Fast Fashion and It’s Consequences

Many companies involved in fast fashion and unsustainable practices use outdated and less eco-friendly processes to produce their goods. A a result of these outdated manufacturing practices, the carbon footprint of many clothing brands are alarmingly high. Fast fashion caters to increasingly high levels of supply and demand, so the products are over produced, and then retailers buy them at exceedingly high prices. Whatever is left over are usually disposed of unethically, rather than being donated or up-cycled. Brands like AerieShe-in, and the like are some of the biggest contributors to this issue. However, there are viable, and fun alternative solutions to this issue that not only are sustainable, they’re also very much within current fashion trends and practices. As mentioned earlier, up cycling is not only an alternative option, it’s also affordable. Thrifting is also a popular alternative, and it’s also way more affordable than buying at full price in-store. Savers, Goodwill, and the Salvation Army are all large and fairly well known companies that utilize thrifting practices. There are several benefits to thrifting and buying clothes which include, but are not limited too, lesser levels of air pollution, less waste production, and healthier oceans. It turns out that polyester, which is used in many fabrics, doesn’t decompose in water, and instead just adds to the pollution of our oceans. Strikingly enough, people throw away 60-80 pounds, on average, of unwanted clothing over the course of their lifetimes. The fashion industry also contributes to ~10% of global carbon emissions. So, it is not unfair to state that thrifting is, in fact, good for the environment, and it’s also wicked fun.

 

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/31/sustainability-in-fast-fashion-how-tech-can-minimize-waste/?sh=2f5be76331e6

https://www.swiftfit.net/blog/sustainable-thrift-shopping

Carbon Emissions

The United States emitted a grand total of 5,222 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2020, which was an 11% decrease following the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this downward trend would prove to be only temporary. However, in comparison to 2005 CO2 emission levels, there was a 21% decrease, which I found to be interesting. In 2020 alone, carbon dioxide accounted for  ~79% of GHG emissions, while nitrous oxide, methane, and various fluorinated gases made up the other 21%. 27% of these emissions were caused by transportation alone, electricity contributed to 1/4 of these emissions, and the rest were sectioned off into industry, commercial usage, and, unsurprisingly, agricultural energy consumption. Ten years prior, the overall emission measurement (circa 2010) fell around 5,594 million metric tonnes, which while not a huge difference, really puts things in perspective. If we could somehow figure out a balance between all the above aspects of everyday life, and managed to cut back on energy consumption in a realistic yet sustainable way, it would be for the better.

 

 

 

 

sources:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/