
Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined - hkmaxpro
https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10
======
flyGuyOnTheSly
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.

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.

~~~
ip26
FWIW I've heard storage units are not necessarily a super profitable business,
instead they are a low overhead operation to cover the property tax on land in
the outskirts that you're sitting on waiting for appreciation as the city
grows. So they only have make up the cost of the cinderblocks to be
worthwhile.

~~~
TylerE
I don't really believe that as in many places you're starting to see multi-
level facilities with as many as 5-6 layers of units. That ain't cinderblocks.

~~~
ip26
Alright, then perhaps I am wrong (or out of date). I'd not seen nor heard of
these six story high facilities, my lord.

~~~
Nasrudith
I have seen those only heading into cities near the outskirts. I also didn't
get why they weren't apartments.

~~~
bikezen
In California at least, prop 13 lets them operate without having to worry
about rising property taxes in areas where otherwise there could (and probably
should) be housing.

------
evolve2k
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).

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?

~~~
acabal
Men already had that in the past, the suit. Up until the first war clothing
was expensive to make so generally men had only one or two suits and they
would wear them every day, and repair them as they wore down. Shirts were, to
an extent, a step above underwear. Men would spice up the same suit every day
with different ties, pocket handkerchiefs, and other small accessories, all of
which were generally more affordable than an entire suit.

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!

~~~
gumby
> Want to be green and look great? Drop the Patagonia fleece...

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.

~~~
mandelbrotwurst
Wait, the "fleece" jackets are made of plastic??

You're not talking about the outer layer of the down jackets?

~~~
acabal
Modern "fleece" is polyester, which is plastic-based:
[https://www.contrado.co.uk/blog/what-is-
fleece/](https://www.contrado.co.uk/blog/what-is-fleece/)

~~~
gumby
That page even has a pair of bullet lists showing that the plastic imitation
is inferior to the real thing!

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!

~~~
dredmorbius
Moths tend not to destroy microfibre polyester fleece.

Other than that, a wool felt _is_ quite nice.

~~~
gumby
I don’t have a moth issue...my cats destroy my clothing before it can be
eaten.

But at least wool can be repaired.

------
tito
10% of global emissions are for clothing. Wow!

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...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/climate/air-travel-
emissions.html)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shippi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_shipping)

~~~
pergadad
The shipping numbers are rather dubious. No way it's actually"just" that much.
Reporting is lacking and even where it's enforced shippers use defeat devices
(that secretly pump pollution into the water rather than spew it in the air)
or a second, weaker engine.

~~~
vkou
The shipping numbers are correct. Shipping is incredibly carbon-efficient at
moving large amounts of freight.

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.

~~~
tito
Yeah as my life cycle analysis friend says, "transportation is waste".

~~~
db48x
Not always waste. There are some important collections of atoms that you would
prefer to move whole from one place to another, rather than creating new ones
on site. Especially since it takes 18 years or more to do!

Other than that, I agree. Home nanotech for everyone!

------
esotericn
We really need a better industry around re-use of essentially everything.

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.

~~~
throwaway66920
Well, for one, that would vastly reduce economic growth. But aside from that,
there’s not many things that fit X in the scheme of things you purchase
frequently. Packaging / containers of consumed items is a big one. Fashion
might be but probably not.

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

~~~
esotericn
I think that treating fast fashion as a driver of economic growth is an
example of the broken window fallacy.

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.

~~~
kortilla
The broken window fallacy requires forcefully destroying someone’s property to
get them to replace it with the same thing. This doesn’t fit that model at
all.

~~~
throwaway66920
You could argue that purposely designing things to last only a year when they
could last ten years is purposeful destruction though

~~~
kortilla
No, because people know that at this point.

------
hristov
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.

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.

~~~
01100011
> they just feel worse on your body

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.

------
amacalac
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.

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...

~~~
chimi
All the industries are competing to be the one by which you display your worth
to society. The order as I see it is: House, Car, Clothes, Phone. Jewelry goes
in there somewhere.

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.

~~~
arandr0x
They look beautiful. You know, like art. Is that also of no value?

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.

~~~
bartread
I'm basically on board with you but I think we're conflating two things here.

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.

------
meerita
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.

~~~
hnick
I do not and never will understand fashion. I understand the whole speech in
The Devil Wears Prada (that the things we all wear were once the trendsetters,
just like the tech in luxury cars trickling down) but I just don't get it.

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](http://i.imgur.com/SfYDtUO.jpg))
when playing. Just gimme the stats I need.

~~~
baot
Gaming as a hobby is no more rational than fashion.

------
beat
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.

~~~
ghostly_s
The type of water use we're talking here - saturating it with detergents,
dyes, etc. -- makes it unpotable, at which point it is, best-case, going
through a very expensive treatment process before it can be returned to the
water cycle, which you can be certain the manufacturers are not footing the
full cost of; or more likely in the places where garment manufacturers set up,
is just being dumped into the environment, destroying ecosystems and the
health of those unlucky enough to be stuck with its fallout. So you're right,
water can't be "used up", but the amount of it being used in industrial
processes is a very good proxy for environmental harm.

~~~
beat
Yes, but. That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the
water used is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't
produce the kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing
operation does.

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.

~~~
ghostly_s
> That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used
> is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the
> kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation
> does.

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...](https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-
resources/water-quality-of-runoff-from-beef-cattle-feedlots)

------
slowmovintarget
Seems like we need to bring back "Make Do and Mend":
[https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html](https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html)

~~~
globular-toast
Who has time to mend clothes now that everybody goes to work?

~~~
baroffoos
And yet the average person somehow has hours per day to spend on TV/Social
Media/Video Games

~~~
globular-toast
So you're suggesting having zero downtime? What a life...

~~~
canofbars
Fixing clothes is not a particularly time consuming activity. Usually its a 10
minute job to replace a button or fix some ripped stitches. Very few people
are so busy they can't find 10 minutes to fix things. They could even work
less if they spent less buying new things.

------
seltzered_
The article references this report from a year ago:
[https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-
stories/story/putting...](https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-
stories/story/putting-brakes-fast-fashion) (2018)

“ 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. ”

~~~
paulcole
By comparison, a pound of beef is around 1,800 pounds. Average American eats
like 200 pounds of meat per year.

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://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources/)
[https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-
new/news/en/32921.ht...](https://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-
new/news/en/32921.html)

~~~
jessaustin
Are you talking about cow farts? When cows eat grass, the carbon they emit was
already in the system. It's just like any other organism staying alive. This
is different than burning fossil fuels, the carbon of which until they are
extracted hasn't been in the system for millions of years.

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.

~~~
paulcole
I’m guessing you didn’t look at the links I included?

~~~
jessaustin
Did you? The one is talking about water, which I don't care about since I'm
not raising cattle in a desert. The other says that people are eating more
meat, which seems more of an economic measure than anything else. Yet you've
posted them on this thread about carbon emissions. I tried to interpret your
links in a reasonable way, but if I missed the point you could explain
further.

~~~
paulcole
I was replying to a comment saying:

> 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.

------
rcMgD2BwE72F
Flights are currently "used" by a tiny % of the global population, whereas
clothing is a necessity for 100% of the population.

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...

~~~
notahacker
I don't think any sane person is proposing the future of humanity lies in
nudity. But you'd have a tough job persuading me that having 60% more clothes
than 20 years ago and landfilling 85% of textiles bought a year is necessary,
or that extensive wardrobes replaced every season are less frivolous than
transport.

------
Nicci00
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.

------
pkaye
The quality of clothing has gone downhill over the years. Both the fabric and
the stitching. They just fall apart faster.

~~~
helpPeople
I'm not sure I can agree. I'll give a few examples.

"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.

~~~
pkaye
So where is a good place to buy good quality T-shirts for men?

~~~
helpPeople
I make my own clothes so I haven't been going to retail stores. Try a few
places, if they feel good, they are likely good quality.

------
aledalgrande
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.

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].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forever_21)

------
DoreenMichele
_In Europe, fashion companies went from an average offering of two collections
per year in 2000 to five in 2011._

And a lot of it is zany garbage.

Plus, fashion helps promote a lot of warped body image issues.

------
mc32
I’m glad this finally got the attention it deserves.

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.

------
DesiLurker
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.

~~~
TheRealPomax
How does that stop people from still buying the now corrected-for-those-taxes
garments? All you've done is added a revenue stream in the middle, and now
there's even less incentive for regulators to do anything about the _actual_
problem, because now they're making (more) money off of the problem, and
solving the underlying problem would damage those revenue streams.

~~~
Nasrudith
The price correction is the point. If the externalities are internalized it
makes better methods proportionality more incentivized and viable if say
cotton fabric garments are only seventeen cents more expensive than a
synthetic instead of the previous two dollars without environmental costs
factored in. Demand would be shifted accordingly.

------
std_throwaway
Money spent = Emissions generated (direct or indirect by further spending)

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.

~~~
baroffoos
You can spend your money on digital goods which have a very tiny environmental
impact. This doesn't have the result of preventing other people from spending
that money but it is at least sustainable if everyone does it.

------
mrb
The source appears to be this report by Quantis:

[https://quantis-intl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/measurin...](https://quantis-intl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2018/03/measuringfashion_globalimpactstudy_full-
report_quantis_cwf_2018a.pdf)

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)._ »

------
prirun
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.

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.

------
narcindin
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.

------
spodek
Need incentive to buy less clothing, especially fast fashion?

Watch _The True Cost_ , available free here: [https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-
true-cost](https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-true-cost).

Here's the trailer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDx711ibD1M)

------
birdyrooster
>85% of all textiles go to the dump each year

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?

~~~
groby_b
Yes and no :) "On-demand" clothing manufacturing is practiced today, in that
fashions change rapidly, and in response, retailers produce what can only be
described as "shitty quality, fast".

(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.

~~~
gherkinnn
Now, if only bespoke shorts and tshirts became a thing.

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.

~~~
groby_b
They are a thing. Find a local tailor. (They often hide out at dry cleaners,
but not all of them are good :) OK, that will be more made-to-measure than
bespoke - the difference there being that bespoke comes with a master tailor
who does a really exhaustive initial consult on what patterns work for you,
what fabrics work best, what specific cuts to choose, etc, while m-t-m is more
"we measure you, you get a standard tshirt". It'll still be lightyears better
than anything you get in a shop.

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.

------
syphilis2
I'm glad to see growing awareness concerning plastic in clothing. The article
mentions problems with cotton production as well.

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.

------
mazeye
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.

------
Causality1
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.

------
cmurf
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.

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.

------
jferge
technology / D2C / supply chain startups are desperately needed in this area
to solve these problems.

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!

------
hos234
Well I hope the FKK party emerges out of this one.

~~~
selimthegrim
Maybe the YKK party

------
mac01021
Ignorant question: for the purposes of this article, are all clothes
"fashion"? Are other things fashion too? Which ones?

------
dr_dshiv
I don't believe it, actually. Considering how much waste I use wrt food ..
clothes seem much less wasteful. But, who is to know?

~~~
TheGallopedHigh
“Who is to know?” That’s what the report linked in the article is for. To
provide evidence for the claim stated in the title of this post.

~~~
dr_dshiv
You mean the UNEP report? It provides the fact, but no source. I trust the UN,
but I would appreciate knowing how the number is bigger than flying and
shipping. That's pretty remarkable, no?

------
globular-toast
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.

------
tempsy
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.

------
gok
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.

------
buboard
Ouch. Lets see what they have to say about the cosmetics industry ...

------
tanilama
While it might be technical true...Will it be surprising when study emerges
that food industry take the crown of carbon generation?

------
m463
So maybe shipping is more efficient than manufacturing?

------
cryptonector
Thus ended the climate change saga.

------
egdod
Where’s Greta when we need her?

------
anm89
I would call this the garments or textiles industry, not "fashion"

Just a nitpick.

------
SapporoChris
First I was shamed for driving a car, then flying, now wearing clothes.

Fine, I'm a terrible person. I'm going to stop trying now. _sarcasm_

~~~
toss1
Not clothes, _artificial_ clothes.

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.

~~~
SapporoChris
Article shames cotton also. "It takes about 700 gallons of water to produce
one cotton shirt. That's enough water for one person to drink at least eight
cups per day for three-and-a-half years."

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.

