make a typical pair of jeans.
This sounds like a lot until you consider how much water goes into literally everything else people do without thinking.
Let me know if you need more clarity.
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...
The third world often gets sold the remnants and retainers from the first world.
"Free clothing" quality has gone up and become more fitted. Instead of 1 gender neutral size, clothes are by gender, and fabric softer. Stitching seems unchanged. I've had to purchase these for groups.
High quality clothing has more accents. Quality of fabric is secondary to aesthetics.
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.
Vote with your wallet for things that are durable. The market will follow. See Forever 21 going down the drain [1].
And a lot of it is zany garbage.
Plus, fashion helps promote a lot of warped body image issues.
Forever21 went into reorganization bankruptcy because they were not “fast enough”!
That’s lunacy. Make things that last, in other words durable. Make them timeless. Bigger upfront investment, lower total cost. Lower impact on environment.
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.
https://quantis-intl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/measurin...
Specifically page 18: «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).»
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.
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.
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 40 years! 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.
Watch The True Cost, available free here: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost.
Here's the trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M
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.
Could we reduce waste most significantly by moving to on-demand clothing manufacturing?
(Exacerbated by Chinese clothing manufacturers + social media - they're extremely effective at churning out extremely glossy pictures for what's about the lowest possible bar of quality)
That - "fast fashion" - is what gets discarded.
That's not the way forward. On-demand manufacturing that's more along the lines of traditional high-quality bespoke clothing could be an answer, but it would mean that the vast majority of people likely can't afford to wear the latest fashion all the time. And even if we can sidestep that problem through technology, wearing "the latest" itself is a huge part of the problem. If you have clothes that are only meant for a season, you'll dump large amounts of textiles.
So what's needed is both a move to higher quality, and a move away from "fast fashion". Given that the entire industry makes money mostly on "what's new and hot", this would require a significant cultural change.
I’d happily pay a decent sum for a set of charcoal tshirts that fit me perfectly and last for a few years of daily use. Bonus points of I get to choose a fabric other than pure cotton.
I'd expect you'll be in the range of $100 per tshirt, +/-
And yes, of course you get to choose a fabric, that's the point of bespoke :) It's also the major cost factor. Depending on your taste, there are some expensive fabrics to have.
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.
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.
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.
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).
if any hner's want to talk more about these issues, please email me!
Just a nitpick.
Fine, I'm a terrible person. I'm going to stop trying now. sarcasm
From TFA: "Many of those fibers are polyester, a plastic found in an estimated 60% of garments. Producing polyester releases two to three times more carbon emissions than cotton, and polyester does not break down in the ocean."
I'm not sure if it is more the consumers or the producers driving it, but it's almost impossible now to find actual 100% cotton clothing., at least in the US. It seems that an entire generation or mor literally does not know what genuine cotton jeans feel like.
My grief with the article is it hypes things and doesn't give very good context. It feels like it is cherry picking the worst examples.
Research is already being done to grow cotton using less water. This is the sort of solution that works.
100% cotton is difficult to find and finding good quality 100% cotton shirts is even more difficult. For Jeans, the original Levi's 501 blues is 100% cotton denim, many of the new styles are blends.