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

#91

Post by throwaway66920 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:35 PM UTC

vharuck wrote: post #43

throwaway66920 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Genuine question from an ignorance of macroeconomics: Wouldn't the money going to clothing just go to something else? It's not like the workers or company owners would sit on their hands when fashion stops being profitable.

The money would go into something else, but it would probably be something stupid. A lot of the dumb startups we see now that are burning cash on obviously bad strategies exist because at a global financial scale, there’s not enough opportunities to invest all of the capital in. There’s obviously lots (LOTS) of work to be done that could use capital still but current financial system want to believe in a high rate of return so they look to things like Uber. Note, Uber’s of the world are a drop in the bucket still, but the symptom is growing in prevalence. This is also not to say that fast fashion is a good idea or an efficient use of resources. It’s not.

The people... well this hypothetical is extreme so it’s hard to say. But populations of workers have been abandoned in the past before and it varies. It’s fully believable that they would just not have anything to do and would... idk... protest.

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

#92

Post by BowBun » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

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…

I hate suits. Where's the equivalent for my pants/shirt/sweater combo?

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

#93

Post by solidsnack9000 » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

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…

A good place to start might be companies that supply service uniforms. In the US, per the Berry Amendment, they are required to source nearly all components and perform all labor in the US; the articles they make are consequently expensive and meant to be repaired. Other countries have similar legislation and the same result: more expensive clothing that is long lasting and versatile.

One token of this emphasis on repair is, oddly enough, the button fly. Buttons are much easier to repair than zippers.

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

#94

Post by ghostly_s » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

beat wrote: post #46

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.

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.

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

#95

Post by paulcole » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

seltzered_ wrote: post #11

The article references this report from a year ago: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/story/putting... (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 pai…

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...

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

#96

Post by MyHypatia » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

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 like duluthtrading.com, their whole brand is centered on clothes that last. Stitchfix.com is good if you want help with picking clothes in your style.

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

#97

Post by Nav_Panel » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:44 PM UTC

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…

Switch from cotton to (Merino) wool, at least for shirts. It doesn't absorb sweat and then start to smell, so you can wear it many more days before washing (and you can just hand wash in the sink, easy). They also breathe well, work great as a base layer, and feel extremely soft. It'll cost you $80-100 for a t-shirt, but I've found it worth the investment. I've gone from rotating through like 15 Uniqlo tees to only wearing a couple shirts. And you can do the same with pants and even socks.

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

#98

Post by vkou » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:45 PM UTC

pergadad wrote: post #24

tito wrote: post #3

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

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 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.

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

#99

Post by pgt » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#100

Post by thrwn_frthr_awy » Mon, Oct 21, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

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…

> 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?

Isn't this just clothes? Just buy multiple of what sparks joy, right? Is there something I'm missing that makes an outfit a "uniform"?