Fashion industry emits more carbon than flights and maritime shipping combined • Hacker News Board

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

#251

Post by aembleton » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 9:13 AM UTC

baroffoos wrote: post #187

rwmurrayVT wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But that doesn't mean that they do any more damage to the environment in their production. If they last just as long then they are no worse than the $100 shoes.

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

#252

Post by rapnie » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 9:15 AM UTC

big_chungus wrote: post #213

Causalityl wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how you'd even go about making a $300 pair of jeans. Are they a special material that's impervious to rain but breathes like cotton? Are they extra tough so you'll never wear holes in them? Some kind of fancy dye that never fades in the wash? Are you buying clothes from Sharper Image?

No, people rip them, wash them in acid, and generally do everything possible to make them look like they came from a hobo, then stitch cute hearts on the sear so rich kids can look like they're "from the streets." I don't understand it, but this happens in cycles. E.g. tanning used to be bad because it indicated working outdoors, but then it flipped. Personally, I'll stick to my durable denim that I can keep for thre…

I saw a documentary a while ago about the poor Bangladesh factory workers who were doing the ripping, scraping, bleaching and staining on a daily basis.

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.

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

#253

Post by growlist » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 9:30 AM UTC

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 responsibility comes from the top. Here's a thought: how about swingeing restrictions on advertising?

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

#254

Post by user_rob » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 9:36 AM UTC

meerita wrote: post #101

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.

Maybe it is the result of evolution and the hunter-gatherer optimisations for humans. Hunters hunt and are interested in clever things to do that and gatherers gather and are engaged in those type of activities. Both of these activities seem to be uncontrolled in much of the population. Without control or a dramatic evolutionary step we may be doomed to destroying our planet.

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

#255

Post by canofbars » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 9:41 AM UTC

globular-toast wrote: post #232

baroffoos wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you're suggesting having zero downtime? What a life...

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.

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

#256

Post by joaomacp » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 9:43 AM UTC

jraby3 wrote: post #250

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…

I buy about ten t shirts a year and wear them almost every day. After about a year most are garbage - holes in them, stains, etc. Any suggestions? I’d love to not have to do this anymore.

Use some as cleaning cloths.

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

#257

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 10:06 AM UTC

jraby3 wrote: post #250

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…

I buy about ten t shirts a year and wear them almost every day. After about a year most are garbage - holes in them, stains, etc. Any suggestions? I’d love to not have to do this anymore.

Try out a couple of brands. Some last better than others. Only wash as necessary. This really depends on how you sweat and what sort of activities you do: If you aren't all that sweaty, you can probably get at least 2-3 days out of each. Wear an apron while cooking and other sorts of things to keep it clean a bit longer.

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).

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

#258

Post by Broken_Hippo » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 10:09 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #180

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…

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.

I knew of a dude that had a couple of the storage facilities. I guess the facilities themselves had a slim profit margin, but he could auction off the contents when folks didn't pay - which partially made up for the margin. Granted, this was mid-size midwestern city, so the land cost wasn't as high.

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

#259

Post by Already__Taken » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 10:21 AM UTC

gumby wrote: post #106

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…

> 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.

Doesn't patagonia design repairable clothing and all about lifetime purchase? You can even buy used gear right at the top of their website.

Seems like a weird choice of brand to pick on.

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

#260

Post by maxerickson » Tue, Oct 22, 2019, 11:33 AM UTC

ip26 wrote: post #180

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…

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.

Around here there are storage units that are miles away from everything.

(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)