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 consumer's dream world out there, baby.
And we can't seem to get enough.
Storage units weren't even a thing 75 years ago. Now they're ubiquitous.
The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity. (It still is imho).
I'm going thrifting right now, actually.
To everybody else in the world, if you could take a break from buying more brand new clothing, to consider why you might not need to buy more brand new clothing, we would all be a lot better off imho.
So, I'm with you. But I'm also the person leaving the brand-new items at the thrift store.
The thing is, I'm not the one buying the items usually. They're gifts. And it doesn't matter how many times I tell family not to buy this or that, they do. Christmas is crazy, I hate it for all the wasted money and excess things to deal with. I hate my in laws showing up with well made furniture that I nevertheless hate the design of and don't need. I hate being the caretaker of other people's anxiety manifest in things.
Also, I have little time. So when clothing nmanufacturers do stupid sizing things to save a buck, and it doesn't fit me even after trying to get a tailor to fix it, I'm done spending time on it. It might fit someone else.
I've learned ironically used things on eBay often fit me better because the particular item's exact measurements are provided. I don't have to guess what "medium" means, or whether or not a 27.5 in length actually means 27.5 inches.
I guess my general point is a lot of these excesses are actually about inefficiency and broader societal norms. Even when you have someone who just wants a few nice fitting long lasting items, it can be hard to do that unless you can afford a personal tailor and no gifts to deal with.
It's a complicated topic. Clothes and linens are more cheaply made, even when you look hard, even in my lifetime. I'd argue people often don't even know what something well made in a category looks like often anymore, which distorts demand and therefore supply.
I use all the gifts I receive due to never buying myself anything, but this is definitely an issue I can see. I have spent countless Christmases telling family to donate to charities (and provided a list), buy me food (specific foodstuffs) and in one instance organized Christmas and said they could bring booze and desserts and nothing else.
And they kept on with the (bulky, usually mass-produced) gifts.
I don't hate gifts. But I would love a way to share that ritual with people without encouraging consumption. One problem I've had is the alternatives I suggest, like food, some people don't think cost enough money so they don't like giving it. Are there expensive consumables that people would feel higher status giving?
> Are there expensive consumables that people would feel higher status giving?
Wine and liquor seem the obvious ones to me. There’s some pretty expensive stuff out there.
That said if you’re not a heavy drinker you might find trouble getting rid of those too :-) I’ve been given liquor a few times and it has a tendency to sit in the cabinet since I don’t drink much.
On a related subject, don't forget about the Habitat for Humanity ReStore in your city. The stock varies all the time and you can get some real bargains on new household goods and construction materials that were donated to Habitat for Humanity but couldn't be used in their builds. I've bought a new Kichenaid trash compactor in the box for $35 and a used but in very good condition Steelcase Leap chair for $15. Those were exceptional deals but it's always worth checking out for lesser but still good deals.
For those in the New York City area I highly recommend Build it Green.
Same concept, and you can find some incredible things because they’re often coming from pre-war mansions, high end renovations, props from movie shoots, etc.
> The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity
That’s hoarding by another name. Storage can be used intelligently.
There are things one uses seasonally, or from time to time, where owning makes sense. (For example, my winter wear and scuba gear.)
Using prime real estate to store those items is expensive. If they live in a cheaper zip code, however, that lets one save rent by choosing a smaller apartment in the pricey neighborhood.
Also stowing baby stuff between kids. Crib, high chair, etc takes up serious space and modern apartments are very short on storage. Baby stuff is often a gift, lightly used and acquires sentimental value in use, so it’s nice to use it more than once.
>Storage units weren't even a thing 75 years ago. Now they're ubiquitous.
Not sure how prevalent it is in other countries especially the first world, but self-storage facilities in the US surprise me (I am an Indian). Given the average house size in USA which is second highest after Australia, I wonder what kind of useful stuff gets stored in these stores.
People actually forget that they are even paying for these storage lockers, so often in fact that there is a cottage industry surrounding bidding on forgotten lockers. [0]
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)
It's also very random whether you'll find what you're looking for. You're just not going to find a $300 retail pair of jeans in a thrift store on your first outing. And even when you do, odds are they won't be in your size.
I live in Brooklyn and go thrifting a lot, mostly because it's a fun activity and because you find things you wouldn't normally think to look for. But 9/10 times I'm leaving with nothing. And for all the time I spend thrifting I could take up just as many hours doing freelance web development, use that to buy things I want brand new, and still have extra money left over.
I don't understand how you'd even go about making a $300 pair of jeans. Are they a special material that's impervious to rain but breathes like cotton? Are they extra tough so you'll never wear holes in them? Some kind of fancy dye that never fades in the wash? Are you buying clothes from Sharper Image?
So first there are luxury jeans. Not going to expand on these since the name explains it all. For 1000$ 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 partially explains their price) and also they do create very interesting denim variations that the more efficient machines used by fast fashion are not (yet) able to reproduce.
They are also very well made with lots of more or less useful details. E.G. customized rivets with the brand logo are very nice but not something only the wearer will see.
With use, these jeans fade and are truly beautiful. It is fitting that many japanese brand do this, it is very wabi sabi. To be clear, while the construction and fit are very good, it does not make a 200$ jean magically last twice as long as a 100$ one. However, they come in a variety of fabric density, most of which are way heavier than what typical fast fashion offers. The jean will still break over time at its main pressure points, typically in the crotch and at that point it is expected that they will be mended.
There are also pants made of technical materials, like e.g. what outlier is doing. These are truly awesome to wear when it rains : they are breathable but repel water.
All of these are roughly in the $200-400 range but often closer to 200.
Then, you can also go to levi and they will make you a pair of denim tailored for you. It will roughly cost $500.
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 outside of Japan or Italy.
Then add on what you mention about older machinery and slower production runs. Additional handmade details add more labor time. And quality control is generally much higher, you can line up 5 pairs of the exact same model/size and they'll line up perfectly. With the lower end of Levi's models (not Made&Crafted), you can get 5 "identical" jeans and they'll have a variation of about an inch in both length and waist. Not a huge deal to some, but it's another thing that adds more time to the production.
Even Levi's own Made in USA and Made in Japan lines are in the same price range, $150-$300 dollars.
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 three years or more.
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.
But there is a cost to future generations for every newly manufactured thing consumed. Buying used can cut that cost by half or more, if well maintained.
The availability of old computers and other electronics varies hugely and tends to better if there are large tech companies nearby. We have an undergrad-run computer gaming club that used to operate with discarded lease hardware only, and we are throwing away stuff that people sell for a few hundred dollars in my hometown some 100 klicks away.
Around Boston, when the most part of the leases come due every year and people move out, there's so much good free stuff left at the curb that I've heard it dubbed "Allston Christmas."
I personally love wearing kinda dumpy clothes I get from the thrift store. Some of my friends make shirts that I buy, or a local bar I frequent is selling shirts, but apart from that I just go 100% thrifting. I spend hardly any money, am more comfortable, and get to avoid all the signaling behind e.g. a patagonia fleece or other class-based clothing associations people have
He loves things like banning plastic straws, which have very little impact, but is always looking to be stylish —but I don’t see him pulling a David Axelrod or James Traficant.
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 don't really believe that as in many places you're starting to see multi-level facilities with as many as 5-6 layers of units. That ain't cinderblocks.
In California at least, prop 13 lets them operate without having to worry about rising property taxes in areas where otherwise there could (and probably should) be housing.
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.
I had heard this was a thing at places like MIT and Stanford. Very rich kids come in every fall, buy everything they need for the year, then throw it all out when summer hits... brand new TVs, clothes, furniture, etc.
> The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity. (It still is imho).
The only time I've rented a storage unit was last time I moved. We sold the apartment and could not move into the new house until two months later, so we stored all our stuff in a unit close to the new house and stayed at our (very old, tiny and inherited) summer house for the duration.
So they have their use, but I can't imagine having one permanently.
My daughter is in a brass band (they're quite common here in Norway), and we participate organising flee markets to raise money for the band and the amount of stuff people give us to sell is insane. I'm not surprised at all by what you're writing.
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).
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.
Furniture is now very cheap (also low-quality: Ikea, etc.), while housing is (in many areas) extremely expensive, so it's no wonder that people can be in a bad economic situation while being able to change furniture. Of course, it's sad, it should be the other way around, but it's the way current prices in most places work.
It's like the typical criticism that young people complain about their salaries but buy flagship smartphones. Yeah, iPhones and the like are technological wonders and 50 years ago they would have been a dream, but in many places they cost the equivalent of two weeks of rent... so why in hell would they not buy them? To save for two whooping weeks of rent?
This is not just news corps. Its well established scientific fact that we are in a state of environmental crisis and unless there is huge change to so many things in society we will be beyond the point of return.
Rich people throw away nice stuff. The trick to getting it is patience and the capacity to pick things up on a whim.
I've furnished my entire house with free stuff. It takes a log longer than just throwing your credit card at Ikea but the stuff fits my house so much better anyway. It's not clapped out junk either. It's mostly nice stuff from people moving and empty-nesters downsizing.
I live between poor and rich neighborhoods, both of them throw a massive amount of stuff. It's true that you can find better brand / rarer stuff in rich places but the volume is similar.
Although I agree with you that we are buying (and thus, accumulating) things at a scary rate, rent storage usually exists in big cities where space is at a premium - we live in tiny apartments that would also be considered insanity by our grandparents.
Every city has (at a minimum) a few nice suburbs where the good stuff is.
Also it helps if your standards are lower than those of the people throwing things out. I'm pretty sure every piece of wood furniture I have "should be refinished" according to someone but it's all as nice as the stuff the people I hang out with have so why bother.
That reads almost like a George Carlin joke (I mean it in a good way).
It would be better if people thrifted more rather than always buying new. Thrifting is hit or miss though depending on where you are and what surrounding area the donations are sourced from.
Go thrifting in around a big city or rich suburbs and it's more likely to find "diamonds in the rough" like designer brands and basically unworn clothing.
But go thrifting in an area with a worse GDP (i.e. poorer), and the finds are a lot of stuff like ugly free t-shirts from random events and average clothes that are already >50% through their lifespan.
This sounds attractive when you have more time than money.
I buy new clothes because I can quickly find a wide selection online, filter through it by size, price, etc, and be done buying a whole new set of clothes (that replace worn-out clothes) in the same 2-3 hours it takes to go to a thrift store or two, and find 1-2 pieces that fit.
I'm fashion-oblivious though; for people who want to look just so this approach would be rather expensive.
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, where to source from. Are there any companies focussed around this?
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 affordable than an entire suit.
These days suits appear to be worn less often, mostly in business environments, very formal life events, and by fashion enthusiasts. But ironically, maybe one of the greenest ways to dress (for men) is to get a secondhand suit or two from a thrift store, in a natural material like wool or linen, have a tailor or dry cleaner alter it into a stylish cut that fits your body, and wear it every day. They can be altered to fit literally anybody in a flattering way, different materials can be either warm or surprisingly cool to suit your climate, and there's so much more to suits than the depressing shiny blue/black polyester business suit we all picture these days.
Want to be green and look great? Drop the Patagonia fleece and cotton t-shirt swag from last week's startup, and buy a used suit in a nice natural material!
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.
100% merino wool hiking/running socks are perfect for hot and humid. I've ran +20 hour ultramarathons in hot conditions with them. They are much better than cotton. Plastic socks are good for 1 hour gym sessions.
> 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.
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.
That page even has a pair of bullet lists showing that the plastic imitation is inferior to the real thing!
I do make a lot of winter trips like the one in the photograph (long winter backpacking trips) and am an instructor and I only use wool for my socks and other undergarments, and jackets. Down for sleeping in. Synthetic underpants though!
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.
I've sort of gravitated to this, not even really on purpose, just for convenience.
I made the mistake of getting slim cut jeans this time, when they wear out I'm going back to regular cut, maybe go 50/50 blue pairs and black pairs.
I have way too many band shirts, most of which I really wouldn't ever wear to work. I'm slowly replacing them with good quality polo shirts instead. They seem to last much longer.
I think the legacy of this style of dressing lives on in boomer-generation men being hesitant to go outside when it's raining. They've formed a habit of keeping themselves clean, even when 21st century conveniences really alleviate the need for strict levels of care.
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.
Well very modern suits have undergone an evolution that makes them less practical, but only a few decades were engineered for practicality (except the tie ... forget it!): collars that were adjustable for wind and other weather conditions, practical engineering of the joints so they didn’t restrict mobility, etc. there’s a reason why men’s’ suits in the 30s and 40s look a little ill-fitting: they emphasized function over fashion. Only the aristos (e.g. Duke of Windsor who shaved twice a day) could afford to wear something that fit like a glove...for only a couple of hours before changing.
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.
I'd happily wear a DS9 or First Contact era Starfleet uniform all day. They look great! :).
Regarding your serious point, I'd like to know too. I'd pay for a service that would help me find a style that looks good on me, with associated supply of quality clothes in this style. My current clothing choice pattern is "random, with a pre-filtering done by my wife".
You may shock yourself with what three hours a week can do for you. After years of playing the "I'm smart, I'll just figure this out myself (finally, this year)" game with my fitness goals I outsourced the planning to a trainer and have been super happy with the progress I've made. I'm definitely in better shape with three hours a week of HIIT and strength training than I was as a six day a week gym rat in high school who was making it up as I went.
Honestly? Too much effort finding a tailor friendly enough to make it (and perhaps not charge exorbitant amounts of money). And my wife most likely wouldn't approve me walking in it daily around our small town.
(And, I don't feel I meet Starfleet standards of excellence, so I don't deserve to wear one.)
Some 12 years ago I got together with a group of folks, intending to shoot a fan Star Trek series. We got as far as the dialogs, some CGI work, green-screened bridge set, few props and... few uniforms. One of the folks had a friendly tailor who was willing to make them, but as a ~18 years old, I didn't have the money, and eventually drifted away from the project. I still regret that. After I left, I think they've managed to release a long trailer, and then the project died.
These days, I scratch my Trekkie itch by figuring out how to make LCARS interfaces actually ergonomic for real-world uses.
So from the pre-Abrams reboot series, they only have their interpretation of the TNG-era uniform. It actually does look pretty nice. $300 is a lot for a jacket, though. Thanks anyway!
I've been eyeing those designs for a while now, I really wish this sort of stuff became actual fashion. It looks cool as heck and it doesn't seem especially impractical or hard to produce.
I'm still too big a whuss to actually wear anything like that though, even if it was reasonably priced.
Unfortunately not; Star Trek uniforms generally don't have pockets (with an exception of Beverly Crusher's lab coat (TNG) and the jacket B'Elanna Torres wore at some point (VOY)). Enterprise-era uniforms are full of pockets, and they look kind of nice too! However, I don't think a DS9/First Contact era uniform with pockets in trousers would look too much unlike the original, and it's enough to store a smartphone (and a thin wallet without much cash).
> the jacket B'Elanna Torres wore at some point (VOY)
That was added to hide Roxanne Dawson's pregnancy, which I guess sort-of addresses the point about the standard jumpsuit uniforms not being the most flattering.
I like a combination approach much better. Buy multiple shirts, tees, sweaters, and pants which can match with each other. Oftentimes these are less saturated earthy colours with white and black mixed in. It'll be timeless and easy to maintain—not to mention very suitable for ones who have analysis paralysis with clothes. You can't mess up!
Yes, I also try to be a conscious shopper and try to be able to maximise my wardrobe for multiple outfits. This is out of necessity too: I travel a lot, so having many outfits from a few items of clothes means a smaller suitcase. I used to have a rule that I would buy something only from a store where there was no more than 2 of but as the years pass, I admit that it's easy to slip into Zara when I'm in an airport with time to kill and suddenly "need" a new skirt or something. The ease of access is quite scary. I'm glad I didn't grow up with fashion available like this.
IME analysis paralysis is worse when almost everything is crap. For me, shopping is reasonably fun when I go to a store that has mostly good stuff. Picking a good item from 5 good / 3 bad ones is much better than picking a good item from 2 good / 20 bad ones.
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 pretty hot, it's awesome having a quick-drying and wicking fabric. They aren't quite as durable as cotton shirts, but make up for it with everything else imo
If you like this idea but aren’t really a t-shirt person, you can get wool shirts which are much more comfortable than they sound. Wool and Prince sell them. I’m very sensitive to scratchy clothes or being too warm, and I’ve been wearing these exclusively for a few years. If you keep yourself clean, the shirts only need dry cleaning every 20 days or so, where I’d normally only wear a cotton shirt once between cleans
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.
Good tip, Thank You. Would like order custom fit T-shirts, but guess that won’t happen for a few decades as robots are far from being able to replace the hands of cheap labor.
BTW How about animal welfare for producing Merino wool?
AFAIK, Merino is mostly farmed in alpine regions, a lot of it in New Zealand. There's a really interesting BlisterReview podcast[0] on technical fabrics and wool, featuring an interview with one of the buyer/sourcers for a big wool company. He explains the farming/shearing/processing of merino pretty thoroughly.
You don't need any company to sell you yet another wardrobe full of clothes because the point is to consume less clothes, not more. take care of and appreciate your existing wardrobe. Switching style type of behavior is at the root of this expanded carbon footprint. Remember 85% of production ends up in the dump in a year. Unfathomable. Honestly the level of consumption right now is impossible given anything resembling normal consumption. It has little to do with cheap fashion or uniforms and everything with some people wanting to shop every weekend. Who has time for that anyways? If you still want to dress like Jobs then buy your black turtleneck wool sweater, but not five of them in one go. Don't throw anything away for it, either. After a while your bulging wardrobe will make you space conscious enough to very carefully consider any subsequent purchase.
Google Image Search "Classic men's fashion" (I'm assuming you're a guy), get some ideas there. Then find a good tailor and bring the pics to him. As a lanky westerner living in Asia, it's pretty much impossible for me to buy "off the rack" clothing in any style I would want anyway. So I've settled into infrequent purchases via western companies with granular sizes/fitment, or even-less-frequent trips to a tailor.
These days, a man can get made-to-measure shirts for ~$50/each. Ten of those in different colors will last you 5+ years and not go out of style. Four made-to-measure suits at $300-$400 each should be good for 10 years. I think Brooks Brothers and JoS.A.Bank have decent shirts and slacks, if you really wanna stick to store-bought stuff.
For casual/outdoors wear, add some Patagonia, North Face, or basically any law enforcement supplier (5.11 Tactical, Propper, LA Police Gear). Rugged clothes that will also last a decade. A fleece pullover, a moisture-wicking Polo shirt, and a pair of khaki tactical pants is the 21st-century "Plaid shirt and bluejeans" IMO...
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.
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 $80-100 for a t-shirt, but I've found it worth the investment. I've gone from rotating through like 15 Uniqlo tees to only wearing a couple shirts. And you can do the same with pants and even socks.
If your in US or Canada, consider Value Village or another similar well known second hand clothing store chain. Like sibling comment said, just shop for a 'look' , e.g. color or form of garment, don't worry about BS brands etc..
Nice thing is that if you end up not liking the 100$ worth of clothing you bought (WHICH IS ALOT OF CLOTHING!), and say, return 40% of it after 3 months... would've been same as buying 1 fancy shirt at your local department store.
> 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"?
It is very easy. For work you have the standard business casual. From bottom up it is black shoes (but not necessarily super shiny), black socks, slacks that are either black, grey, beige, or brown and a colorful checkered or striped button down shirt. Also, a belt. The shirt should be colorful but without too bright colors or contrasts. You can find the whole thing at banana republic. The good thing about this style is that if the pants are neutral color enough, you do not have to worry about matching shirt to pants.
For life outside of work, comfortable shoes and socks not necessarily black but subdued color, jeans and a button down shirt as well. Here the button down shirt may be of brighter colors or coarser materials, etc.
It depends how thoughtful you want to be about your style though ?
If you do consider that your style is your public API and a mean of personal expression, it needs a good amount of trial and error. The first english speaking place that comes to mind for this is the subreddit malefashionadvice .
There are also companies (that actually target engineers because it is a very engineery thing to do) that will sell you a "uniform" made of 3 times the same chino, 3 times the same hoodie (maybe some color variation), some simple tshirts and undergarment and done.
Check out Everlane. They even have a ‘Uniform’ line now, I think. They also have transparent pricing, manufacturing practices, and at least some commitment to sustainability.
One day I walked into our company’s swag closet and grabbed 10 identical company shirts that are kinda subtle about the branding and just look like some band t-shirt. I’m a couple years into wearing only these to work (plus two pairs of jeans and two pairs of shorts) and it is indeed one less thing to think about. Occasionally people notice and it’s kind of a fun conversation, and that’s about the only consequence of it.
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.
Depends what you can wear and like to wear. The staples are a good pair of raw denim jeans, two pairs of contrasting chino pants and a mixture of tops to layer with these (wool jumper, crew top). Footware is up to you but if you want to be ecologically friendly I'd say get one pair of leather boots to last you 20 years +. Good brands are red wing and redback for starters. If you want sneakers don't wear big brands (nike, adidas etc) and buy something ethical. Try and get leather or something durable over that mesh crap which falls apart. It all depends on weather as well. Some or all of this advice is useless if you live in Northern Canada for example.
I wear jeans and a black T-shirt to work almost every single day. My wife makes fun of me and says I dress like a cartoon character, but for some reason it just removes a huge mental load knowing there is one less decision to make in the day.
Gustin has a similar idea, focusing on making clothing with less waste, high quality materials and wholesale prices by crowdfunding the designs. This also allows them to make short runs of clothing that would not sell well in retail environments. Most of the clothing they sell is long lasting and versatile as a result, but the catch is you need to "buy" the clothes a few months ahead of time. Taylor Stitch is similar in some ways.
It depends on how much you are willing to spend. You can hire a personal shopper/designer who can make recommendations based on your personal style and needs. Or,check out stitchfix.com, try out a few styles and brands ( they carry good, high-quality brands). Once you know what brands look good, just stick to them. For example - Patagonia is big on the socially -conscious front.
Yes, I agree. Buy a few quality items and hang them to dry. Free-standing drying racks are cheap and can be used anywhere. Your clothes last much longer and you don't waste a lot of power.
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.
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)
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.
Bunker fuel is also heavy in contaminants, including heavy metals, which can also affect local regions (ports, shipping lanes). Most (though not all) are fairly short-lived in the biosophere, at least compared to CO2.
Otherwise largely agreed. I'd commented similarly about 10 days ago:
Not always waste. There are some important collections of atoms that you would prefer to move whole from one place to another, rather than creating new ones on site. Especially since it takes 18 years or more to do!
Other than that, I agree. Home nanotech for everyone!
What are the alternatives of transport mode A to transport mode B?
What are the alternatives to transporting inputs, outputs, and/or wastes?
Per ton-mile (or tonne-km) nothing matches marine shipping. The alternatives to shipping entirely might merit consideration though.
And induced consumption (shipping of X is now so inexpensive that consumption of X increases manyfold), a/k/a the Jevons Paradox, is another major factor.
We really need a better industry around re-use of essentially everything.
Let's say I need some X. Last week I bought a base layer because it's getting cold here.
I can order, or buy in a store, a brand new X trivially. I don't actually need a brand new X. A used X would do me just fine.
But the difficulty in doing so is ridiculous in comparison. Cottage industry eBay stuff (that you have to order online) vs. an entire infrastructure built around producing and selling new stuff.
Thredup/Grailed/TheRealReal/Etsy/Rent the Runway are bigger companies in that business.
Amazon also sells 'Warehouse deals' of returned product at a discount.
There are also chains of 'buy/sell/trade' stores like Buffalo Exchange, and many local vintage and consignment stores.
But there are significant challenges when you introduce all the ways that used products can deteriorate, plus the challenge of discovery and managing a stock that can potentially include 'everything ever produced in history' rather than 'this season's SKUs'. Plus the 'Market for Lemons' issue that many people generally get rid of things when they've failed somehow, and only sometimes is the issue 'I don't like this thing's style anymore'.
I generally thrift & vintage stores more interesting than new clothing stores, and enjoy the thrill you get when you find something you could never find new for a very good price, but the tradeoff is that it takes significant effort to find clean reliable basics in your size in the used market, as people generally keep those things until they wear out, and it's basically impossible to keep a full size run of anything used in stock.
Just wanted to shout out grailed! It's become my go-to for tees. Awesome brands and vintage stuff is really cheap and the sellers are generally pretty honest and good.
If you really want to do go down this path I would highly recommend Patagonia wornwear. They get a lot of hate for their prices but they are trying to be as sustainable as possible. The Ironclad guarantee is one of the best.
eBay is full of their used stuff and some neat retro gear.
Neat. Didn't know Patagonia had that. Though, truth be told, the Patagonia clothing I could potentially buy used probably lasts me so long that I don't really need any more.
The main driver is “fast fashion” and things that don’t last long. They both require making new things -things which require intensive natural resource usage, either natural fibers or synthetic.
A crappy shirt or dress can’t get upcycled or recycled whatever. It ends up in a dump and people need to buy new fashionable stuff.
Movies, TV shows, celebrities and currently [social media] influencers are the ones creating this demand, sometimes with their own overpriced crappy brands.
What about thrift stores or organizations like Goodwill? Those places have lots of secondhand clothes, houseware, and small appliances.
You might have trouble finding a used A/C in the middle of July, and you might have to try a few locations to find what you're looking for, but it's less trouble than plenty of stuff that people do to be more eco-friendly.
Second hand stores are really hit and miss and I find one needs to sort of drop in regularly to find the good stuff. But when you do find the stuff you need it is at an unbelievable price. I just bought 2 snow suits for my kids plus a small blender and it was less then 10$ Canadian. A new snow suit which they would out grow in a season would cost 50$.
>But the difficulty in doing so is ridiculous in comparison
Buying a used base layer on eBay is not ridiculously difficult as compared to buying a new one from other online retailers. Amazon is certainly easier but compared to going to an online store like REI, I'd say it is comparable.
Are you saying that the brick and mortar stores? REI I believe has used gear in their brick and mortar store, the selection is probably going to be all over the place but I'm not sure how a single store would guarantee a used stock. I think their used inventory is listed online. There's also good will and other consignment shops and things like that.
I'm wondering if what you really want is better marketing for used services to increase awareness. That seems pretty legit. Maybe there's an opportunity there to really blast out a marketing/propaganda campaign to get this concept burned into consumer's minds?
Buying used clothes online quickly runs headfirst into decision fatigue, incomplete information, and a lack of good filtering.
Walk into an REI and there might be five or ten choices, all probably pretty good, and you can try them on right there and read reviews and specs and information about the materials.
On eBay there are probably (I'm guessing) millions of nondescript black base layers in any number of condition, with an enormous range of fits for the same "size", fabric of unknown type & performance, total lack of reviews, etc.
It's an interesting sort of problem. There's surely countless garments that would suit you fine for a tiny amount of money, but finding them in the ocean of garments that would not is a miserable chore.
Imagine that half the population is wearing the same wardrobe of cloths, and buying used ones when they wear out. The other half buys new outfits every couple of days, discarding items after wearing them a handful of times.
The first group will never consume enough cloths to make use of what the second group discards.
There is a massive reuse culture out there. It's just not been industrialized by a handful of companies or chased after by VCs. For clothes there are garage sales, second hand shops, and donations to those who are less fortunate (e.g., to the growing size of the group at or below the poverty line).
Part of the problem is the number of clothes that don't last long. They are expensive and wear out quickly.
Another part of it is culture. How many people can pull off wearing clothes from 10 or 20 years ago without being judged for doing so.
This is a larger problem than sharing and availability. It's cultural.
I'd settle for better data before we start burning down the clothing industry. 10% of global carbon from clothes seems unlikely. No source with data cited in the article, or the article that is cited.
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 once or twice otherwise. It’s a good idea to help poor communities consolidate resources but it’s hard to help large communities reduce their eco foot prints
Fast fashion is bad. But I think the broken window fallacy is poorly matched to modern times. It’s useful to demonstrate why war is bad even if it boosts our GDP, but there’s so much nuance to things like repairs, obsolescence, globalism, switching costs, etc.
If something is bad for economic growth, whose growth matters? Ecological arguments are perhaps one of the better things to consider because at the end of the day it may kill everyone. shrug
The broken window fallacy requires forcefully destroying someone’s property to get them to replace it with the same thing. This doesn’t fit that model at all.
> Well, for one, that would vastly reduce economic growth.
Yes, that's the point! I take the world without the economic growth where people are happy with what they have over one with economic growth and unsustainable level of CO2 emissions.
Not to start an argument, but that's easy to say when you have a comfortable life and already experienced abundance.
You know, people of poor and underdeveloped countries have the right to aspire to a better life (and yes, that means owning more than a couple of ragged t-shirts and eat meat often than twice a month)
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.
If people are spending it on ‘something stupid’ that’s is a sign that resources are unequally and inefficiently distributes. There are plenty of people in the world who would spend additional cash on food or fuel.
I mean, would you order online, and then have it shipped to you?
That might be an improvement over what we have now? But I suspect that it's hardly ideal. Unless you were geographically restricted in what you could order. (ie - No ordering some wiz-bang base layers from a family that happens to be in Norway when you live in Minneapolis.)
vinokilo.com if you are in Europe, they also have events in cities where they fill a space with sorted clothing and blast music way too loud (so bring earplugs)
Nice idea but the fun of vintage clothes shopping is having a few hours with nothing better to do than trying on the umpteenth ugly sweater/velvet jacket/vintage dress until you find one that looks better than one you can find in 15 minutes on the high street. Buying online is totally meaningless in the space.
This article has a bit of an underhanded motive. It pretends that is all pro environment but it comes out as an attack on fast fashion.
One can argue that fast fashion is bad for the environment. One can argue that it encourages people to throw away clothes, that fast fashion clothes are cheap and wear out very quickly, etc. But that does not have to be the case.
The ideal of fast fashion is that it is about putting clothes out in the stores and letting the customer decide what to wear and then quickly creating new designs based on customer demand, rather than the old system where the clothing industry would change collections only four times per year and more or less force the customer to like those collections based on a massive top down system of advertising, fashion magazines, models, movie stars, etc. A side effect of this system of making people like the new fashion is by bombarding with ads with beautiful people is that you also make people hate themselves.
So fast fashion does not necessarily have to be low quality or low durability. And having a large number of collections does not necessarily suggest low quality either. Personally I cannot say much about fast fashion darling ZARA, because nothing there fits me, but I wear a lot of GAP, Banana Republic and some Uniqlo, and those clothes have been generally quite durable.
That being said, if certain companies do make low quality clothes they should be called out.
To change the subject, one accurate thing about the article is about how bad plastic clothes are. In addition to being bad for the environment they just feel worse on your body. I would just avoid buying artificial fibers as much as practical.
I don't think this is true anymore. I am a huge fan of cotton, but for athletic activities there is nothing like a modern, wicking, synthetic shirt. The 32 Degrees brand really sold me on synthetics a few years ago. Yes, it is bad for the environment... I'm just saying that synthetics aren't like they were in the 80s.
That's interesting. I was thinking about this a lot over the past 2-3 weeks. The sheer amount of clothing lying in all the shops across the world.
Talk a walk into any Macy's / Bloomingdales / Hudsons Bay and count the number of items of clothing.
Then multiply that across that one store's chain of shops. Then realize there are multiple chains like that.
Then realize there are multiple stores not in chains.
Then realize that's just the geographic area you're aware of.
Then think about other cities, counties, regions, provinces, countries.
Then remember all the clothing you have at home already...
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. After having done that, the rest is extravagance. Jewelry is absolutely no value. If you can call, text, and browse the internet, you're good. If a car gets you from A to B and doesn't need a lot of maintenance, that's sufficient.
I remember a Sex in the City scene where Carrie was talking about her $40,000 worth of shoes.
Beyond providing the basics, these products aren't worth more except for their display of wealth.
Meanwhile, we destroy the planet a little more each day to prove we are worth mating.
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.
Not all aesthetic creations are valuable art. If you want to buy ever more clothing because the designer created art, then pay the designer the same, produce one piece and put it in a museum; then we can get on with economising to reduce or negative impact on the planet sufficiently so it race might just survive the next few centuries.
What's the relative pollution of production of an article of fashion wear vs a game download? It's going to be something like a 100k times more pollution from the clothing, surely?
I would argue the issue with clothing is the opposite: you can buy very cheap clothes now.
H&M,Zara,C&A,Terranova etc all allow you to get a t-shirt, skirt, dress or whatever for ten bucks.
It's cheap synthetic and won't last long but who cares, you paid ten bucks for it.
The clothes being cheap here is not the problem although it definitely does not help. The problem here is fast fashion and the constant recycling of fashion trends. I'd argue that this is more of a cultural problem. If the clothes are cheap but the trend changes biannually instead of annually, you're going to see a drop in purchases.
The diktat should be "Buy cheap clothes but not very often". You don't have to go all the way to a suit with matching tie and shoes. Polos, shirts, jeans, chinos can be had for cheap too, and they last long.
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 been wearing the same pair for 10 years now and just has the sole replaced.
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.
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.
I started realizing something similar but with Guitar Center and Sam Ash. Guitar stores may not be as ubiquitous, but I know they're not selling out of their stock every year so I assume some must get sent back or destroyed.
The clothing you have at home already is your personal carbon storage. Carbon is extracted from the air to make cotton, bamboo (rayon), linen, and many types of plastic.
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.
I do not and never will understand fashion. I understand the whole speech in The Devil Wears Prada (that the things we all wear were once the trendsetters, just like the tech in luxury cars trickling down) but I just don't get it.
Even when someone buys me something I tend to just pick a favourite and stick to it. I have a few pairs of shoes but pretty much just wear one unless the occasion says I shouldn't.
And then there are the gamers with their "Fashion is the real endgame!" attitude which I've found in a few games. I seriously don't care if I look like this (http://i.imgur.com/SfYDtUO.jpg) when playing. Just gimme the stats I need.
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.
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.
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.
And after the water evaporates, how is the concentrated chemical sludge treated? Does it get removed for safe disposal? Does it get left to sink down and contaminate the ground water? That’s the problem.
Whilst that’s true, it’s not how it’s experienced. Take for instance Mexico City which has been using up its groundwater at a tremendous rate; sure, the water hasn’t been destroyed in the chemical or atomic sense, but the lack of it locally is very real.
It's hard for people to find high quality clothing because evaluating quality is hard and "quality" is sold by many places and it ends up being only an impression.
It comes back to a thought I've had in mind for a while about margins.
Margins are often set as a multiple of material cost. 10x, 100x, something like that. That rather large multiple handles the materials obviously, but also manufacturing, shipping, QA, marketing, overhead, etc.
To make a price competitive product, you minimize your material cost and then use that multiple to set price.
The problems lies in that if you use 2 cent nails instead of 1 cent nails, everything upstream does not double in price. There would be a small increase in cost-of-capital, and other losses related directly to the merchandise, but many many things aren't related at all.
When your product is all the way at the bottom of the quality,price bracket, doubling your materials cost doesn't double your actual marginal cost and shouldn't double your price, but so often it does and stupid quality decisions are made which results in it being very difficult to find decent products.
You end up having to pay super premium quality prices to get things designed and built as they reasonably should be. Or you end up paying hundreds of dollars so the one part that matters is up to spec when the actual difference in cost of that one part was maybe two or three dollars.
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.
“ 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 pair of jeans.
Every second, the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is landfilled or burned. If nothing changes, by 2050 the fashion industry will use up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget. ”
Are you talking about cow farts? When cows eat grass, the carbon they emit was already in the system. It's just like any other organism staying alive. This is different than burning fossil fuels, the carbon of which until they are extracted hasn't been in the system for millions of years.
To the extent that the beef industry burns fossil fuels, that's something you could criticize, but it's hardly unique to the beef industry. Cattle would eat less intensively-cultivated corn and more grass if the corn farmers weren't subsidized so much. If no corn was cultivated at all, cattle would still be a pretty efficient way of sustainably extracting food from marginal grassland.
Hum, I'm not familiar with ruminant (i.e. cow) digestion but I think you're right in suggesting there's greater complexity here when associating cattle with the use of modern agriculture practices (haber-bosch process).
To direct the conversation towards solutions, Project drawdown (https://www.drawdown.org) mentions Silvopasture practices (closely related to Joel Salatin style farming). That said, reducing the amount of intensively-cultivated corn grown ultimately still means reducing the number of cattle (we're ~80-90% more than 100yrs ago) and seemingly less meat consumption per capita.
From what I understand the main concern with cow farts is the methane produced in cows' (and other ruminants') digestive systems, not carbon dioxide. Methane is a 25x more potent greenhouse gas according to the EPA: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#m...
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.
Flights are currently "used" by a tiny % of the global population, whereas clothing is a necessity for 100% of the population.
What does that comparison says, exactly? Changing the habits of a few persons would have much impact on the environment as changing the habits of every person on Earth? Which change should we prioritize? Mmmh...
I don't think any sane person is proposing the future of humanity lies in nudity. But you'd have a tough job persuading me that having 60% more clothes than 20 years ago and landfilling 85% of textiles bought a year is necessary, or that extensive wardrobes replaced every season are less frivolous than transport.
This comparison can be read as saying that if one was to search for changes at the industry level, either technological or legal, then clothing looks like a high-payoff place to do that.
Bought a H&M zipper jacket by the start of this year, somehow now it's is as worn down as a Adidas one I bought in 2011! H&M mostly sells disposable clothing, and they have the never of making "conscious" fashion ads.
I'm not sure I can agree. I'll give a few examples.
"Free clothing" quality has gone up and become more fitted. Instead of 1 gender neutral size, clothes are by gender, and fabric softer. Stitching seems unchanged. I've had to purchase these for groups.
High quality clothing has more accents. Quality of fabric is secondary to aesthetics.
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.
I think it's both. Some brands are marketing crappy disposable clothes (like H&M), other more conservative brands like Adidas for instance, are marketing some longer lasting clothing that one could use for more than one season. Actually the H&M Group has a more "exclusive" brand called COS which is about the same quality as Zara only more expensive - similar average quality synthetic materials but arguably better designs. The funny thing is that under a single company one could have it both ways. Look at Inditex, they're the best example. They include the Pull & Bear, Zara and Massimo Dutti brands under one umbrella company. While one markets disposables, the other markets upscale clothing that can last several seasons and there's also the in-between brand that markets clothes that last aproximately for one season. I guess there are buyers for all of these, depending on age/gender/income demographic.
You don't even have to reuse to lower carbon emissions, just buy something durable. I have a shirt from RL that still looks new and I bought it in 2009.
I still run with a pair of Nike socks from 2012, although I bought a new pair just this summer and they had holes just after 2 months, so I guess quality went down while price went up for this brand.
Vote with your wallet for things that are durable. The market will follow. See Forever 21 going down the drain [1].
I’m glad this finally got the attention it deserves.
Forever21 went into reorganization bankruptcy because they were not “fast enough”!
That’s lunacy. Make things that last, in other words durable. Make them timeless. Bigger upfront investment, lower total cost. Lower impact on environment.
this is the reason we need carbon & pollution tax! this is like whack-a-mole, way too many industries lurking under the radar & polluting our common resources for private profit. unless we put a price to it they will not factor in the cost to the rest of us.
How does that stop people from still buying the now corrected-for-those-taxes garments? All you've done is added a revenue stream in the middle, and now there's even less incentive for regulators to do anything about the _actual_ problem, because now they're making (more) money off of the problem, and solving the underlying problem would damage those revenue streams.
The price correction is the point. If the externalities are internalized it makes better methods proportionality more incentivized and viable if say cotton fabric garments are only seventeen cents more expensive than a synthetic instead of the previous two dollars without environmental costs factored in. Demand would be shifted accordingly.
Money spent = Emissions generated (direct or indirect by further spending)
If you want to save CO2, then save as much money as you can in paper form. Don't spend, don't invest. Instead keep everything as cash. This also has indirect effects by slowing down the economy which reduces money flow for other people, too.
You can spend your money on digital goods which have a very tiny environmental impact. This doesn't have the result of preventing other people from spending that money but it is at least sustainable if everyone does it.
Specifically page 18:
«Together the apparel and footwear industries generated between 5 and 10% of global pollution impacts in 2016. Footwear alone represents approximately one-fifth the impact of the apparel industry, about 1.4% of global climate impacts (700 million metric tons CO2eq), while apparel represents 6.7% of global climate impacts (3,290 million metric tons CO2eq). Combined, they account for an estimated 8.1% of global climate impacts (3,990 million metric tons CO2eq).»
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.
So only 15% of textiles make it into someones home or office and doesn't get thrown out. Where is the waste? I assume it is 1) Unsold stock, 2) Unusable material during manufacturing, and 3) Consumers throwing clothing away in the first year of ownership.
Could we reduce waste most significantly by moving to on-demand clothing manufacturing?
Yes and no :) "On-demand" clothing manufacturing is practiced today, in that fashions change rapidly, and in response, retailers produce what can only be described as "shitty quality, fast".
(Exacerbated by Chinese clothing manufacturers + social media - they're extremely effective at churning out extremely glossy pictures for what's about the lowest possible bar of quality)
That - "fast fashion" - is what gets discarded.
That's not the way forward. On-demand manufacturing that's more along the lines of traditional high-quality bespoke clothing could be an answer, but it would mean that the vast majority of people likely can't afford to wear the latest fashion all the time. And even if we can sidestep that problem through technology, wearing "the latest" itself is a huge part of the problem. If you have clothes that are only meant for a season, you'll dump large amounts of textiles.
So what's needed is both a move to higher quality, and a move away from "fast fashion". Given that the entire industry makes money mostly on "what's new and hot", this would require a significant cultural change.
Now, if only bespoke shorts and tshirts became a thing.
I’d happily pay a decent sum for a set of charcoal tshirts that fit me perfectly and last for a few years of daily use. Bonus points of I get to choose a fabric other than pure cotton.
They are a thing. Find a local tailor. (They often hide out at dry cleaners, but not all of them are good :) OK, that will be more made-to-measure than bespoke - the difference there being that bespoke comes with a master tailor who does a really exhaustive initial consult on what patterns work for you, what fabrics work best, what specific cuts to choose, etc, while m-t-m is more "we measure you, you get a standard tshirt". It'll still be lightyears better than anything you get in a shop.
I'd expect you'll be in the range of $100 per tshirt, +/-
And yes, of course you get to choose a fabric, that's the point of bespoke :) It's also the major cost factor. Depending on your taste, there are some expensive fabrics to have.
Get a sewing machine and start making your own clothing. I've been trying my hand at it and I've made a few shirts and pants I wear during the weekends. They still look a bit shabby and not decent enough to wear for work thought.
I read the linked sources and that statement is 85% of clothes disposed are sent to the dump and 15% are recycled. Not that 85% of what is produced is sent to the dump in the same year. Granted its all going to the trash eventually.
FWIW, these are at least shared by some people. More than half of the clothes my baby wears are used, sourced from Facebook groups for local exchange/givaways, and as she outgrows a particular size, we just box those clothes up (except for the few we want to keep for the possible second), and pass them forward to someone else in need.
That's not a correct inference. It might be that all textiles produced make it to people's homes, but people also throw away lots of old clothes. Another reason might be that some textiles are not made into clothes, and are used only briefly for the purpose they were created before being tossed.
I'm glad to see growing awareness concerning plastic in clothing. The article mentions problems with cotton production as well.
With clothing I feel the same way I do about food, and the same way many people have felt for decades: I've been duped! It's not difficult, but it takes time money and effort to make good purchases, and that can be frustrating.
It aint even a problem we cant solve. My buddy here in Goa, India realise most of that water and land pollution in her home state came from chemicals used to dye these fabric pink, purple, blue, etc etc.
Guess, what she did, she learnt the traditional art of natural dyeing and now, book she and all her friends wear clothes that have footprint of less than a q-tip. Unlike consumption of meat, fashion is something that can be solved by demanding different. Different chemicals. Different production methods. Different efficiency.
Fashion is such an inscrutable practice to me. My closet is full of clothes but aside from my formalwear every shirt matches every pair of pants. When I get up I pick a set at random and go about my day. I don't own anything I don't like and I don't keep anything I can't wear so what's the point of choosing what to wear when it doesn't matter to anyone else? Throwing away a shirt to make room for another shirt is like throwing away a hamburger so you can buy another hamburger.
Most places that do alterations can do repair. But someone who is very good at repair is worth extra. Good repairs are strong. And they'll see weak areas needing repair before a hole starts, which might require patching.
Buy that cashmere sweater and repair it. I've got two over 20 years old, one pair of jeans over 5 years old I wear so often they got crotch holes in them, easily and authentically repaired.
technology / D2C / supply chain startups are desperately needed in this area to solve these problems.
At unspuntech.com (where i'm employed) we're working on creating high quality denim garments using 3D body scanning as the basis for custom fit. This allows us to go 0 inventory, and consumers generally don't mind a 2-3 week wait time for manufacturing thus far. up to 10-30% of garments end up unsold, so 0 inventory can have a large effect. We're also working on robotics solutions to remove steps from the manufacturing process, and eventually to reuse parts of the garment that get worn out.
More thought has to be put into the fast fashion part of the equation -- consumers (moreso women than men for clothing) want a large variety of options, and if they can get them at the cheapest prices, why not? There either needs to be a shift culturally (maybe look at how organic foods became prevalent at super markets) or through some sort of regulation (not ideal).
if any hner's want to talk more about these issues, please email me!
You mean the UNEP report? It provides the fact, but no source. I trust the UN, but I would appreciate knowing how the number is bigger than flying and shipping. That's pretty remarkable, no?
If you're a man you can immediately stop contributing to this by opting out of fashion and buying high quality garments that will last you a decade or more. Buy handmade shoes that are worth resoling. Buy shirts and only wash them when necessary. Stop wearing printed t-shirts that degrade quickly. Don't wash your trousers.
I'm surprised there's no viable business model in just renting clothes at this point. I know there's "Rent the Runway" for women, though unsure if their customers are renting the majority of their clothes or just using them to rent one off pieces for special events.
The problem with carbon footprintting is that it suffers from a variation of the coastline paradox. It's impossible to meaningfully determine the carbon footprint of a t-shirt, for example, because you can also find another level of externality.
From TFA: "Many of those fibers are polyester, a plastic found in an estimated 60% of garments. Producing polyester releases two to three times more carbon emissions than cotton, and polyester does not break down in the ocean."
I'm not sure if it is more the consumers or the producers driving it, but it's almost impossible now to find actual 100% cotton clothing., at least in the US. It seems that an entire generation or mor literally does not know what genuine cotton jeans feel like.
Article shames cotton also.
"It takes about 700 gallons of water to produce one cotton shirt. That's enough water for one person to drink at least eight cups per day for three-and-a-half years."
My grief with the article is it hypes things and doesn't give very good context. It feels like it is cherry picking the worst examples.
Research is already being done to grow cotton using less water. This is the sort of solution that works.
100% cotton is difficult to find and finding good quality 100% cotton shirts is even more difficult. For Jeans, the original Levi's 501 blues is 100% cotton denim, many of the new styles are blends.
either Patagonia or The Gap (maybe both) did an environmental impact analysis in the late '90's and were surprised to discover that cotton had the biggest negative impact. I don't recall the exact reason or numbers but it sounds like someone needs to do another analysis on total cost of production for each material.
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 consumer's dream world out there, baby.
And we can't seem to get enough.
Storage units weren't even a thing 75 years ago. Now they're ubiquitous.
The idea of paying rent to store things you'd never use to our grandparents was insanity. (It still is imho).
I'm going thrifting right now, actually.
To everybody else in the world, if you could take a break from buying more brand new clothing, to consider why you might not need to buy more brand new clothing, we would all be a lot better off imho.