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

281–290 of 294 posts

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

#281

Post by claytoneast »

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.

Buy Carhartt. They make their clothing to last. Heavier materials, better stitching. You'll be lucky to wear one out in 3 years.

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

#282

Post by sizzle »

squeaky-clean wrote: post #280
on_and_off wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many ways. 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 partial…

This is a really good comment on why some jeans and pants can be so expensive. 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…

I love my Flat Head raw Japanese selvedge denim.

Great place to try them on: https://www.selfedge.com/index.php?route=information/about_u...

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

#283

Post by ghostly_s »

beat wrote: post #276
ghostly_s wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

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.

> 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...

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

#284

Post by gumby »

Already__Taken wrote: post #259
gumby wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I'm not picking on them, I just am appalled that the ordinary word "fleece" has been completely redefined by marketers to refer to an inferior product. They should have made up a new word for their new product.

I mentioned Patagonia simply because they were already under discussion. There are plenty of other offenders.

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

#285

Post by therealdrag0 »

velp wrote: post #173
evolve2k wrote: post #39

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…

I've pretty much exclusively switched to Merino t-shirts. Various good brans out there (Woolly Co, Smartwool, Icebreaker, etc) and most can be found in simple, versatile colors. Can wear them with almost anything, super comfortable, and the real kicker is that they can be worn a few times without needing a wash. Makes packing for travel easy, and saves time/effort/water with freq laundry. Also, as someone who runs pr…

For me it's been hit or miss. 1. Woolly hoodie: pilled all over immediately (returned) 2. Woolly T: I like it but it's a bit heavy (190 GSM) and slightly itchy. (wear semi-reg) 3. Icebreaker shirt love love it. (Wear often) 4. Different Icebreaker shirt: Shrunk so my belly shows and is itchy... (never wear)

I would love more of #3 but the rest were expensive disappointments.

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

#286

Post by thundergolfer »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #165
swader999 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeans, t shirt and hoodie

I love a good hoodie, but I’d suggest a modest blazer or two in your wardrobe for rotation with dress shoes, even if you’re sporting a plain solid color T-shirt.

Wearing a blazer with a T-Shirt is a fashion risk. Not easy to pull off.

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

#287

Post by paulcole »

jessaustin wrote: post #266
paulcole wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

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.

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

#288

Post by 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.

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

#289

Post by amacalac »

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…

I did the $600 leather boot thing. They've lasted me 4 years so far, and look almost brand new. I mostly wear them in fall,winter and spring. (They're a little heavy for summer).

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.

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

#290

Post by thefringthing »

greggman2 wrote: post #184
pgt wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Cotton is good for dry heat, but wool is better when it's humid.
Post reply on HN