Hacker News Reader

Comment by ECA_stax | Hacker News Reader

this is a much more depressing number. steel and cement are necessary to the development of all nations, designer clothes are not.

View on HN

This seems unlikely. Clothing is about a $1.3 trillion market, against a world GDP of about $80 trillion. I doubt that an industry that's 1.6% of GDP is contributing 10% to carbon emissions.

Also, as pointed out below, the "fashion industry" includes all clothing. Beyond food and water, I'm not sure what would be more necessary than clothing.

The overwhelming majority of clothing produced is totally unnecessary. The fast fashion industry produces an insane amount of clothing, way beyond what is necessary for utilitarian purposes. I don't doubt that it causes that much CO2 emission, especially if you factor in the shipping cost from the places that manufacture it.

I believe this is generally true of any utility. We can all live of soylent or something instead of moving around foods that spoil easily for example. We could all also live in large concrete block where everyone has a small room and houses don't exist. All of that would be hugely more efficient but I doubt you or many other people would like that.

A bit of an excluded middle - soylent or what we have now, a massivly wasteful and inneficient food system. I, and many others, would argue that localization and diversification of the food system is the missing middle here.

Fashion refers to all clothing. "fast fashion" (cheap disposable clothing) probably produces a lot more emissions than designer clothing.

Clothes are discarded but can be turned into rags or donations. Don't feel bad, I bought some very nice stuff for cheap and I didn't hurt the environment more. I'll just drive these wonderful finds I got for $5 30 miles home in my Hummer.

Garments that are high quality are designed to last and be worn for a long time. High end selvedge jeans might run a couple hundred bucks, but they will last a decade.

I suspect cheap, disposable clothing is driving much more emissions.

> High end selvedge jeans might run a couple hundred bucks, but they will last a decade.

Is there any data supporting this? Because while I think this is our intuition, i.e. "it's expensive therefore it's better quality," I wonder if there's any way we could verify this other than anecdotal evidence.

You see the British aristocracy wearing 30+ year old shoes that look as good or better than they did when they were new.

I think it is common sense that emissions are far lower for extreme-luxury clothing that can be repaired and is timeless verses disposable clothing that last one or two years.

We're not talking extreme-luxury clothing here though. We're talking Ralph Lauren vs H&M, or something similar. What the British aristocracy wears is probably hand-made stuff by world-class artisans. What Ralph Lauren makes is mass produced in either Europe or China, so it's a much closer comparison to H&M (not to mention still within the reach of an average person in a rich country)

I'm not sure if jeans that are torn/blown out can be seamlessly mended the way shoes can be.

Low end selvedge denim lasts longer than a decade and even low quality denim lasts. You don't wear stuff out of fashion though, it would be like wearing the best of the 90s. You're also assuming that the clothes get worn. The cheaper stuff may just be worn as much as the high quality stuff or that they continue to be used.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com