Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 294 posts

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#181

Post by baroffoos »

BurningFrog wrote: post #160
agumonkey wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently i've been paying attention to monthly dumps in the city. People seem to have an endless stream of things to throw away. It's said to be a time of crysis, and unless half the population decided to live without furnitures, it seems every body buys new things endlessly. Here goes the 'less consumerism, less shipping' advice.

> It's said to be a time of crisis 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.

This is not just news corps. Its well established scientific fact that we are in a state of environmental crisis and unless there is huge change to so many things in society we will be beyond the point of return.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#182

Post by JumpCrisscross »

flyGuyOnTheSly wrote: post #112

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 consume…

> The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity

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.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#183

Post by seltzered_ »

jessaustin wrote: post #174
paulcole wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://www.globalagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.ht…

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…

Hum, I'm not familiar with ruminant (i.e. cow) digestion but I think you're right in suggesting there's greater complexity here when associating cattle with the use of modern agriculture practices (haber-bosch process).

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.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#184

Post by greggman2 »

pgt wrote: post #99
acabal wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 affordabl…

I would happily wear a wool suit every day! I have two pairs of Falke hiking socks that are made from double-layered silver-infused wool. They don't smell even after multiple days of wear and the two layers slide over each another to prevent friction so you don't get blisters. They were pricey at the time, but now I wish I could replace my entire closet with silver-infused wool shirts, trousers, socks and underwear.

You must live somewhere where there isn't really a hot and humid season.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#185

Post by dredmorbius »

vkou wrote: post #98
pergadad wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

Particulates are another major maritime emission.

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:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21227370

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#186

Post by dredmorbius »

tito wrote: post #143
vkou wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Costs are comparative and opportunity costs.

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.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#187

Post by baroffoos »

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #16
chimi wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Af…

Who is to say that $40,000 in shoes is any worse than $100 in shoes constantly used and abused? In that extreme of a case I would say it's most likely worse, but there's something to be said for more expensive and longer-lasting. 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.

I buy $100 shoes. They typically last me about 3 years. $40,000 worth of shoes assuming they last just as long per $ (Wrong but its the only way this comparison works) would last me many lifetimes.

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.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#188

Post by dredmorbius »

gumby wrote: post #178
acabal wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modern "fleece" is polyester, which is plastic-based: https://www.contrado.co.uk/blog/what-is-fleece/

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!

Moths tend not to destroy microfibre polyester fleece.

Other than that, a wool felt is quite nice.

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#189

Post by baroffoos »

globular-toast wrote: post #68
slowmovintarget wrote: post #8

Seems like we need to bring back "Make Do and Mend": https://www.bl.uk/learning/timeline/large106365.html

Who has time to mend clothes now that everybody goes to work?

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

Re: Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined

#190

Post by dredmorbius »

hyperbovine wrote: post #90
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd happily wear a DS9 or First Contact era Starfleet uniform all day. They look great! :). 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".

Sure they look great if you're a Hollywood actor who gets paid to do three hours of abs a day. There's a reason Kirk first donned the green tunic...

Abs are made in the kitchen, not the gym.
Post reply on HN