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

121–130 of 294 posts

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

#121

Post by mymythisisthis »

acabal wrote: post #74
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…

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…

Get your clothes altered by a dry cleaner / tailor, they'll look so much better. Stop buying so many clothes.

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

#123

Post by petre »

pkaye wrote: post #2

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

It's called planned obsolescence. The plan is to be obsolete by next season, so four to six months. Although I wouldn't count on H&M clothing to last ten washing cycles.

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

#125

Post by thrower123 »

petre wrote: post #102
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 don't like suits. They're not very practical and can be quite unconfortable. The best piece of clothing I had was a modern Bundeswehr moleskin field shirt.

German army surplus gear is a great deal. I have a couple gore-tex raincoats and some trousers that I've worn for at least ten years now, hiking, cutting wood and doing my outside chores. Less than $100, all told.

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

#126

Post by agumonkey »

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…

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.

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

#127

Post by bartread »

arandr0x wrote: post #56
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…

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.

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.

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

#128

Post by AndrewKemendo »

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…

It might sound hacky but I decided that the best thing was to just wear one combination, (button up shirt and slacks), one color (Black) and dress boots. I sometimes wear a costco waterproof shell jacket when necessary. I have one or two dressier things for funerals and weddings but those rarely come out.

I never have to think about what to wear. I never have to worry if it matches, it wears slower, I can buy fewer but more quality items without having to shop a ton.

The only downside was being "the guy in black." However that hasn't affected work performance or any other aspect that I can find that is measurable. I could have as easily picked a different color combo but didn't want to have to do separate loads of laundry.

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

#129

Post by kovek »

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 know it is the case that you can find In thrift stores such items that in a usual store would sell for a very high price. Got bought one such piece of clothing.

However, these items are definitely not evenly distributed all over the world.

For example, the second-hand electronics market on craigslist in the Bay Area in California is much better than in, for example, Miami Florida (I'm guessing)

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

#130

Post by mandelbrotwurst »

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.

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

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

Post reply on HN