I say we solve the problem by walking around naked. As a registered, elected Democrat, please spare me. This borders on absurd. What’s next? Let’s give up eating. Now there an idea. No waste on canning, plastic ware, washing dishes, dishwashers, emissions from trucks delivering food- need I go on?
16
So many people foolishly, narcissistically, and erroneously think of humans as the dominant creature on the planet. That distinction goes to the beetle.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150211-whats-the-most-dominant-life-form
This is their world and we can't do a thing to change that. We will never damage the planet enough to eliminate beetles. To them, we're nothing. Soon enough the planet will handle the mess humans have made of things by our compulsive need to "tame" and "conquer" nature. We will be gone. The life forms that live in harmony with the planet will remain. Our efforts to "save the planet" are mere egotism.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
11
One idea: the NY Times could get rid of its fashion section and stop promoting the idiotic and wasteful fashion industry, encouraging us all to think we can live like the wasteful rich.
Hello, NYTimes?
42
Thousands of gallons of water to make a T-shirt! Seems like a great starting point for the industry and us as individual consumers. What's the source of the water and is it sustainable. And recognize a smile or greeting is always far more impressive than what we're wearing.
2
Oh good, now I can pair my eco-conscience with proudly wearing nothing wherever I go. Whee!
6
This is as about a real problem as Trump retweeting the photoshopped dog picture. Are we supposed to be a naked society?
9
In the interest of saving the planet I'd like to suggest that the NY Times stop publishing its Thursday Style section immediately.
31
If you could purchase good quality for a decent price, then people could keep clothing longer., I have clothing in my closet that is 15 years old. I wear my socks until they are worn through. I have exactly 2 pairs of dressy pants - I'm retired. I take care of my elderly mother. I don't need fashion. That being said, this article is the kind of thing that is, well, elitist. I doubt the people buying $10 blouses at Walmart are doing so because they prefer them to Eileen Fisher. It's because it's what they can afford.
30
The article is helpful in many ways. I heard the author say I have a responsibility , the industry has a responsibility, and she seemed to be reminding us, the reader, there is much more to be done. Cline pointed out a variety of ways how clothing impacts climate change. I think there is a need for us all, consumers, politicians and the industry to be more thoughtful, learn ways to reduce the impact on climate and reuse what we can. Look forward to reading her new book.
7
I have at least two politically active female friends who buy their clothing secondhand to counteract part of this problem. One is a state legislator in the northeast and also an environmentalist who specializes in rivers.
For the rest of us, one approach is to launder some items less often. Most adults can get more than one wearing out of skirts, slacks/jeans and nightclothes. Or, I guess we could start nudist camps.
6
Slow day in the opinion department, huh?
10
I have been shopping resale and consignment for over 40 years. Many of the items I've gotten are either new, still with their tags, or like new. I also learned how to sew in school and made some of my own clothes back then, and try to repair as much as possible before replacing. I've always believed in buying quality -- even if it meant paying a bit more, buying less or fewer pieces -- and sticking with classic clothing that never goes out of style and buying for keeps. That's not to say that I've never gotten rid of anything. I have, and I usually sell via resale, Ebay or donate. Nothing goes in the garbage. #sustainableliving #payitforward
12
Our throwaway culture will kill us. It’s not just clothing—it’s computers, phones, household items, the list is endless. I’ve lived in the US for over 20 years, and I think I’ve had 5 or 6 vacuum cleaners die (I was never able to afford Miele; now we just have wood floors). My parents in Iceland still own their 40 year old Nilfisk vacuum cleaner. It probably doesn’t have fancy filters, but when it comes to sucking up dust, it works fine.
16
This is the stupidest article i have read in a while on NYT. Do you want us all to go naked or something? Dont think you will like that result. :P Clothes are representation of the individuality of each person and is so ingrained into human society that it will never not be.
7
Are you alive? Then You're Part of the Problem. Duh!
14
Consumption is another form of addiction. Stop buying more shoes when you already own a hundred pairs. Stop buying clothes you plan to wear only once. Instagram culture has made every Dick and Jane fashionistas.
13
@Sadie: What?!?! Stop buying? You want to crash the economy or something? Did PUTIN put you up to this? ;)
(But seriously, it is not merely Instagram. In the 1970s my mother owned a rather famous New York City store that resold designer clothing worn only once by women to whom the greatest sin in life was getting seen in the same outfit twice, so I do get your point. What a species we are!)
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
7
The left/Dem politicians don't mention clothing when they trot out their bizarre ideas regarding "climate change", as targeting clothing will not get them a single vote. Ah, but when the left vilifies beyond evil "big oil" now that gets the wacko/left tree huggers in a big time tizzy! It's all about the votes, common sense and facts be damned! This same concept goes for taxing those evil rich and "big corporations" to pay for "free" health care for all, free education for all, free everything for everybody! Trillions upon trillions of taxes sounds great to the countless in the left who love class warfare--it is all pie in the sky nonsense strictly for the ignorant and their votes.
3
You know, people who toss around words like wacko and tree huggers are usually the wacko ones. Try a little reason and restraint and people might listen to you a little more. Denying the effects of greenhouse gases on climate change is kind of wacko and oil rig hugging.
12
And the number one problem we will never talk about is that there are too many people and growing. In the sixties people like the Ehrlichs, Rachel Carson, Club of Rome and Norman Borlaug were all warning us about the dangers of overpopulation, and that was when there were only three billion of us; if we had listened and done what was needed to be done and humanity was currently approaching four billion instead of eight, climate change would be distant blip on our radar, the Gulf Spill, fracking and the development of Canada’s tar sands would not have happened because we would not be that hard up for oil yet, and the word Anthropocene would not have been coined to label mankind driving all other species to extinction.
This wouldn't even be a problem if we were approaching four instead of eight billion.
15
There are so many comments here about bygone days when people (well, women anyway) would darn socks, mend frayed hems, hand wash and hang dry clothing (and cook everything from scratch after daily market runs by bus using knitted bags). That's all lovely and undeniably eco-friendly, but largely unattainable in 2019. My spouse and I both work full time so our kids can have healthy food, health insurance and a college education. Our house is no bigger than the one I grew up in (modest), although it cost probably 2-3x as much after inflation. With work, dinner and homework supervision when are people supposed to mend and hand wash clothing? I'm also happy to take hand-me-downs for my kids, but with most family and many friends far away (we spread out to find good jobs) they're not enough to cover all our needs.
Most people (no, not all) probably shop fast fashion because they're rushed and spread thin financially, not because they're wasteful, lazy or don't care about the environment. Until people have the time and disposable income to buy and maintain fewer, more green, higher quality clothing items they'll continue to buy what's cheapest/easiest (not just clothing). Living in the US is not conducive to long-term thinking/action when meeting immediate needs always feels so tenuous due to a thin, hole-riddled social safety net, stagnant wage growth and live-to-work instead of work-to-live cultural expectations. And we're spreading this culture globally.
8
@TMBM
In the time you typed that comment you could've darned a sock or sewn up a tear in another garment.
9
It seems many commenters have happened upon a great solution: going naked. You know, public indecency laws can be repealed! I'm all for making the clothing industry more green, but we shouldn't need to wear clothes in warm weather anyways. The fact that that seems so crazy is not a product of biology, but of the cultural history of America, with the Victorian and Puritanical prudishness being passed down to us over the centuries.
3
wouldn't i love to do my laundry and hang it on a line to dry.... but unfortunately, all the old clothes lines between buildings and on the roof have been declared hazardous and dangerous by the NY Fire Department... so what other choice do i have? i live in an old apartment building and we arent' allowed washing machines in our apartments... i'm luck to have 2 machines in my building but hauling even two loads of we laundry up four flights of stairs (yes there are still buildings without elevators -- many many of them) and then find some place in my apartment to dry them is the very definitions of insanity. i do almost all my clothes shopping at thrift stores, and even buy second hand shoes and coats, but i have to draw the line at something ... washing in cold water (although not exactly perfectly hygenic) and foregoing dyes in my washing detergent is easy and doable, and i'm happy to do so. wet clothes and no clothes lines are not easy and require more ironing than clothes dried in a dryer, thereby using more electricity.
5
Elizabeth Warren should propose shuttering the malls an requiring a government permit to buy socks and underwear. If you want a new coat, you show the old one to a government commissar who will determine if it’s sufficiently worn. Rationing coupons could limit shoe purchases to one pair each year.
8
Or just stop wearing them when it isn't necessary like when it's cold.
1
OK, I'll go naked. No, seriously, the problem is overpopulation!
9
The main thing we can do is to buy less clothing to begin with. Most of us have closets stuffed with things we hardly wear. I fully admit I buy clothing because its fun to wear something new and not because I actually need it, but I have been trying to drastically cut down.
When you do buy, pay more for it as it will last longer. Its likely cheaper to buy 1 $50 shirt that will last a few years than 5 $10 shirts that will fall apart after a few wears.
I stopped buying polyester/acrylic/nylon and even most rayon a while ago because the things feel horrible on the body and trap sweat, way before I became aware of how they contribute to micro-plastics. But yes, cotton also takes a lot of resources to produce.
Just buy less.
5
I buy most of my clothes at Goodwill and rarely wash them. Thanks for making me feel good about my choices.
3
Do us a favor and keep clean.
5
Look at the quality of clothes today; they are cheaply made with cheap materials. Top that with using dryers on high heat, which basically fry the fabrics and over time, the garment becomes thin, or shrink and lose color. Fashion is also the culprit: Every season it's a new "thing" which helps this perpetual cycle of waste. Perhaps in the future, 3D-printing can help quell this thirst we have for the next big thing by designing fashion that custom-made and using materials that are bio-degradable.
1
A much bigger and significant impact would be to cut back and eliminate factory-farms, specifically those slaughtering cattle, pigs and chickens for meat consumption. It would reduce greenhouse gases, water and land pollution and by eliminating meats from people's diets would make them much healthier. If you actually care about yourself and the planet, it's an easy change to make.
2
It's also bad to eat food. Any kind of food. Even veggies. Those avocados shipped from Cali -- or oranges from FL...
so don't eat. Save the planet.
9
Longevity/Lower footprint that has worked for for me: 1. Buy Used 2. Repurpose 3. Use until shredded 4. High quality (esp T-Shirts) 5.Donate to orgs that recycle fabric they dont sell/use 6. BUY HEMP AND BAMBOO clothing. They have lasted far longer plus have radically lower production imprints. Good to know H&M recycles. Sometimes it is all I can afford for new items. 7.Buy Less
4
Clothing used to last decades, and if your weight didn't fluctuate, you could just rotate them back into your wardrobe when the fashions rotated back in style. The clothing sold over the last decade and more has no quality. Even 'high end' stores sell junk now. Materials are synthetic, clothes don't hold their shape, and who knows what is in the dyes. Like appliances and just about everything, stuff from China and Vietnam are junk.
5
@Ma "if your weight didn't fluctuate"
This is one of the largest obstacles. 2/3 of USA's population is either overweight or obese, and people are growing larger every day. Most people gain weight over the decades so all of these commentators claiming that they "wear the same clothes as in high school" and have clothing that are decades old that still fit are a small minority of our population. Additionally, this is happening in all the developed world, and a lot in the semi developing countries too.
4
This story put me in mind of a NY Times feature story published last month: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/travel/kihnu-estonia-women-unesco-folk-culture-tourism.html
I think of the thousands of dollars the women in my family spend on fashions designed to be outdated in a year or so. We donate boxes and boxes of such clothing on a regular basis to a charity that either re-sells them, or reuses them as rags. We really must make better choices as a family.
4
This is why plastic shopping bags are SO much greener than cotton bags.....
4
Like all other impacts on the environment, Isn't really just the sheer numbers involved, aka overpopulation?
8
Americans think that they are clean.
They are the worst polluters. They consume double the energy of a European, per capita. The carbon foot print of the USA is the highest by far in the world.
4 times heavier than Europe per capita.
Americans use far more plastic than any other industrialized nation ( 5 times more. ) ,they eat in plastic everyday. And they recycle almost nothing.
Only 7 % of plastic is recycled in the USA .
In Germany 40 % of plastic is recycled.
3
Fine! Don't wear clothes and get arrested for indecent exposure or only live to forty like they did in the days of tribalism in the pre-history of New Zealand. Sensible people wear clothes and live twice as long as people did in the days of tribalism. Try living without clothes and see how long you live! Your choice!
4
Oh, for heaven's sake. I am so tired of shaming the everyday person via articles like this one, when everyone knows the problem is much farther up the line--the practices of the 1% and the corporations.
If you're mostly wearing used clothing, as I do (finding used undergarments is generally illegal, so must buy new), then you're not contributing much to the problem. Wear out your clothing then use for rags, or donate it back. It is possible to avoid buying new for 90% of what you wear.
Do your laundry in cold water with vinegar and borax or washing soda. Those are eco friendly, for the most part.
4
Reminds me of a short Smothers Brothers routine about who was running the country (and now the world?) into the ground - it wasn't those whose wardrobe was modest, oh, no - it was those fashionable toffs with closets full of clothes - wait for it: the "more ons".
4
Yep! We should all go naked or only wear leaves and grass clothing. That should do the trick—unless you have to deal with winter weather... No more laundry products, washers and dryers.
Sorry, Maytag repairmen.
3
"Wear Clothes ? Then You're Part of the Problem "
I'd have a much bigger problem if I walked outdoors without clothing, such as being arrested for indecent exposure !!
2
wow. I read the headline and thought, "finally, the Times has gotten hip to the ridiculous absurdity of virtue-signaling cancel culture. I thought the headline was ironic along the lines of "breathe air? then you're part of the part of the problem."
but you guys are serious! I love it.
the next logical step is euthanizing half of humanity to save the planet, right? we're already on it, I figure . . .
8
There are not many fashionistas here at 46.5* latitude. Our average temperatures in Fahrenheit the next 5 months are 29, 13, 6, 13 and 26. Practical, warm clothes are needed.
4
I am all for wearing less clothes. There is a prevailing prudishness in modern society that is not only impractical, but now it's harmful for the environment. Therefore, let's ditch wool suits in favor of shorts and tank tops. Wearing sandals would mean no socks to buy and wash. Who cares if people are walking around Manhattan shirtless in the middle of summer?
1
There should be a strict state wide quality control standards that will require manufacturers to produce long lasting products. Garments should be tested for shrinkage, color bleed and durability. Such standards will force manufacturers to produce less and better quality products. It will raise prices of clothing but it will discourage consumers addiction to buy disposable cheap pollutants. Strict regulations demanding that retailers such as Uniqlo, H & M, Nike, JCPenny KMart, Walmart, GAP, Banana Republic, Lululemon, Zara, TJMax, etc. etc. comply with accurate care labels standards and include the warning such: “This garment is petroleum based synthetic” and lycra garments like pants, leggings, undergarments etc. will state how many washing and drying cycles it can endure.
Second hand shops are great but soon you will see big box selling “second hand” or “recycled” clothing which are new products made look old just as they constantly produce new stuff for discount shops like the Dollar store, and TJMax. On line Chinese retailers such as AliExpress or Alibaba are increasingly dumping cheap synthetic products into our lap. Custom and US Postal services are not doing their job on supervising those overseas packages and no import taxes are collected on such imports.
2
Here at 45 degrees North latitude, trendy T-shirts with appropriately catchy sayings are a seasonal item.
Here sensible people dress for the seasons so clothes for each season tend to last a long time. For example, finally threw out a 10 year old flannel shirt made in Thailand -- holes everywhere and paper thin. Completely clear conscious.
Too many people is part of the problem. As a step in the correct direction, the NYT might consider getting rid of the Fashion Section.
4
I wear my clothes for 5-10 years, wash at 40°C, only air-dry. I'm not even doing that out of a special environmentalist attitude. I just don't know why I should spend more money on new stuff if the old stuff is still good. Or buy a tumble dryer when air is free.
But of course, if everyone did that, there'd be huge disruptions, tens of millions worldwide will be out of work. And women, including or even especially liberal women, are probably not more likely to give up their fashion obsessions than redneck Republicans are willing to give up their gas-guzzling SUV's.
2
Buy cotton. No, don't buy cotton. Buy wool. No, don't buy wool. Buy synthetics. No, don't buy synthetics.
Get off my back, all of you. No matter what I do, no matter which way I turn, someone is lecturing me that everything I do, every place I go, every thing I buy, is evil, Evil, EVIL!
Knock it off! No matter what I do, you're convinced it's wrong. I'm convinced you're all wrong instead. And then I suppose it's my moral obligation to starve myself to death while I'm at it? Unless I go about my day naked, barefoot and hungry, walking about Manhattan in nothing more than what my mama gave me, you'll never, ever be satisfied.
10
I advocate going back to loin cloths. I'd love to see society and our political leaders roaming about so. Imagine Trump or Mitch parading around in such attire. We might even curb the obesity issue and solve the problem with concealed weapons.
7
Have babies, then you're really part of the problem. Overpopulation is the mother of all environmental problems.
13
Stay focused on the big contributors.
I'm not buying or reading your book.
2
Lots of statements, no studies or facts behind your opinion.
2
Dear bloggers: You do realize that the Times publishes a Style Section every Thursday? How else are we going to know what to wear in 2020?
7
The problem with the environmental costs of wearing clothes will solve itself when increased global warming results in people wearing fewer and fewer clothes until we all go back to just wearing loin cloths.
1
I think it's "great" that all the pop-up adverts for this article, all promoted by the NY Times, are for clothing, women's clothing in particular. The algorithm seems to be if you click on an article about clothing, you must be a woman, therefore we will show you ads about women's clothes.
4
Are we allowed to look frumpy? Original? Patched? Or must everything always seem new, pressed, pristine, fresh-off-the-rack perfect?
3
The top of page ad on this story is for women's coats and gloves, and not the kind you find at Target. How apropos..
2
Sorry, but the fact that half the comments (and several NYT Picks) are claiming "overpopulation is the problem" are extremely troubling. The myth that overpopulation is the biggest contributor to climate change is deeply rooted in racism and xenophobia, as well as disdain for the lower class, and in fact, environmentalists in the 70's actually advocated for eugenics in response to "overpopulation". Google William Vogt. This is why we're currently seeing (in 2019!!! For real!) indigenous Canadian women undergoing forced sterilizations - population control, typically enacted involuntarily to the people who go through it.
Overpopulation killing the Earth is a myth invented by racist environmentalists to justify genocides to "save the planet" (further their own racist agendas). Please don't give them the platform they want.
2
Merino wool!
Just like "flight shaming", we need to "clothes shame" people!!!
3
Eat it up, wear it out!
1
It's hard to believe that this article could be written without mentioning Patagonia - this article reads like one of their catalogs from 10 years ago.
2
Except for panties and socks, I only buy used clothes at thrift shops and on ebay. When I can't use them anymore, I donate them to an agency that gives them to the mentally ill.
Most used clothes end up in Africa, where they are used to build dwellings.
Boycott new clothes.
2
Maybe place this article in the Style section.
4
@Exile In
You win the thread.
Nonsense.
The one and only biological DNA genetic evolutionary fit human race species began in Africa 300,000 years ago.
That was and still is the environment that our nature is best fit for. But for clothes and changing skin tones we would die of the cold or the lack of Vitamin D and damaging mutations from solar radiation at differing altitudes and latitudes.
We naturally clothed ourselves by animal and plant byproducts until we developed unnatural fabrics and products by science and technology
But our clothing is a trivial pursuit in the climate change struggle. Except for how it will change our fashion.
If only that snake aka Satan hadn't taught Adam and Eve to be ashamed of and aware of their nudity in the Garden of Eden then we wouldn't even be in this predicament.
On the other hand perhaps this is a cause and campaign for Trump Third Wife and First Mannequin the Slovenian American Melania Knavs Trump.
Melania famously posed for nude 'art' photos while illegally working in America. And she loves to send messages and signals via her clothing instead of in her naturally broken American English.
1
If you breathe you are part of the problem.
You are a carbon footprint.
So like many luddites you want us to go back to pounding our clothes on a rock and air drying on clotheslines.
Seriously? The malthusians among us are clueless to the possibilities of technological advancement.
Your whining includes cotton clothing requiring thousands of gallons of water and that rayon shirt may have come from a plant!!!? So let's go back to trapping beaver? Unfortunately like most environmentalists you are not happy with any solution, no natural fibers, no man made fibers, no animals and god forbidden no amazon trees dragged to the garment district.. What about shearing wool? No those sheep or shearers may be flatulent. So we are back to my first statement, to save the world for our kids we must all die unsheltered, unclothed, unheated...except by ?
3
Spare me. This is rank silliness. I can’t believe the author got op-ed space on the NYT site to spread her silly views.
This is something a 10yo might have cooked up. It's earnest, it’s preachy, and it’s self-righteous, it blames the olds, so it has to be right, right? Why do I think the author got way too many participation trophies in school? Why is this an op-ed piece in the most valuable piece of journalism?
Okay, author. I wear cotton clothes. I machine-wash them, even. I air-dry some clothes (I don’t have a lot of clothes) but that’s because a dryer would ruin some of them. I’ve been buying second-hand clothes from eBay forever, but at the rate of one cardigan a year or every two years. I hope that’s the correct pace for the author’s heart problem.
As for Nancy’s six-year-old Max Mara coat, I’m speechless. I have a couple of jackets in my closet that make that coat look like a newborn. I take it I am hearing from a newb who thinks that anything six years old is, like, vintage.
6
The solution here is obvious .... go nude!
Order deliveries from Amazon? You're part of the problem.
Have food driven to your door? Ypotp.
Use Uber to get around town? Ypotp.
Fly anywhere? Ypotp.
Use devices requiring lithium? Ypotp.
Buy strawberries in plastic cases? Ypotp.
Hey, this's pretty easy.
3
"Wear Clothes ? Then you're part of the problem ."
Shall I presume that the author is a nudist ?
3
let’s see...
driving car
heating home
washing hair
having children
wearing clothes
just adding this shame du jour to the 1001 other shamed human activities per climate mafioso.
wouldn’t they be happier if we all just committed mass suicide?
2
Thanks, Ms. Cline, for educational and inspiring article—but which Republicans can you cite by name and location who are talking about climate change and problem solving??????? That is a jarring and unverified assertion, undercutting the power of your article by a fifth to me. Please cite asap
Hey Liz, do you charge your phone, tablet and laptop regularly?
2
Two words: population control.
3
Well, then, off to the nudist colony for me!
1
Buy things that last 20 years! and if you really want to stop human caused climate change STOP FLYING! and for gods sakes make "cruises" illegal.....your Tesla does NOT make you green.
3
Here's a thought....buy Amish.
3
Are these numbers being fact checked? Is this a sub plot to Zoolander 3? Is Mugatu behind this?
4
And if you breathe air, you’re part of the problem. 🙄
4
Unless Ms Cline wrote this article stark naked then she part of the problem too.
3
It's time to legalize public nudity.
3
If you REALLY cared about the environment you would cease pouring carbon dioxide and methane into the air every day; you would stop hoarding all the nitrogen, phosphorus and other precious resources uselessly locked away in the proteins and DNA of your body. Someone as supposedly dedicated to the cause as you profess to be should compost themselves IMMEDIATELY.
Think about it, we would save all the energy that it takes to put your ‘Qu'ils mangent de la brioche’, self-congratulatory, first-world solutions to global crises into the digital aether and ‘God Forbid!’ tree-murdering print.
Most of the working world is trying to survive while ambulatory wastes of precious nutrients like yourself have the luxury to scold and pontificate about the bare essentials of their lives.
Having your petty, precious, posse wear (GASP) six year-old Max Mara coats is NOT going to change ANYTHING!!
Until you sit down and have a plate of store-brand beans with folks who are scraping by in public housing to chat about what really matters, you should probably hold off on demonizing the fluff and fold and maybe do something TRULY useful like getting on with that self-composting thing. The benefits would be two fold, there would be one less source of myopic Op-Ed articles in The Times and more nitrogen in the soil to grow food for the rest of us. WIN-WIN.
2
It is sad how disturbed and obsessed so many of you are with your concerns about your own footprint on this planet. You have been duped and turned into neurotic and irrational people.
3
Nudity, we are a warm climate species
1
Oh Please...
It is in the high 30s (F) here and people who try to dispense with clothes freeze... at least until they are taken into custody for public nudity.
I have been wearing the same cotton tee shirt for 22 years now.
I am part of the solution.
4
Bully for you all. Become vegans, wear barrels, don't have children. Humans are the scourge of the earth. We have no right to be here, esp those of European descent inhabiting North America like an invasive species. Sorry for living.
No thank you.
5
So.... this is the sort of piece that made me cancel my Times subscription to begin with, and you'll probably lose me again when this year is up. It's important to recognize the impact of certain industries and to find a way to produce clothing (for instance) with less damage, but really, NYT, this was a clickbait headline and you should be ashamed of yourselves for starting to sound like Fox Non-News.
7
I disagree. There are some readers who don’t fully understand the impact of their clothing choices, and these kinds of articles can be educational especially if shared widely. I do agree that the clothing manufacturers and their supply chains need to change, but what will motivate them to change? We can’t wait for government regulations in the US, so a consumer movement is one avenue to create change.
2
Want to recommend two bloggers I follow: Bernadette Banner, an historical clothing buff whose many sewing techniques can be put to use in modern garment construction to make projects last longer and "KarenBritChick" who is a recyler extroidinaire. Both video blogs are fun to watch and have lots of good info and tips. Going to a family wedding soon, will source my top from the "RealReal" make my skirt using some of Bernadette's methods (I'll cheat and use a zipper) and wear a beautiful blouse my sister in law gave me 25 years ago. As they always say "everything old is new again".
4
I do agree with Bob down there. The elephant in the room here is population, but it seems to be off ANY agenda ANYWHERE. It's like it's some kind of taboo and yet we are in fact at critical mass.
Also, I tried to get a list of labels from this pact, and it seems oddly elusive. PRADA? how many people can afford PRADA, GUCCI? So so far, I've got Addidas. Any others that the non 1% can afford?
2
We need Dan, what we seem to have here is, a failure to communicate that there is no or not enough natural selection and catastrophic events — here! We have to bring down the world population in a hurry, but it’s already too late and global warming will take care of us all in the end in a hot rising heap of mass, a mass of humanity Stinking ‘n baking in the sun
Too many people throw a towel or a pair of jeans in the laundry after a single use. Drying a towel or jeans produces 0.1 lb of CO2. If you wear your jeans 6 times, you will save 0.5 lb of CO2 per dry. Four thousand people who adopt this habit will save about 1 ton CO2 per wash or week.
2
Some conscientious entrepreneur needs to make purchasing green(er) clothing (and other goods) as convenient as shopping at popular brick-and-mortar stores. For clothing to be a good value, it needs to fit well and feel good (texture, warmth, breathability) so many people still prefer shopping in person to make these assessments. So if you want to try on up-cycled or rental clothing you have to hunt and peck across multiple boutique shops, if you even have one near you, which no one has time for. If you opt for e-retailers you burn carbon with small-scale shipping and returns.
I would happily pay a modest premium or plan out trips a little further afield to shop at a green mall or eco-conscious department/box store if it meant I could focus my time on finding what I'm looking for rather than trying to decipher from labels whether I'm making a responsible purchase.
2
It would seem that hemp fiber would be a great place to start. It requires water, but not massive amounts. It requires no fertilizers and literally grows like a weed. Iowa has hemp growing everywhere--it's hard to get rid of.
With solar and wind power, we can rid ourselves of a huge part of the problem. Shopping at second hand stores sounds cool, but if no one buys new, there will be no inventory for second hand stores.
6
There's going to be a hemp business in upstate New York, as well, from what I've heard. however, the natural hemp that grew ( per my mom) was obliterated in the 19 20's or 30's. There's wind power in the w=Western part of the State, and solar is beginning to appear. There's an irony: in the early 1900's there were numerous small hydropower producers.
I used to buy clothing and other things in thrift shops until the 1990’s. That’s when items in thrift shops and in low cost clothing stores started to be manufactured in Bangladesh, India etc. they were truly cheaply made and shrunk a size when washed. I remember when India had high quality cotton. Anyone remember the original Madras cloth? Now it’s worse than a dishrag. And this is what’s in thrift shops now, at least in NYC where the “good stuff” is consigned by the wealthy. The middle range stuff is sold by weight to African, Middle Eastern and Easter European countries.
Also people throw away clothing because they don’t know how to sew a button on, mend a hem or seam or wash by hand. Therefore it ends up in the trash. The incinerator room in my building, we have 2 on the floor of 11 apartments, is ceiling high on most days. Filled with packing material for Amazon Prime grocery delivery, pre-prepped meal bubble packaging and Mylar containers. Not to mention clothing and cheap furniture delivery boxes. Some of the paper cartons are recyclable, but not the others.
We are burying ourselves in trash.
6
Americans consume twice more energy than Europeans.
The US carbon foot print is the far away heaviest in the world .
Before Canada.
Double that of China , 4 times more than the European average.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/01/chart-of-the-day-these-countries-have-the-largest-carbon-footprints/
5
This article could do much to be more constructive by offering solutions. Is the author advocating that we become nudists? If not, what are the best clothing options? Is bamboo a better material for clothing? Hemp? What's a good material for a raincoat that's not synthetic, and not sourced in the tropical rainforest? Criticism is easy. Solutions are harder. But it's solutions we need from authors who chose to write such articles.
4
To those suggesting that the problem is the existence of too many people on the planet: Do I hear you volunteering to leave? Ah, I didn't think so. You just want other people to hurry up and go, is that it?
Our founding fathers wrote about rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." There's nothing those documents about thinning the herd so that I can consume more stuff.
@pat No, I think the the idea is to encourage people to have fewer children.
4
@pat
No one is suggesting that existing people kill themselves. But we don't ned to be adding 130 million more per year.
It is long past time for a new paradigm of a life filled with work, creativity, altruism vs mindless mating and breeding.
Do you really want a planet where majestic species are edged out by millions more waddling Walmart shoppers every year?
3
I don't think anyone is suggesting "thinning the herd" as a way to control population. We need to think long range... free access to birth control and raising the status of women worldwide would be good steps.
6
I agree that the wear and toss of fashion needs to change, but I am constantly amazed that the real problem is almost never addressed, and that problem is over-population.
4
@christine - Over-population is oft-discussed and it's a Yuge problem. However, it's only one side of a two-sided coin, with over-consumption being the other side.
The peeps born in high-population growth countries in sub-Saharan Africa, the ME, the Indian sub-continent, consume very little, in global terms. Dramatically cutting population growth in Bangladesh, for example, would have little impact on global resource consumption.
Globally, 20% of people (including almost everybody in the US) consume 80% of resources. Rather than pointing blaming fingers at the over-population countries, we'd be better served to reduce our own over-consumption, and gross WASTE of resources.
4
Three points:
1) Clothing seemed to be vastly more expensive. A pair of branded blue jeans used to cost a month’s pay.
2) Shopping appears to be a form of entertainment. Something to do and a place to go for the bored and restless.
3) There are certain stores, Home Goods, Bed Bath Beyond etc, that appear to only a temporary holding place before the landfill. - Vast acres of cheap useless or marginally functional goods could go straight from the ship terminals to the dump.
8
@Macbloom Towels? Sheets? Kitchen tools? Curtains? Shower curtains? Let me guess: Macbloom is a guy?
1
I love clothes and fashion. I love style and I love what I love. I shop on eBay, sample sales and postmark. I also love kid's hand me downs. I've been exchanging kids clothes with friends now for 10 years. They rarely get anything 'new', & when they do, it's from a second hand shop. With the exception of socks, tights and underwear, I hardly need to purchase a thing. I wash in no fragrance detergent and air dry most clothes. When I'm done, Kids Consignment will take 90% of my designer things. It's not hard. The rest are donated to Goodwill, given to ThreadUP or are Upcycled.
5
I saw on a Patagonia ad for a synthetic down "puff" jacket removed 2,156,127 plastic bottles from the waste stream. Impressive? Well, not really when over 3,000,000 plastic water bottles hit the waste stream daily in this country alone.
I buy jeans at Goodwill or the Goodwill bins; where I pay by the lb. We also buy used gear and samples from other retailers. I'm of the age that I wear what is comfortable, fashion or not. If I'm defined by what I wear rather than who I am, 1)this country is in deep trouble, and 2) now I know why Trump was elected; shallow empty people.
3
I am squarely in a “fashion demographic” (cares about style, 35 yo f, no kids) but have also been trying to buy (lovely and discounted) gently used clothes and wearing the heck outta what I have before replacing (or re-purposing: bra straps work great for cord keepers as many goodwill-type places won’t accept certain items). Though, it’s not enough and I wish everyone would do better in this regard...I hope some folks won’t just throw up their hands in defeat. People must do what they can and perfection must not be an obstacle to progress.
3
I saw on a Patagonia ad for a synthetic down "puff" jacket removed 2,156,127 plastic bottles from the waste stream. Impressive? Well, not really when over 3,000,000 plastic water bottles hit the waste stream daily in this country alone.
I buy jeans at Goodwill or the Goodwill bins; where I pay by the lb. We also buy used gear and samples from other retailers. I'm of the age that I wear what is comfortable, fashion or not. If I'm defined by what I wear rather than who I am, 1)this country is in deep trouble, and 2) now I know why Trump was elected; shallow empty people.
Any solution to clothing production exacerbated pollution begins at a nuclear power plant. Unlike current solar&wind-so called "green" power; nuclear plants get built once, in one spot, and stay there. Not strung out by thousaands in a like always half being serviced. Nuclear feeds high voltage AC power,(go see "Current wars" if you don't know what AC v.DC is), and reactors get more productive and longer lived as time passes. All our U238,(uranium) comes from mines. Not easy to mine, yet, once we have uranium,we don't need much. It makes a million plus times the power of hydrocarbons-in a microspic amount of space. A plant lasts for at least 100 years. When unwanted- bury it. Mountain top removal not needed.
Nuclear produces 20% of US- electricity ! France gets 80% of electricity from nuclear.
But thermonuclear people say: "screw nukes"! In " ten more years". They say ,we'll have limitless ,clean thermo nuclear power! But, thermo nuclear is ALWAYS "Just ten more years" away." and its now been 70 years. . .
Nuclear is cleaner and safer than sun orwind power. it runs 24/7. The100 kilo or so can of annual pollutants, per plant, can be buried in deep caves, and left until we HAVE thermonuclear. Then we can leave, or reprocess it, and close the plants. But We need clean, safe, efficacious nuclear energy NOW! Solar is still more plastic to be discarded, and for decades.
"We can choose remanufactured and upcycled apparel like those on offer from Eileen Fisher and Converse."
Yes, choose Eileen Fisher, if you can spend $100 on a tee shirt. And what about the rest of us, dear author?
4
Lets face it, humans are a plague on the planet and almost everything we do damages it in some way. But, as a nudist, the clothing issue would seem to have an obvious solution in moderate climates......
4
In winter a Buddhist
In summer a Nudist
Enjoy all the clothing free recreation you can with like minded people.
3
@Richard -
"In winter a Buddhist
In summer a Nudist"
Would not work so well for a christian prudist?
2
Stop eating avocados.
I think it’s really absurd to say I’m doing something wrong by wearing clothes. Yes, there are some good points made in the article. However, clothing is a necessity. The title and concluding paragraph of the article smell of clickbait, and actually hurt the author’s argument.
4
Eventually, global warming will make clothing unnecessary.
2
So the planet-friendly option is leather.
Doesn't need to be washed —ever. Just hang it in the bathroom while you shower to lightly steam.
1
Just make it legal to go all nude all the time.
2
@BB - YeahBut, 40% of American adults are obese. Maybe we should give this plan a little more thought?
1
How does this article not mention Patagonia??!!?? They are the ONLY company doing what needs to be done to fight climate change.
3
No way that website is ranking things properly. Can’t really believe that H&M is better environmentally than Patagonia.
3
Is this for real? Good grief, what's next? Furniture?
6
Naturism is one facet of a plan to sustain human life on our planet.
If it will make Elizabeth Cline feel any better Macys is going to shut down its fur vault and Barneys, the upscale clothing retailer, is going out of business. In other politically correct news New York City Council President Cory Johnson ( who wants to be our next Mayor) decreed that within a couple of years foie gras will no longer be served in upscale restaurants. The reason? Cory Johnson is very upset at how ducks and geese are force fed so their livers will be nice and fat for rich people to enjoy this tasty delicacy.
Enough with the political correctness already. I'm getting real tired of all these green do-gooders dictating what the rest of us should eat and wear.
4
Want to "save the planet"? Then live in harmony with nature like the Kalahari Bushmen. It gets cold? Bundle up. It gets hot? Swelter. Night falls? Live in the dark till morning.
Nothing short of that will suffice.
But it's not going to happen, especially in this country. Americans prize convenience over survival. Well what can we expect from a nation that buys frozen French toast for crying out loud?
There is no way we can maintain "civilization" as we know it - for centuries - without changing the balance of the planetary ecosystem. But that's okay. The planet will, I assure you, take very good care of that threat... permanently.
It's has not even begun.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
4
@Rev. E. M. Camarena, PhD — yes, frozen French toast is part of the problem. But luckily the planet will kill us all, at least according to the “Rev.”, so we can be more like... Mars? Pluto? Venus? You know, those planets without pesky living things.
These people are easily frightened.
Air drying clothes doesn't wear them out. And the air just dries them pretty quickly, the moisture coming off the clothes in the winter is a nice humidifier. You wouldn't believe how so few people do this.
2
@Observer only in America people have forgotten what it’s like to air dry clothes! Even immigrants who come to this country switch over to the American way of drying clothes in a dryer that is an energy gobbler.
1
We are born into the world naked.
It’s just what nature intended.
2
Breathing contributes to the problem...we humans release carbon dioxide into the environment upon exhale. Ms. Cline could choose to write about injustice, poverty, famine, disease, corruption, and many, many other problems, but she writes about our laundry? And the New York Times prints it. I lean liberal, but enough's enough.
2
I don’t get all the whining comments. Just internalize your responsibility, what you personally can do, for climate change. Stop buying things period unless it’s absolutely necessary. When you need to buy something try an app like wallapop that helps you find secondhand. Find creative solutions - It takes effort, but you’re bright, you can do it!
You will impact climate change, reduce clutter in your house, find that happiness comes from within and not from stuff. It’s pretty simple once you get your head wrapped around the idea.
3
Over the past three years, my two co-authors and I have shopped at more than 400 thrift and consignment stores nationwide (and globally) as we researched our book "Thriftstyle: The Ultimate Bargain Shopper's Guide to Smart Fashion." Secondhand stores are overflowing, due to overconsumption, and there are unique, sustainable bargains wherever you live. (Turns out there's a big secondary market in used clothing, so you don't necessarily have to shop in upscale neighborhoods to find quality items.)
No matter the location, as we detail on our blog (thriftstyleblog.com), we have found "NWT (new with tags)" items, handmade garments and high quality, natural fiber items that deserve a second life. Other than underwear, nearly every item of clothing (and shoes, purses, scarves and jewelry) can successfully be thrifted.
Unremarkable thrifted items can be embellished with different trims and buttons, giving you a creative outlet and one-of-a-kind results. If you need help with simple repairs, YouTube videos come to the rescue.
Buying secondhand makes sense aesthetically, environmentally and financially. The old stigmas are falling away. The three of us -- and many others -- have become evangelists for thrifting, upcycling and repurposing. Join us!
3
I'm responsible for a double politically incorrect whammy--I just ordered a couple of pairs of pants through a catalog ( a tree was chopped down to make the catalog) and they'll be arriving in a box (oh no) through either the Postal Service or UPS (which creates more air pollution.)
Trying to toe the line to be "green" is getting out of control. Mondays are a slow news day at the Times.
3
I used to wash my clothes on a weekly basis. I now do it once a month.
People say I stink, but I respond by saying that what stinks a whole lot more is killing the planet.
1
@Josh you sound like my son! When we went to pick him up at the end of his freshman year, I was horrified to see the same sheet (twin x long) we had spread his Mattress with when we dropped him at the beginning of freshman year! Oh boy.
Ms. Cline should come to upstate New York at the end of January and see how she feels about clothing then.
3
Preach much, self-righteous columnist? In my household we already do all these things and wear some clothes that are almost a century old because they're cool. Bet the writer of this article owns more than one residence and lives in rarified luxury in Manhattan, pays far less income tax than I do and has children driven to exclusive schools on a daily basis. So much for environmental correctness, which will obtain once a major catastrophe has visited humanity.
4
"There's too many men, too many people, making too many problems"....Phil Collins about 35 years ago.....
Naturists may be on to something ...
Our clothes are made by people in Southeast Asia earning little and sometimes underage. Let's focus on that.
2
Let's start with all these hypocrite celebrities who can give up on wearing million dollar clothes for their public events. Am sure they can afford to care for their climate more than they care about 'who wore the best dress or suit'
2
Breath? Eat? Then you’re part of the problem, too.
1
stop buying useless stuff as lousy holiday "gifts". we donate these but we're not going to reciprocate gift giving of stuff not needed or wanted.
I thought turning off lights once a year offsets 20k square foot houses, private jets, endless clothes, etc. At least that's what Giselle says....
3
Eye opening. Thank you.
1
At first I was thinking that this article was quite frivolous and then I started reading the comments and making some comments of my own. This has been very engaging. I don't know what other readers are seeing along with this article but I am seeing advertisements from two companies for....... . . . .wait for it
. . . ........ new clothes!
I find this entertaining in an ironic kind of way!
Cheers.
Sleep naked, and then you don't have to worry about washing night clothes.
1
Continued global warming will solve the problem of excess clothing as people will be forced to shed more and more clothes until we're all left wearing nothing but our skivvies.
2
I just learned about the impact of microfibers today at the Vancouver (Canada) Aquarium. Check out this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRM7OxUWXic) and exhibition description (https://www.vanaqua.org/explore/exhibit-oceanplastic).
4
So we should all go naked and just endure the sunburn and chillblains? For pity's sake.
1
Finally a legitimate reason to not do laundry.
58
When we have abundance, humans seem to increase the quantity and decrease the quality of things we buy in proportion to what we can afford.
Look at what people used to wear before mass production (people who were middle income at least). They looked after their things, not just clothes, but other possessions. Today, with fast fashion, and indeed throw-away everything culture; we have exchanged the craft of the artisan for the under-paid factory worker, and wrecking the environment as we do so .
3
In every shopping mall, there seems to be at least five stores dedicated to clothing for women for every one for men. Same thing for the pages in the mail order clothing magazines. Does this imply that in America men wear clothes until they are worn and women wear clothes until they tire of them?
In Europe there are an equal proportion of men’s store to women’s. It’s one of the first things I noticed over here. I think it means U.S. males believe it isn’t masculine to care too much about appearance.
4
I don't own a car and don't have kids, so I'll continue to wash my clothes at whatever temperature, eat the occasional burger, fly a couple times a year and not spend my life living in guilt and shame for every action I take for living in the world I was born into. As unsure as we are about the future, I don't understand how climate change alarmists are all so sure about the future they imagine in a world 2 degrees warmer. Their predictions are as specious as their arguments.
@East of Cicero
How we (the ones you refer to as alarmists in a derogatory manner) are all so sure? Because of robust scientific evidence and prognoses.
Do what you like, but please refrain from painting us as alarmists because it eases your conscience. Simply say: I do not care.
1
@Nora — I like Germany. I’ve flown there a number of times. (Whoops! My bad!)
One easy way to cut back on the clothing industry's contribution to "emissions" is to have fewer clothed people. I'm not proposing nudism, although that could be interesting. I"m suggesting having fewer Homo sapiens on planet Earth.
3
Air drying clothes? What an innovation! Actually, in many communities here in the U.S. the homeowners association doesn't allow a clothes line outside. When I was in Barcelona last Spring I noticed a great many drying racks on the small balconies in the city. Maybe if American's weren't so rushed and dominated by HOA crazies, we'd be able to more sustainably take care of our clothes.
6
Whole countries in Europe are not into clothes dryers. Italy, for one. They do exist in the E.U. — but only ductless models. I like mine. I only use it for towels. Don’t like them hard and scratchy. Europeans don’t mind even that. I never put clothes in the dryer. It ages them.
1
The author, of course, fails to mention the single most obvious solution: buy less stuff, or if you must buy, buy used. "Use it up, wear it out, make do, or do without." Of course, the pillars of capitalism would collapse, and there isn't a single virtue signalling liberal out there willing to walk this talk.
2
@Derek
I know you enjoy smugly scolding "virtue signalling liberals," but I actually have been buying most of my clothes used since I was a teen in the 90s. And setting the washer on cold. And air-drying synthetics and using dryer balls. Believe it or not, a lot of us live by our values.
No mystery why people don’t take climate change seriously. Who wants to listen to the daily harangue about how we’re killing the planet or the constant drumbeat of the approaching apocalypse? Might as well enjoy ourselves if we’re doomed anyway.
2
The need to spend is part of the brainwashing that keeps us all working long hours. Do we really need all of those clothes? That's only part of the issue. Do we really need that gigantic house? The huge SUV? So many Americans are in debt just to frantically keep up with manufactured wants that seem like needs.
Time to ask ourselves who is benefiting from our blind pursuit of status. Not us--not our family life and not our mental health.
1
If wearing clothes is part of the problem, perhaps some degree of nudity could be part of the solution. I believe I have a small proposal for that...
1
Reduce. It's amazing how few clothes you actually need. I have two pairs of jeans, 7 short sleeve shirts, 7 long sleeve, and enough socks and underwear to get through a week, and it's almost all organic, free trade, or made in the USA. And it's high quality and well made. 4 pairs of shoes, mostly vegan. I know not everyone can get away with so little, but I'm pretty sure almost everyone can reduce.
Reuse. Only buy new ones when you absolutely need them. StopShop
Recycle. Take the old stuff to the homeless shelter or Goodwill.
There are three companies I rely on for sustainability and organic fibers and fair labor - Pact, Fair Indigo, and Eileen Fisher. They can be expensive, but when you buy less, you can afford better quality.
5
We wore and still wear vintage in my family... my Mom renamed the Salvation Army, S and A Designs...
2
The primary driver of climate change is over-population. The affluent people you blame have no more than two children, if that, while the underpaid heroes who make the clothes have six or more (except in China).
2
You lost me when you suggested buying more clothing from Eileen Fisher. That is a solution only for wealthy women, who are willing and able to spend hundreds for a tee and cotton pants....
5
@Teresa I agree. Plus (for me personally) I find their shapeless designs unflattering and unappealing.
1
When at home we go naked. We buy all of our clothing in thrift shops and wear the stuff until it is no longer repairable. Our car is a 2004 model with 55000. Our house is all furnished with thrift shop furniture in old Florida style. Our guests love it. The only new things we are always looking for are energy saving appliances. We have reduced water usage by more than half since we bought our house by installing new toilets, smaller shower heads and a new washing machine that uses less water and energy. We collect rain water for our garden and are replacing the grass with Florida native plants. We plant a new tree every year. We use no pesticides nor herbicides so our garden is full of bees, butterflies and birds. We get groceries with just expiring shelf life dates instead of letting them be thrown out. And then there are always new ideas.....
4
My personal solution to this is to buy my clothes second hand whenever I can. Granted, I am a single man living in an unfashionable part of the country but buying used ensures you can buy quality because the real junk has already disintegrated at that point. Many people won't be able to get past the yuck factor but that is what washing clothes is for.
2
There's an obvious solution - at least in warm climates.
Did you know that you can recycle clothes and other textiles at H & M? Old pillowcases, towels, potholders, anything! So if it's too trashed to donate, recycle it at H & M!
Also:
Wash clothes less often
Use eco-friendly versions of detergent pods (check the Environmental Working Group's website for best bets) to eliminate that big plastic bottle
Air dry workout wear, undies and tshirts on a folding rack. Toss larger heavier items over the backs of chairs, the tops of doors (heat rises). Your stuff will last longer. Dryers beat up clothes.
3
@Deborah
Making your own laundry detergent is easy and cheap: grate a basic bar of soap (like Ivory or castile soap). Mix it with equal parts borax and washing soda. It costs about half a box of detergent does, and you only need 2 TB per load, so it lasts forever. Also, much less packaging involved!
2
Also, go vegan. Save 1,800 gallons of water by per pound of beef not eaten.
3
Three words: Too many people. Overpopulation is the source of most of our problems.
1
I would suggest that perhaps we go back to the beginning and wear nothing but fig leafs. However, the obesity problem in America would do nothing but ensure a shortage of fig trees.
2
Ask millennials, why wear clothes? Do we have something we are ashamed of?
1
Pardon me, and I truly don't mean to be impolite, but do liberals ever relax about anything? Is there nothing that isn't within your sights?
Today it's clothing. Today it's clothing manufacture. Tomorrow, it will be 'Thou shalt not wear...'. And soon after, like with PETA warriors, leftists will be spray painting circle/slash symbols on some poor schmuck's cotton sweater or leather jacket.
Of course, this presumes an understanding that this attack (gentle, for now) on clothing isn't really about just its manufacture at all. No, the Left for a long time now is politicizing fashion and style too.
I know. More than a few times over the past few years have I been scorned---by total strangers, yet---for my sartorial habits. My personal favorite: the time one year ago, flying back from Paris, when a 30ish man in Business, he of the warrior-of-the-new-millennium look---tight denim, untucked tee, soldier boots---scoffed and chided me my grey flannels, button-down shirt/tie, blazer and polished loafers. "Why do you dress like that?", he scoffed. Wellm Certainly made my dad.
So that's ultimately, really it, isn't it? The jokey title of this piece should instead read, "Wear [Certain] Clothes"? You're already coming after me for my 'privilege', my skin color and that of my ancestors...and grandchildren, why not the clothes I wear.
In a world where others represent only an annoying abstraction, it's the perfect superficial fix.
2
Next up:
Living on earth? Then You're Part of the Problem.
How humans are starving themselves, eschewing clothes and refusing to leave their unheated and uncooled homes--all to save planet earth!
3
How about celebrities who have lines of clothing and makeup that not only feed fast fashion and unnecessary goods oversupplies, but fuel economic inequality.
1
Did you know that when you breathe, you emit C02 into the atmosphere.
You’re part of the problem. #stopclimatechange
1
New Clothes? All my clothing is used except for underwear.
How about we just bury any human being over the age of 40, as the old ones caused climate change, so we should simply purge them for their troubles.
1
So are Pat Nixon and her Republican cloth coat now heroic?
2
A little googling shows that a dozen eggs take about as much water as a T-Shirt. And a T-Shirt lasts a lot longer.
2
I admit to a clothing and shoes fetish, but I am not at all frivolous or even financially wealthy. I have clothes I've owned and worn for over 25 years. I have hunted for the second boot of a pair of green cowboy boots I've owned since 1993 for the past 7 years. I still haven't given on up on that second boot. I refuse to throw that beautiful single boot "away." I wore the other pair until it literally fell apart. My other clothes are lovely suits, shirts, pants and such, all of which still fit and all of which I still wear.
But let's look at the humans - or mammals - in general. All of us are born and we consume as a matter of course. Is anything the humans touch left better after the humans are finished? Is any ocean, mountain, field or the air we breath better, or worse after we get done with it?
People talk about "Saving the planet," but what they mean is "Saving the planet for humans who not only pollute whatever they come in contact with, but rape, rob, torture, enslave, steal, cheat, embezzle and destroy."
Ask a tiger or an eagle if they'd like to "save the earth" so the human population can go from 7.5 billion to 10 billion, then 20 billion.
Good grief!
2
I do not find headlines like "Wear Clothes? Then You’re Part of the Problem" to be remotely effective or convincing. I want to help with this problem, but the accusatory headline biases me against this article, no matter how useful its contents.
4
Eat beans? You're part of the problem too. Oh for the days when I could let 'er rip and not worry about the consequences!
So, what are we supposed to do, exactly? Wear pelts?
This article is on a par with the “...OK, Boomer...” piece the other day and the “... what are your pronouns pieces from several months back...”. That is to say that they are virtue signaling nonsense.
I wear nothing trendy. Khakis, Oxford cloth, wool sweaters in the winter etc. blue suit for Court. Nothing poly. I try not to buy stuff made in China. I keep stuff for years.
But i am a guy. I sweat. I need 10 sets of underwear. I need many shirts. I have to wash them. What exactly am I supposed to do?
2
Do Leftists ever relax about anything? Is there nothing that isn't within your sights?
So today it's clothing. But you're not attacking just 'clothes', but people's choices; their very style. I've personally come under attack for my sartorial choices, when a fellow Business Class passenger (he, wearing the warrior-of-the-new-millennium uniform: black, skinny jeans, untucked tee; rugged boots) chided me with a scoff and an eyeroll for my grey flannel trousers, button-down shirt and tie, blue blazar, polished loafers. A complete stranger.
So it's not just the manufacture, it's style itself that's under attack. If you appear to be humbled, down-market, and 'warrior', you're good. If you appear to be elitist, "conservative", well-off, traditional, conformist---that's very, very bad.
And it doesn't end with mere social disapproval, does it. Will my old-fashioned "look" cost me my job, my application at the Co-op, my friendships? You're already coming after me for my 'privilege'. You've let it be known that you look down upon my skin color and that of my ancestors...and my grandchildren. As you are making clear, it's ALL politics anymore.
Even that Sunday barbeque hamburger is politically-incorrect. Just what is left, Left? Please. Tell me. What is that makes America the wonderful place to be anymore?
P.S. By the way, people enjoyed wearing cotton because you told us that it was better than the 'plastic' alternative. Which is it to be?
3
1. Clothes made to last are at least three times more expensive than the disposable clothing that has created this issue
2. The people who buy this cheap clothing are mostly those who can’t afford the stuff that lasts, and also do not read NYT—they can’t afford it and don’t have time.
3. Is there anything prissier than liberals lecturing each other in an echo chamber about how to do everything right and shaming those who do it wrong? Shame the corporations who have transformed our society into one where everything is disposable and made trillions in the process. I’m a liberal, but reading these comments, I see how Trump won.
2
Maybe this is off-topic, but maybe not. The virtuous among us will hear this call to non-consumption and environmental-friendly maintenance of what we do wear and treasure. But way more people won’t. So articles like this are well-meaning but more irrelevant than they should be.
What is relevant: I recycle. Everything I know that can be recycled. I spend a lot of time and consideration separating my trash. But every time I throw something into my recycle bin, I wonder where it really goes. The plastic trash in our oceans aren’t just party favors thrown from cruise ships. Until recently we paid China to take our recycled materials. But they stopped taking them and our money. Maybe their consciences got the better of them, because I believe all they were doing was dumping what we carefully separated right into the ocean.
Has the NYT done in-depth research on that previous system, and where recyclables are going now? THAT is the story of this century. It must be continually tracked and on the front page, “above the fold.” The information should be as familiar to Joe Blow as what’s new on Netflix.
5
The Rag business is worth probably billions and it is endless. In fact, the world is mass-producing nothing but rags.
Inside this world, lives the Ivory Tower realm, this is the arena of designers. They need to create the illusion and appeal of wealth and beauty. These are marketed to women, young and old looking for style, savvy, and beauty. We can then look at our princesses to crave "the look". Unfortunately, all is a total lie, it is from beginning to end, still rags.
I've often found it depressing to think that even as the world population continues to expand, and even as there is more awareness than ever about the environmental effects of waste, the amount of waste per person continues to rise.
Sure, it is ultimately the consumer who chooses what to buy, how much to buy and how often to buy (whether we're talking about clothing, toys, electronics, vehicles and so forth) but have you ever noticed there is next to no serious public effort to educate people on the effects of consumerism, and no public effort/incentive for companies to create quality, serviceable goods rather than throwaway products?
The reason is it's only when people buy, buy and buy that rich executives and stockholders increase their wealth ever expanding the income gap. Economists like to encourage spending because "spending creates jobs." The reality is a lot of people are working harder than ever to buy stuff they only think they need.
While I do buy new clothing that fits well, I also buy used clothing, used toys, used furniture and so on. We wear clothing until it shreds and resell our used furniture when it no longer fits our needs.
I teach my children that when we buy used, we are reducing waste and ALSO helping ordinary people rather than enriching the corporations. I also teach "impulse control": if they want something, wait a month or so and if they find they increasingly want that item, we'll talk.
1
For the past two decades, I've limited the total pieces of clothing I own to 50. Many of them are bought at thrift and consignment stores. I own ten pairs of shoes. I only buy when something wears out, which is maybe 3 or 4 times a year. Everything looks nice and coordinates together. I've even received compliments on how well I dress.
Keeping my consumption down has not limited me at all; it has only been freeing. No having to buy much, and not having much to care for and maintain, means I have more time for the things I really want to do. Not only is it good for the environment, but most Americans' lives would be vastly improved it they got off the consumption hamster wheel.
2
Informative article but I do not agree with the “you’re part of the problem” title even if used in jest. That blame-shame mentality really turns people away. Why not “small steps to help” instead? Some of the suggestions are second nature. We have washed in cold water for years and our clothes get clean, and if something needs the clothes dryer I usually take it out before completely dry to hang in the shower to finish drying. When I had a yard decades ago and no washer or dryer, everything was washed in the sink and hung in the yard in summer or near the heater in winter. I have bought almost everything I wear, save undergarments, second hand for decades, everywhere I have lived in my 60-something years. Thrift stores serving transient populations like large universities and military bases sometimes sell formerly expensive, barely worn or even still-with-tag clothing donated when their owners moved. And older garments were much better quality and used less synthetics than today’s made-in-China throwaway “fashion”.
1
@Roberta Ever notice thrift stores aren't as good as they once were? A lot of thrift stores auction off the good brands on Ebay, and where I live, I've been told the resellers learn when shipments arrive and pick off the cream. Twenty years ago, great finds were easy to come by. Not so much anymore.
1
The fact that thrift stores are full of cast-off but still usable clothing depends on huge numbers of people buying and then donating that clothing.
If those doing the buying and donating stop, then we face other problems - we all have to buy new, jobs are lost, even if they are poor ones, more people need assistance. Etc.
Most of society's problems are big and complicated and require big and well-thought-out solutions to effect real change.
Embrace a naturist lifestyle -- that will drastically reduce the need for clothes.
Somebody should make an updated "The Official Preppy Handbook". Those old money wasps would buy well-made clothes that are a classic style. Well, at least back in the day, L.L. Bean made some tough out outdoor wear. Fortunately Duluth Trading came on the scene. Brooks Brothers is still around, and I think The Talbots are too. "Ohh Muffy, we shopped only once, and it was for Christmas"
4
This article is spot on - stop having children. Seriously.
3
Clothing optional is the only way to live! The only way! Good for self, good for planet.
The vast majority of growth in CO2 emissions comes from China and India. Since they have no intent to even begin controlling emissions, slowing the purchase of cheap junk made in foreign countries in the only real leverage that the US has. This applies to clothing, cars, iPhones, televisions, etc. The "Green Revolution" requires that we reduce all economic activity. Feeding the world is perhaps the most CO2 intensive challenge we face. We can only feed the current population because of intensive use of fossil-fuel-based fertilizers and equipment. "Green" power does little to help. Unfortunate when we have the technology to solve the global warming problem, but the new religion of climate change prevents us from doing the needed research.
Gary
1
There is no problem. We are doing fine, and the air and water are cleaner than they have ever been.
The air is bad in some Indian and Chinese cities, but it's still better than it was when people heated and cooked with smoky indoor fires. And it's getting better even there.
1
Stop blaming the individual citizen for the environmental crisis we are in and place the blame where it really belongs--the corporations and governments that not only refuse to acknowledge the problem but actively work to cause more damage to the planet.
3
Buy used. Ok. Let's say I can't find what I want in a local thrift store. I go to Ebay. Then I have to add in the carbon cost of packaging and shipping.
I try to buy all cotton or wool, but as the article points out, cotton t-shirts use gallons of water to manufacture. Wool seems environmentally friendly, but then you add in the processing, and, boom, I'm again a burden on the environment.
And what's with this buy new every year? Granted. I buy when I have to, when I can no longer go out without being slightly embarrassed. I can't believe that this is an issue with most people. I send my Patagonia stuff back to Patagonia for repair (Yay, Patagonia.) There, again, however, we have to factor in the carbon cost of doing this, though I'm guessing that's better than buying new.
In my area, there's one company that recycles fabrics, and I have dropped stuff in their collection boxes. Is that ecologically sound? I hope so. It seems to be at least economically sound, as this company has been around for some time.
That compels me to raise the issue of all recycling. I drop my recycling at my town transfer station. The town employees are on top of what can and can't be recycled, and I've learned that it is essentially market based, and that items accepted for recycling change all the time. Might be a good idea to do a story on that.
Bottom line? I do what I can, and I'm sure many of your readers do as well. It seems, however, that it's just not enough.
6
Clothes have become so cheep now compared to my youth (I’m 66) that they’ve become ubiquitous. I have far more clothes than maybe a half dozen or more people would need, I admit. I’ve come to value natural fibers and I’ve become a Good Will junkie too, I’ll also admit.
1
Great points. The term “fast fashion” comes to mind; majorly promoted by stores like Forever 21 — who at one point had amassed millions off the wallets of Fashionistas — but is now on the verge of closing multiple stores. I agree that the fashion industry, with the “what’s in this season” mindset has a huge responsibility. But with millions of “filled” storage units (another concept amassing millions) across the U.S., — and the overwhelming influence of Instagram-worthy-looks —will conspicuous clothing consumption ever end? SIGH.
1
I'm a professional and am probably financially able to afford more clothes than I did in my twenties. I have chosen to stick to a wardrobe of just enough to wear for the week and it's been so freeing. I don't have to waste brain space figuring out what to wear. I have my fun hunting for pieces for my daughter on consignment websites like the RealReal but for myself, no thanks.
1
Part of our societal idiocy regarding clothing is the bans on fur. Fur is the most ecologically sound way of obtaining fiber for warm clothing, but because of the trumpian style of lying by the animal rights movement, fur farming has falsely been accused of being cruel. I have visited fur farms and know that the animal rightists are lying about fur farming. As far as ecology is concerned, animal fur is being replaced by petrochemical based synthetic fibers which destroy the environment with the drilling needed to obtain the oil for these synthetics. Furthermore, these synthetics are not readily biodegradable, adding to the load on our landfills or pollution of the oceans.
5
All true, but this is just part of the larger issue: humanity itself is an unsustainable species. Our increasing populations are consuming ever more of earth's finite natural resources, leaving mountains and oceans of waste in our wake, despoiling the air, water, and land on which we depend, and unraveling the web of interconnected life forms of which we are an integral part. We can reduce our clothing purchases, use public transportation, and march for better stewardship of the planet--as we should--but until we find a way to improve basic human nature, some of us will always want more than we need, there will always be greed, selfishness, shortsightedness, and people ruthless enough to grab the power required to get what they want regardless of the damage to others and the environment--until we drive ourselves to extinction. Sounds dire, but taking the long view, maybe it isn't. Ours is a fairly new branch on a tree of life full of branches that went extinct because they weren't sustainable. Most were replaced by new and better ones. I'd like to think our "new and better" ones are already among us, doing our best to create socially and environmentally conscious families and communities. Maybe there are enough of us to actually make a difference before it's too late. If not, then perhaps we should go extinct.
1
The problem is that these are systemic problems, not necessarily created by people who wear clothing. You're going to lose many advocates for sustainability if you keep pointing out that everything we do or experience is the problem. People start to shut down. It's finger-pointing (and wagging).
4
Everything is part of the problem. The question is, which parts do we focus on first? Clothing is probably something that can be dealt with more or less simultaneously with other big aspects, so it's good that Ms. Cline is bringing it to our attention.
2
In other cultures and time periods, people wore clothes that they owned their entire lives. That is possible if the clothing is not tailored, such as a robe, a sari, or other clothing that warps around the body. This allowed it to adapt to body size changes, such as weight loss or gain and pregnancy. The European aristocracy helped to create the trend toward owning many pieces of fancy tailored clothing for various occasions. This also benefited the cloth-making and tailoring industries in earlier centuries. The modern fashion design industry just perpetuates this concept, but now promotes it to a much wider audience. A change of mindset about the purpose and production of clothing will need to take place, but that will impact global industry. A generation ago in China, for example, people had one or two changes of clothing, adding long underwear during the winter. Now a nation that encompasses a major segment of the world population has adapted our clothing mentality but also produces much of what we all wear. This is not a small problem that is easily fixed just by deciding to shop at Goodwill Stores,which I have been doing for the last forty years.
3
My new habit is to only replace worn out clothing. I'm reducing the volume in my closet, and giving it away to people who need it. I'm really sick of consumption of cheap stuff, and not just clothing. It really is irresponsible.
3
You want to cut down the fashion impact on climate change? Allow everyone to wear jeans to work. You can wear the same pair of jeans multiple days and you won't have to even worry about spilling coffee on them - if they are dark!!
1
you would still need a couple of pairs,
if only because you would have to wash
them every few days.between the wear
and tear of the washing machines and
all the energy the driers use,I don't see
where the environmental benefits are.
@Frank you don't need to wash jeans. Certainly not every week.
I have pairs of jeans I haven't washed in years.
Just google "do I have to wash jeans" to educate yourself on the matter.
https://www.levistrauss.com/2018/01/25/no-dont-wash-jeans-really/
@Baltimark Well, if you actually do work in your jeans you would be better off washing them.
You shouldn't be buying new clothes with every season, year, or trend. Shop for classic well made looks, and shop at thrift stores. Shop for function over style too. If you must be super-hip, buy sustainable brands/labels and donate your older stuff.
2
Ms. Cline's editorial provides evidence of the obvious: Humanity has trashed the planet. Sad to say, what she writes will change nothing. Add to clothing plastic bottles and eating utensils. Talk to the fast-food industry about this and they will laugh in your face. Every scrap of wrapping and packaging should be recycled. But instead of using Ronald McDonald to encourage children and adults to recycle, it's business as usual. Nobody wants to change. Humanity is doomed, and we have only ourselves to blame for the destruction of the natural world. Nobody wants to be "inconvenienced."
4
I wonder how many 10s of millions of people are dependent on all of us buying clothes. The growing/producing raw materials, the manufacturing of cloth, the whole design aspect, the actual making of clothes, the people that sell them, the people that ship them, the people that model them, photograph them, advertise them.
So what are all of them supposed to do? Starve?
What is it was discovered tomorrow that authoring books was highly destructive. Oh my, guess what? It is! And Ms. Cline sells books, that take paper and trucks and ink and marketing and...and...and.
4
My goodness. Please forgive me for wearing clothes. I did not ask for industrialists to make it evil. I need underwear. I did not ask for the plastic bag, yet here they are. I did not ask for the emissions of diesel trucks or billions of pounds of toxic emissions from industry. But thanks for the blame. It's all my fault. The dioxin, coal ash, mercury laden fish. All our fault.
8
People mock those of us air drying clothes and reducing our food carbon footprint and choosing purchases not in single-use plastic as much as possible, but drops fill the bucket. The more people do small things to save the planet, the better off we all are.
10
One more reason to shop at second hand stores...
@Anastasia Torres-Gil If you can stand the smell of body odor combined with cigarette smoke. Most second hand stores make me gag. I have another suggestion for those who don't like buying used clothes or don't have the time to search for the things they need, buy new but wear what you buy until it wears out. The reason second hand stores have so much clothing is because people buy before they think.
4
@Anastasia Torres-Gil Yuck.
Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.
3
Buy (much) Less, take care of your clothes, and keep them longer. Recovered fashion victim, here. Long ago, after being a very poor College student for many years, I finally had enough extra money to splurge, I came, I saw, I shopped. I wanted to look “ professional “. I knew nothing about quality and coordination, and it showed.
Women, some hard earned advice : Choose two or three Colors, along with White and Black, that you like and look good on you. When people compliment what you’re wearing, take note. If you buy “ stuff “ in many, many colors, you’ll look like a sad Clown. My colors are gray, purples and a splash of pink. Along with White/Black, that’s all I’ve bought for many years. My Daughter has darker, more olive skin. She looks best in Navy, Tans and some Greens. She finally gets it.
Thanks for the Shout Out to Eileen Fisher. That’s my very favorite brand, for decades. I have pieces that I bought 20 to 25 years ago, still great. Buy classic, buy quality, buy LESS. And, I get a lot of mine from Nordstrom or Nordstrom Rack. Unlike the Husband, I never, ever pay the “ regular “ price for anything. I’m allergic.
Seriously.
4
@Phyliss Dalmatian Yes! The reason that second hand stores are filled with clothes is that so much of what we buy is junk and is discarded quickly. I remember as a child shopping with my mother and my aunt They would carefully window shop to see what was out there and then would decide on a few new things. For more expensive purchases, they would watch for sales. We had a small house with small closets. My mom used only one closet for her clothes and always looked well put together in a classic way.
1
What a terrible title.
The article is useful in highlighting this issue, and rather balanced regarding consumers vs corporations vs governments roles; but that title is awful, and I suspect, actually counterproductive ( in that it further repels the very people it is probably trying to reach...)
1
I agree. I was going to blame the headline writer, but I saw the final paragraph of the article, and the author herself said the same thing. She massively hurt her own reasonable argument.
The problem is only partly about how our clothes are made and what materials are used. The sheer volume of clothes and the extremely short use cycle is a big part of the problem. I read recently that the average woman wears a piece of clothing seven times before it is replaced. Clothing should last for dozens of use cycle. Jut look at the special use tee shirts. Do we need a special tee shirt with the message of the moment which be worn two or three times?
Go to the thrift store and look at the rack after rack of barely used clothes. Giving it to the thrift store eases our conscience because we are giving it to someone less fortunate. Nonsense, most of it goes to the trash.
It really boils down to this: BUY LESS STUFF.
4
Let's also stop shaming women for wearing the same outfit more than once.
It's absurd that Australian T.V. presenter Lisa Wilkinson was shamed for wearing the same blouse after she had worn it four months earlier.
And Lauren Linahan, a T.V. meteorologist in Georgia was shamed for supposedly wearing "the same five dresses" although she actually has a much larger wardrobe. Apparently, the critical viewer noticed some dresses that she had seen before.
The double standard where men can rotate several suits but women are expected to never wear the same thing twice is beyond ridiculous--and it needs to end.
2
Why not say, "I Wear Clothes, and I Know that All That Washing and Shipping and Manufacturing is one more way I'm harming the earth." There's a limit, you know.
When I was a kid we had a high tech invention called a clothes line. Between apartments buildings they had lines on pulleys so you could keep the clothes in the sunny spots. Hey, this was advanced solar engineering! What do we have now that's any better?
1
@Phil I have a wooden rack for drying and a few hooks for drying things in the laundry room and a clothes line outdoors for bigger items. Our dryer is probably 30 years old and is used almost entirely for towels and my husbands shirts.
I'm wearing shorts I bought in 2007. I'm going to wear them until the seat rips out. The only new stuff I buy is shoes and hiking boots. People buy too much stuff. Stop buying stuff!! Boycott Christmas. But then, the economy would crash. There are no answers.
1
@Allison
2007! That's new!
1
I’ve been wearing my sturdy lederhosen and leather jerkin every day for most my adult life. My boots are made from the skin of road meat tanned in natural fluids.
I always get a seat on the subway
Wear less clothing. Stop barefoot shaming. (Shoes are very damaging to the environment and to our joints and to our brain)
1
headline in the next Trump campaign ad:
"wear clothes, you're part of the problem!"
I am not wealthy,but I will not wear tattered
clothes. after a certain age, one looks like
a sad harlequin. I see too many of my
contemporaries on the street every day
who seem downcast and old before their
time and their clothes contribute to that
overall impression. I shop at J.C.Penny
and Macy's, when there are sales,but I
keep myself well, if not expensively
dressed.articles like this are one more
example of why so many people regard
environmentalists as so many kooks.
5
Creating fabrics is just the initial issue. Take a look at the fate of the fibers as we launder our clothes! Turns out our clothing choices may be more impactful than shunning straws. Thank you Dr. Weis et.al.
https://cues.rutgers.edu/2019-microplastics-conference/pdfs/7_Weis_Improving-microplastic-research.pdf
1
Now that I have grandsons, the sewing machine is back in action. To offset the cost of fabric, I go through our donation pile and repurpose fabric to make them pants, PJ’s and tops; the fabric is soft, and high quality. In addition, I shop thrift stores to pick up quality items for back stock.
Curious about what others are doing? Go to Esty where you can find repurposed Jean braided rugs, keepsake items from fabric of deceased relatives, and more. A little creativity goes a long way, and such an enjoyable expression of creativity.
Finally, check out the documentary “The True Cost” for a horrifying view of how the “fast” clothing industry is impacting the globe. Capitalism depends on a continuously driven propaganda fest to drive consumption and profits. Time to wise up and pay attention!
1
Buy 2 really good dresses. That's it. Wear them often. My mom's rule suddenly seems edgy.
3
Re “Wear Clothes? Then You’re Part of the Problem”
This reads like one of Putin’s polarization tricks.
Now we’re alienated from our clothing ?
Talk about uncomfortable in your own skin.
Emissions and deforestation are big enough problems. I’ll wait til they get proper attention before I worry that the emperor having no clothes might be a good thing.
2
@RjW How did you read the article and not make the connection between "emissions and deforestation" and the clothing industry?
1
There are some concepts worth considering and acting on here.
I knew there was a reason why I do laundry as seldom as possible, and why I wear 20 year old t-shirts. Don't ask me about my underwear.
2
Thank you, Ms Cline, for your eye-opening article.
So clothes cause climate change?
Grass causes climate change?
Cows cause climate change?
Humans cause climate change?
How about newspapers, computers and cell phones?
I can’t wait to read an article that opines that solar panels and wind turbines cause climate change.
7
What about air conditioning and hair dryers?
There's at least a partial solution: naturism (in season). Of course, it requires shedding preconceptions about the human body and its sexual inferences as well as one's clothing.
1
The first people who should heed this call are the people at The New York Times who cover and glorify high fashion. It may -- or may not be -- an art form. Whatever it is, it's wasteful. Just because it can be creative doesn't mean it's environmentally responsible or relevant. There are many, many things the world needs more than fancy duds and bling-a-ling "accessories".
5
@Dave 'Yes, go over to the feature "Times suggests" for a little push to get more things no one needs, and to Real Estate for a real lesson in how we are encouraged throw out perfectly usable "outdated" things that were expensive to produce.
1
There’s a new trend too: throw away clothing for selfies that are being pushed by social media “influencers.”
They pose in shirts that say something like “Margaritas Please!”, and wear the t-shirt for an Instagram photo on their vacation and that’s it. Never to be worn again. Or the bachelorette party all with shirts that say “Tribe” on every girl and the “Bride” shirt in an alternating color for the bride.
These clothes are cheap and make for good photos. Their function is not something that is recurring, the slogans on them are a one time trick all for more Likes.
When we first moved to a suburban New Jersey neighborhood, we installed an “umbrella clothesline”. I soon found out why we were the only residents with one when a neighbor informed me that hanging clothes outdoors to dry was frowned upon. It was explained that it brought down property values!
2
That's got to be the most ridiculous complaint I have ever heard.("it brought down property values") But I totally get what you are saying.
On the other hand, I admit it - I am so far out of the pop culture mainstream, I had to pause when I saw "Stop barefoot shaming". What on earth is that ? I can only imagine. Geez ...
1
Most of my clothes are more than 10 years old, with the exception of some jeans, and a new suit that replaced my 30-plus year old one. I actually darned holes in a pair of socks the other day.
I didn’t know I was on to something, just thought I hated shopping.
2
Getting Wal-Mart on the bandwagon would be a great first step.
1
We buy our clothes at Goodwill. We have an efficient washer and line-dry our clothes year-round--outdoors in summer, under a porch roof when it rains and snows, and indoors when the jeans freeze and stand up on their own.
These are partial solutions to this little slice of the bigger problem, but the line-drying option is not available to millions of Americans who are prisoners of their HOAs.
@Michael Jacques I don't think that HOA's have any say over an indoor drying rack. That plus some hooks is where 90% of our stuff is dryed. As for the HOA's living in a place where they don't exist helps a lot.
@Michael Jacques
This is true in many suburban residential areas as well. A pity.
@Michael Jacques Or live in apartments.
I wear cotton shirts and wool pants that I have had for many years. The problem is that most Americans don’t take care of their things. They just toss them and buy more trash. And it’s getting harder and harder to buy things that last. By the way, do you know any men who still shine their shoes? It’s a breakdown of fiber, and I’m not talking about the textiles.
1
If you think for a minute that I'm going to wear last year's style, well . . .
1
Unfortunately, shopping in the United States is regarded as a form of recreation or therapy.
1
And I’m sure Elizabeth Warren has a plan for this...
2
@EGD
She seems to dress somewhat environmentally friendly - black top and pants under a different colored top. She could be wearing that under layer 7 days a week for all we know. Only thing is I bet there's a lot of nylon in there.
Great. Now we are clothes-shamed?
6
Here's a first step: Let's get rid of the concept of "women's clothing" or "men's clothing" and have everyone wear the same uniform, as they do in many elementary schools. Not only will it reduce the environmental cost of clothing, it will remove symbols of economic inequality. If John Lennon were alive today, he'd be singing: "Imagine there's no fashion."
/s
1
@Jay Orchard Didn't they try that in China?
As for uniforms we still have them, especially for men. My husband is still wearing exactly the same kind of clothes he wore 50 years ago: plaid shirts, Levi's, chinos for dress and cowboy boots. For winter Norwegian sweaters. Wait! He did adopt Carharts about 10 years ago for the farm. Of course he did need a suit when he got married and again when one daughter got married. He actually wanted to wear his own wedding suit for that wedding but...For the other daughter he wore a thirty year old hand made cowboy shirt with (of course) Levis and cowboy boots. Nothing leaves unless it's worn out. Who knew this was environmentally conscious?
Please. Clothes are not the problem. The problem is overpopulation. You can wear hair shirts all day long if you want, but if you're having multiple children you're the biggest part of the problem.
112
@Bob G. Overpopulation is a dodge the developed world uses to place the burden for climate change on people in the third world who have drastically smaller carbon footprints per capita than those of us in the west.
21
@Bob G. I'd put the environmental impact of a large third world family with several children up against a middle class childless American couple any day. I think you'd be surprised at the results of that type of comparison.
There was a wonderful book many years ago in which a photographer went around the world asking an economically "average" family in each country to pose with all their worldly possessions brought outside their dwelling so you could see both their house and what they owned. There were staggering differences between the U.S. and most other countries, especially those in the third world.
And that was just picturing what the American family owned at that moment in time -- not how much they purchased, discarded and replaced throughout their lifetimes!
18
@Thad nonsense, I've seen white Americans with 4 kids and one on the way. Makes me want to gag. They are overpopulating and with a larger carbon footprint, leaving the car idling in moderate temperatures while they shop for 15+ minutes.
10
We have met the enemy and he is us. The amount of clothing Americans buy, leading Europeans by a little is the problem. Buy less clothes, better clothes, take care of them, wear them a long time. A lot of my clothing is many years old, still in good shape. Good shoes can last 20 years or more ( men); etc.
5
If you're alive, you're part of the problem. For every child you bring into the world you are more of the problem and they will be part of the problem too.
Our culture too of constant consumption, collecting shoes or sneakers or 'outfits' add to the needless accumulation and its parent problem of too much manufacturing. Hence, if you're a capitalist, you're part of the problem.
Too many humans, too much greed, too much hedonism, too much 'keeping up with the Joneses.'
108
@James Siegel I see you volunteered for the depopulation efforts. Please report to your local life extraction booth for processing.
3
So I guess we just need to hope that Thanos finds those infinity stones, huh?
"Wear Clothes? Then You’re Part of the Problem"
I can only dream of wearing clothing. I haven't been able to wear clothing since April 2014, when I awakened covered by itchy grooves and patterns that had imprinted on my skin by my sleepwear, sheet wrinkles and pillow case wrinkles in April 2014.My skin had been turned into the equivalent of itchy Silly Putty overnight. I have been like that ever since.
I'm not part of the problem, because I can not wear clothing.
I've been living in inside-out pajamas for the past 5 & 1/2 years.
Towel fibers cause towel fiber grooves. Bandaid quilting leaved bandaid quilting patterns, next to the dot patterns from the sticky part of the bandaid. Carpal tunnel splints leave impressive shell patterns. Leaning against something cause grooving.
Sometimes, I have to wrap myself in a sheet., because my skin can not tolerate the inside out pajamas (seams create itchy grooves ). Sometimes, my skin screams if it is touched by a sheet.
I'm not part of the problem, because I can not wear clothes.
Should the joyous day should come when a doctor can figure out what's wrong with me, and I can wear clothing, I'll celebrate, and will not going to worry about being part of a problem.
I'll be able to re-join the world, and venture outside.
I find no comfort in knowing that I am not "part of the problem."
10
@DJS
Dear Fellow Commenters & Readers :
If anyone has heard of a medical condition that turns one's skin into the equivalent of itchy Silly Putty, or know of a doctor whom I can consult . I would be very appreciative .
I have seen some of the top doctors in New York.
The Mayo Clinic has informed me that it is not accepting nw patients.
Thank you in advance,
Truly ,
DJS
1
@DJS
I think there is another movement lurking nearby. #The Clothes Culprit#? I'm sure you can come up with a better (and hilarious) title.
What next? Stop walking on the ground because the Earth is eroding? Please...
2
@Benni
Hmm. # The Clothes Culprit # would have been a better title for this Opinion piece . After all, the topic is :"Wear Clothes? Then you're part of the problem."
According to the author's logic, the only individuals who are not part of the problem are nudists !
The logical extension of her argument is that humans must all become nudists, in order to avoid being part of the problem, which would create a new set of problems.
The author did not mention the cost to the environment in transporting clothing from China, India etc. My family owned a textile manufacturing business whose factory was in Fall River , MA. My family's business was crushed by those manufacturers who moved their factories overseas, employing cheap slave labor. Any textile manufacturing business that wanted to stay in business had no choice but to move it's manufacturing overseas. I'd imagine that transporting the garments from China , India and other far-flung places is more harmful to the environment that is manufacturing clothing, in addition to the exploitation of workers who are paid slave wages.
The reality is that the the vast majority of individuals who lament the loss of manufacturing jobs in this country, and who claim that they would buy products that are made in the U.S.A, are unwilling to pay the higher price that manufactures must charge when paying living wages to workers.
Sorry, but this is just silly. Economic activity of all varieties consumes energy. It is therefore possible to calculate the share of overall energy consumption - and therefore of greenhouse emissions - attributable to a given economic sector. That doesn’t, however, mean that curtailing that type of economic activity is a reasonable approach to climate change mitigation.
Eight percent of greenhouse emissions might come from the production, distribution and maintenance of clothing, but that 8% contribution is entirely subsumed under the 85%+ of greenhouse emissions that result from energy production. The path to a sustainable t-shirt is through carbon-free Megawatt-hours.
When environmental advocates waste their time talking about such trivialities, they do a disservice to their cause. Does this author want people to stop wearing clothes? Come on. All that an article like this accomplishes is to make people feel guilty and hopeless.
352
@Aaron Walton "All that an article like this accomplishes is to make people feel guilty and hopeless."
But the article points out several things that *are* within our control. We can buy less clothing new, and make our current clothing last longer by using cold wash on our washing machines and air drying when possible. We can also make contentious choices when buying clothing--such as opting for higher quality clothes that will last longer with proper care.
83
@SK Yes, but such recommendations are counterproductive in another way: They have the effect of making people feel like they’re doing their bit to mitigate climate change, when really all they’re doing is fiddling at the margins. Reducing the energy intensity of an industrial sector such as apparel is all fine and good, but unless and until we reduce the carbon intensity of energy production to zero we’ll still be on the road to perdition. And if we do manage to access abundant, carbon-neutral energy, what’s the point in skimping on how many clothes we buy or how often we wash them?
36
@Aaron Walton
We need all hands on board addressing everything we can. One of the major problems we have is with the abnegation of personal responsibility. It does matter that we decide to buy an SUV instead of a low MPG car. Does our one car make a heap of difference? No... but everything we do influences everyone around us and vice versa. Once everyone thought it was a great idea to have a huge car, well, here we are, 20-30 years behind where we could have been with auto emissions.
Every step counts, please don't wait for someone else to take big steps so you can avoid taking a small one.
86
Corporatist claptrap. Blame the consumers for buying the only stuff on offer? Experiment instead with cutting off the supply—or at least incentivizing better alternatives.
3
I already know that I am part of the problem. I like to eat meat, I like heat in my apartment, and on top of that, there is all that carbon dioxide I exhale.....now I can't buy a new T-shirt once in a while, or a new raincoat every ten years, for fear of harming the planet.....obviously, the thing to do is just die and be done with it (once I am cremated, I become a much smaller part of the problem, just a little package of ashes)....
6
I only wash my clothes one a month, to save water.
People say I stink, but I tell them that the only think that stinks more is that they’re killing the planet.
2
The larger problem is created need, disposable culture, planned obsolescence, and "the next big thing." As Greta Thunberg points out, there's no need to buy new clothes -- or new stuff, for that matter. There's enough stuff. Consignment stores, thrift stores, fixing what we have, using things until they wear out, making new things out of old things. No need for the "new version."
Thrift, ingenuity, "waste-not-want-not" -- these used to be strongly-held values that advertising and consumer culture changed. We can aspire to a new culture of up-cycling and reuse. There's a lot of potential for creativity and zero waste. We only need the will.
308
@ML I couldn't agree more to your very uplifting comment. We only need the will, but the will is coming, in my opinion, at least based on what I see with my kids and the way discussions are shaped in our families. I also teach in college and talk about the environment quite often, and my students have proven to be more aware of issues over the past years. I think that Greta Thunberg will have an enormous impact on the planet eventually and sooner than we think.
26
@ML I also think that the Marie Kondo type emphasis on "minimalism," encouraging people to massively discard stuff, also encourages waste. My parents' generation routinely repaired stuff, and stored other stuff in the attic till they needed it or could figure out how to fix it.
72
@Frances Grimble
I think Kondo's emphasis on simplicity and "less is more" is a constructive one, but a big gap in her philosophy is failing to say "reuse, repurpose donate, and upcycle", instead of "throw it away." That's where her fresh thinking becomes the same old, wasteful story.
63
Oh my...yet one more thing to feel guilty and remorseful about. I'm sooo tired of thinking every.single.thing I do, eat, use is creating harm. I recycle, compost, give clothes (still in good condition) to Goodwill, and it's still not enough! Maybe we should take a hard look at all the companies who put everything in plastic, who exploit workers, who use fossil fuels.
5
I'll wash in cold and air dry more, but there's no way i'm going back to wearing cotton when running. I love my synthetics.
I'd be happy to walk around naked, but I'd get too cold in the non-summer months. For me, I wear nice clothing and continue to do so. So do other members of my family. The attempt to shame people who dress nicely and wear good clothing is not going to get eco-friendly movements very far. I suggest a different approach, like, public transit options, bike lanes, electric vehicles, solar and wind power, etc.
6
"...consider air drying more of our laundry."
Living in the Midwest I line dry all clothing, sheets, towels and rugs when weather permits.In the winter I indoor rack dry all clothing and towels and under dry sheet, draping them on small racks when the are half dry.
Line drying extends the life of clothing, etc. and saves energy and money. And hanging your laundry outside if you have the yard space is one of the more pleasant house jobs - see and hear the birds and small animals in the yard, feel the sun and wind and admire the sky and clouds.
There are agreements in many upscale neighborhoods forbidding clothes lines, and that needs to change.
My neighbors and I are the only people in this mid city neighborhood hanging out laundry on the line.
I recommend it and it's a family tradition.
10
I can't stand to go into a clothing department anymore. The volume I see and the waste it represents depresses me. I've been consignment clothes shopping for years now -- all it takes is a little more patience and a lot less money to find what you want/need. I also wear the "same old thing" a lot. Most people don't really notice. They'll compliment me on something like it's the first time they've seen it, when actually they've seen it a half dozen times. We do all have to wear clothes, and clothing can be a fun, legitimate form of self expression. But being a "fashion plate" is not compatible with a sustainable future.
5
@Citizen-of-the-World
Agree.
I have a handful of dresses that suffice for weddings, funerals, professional events and cocktail parties, and unless I change size dramatically really don't need more. Who cares if people recognize it (which they don't)?
Other than that it's jeans (blue or black), a black t-shirt, blazer or denim jacket, decent jewelry and a scarf. In the summer i have a number of cotton dresses that work for office or casual wear. The thought of a closet packed with a huge array of "outfits" makes me shudder.
3
Getting rid of excess is not something that should be limited to clothes or any other single arena. If we're going to reduce our apparel intake we should reduce all of our excesses whether it involves, clothing, food, energy, transportation, housing, family size or verbiage.
4
I think commenter Aaron Walter misses an important point. Many actions that seem trivial become important when huge numbers of people take them. For instance, if almost everyone in the United States uses cold water to wash clothing, that's a huge change in the amount of power used by hot water heaters. And as other commenters have pointed out, savings from small actions can be significant. In a similar vein, we saw our electric bill go down significantly when we switched almost entirely to LED light bulbs and had to replace an inefficient water heater. The savings can be used to buy extra green power from one's electric utility. With Trump dismantling the EPA and Republicans in charge in many states, this hardly seems the time to belittle individual attempts to save the climate.
10
Having worked in the textile industry for quite a while, I will say that the dyes and chemicals are harsh. But when companies go to more natural dyes, it's nearly impossible to achieve the brilliant colors and a deep black that the market craves. So more muted colors in many areas of the spectrum will be necessary if we're to get away from the worst chemicals.
9
@Hope Springs Soft natural colors are more appealing than technicolor hues in interior design. There's a disconnect with personal fashion even though natural colors are flattering on many people.
As earnest as all this is, there seems to be a more than concerted effort to fracture the climate change movement by making individuals 'guilty' and particularly women. This is a successful corporate strategy to keep us depressed and away from full-throated, cohesive movements that are beginning. If we all feel guilty about clothes, meat, recycling, breathing etc etc,. it keeps us from holding governments and corporations to account. It is a particularly useful strategy in a consumerist Northern Hemisphere. The already privileged continuing to consume, but the wealthy can now consume pricier, eco friendly or whatever. Meanwhile corporations continue to ravage and dump into so-called 2nd and 3rd world communities.
17
Agreed. I check labels before buying and only go for Made in Europe cotton, silk or wool clothes on the continent where I live. But it’s getting harder every year. My granddaughters wear second hand clothes and look fabulous.
5
Just a note that H&M accepts old clothes (including bags and shoes) for textile recycling. I'm sure they, like the industry at large, fall short in other ways described in the article, but I find those boxes super helpful!
6
@Singpretty
Eileen Fisher also has a recycling program. Send in garments you are no longer using and they give you a gift card equal to $5 per item.
1
@Singpretty Yeah and then they burn those clothes.
I wouldn't mind spending a bit more if I was able to buy a few high quality basics that would last for years with proper care. That sort of item isn't on offer anymore, at least not in the mainstream retailers where most of us middle-class people buy our clothes. It's not just clothes, though - appliances are junk now too. It's cheaper to toss a microwave in the landfill than to repair it, and the days when a refrigerator would last twenty years are long behind us. Manufacturers have no real incentive to make it otherwise.
25
Zero population growth. It was big in the 70's. I haven't heard anyone talking about it in years.
16
@Mel:
Zero Population Growth, ZPG, was founded in 1968 and changed its name in 2002 to Population Connection.
You can search it out, and it's a group and cause well worth supporting.
6
I buy almost all my clothes at consignment stores or thrift shops. I've gotten some remarkable bargains in designer clothes this way. Luckily, there's a consignment store near me that specializes in high-end and designer clothes. It's amazing what some people will get rid of, but I'm glad they do. I could never afford to buy the clothes I wear if they were new. I hadn't thought that it might be good for the environment. I just thought I was saving money.
11
Live simply so that others may simply live.
This is pretty much what the nuns taught me 60 years ago. I admit that I sometimes fail, but that's my standard.
11
The problem is not clothes per se, but the American custom of wearing a different outfit every day and keeping all these superfluous clothes clean at all times. OK, clean is pleasant, so how about we settle on less sartorial focus?
7
Singling out the clothing industry is silly, and your statistics are made to sound alarming but are not if you think about it.
Go take a look at a construction site - the amount of plastic and Styrofoam used to package the materials and equipment going into the building, made for one use and then thrown into a landfill, is staggering.
Our bloated military uses 12.6 Million gallons of fuel every single day.
The food industry need no mention, and transportation is still in the lead.
The truth is we all need to adjust our thinking away from the single-use, away from the disposable. But we are not going to solve this problem by adjusting our clothing habits.
14
Very true. The teeshirt mentioned in this article was probably shipped from amazon in a one use box filled with stryofoam peanuts, all of which inevitably end up in a land-fill.
2
@Adam Really? When the production of one cotton shirt requires 2,700 gallons of water? And 60 percent of all clothes are synthetics (oil), so the clothing industry should get a free pass?
2
@Adam
And the military is one of the country's most notorious polluters, dropping toxins where ever it is based.
The entire clothing picture is complicated. Where, e.g., is the t-shirt that requires 2,700 gallons of water produced? What are the environmental laws there? Would it have been possible for that water to reused, with pollutants removed?
There have to be controls upfront for them to be effective - attacking end use has not been particularly effective.
And since many buy "cheap" clothes because it's what they can afford, they are not going to start buying prime organic cotton or wool garments.
Plus, we are so reliant on the desirable properties of some synthetics that they are not going to disappear: I am not going back to wearing heavy woolen coats which
Most of us have moved to using much more efficient lighting: however, there have been issues with toxic elements in the bulbs which were never examined and handled in the law.
The article is correct to show that the rag industry has as many conflicts as most others, and consumers should be aware.
1
Thank you for informing us of this issue.
It now appears that everything we do has climate change impacts. Perhaps the only thing that will universally impact all forms of climate change is fewer people.
Medicine is advancing that will INCREASE longevity. Even that adversely impacts the planet. Saving our planet includes saving the planet from humans.
10
In an article in the Atlantic Magazine, By Franklin-Foerer, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, describes his horror at the prospect that growth (an increase in the amount of goods and services produced per head of population over time) will be a threat to humans. The truth of this likelihood is that consumption is the source of global warming. The more we eat, wear, drive a car, heat and cool our homes, etc. the more carbon is released into the atmosphere. Only the Jeff Bezoses can expresses horror at the prospect of a reversal of growth. As the valedictorian of Miami Palmetto Senior High School’s class of 1982, Bezos used his graduation speech to unfurl his vision for humanity. He dreamed aloud of the day when millions of his fellow earthlings would relocate to colonies in space. The reason, he explained was that the earth was running out of energy and only escaping to outer space will we be able to survive as a species. There are in fact 7.53 billion on earth today. I wonder what will happen to the other billions. Consumption is both the source of the supernatural wealth that makes people like Bezos think they can outrun the future by colonizing space and also the source of our future misery. In the future, shorter life spans and fewer children will be the survival cry of the human race. Anyone who has done the math, including Bezos, knows this is the truth. I simple worry for our children. How will they survive?
7
Ebay is a great way to buy second hand clothing, and you can search for your size so it can be easier than wading through racks and racks of clothing at thrift stores to find your size.
7
@CA
Delivery trucks?
I'll keep "sorting" for something "new" to wear from St Vincent's.
Clothing is meant to be a signal, the content of which is almost always false or misleading, something which most people never seem to learn. When I was a kid, even the thought of changing clothes was anathema. Now, kids are fashionistas by the time they're four, abetted by their parents, who are keeping up with straw-man Joneses conjured by the fashion industry. and turning their children into little phonies, so they'll "get ahead" in the world. People should concentrate more on what lies underneath the clothes, mentally, physically, and spiritually, than on what meaningless label they're sporting.
9
This analysis has almost no value. How many words are devoted to the massive coordinated effort between state trade and customs policy managers and an extractive, exploitative industry that create the hegemonic experience for obtaining and maintaining clothing in American society? Yet that is the actual problem, not the constrained decision matrix of the lowly consumer.
8
The logical conclusion of these arguments that incorporate self-hatred and self-guilt due to an evolving environment is clear: we must exterminate ourselves because each of us consumes water and creates waste; consumes oxygen; wears clothes (animal skins OK?); utilizes electronic devices; drives a vehicle (family hitch hiking vacations OK?); and flies on jumbo jets for jaunts to Bali (except poor people in Red States). You must accept that Earth is a closed system, all actions within the system create multiple down stream effects, and that change is unavoidable. Species will die off and new ones will be born. The climate will change. All things will change. Some things will be worse because entropy is a one way ticket. Create a few laws and incentives to mitigate the worst processes. Leading the population to anxiety and depression is not the proper path, nor is nurturing the divisive belief that as a Prius/Tesla driver I am morally better than Trump voters.
8
I really hate this title. Enough with the hype and with the shaming. The sub-title would work much better.
I practice many of the ideas Ms. Cline suggests, and they are good ideas indeed. Another idea would be to teach kids how to make simple repairs. Few people can even saw on a button these days.
12
To really see who are creating this problem, go to any second hand store or thrift shop. The women's clothing and shoes section usually make up the majority of the available space. While I might find one to two pairs of work shoes in my size, a women might find 10 or 25 pairs available. For every rack of clothes, women have a selection more than four times that available for men. While there are men who are over consumers of clothing, advertising gullible women are the culprits here.
6
@Singlespeedd
1. Women's bodies are harder to fit clothes onto, and women's shapes change more across the lifespan. For example, a man needs only to know his waist and inseam to find a pair of pants that fit. For a woman, the fit of pants depends on far more than waist measurement and leg length; the size and shape of the butt and the thigh play a major role. So we have to try on a lot more pairs of pants to find one that fits. And because clothing fit is harder, women may buy things that don't fit well out of fear that they'll never find something that does fit well. So a woman may thus accumulate a closet of clothes that almost fit.
2. Women gain weight in a lot more areas than men do. Men tend to gain weight predominantly in the midsection. Women can gain weight in the midsection, in the butt and thighs, or both, depending on genetics. And it's harder for women to lose weight gained in the butt and thighs. We are hormonally primed to gain fat in these areas during childbearing years, because of the role this fat plays in reproduction. And at menopause, our shape changes radically over a relatively short period of time. So it stands to reason that women would discard more clothing over a lifetime.
@Singlespeedd
3. Women are judged on appearance much more than men are. Particularly in the workplace, we walk a tightrope, trying to look sexy but not slutty, professional but not dowdy. Men's sartorial decisions come down to whether or not to wear a tie or jacket. Women need a much broader range of outfits for different kinds of social occasions. So women will by necessity have more clothes in their closets.
4. Women's clothes have gotten more close-fitting in recent decades, so clothing fit is more easily ruined by small shifts in body dimensions, prompting more discards over time.
3. Women are judged on appearance much more than men are. Particularly in the workplace, we walk a tightrope, trying to look sexy but not slutty, professional but not dowdy. Men's sartorial decisions come down to whether or not to wear a tie or jacket. Women need a much broader range of outfits for different kinds of social occasions. So women will by necessity have more clothes in their closets.
4. Women's clothes have gotten more close-fitting in recent decades, so clothing fit is more easily ruined by small shifts in body dimensions, prompting more discards over time.
Eccentricity of the well-meaning, but naive, ecoleftists knows no bounds. One needs clothes at least as a protection against cold and bad weather. Whether clothes are made of plant, animal or (not yet) mineral matter, is a question of economy, convenience, and fashion. In my opinion, the simplest and most efficient garment is a toga, equipped with visible and secret pockets.
4
@Tuvw Xyz Of course we need clothes. If you had read past the headline, you would see that the author is also well aware of the fact.
What we don't need are cheap, one-and-done items of "fashion." We don't need to get a free t-shirt for every event we attend.
We need to pause and use good sense.
Give it a try.
I wonder how many of our problems would go away if the world would think about family planning more. Is there a chance we have too many people for the resources that we have?
21
@Missy Absolutely.
This article comes as such a relief. I was running out of things to feel guilty about.
24
Perfect. Since I started working from home about 5 years ago I have trimmed my wardrobe by about 90 %. Comfortable, workout, or it was donated a long time ago. Guess I can forget about feeling guilty for gassing up the jet skis or boat in the summer.
6
OK, let's go through the human population. Those who aren't revolting to look at naked, no clothes for them. That will solve a small part of the problem. As for the rest of us, we could demand that everyone get in shape so that clothes aren't necessary (which would have all sorts of side benefits like reducing the amount of food produced). Alternatively, we could all take hormones that cause massive hair growth all over the body so that clothing will no longer be required.
We could also run the heat at a higher temp in fall and winter and early spring -- remember in A Christmas Carol when poor Scrooge's employees want another lump of coal in the stove and he reminds them of that's why they have garments? This is what's known as a trade off.
Or, we could come to our senses and recognize that the planet isn't going to die, the human race isn't going to die, nor are other species due to mythological climate change. Before you go shedding your clothes and gutting your wardrobe and swearing never to go near a clothing store again, maybe you should review the actual temp data that supposedly shows abnormal warming. It doesn't. The raw data doesn't anyway.
Oh, hurricane season is just about over & we haven't had one so massively filled with hurricanes since, let me see, sometime in the 19th century. I guess we'll have to adjust the hurricane data later and claim that a rain storm in bermuda was actually a hurricane in order to make the data conform to predictions.
2
3 years ago I told my whole family that the Xmas gifts they were going to get were recycled. The only new things I buy are underwear and shoes. Interesting they wrote an article about clothes.
6
You're asking Americans to stop buying large quantities of cheap, disposable clothing in favor of fewer, high quality garments that look great for years? Good luck, this isn't Italy.
11
If one is going to buy new, wear wool, which doesn't need washing everytime it's worn (even Icebreaker calls their wares "no stink") and comes from a renewable source. See Portland's Wool & Prince too.
6
This crisis, if that is what it is, is women's fault. Women buy many more clothes than men and discard and replace them more frequently. Just noting the obvious point that the article carefully avoided.
6
@Arundo Donax I'm sorry to object to your adding one more thing to what women should feel responsible for. A huge part of the fashion industry is fueled by men-- who want to admire well-dressed or under-dressed or sexily dressed women.
I can't believe the feeling I get reading opinion pieces these days, that time stood still twenty five years ago. Is this really news? Conspicuous and thoughtless consumption is a root of the environmental crisis--why should clothing not be included?
If we still need to hear this maybe it is too late for us.
8
It’s an interesting opinion piece. The writer has got a valid point. People in general especially women are too crazy about clothes. It would be nice if people buy the clothes that meet minimum requirement rather than stuffing them in far too many closets.
One more important point that’s not mentioned in this article is about child labour in all sorts of industries including textile industry. Child exploitation is all over the place especially in developing and in under developed countries.
It would be nice if people keep their ego and status aside and dispense with dryers altogether. Drying clothes in the sun is a better solution. It will surely contribute in reducing global warming to a certain extent.
3
My favorite Brooks Brothers store is at the intersection of Google and Ebay. Never buy new what costs substantially less used. Especially cars!
5
Pelosi's 6 year-old coat? I'm 72 and just attended an event where I wore the sport jacket I bought for my junior prom.
16
@Barking Doggerel When my mother died I was at a meeting with the lawyer and a tax accountant. The accountant looked at my very expensive jacket and was very excited. He even felt across the table to feel it. He had had one just as it was when he was at university. After he left, I told the lawyer that it might have been his jacket. I had bought it at a resale shop for $7.
1
As long as we're on the subject of eco-friendly grooming, consider finding a way around the plastic in your toiletries.
Some specialty retailers sell shampoo and conditioner in bar form. I found some on Etsy that works great -- large bars last for several months, for about a $12 investment. It takes a few days to get used to the absence of big gobs of lather and syrupy-textured product -- this stuff goes on thinner -- but my shoulder-length fine hair looks just as good as it did using the old Procter & Gamble or Unilever products that are tested on poor animals and packaged in plastic.
Also on Etsy I found lip balm and deodorant in push-up cardboard tubes -- again, quality fantastic, natural ingredients and does the job.
Finally, it's possible to buy dental "bites" of semi-solid toothpaste (think like a big soft after-dinner mint) that you chomp up a bit and then apply your toothbrush to inside your mouth. It works fine. A bit more expensive but considering the billions of empty toothpaste tubes we are throwing away each year, worth the effort and cost. There are recipes online for making them yourself, too.
Powdered laundry detergent in cardboard boxes, liquid detergent in wax cartons, grinding up regular soap and making your own liquid instead of buying those one-use plastic dispensers, using vinegar and baking soda and old-fashioned cleanser instead of plastic-packaged cleaning products...just take a second look at all you do.
13
@Earthling We recently switched back to powder detergent, but for the life of me I can’t see why the manufacturer puts a plastic scoop in every one of the boxes. Surely, with enough notification, people could save them and they could be phased out. Or use an old measuring cup. The company would also save money, win-win.
5
@Maggie
Totally agree.
1
@Maggie
Good point! I use a spoon as my clothing isn't soiled much and I just need a fraction of what the manufacturer recommends.
1
My thoughts exactly yesterday watching the NFL’s “Salute to Service” day—coaches wearing hats and shirts they’ll never wear again.
5
Cotton requires water to grow, but the increased adoption of strains of cotton that require less water has resulted, over the past decade, in the industry's seeming inability to make cotton shirts and other garments as thin and breathable as they did in the past, without producing an item that is so prone to wrinkling as to be virtually unwearable.
In menswear, this has meant that almost all dress shirts are now sold as teflon coated "wrinkle free" items that don't breathe, such that mens workplaces (like those favored by Governor Cuomo) are often kept artificially and unusually cold with air conditioning.
It also means that very often, cotton items are being bought and discarded or returned because the quality is perceived to be very inferior to what the retailer once sold. Any perusal of reviews of broadcloth shirts or boxer shorts on websites for even higher end retailers like Brooks Brothers will demonstrate this.
2
I've been buying "pre-owned" (used) clothes for years and will never go back to "new". The price difference is stunning: $5 for a terrific, never-worn tee shirt, $6 for a silk(!) Ann Taylor blouse and $10 for dress pants.
I've learned to check for small rips, tears and sweat stains under the arms, zippers that won't, and request a discount if the item can be repaired.
Check your nearby charity and for-profit thrift shops; they're often filled with equally savvy shoppers snapping up bargains like it's Filene's Basement! Some places have a great shoe and accessory selection along with racks of men's clothing.
"New" garments stop being "new" the second you walk out the door with them.
9
Clothes dryers are the household appliance that uses the third most electricity (after fridge ans washing machines). In my climate, clothes air dry quickly outside in the summer and quickly inside in the dry winter air.
The trick to air drying is to do a lityle laundry every few days, rather than expecting to do a week's worth of laundry on 'laundry day'.
3
@SAO
A little laundry in washing machine uses too much water in proportion to clothing. Hot water is the only way to get rid of bacteria and some stains. Air dried towels and cotton socks are rough and/or misshapen.
3
First, buy less. If what you get rid of is too old/stained/damaged to be used by someone else, check with your local Goodwill or Salvation Army store. Many accept rags for recycling, including sheets, towels, etc.
6
If you have old towels and sheets, many animal shelters will take them to use as bedding or for bath day.
3
Well the problem is not the clothes it's all our way to do business. Everything has to be the newest, hippest and the best way ahead of our other humans. The competitive life style of our economy driven by the companies is now in our life totally emerged. The way we should see our fashion industry is: It's an industry pushing things on us. 50 years ago we produced the much more of the needed cloth in the US, now its nearly to 100% produced in Asia. Wages are lower there, but they will rise. As usual the Fashion lables will look for other way to produce cheap and not lasting. We have to end this never ending cycle. Buying more quality long lasting clothes, looking for sustainability and environmental friendly material and be willing to pay more if its made in our area.
9
I wonder how much writing books and publishing screeds contributes to climate change? The consumption of energy for travel, research, writing, and publishing, when scaled to the entire planet and all forms of publishing: how many trees do Cline and all the worlds authors, photographers, editors, and publishers kil each year to call out fashion and all the other culprits? My point is not to dismiss Cline, but rather to point out that living and breathing is a basic ecological problem for the planet. Our very biological processes consume an immense amount of natural resources. I actually agree that the fashion industry is excessive, and that the production and consumption of clothing can be reformed, but these critiques take us only so far. Scale is a fundamental issue in any discussion of global climate, or global anything, and given the hardwired connection between consumed energy and standards of living, I'd bet every last cent I possess on the world consuming more energy in the future, not less. Reform fashion is you feel you must. It ain't gonna make a dent in the fundamental problems of this planet.
4
All well and good, but there are few ways to live in this world without consequences. The last time I tried to dry laundry outdoors, the birds in my yard did what birds do, and I was forced to wash everything all over again. No savings of resources there! Indoor drying means I have to run the dehumidifier in the basement all year round instead of just in the humid summers, plus it hugely increase the amount of ironing I have to do, both of which call upon the electric supply. So I'm afraid I will have to keep running my clothes dryer. There are no one-size-fits-all answers.
5
@EA
Electric or gas?
Want to make a personal contribution to saving our planet? Plant trees! And not wimpy decorative trees from some other place - but trees that are native to your area. Plant oaks and elms and maples and hickories. Nut trees and fruit trees and flowering trees and evergreens. Stop cutting down large swaths of trees to build cookie-cutter neighborhoods and just planting one or two "ornamental" trees in the yard.
31
@JMiller
I know. another huge tract of woods near me was just mown down for a tacky subdivision. Right when the wildlife need their winter cover and food sources.
6
Catchy headline. Intriguing idea. But let's look at the bigger picture here. The real problem is our consumer culture, which supports an economy based on inducing people to buy more and more stuff, then throwing it away and buying more.
We need to stop buying more and more stuff. Build an economy, and a culture, that respects and preserves the natural world.
23
The even bigger picture is that there are too many humans on the planet and the number is growing exponentially. If we cut our carbon foot print in half, but double the population, there is no net benefit. Cutting carbon emissions is impossible if the population continues to expand. Birth control is the ultimate answer.
7
Clothlessness is worth considering. Again, our stable genius is just one step ahead, for I'm constantly reading 'The Emperor has no clothes'.
13
If one isn't digging ditches or mucking stables all day, hang daytime wear where air can circulate around it overnight rather than putting it in the hamper. It's usually fine for two, sometimes three wearings.
Stick with classic styles and steer clear of "trends." There are items in my wardrobe purchased 40 years ago, still wearable for casual use.
Learn to sew. Sleeves with fraying cuffs can be shortened or removed, fraying collars can be removed. Re-use the waste as rags. When hemlines go up, don't cut the excess; turn it into an embellishment by creating multiple folds at the bottom edge. This leaves material available for when hems go down again -- just take out the seams. Works for pants as well as a skirts.
7
For some of us, clothes are not a fashion statement and we have never bought "fashion". We have doing what the article suggests for multiple generations. We wear it until it wears out and then goes to the rag bag. Both my wife and I still have Pendleton wool shirts we got as high school students and they are still in fine shape and fit. We have a clothes line outdoors and the energy efficient washer. We both know how to sew and repair as well as knit. Try it.
17
The fashionable women in my family are all full-on vintage fans. So I would like to use this opportunity to thank, in particular, the Sartorial Hand-me-down Highway Route 111 that stretches between Palm Springs and Palm Desert for being the best I have ever come across. Well worth the trip!
7
It's a manufacturing problem. The way the clothes are made is what is increasing GHG's. Consumers only buy the end product, so change the way clothes are made and what their made from and let consumers carry on with buying those products.
2
Fewer but well made, classically styled garments are our future. With today's population numbers, producing natural fiber is about as energy intensive as plastic fiber. Just buy what you will wear till it wears out. And wash and dry it gently.
9
Fashion week in the various countries that have them would be an excellent way to do a kick off of sorts showing only clothing that is environmentally friendly. Clothing stores could have a dept. with their own pre-worn wear. Athletic shoe and clothing companies could begin doing the same thing. Their efforts could be highlighted at athletic events. The ideas are really endless. But the there needs to be a ground swell and the fashion houses can set the pace.
7
"Wearing clothes" is not the problem. An obsession with constantly buying new clothes in a world which trains us to judge each other on the basis of fashion is the problem. Same, I might add, with the obsession to continually update our kitchens, cars, cellphones, etc, and to malign individuals who choose not to do so.
35
For me, a primary reason that I need to get rid of clothes is the damage and discoloration from perspiration. I recently purchased Numi undershirts that are made to absorb sweat, thus necessitating less cleaning and prolonging the life of my clothes. I feel bad about it, but I don’t feel comfortable wearing clothes with discolored underarms or a smell.
Also, women who suffer from incontinence after giving birth go through underwear and even pants and shorts far more quickly than they did before giving birth.
6
Up until recently clothing was not even on my radar as an environmental issue. So while I got rid of the straw, I was clothes shopping once a week. AGGHH! This is hitting home in a very big way, I recycle and I have made a conscious effort to reduce the use of my car, only to find out that I am a really huge piece of the climate change problem and I am negatively impacting our environment out sheer ignorance and most shamefully out of sheer vanity. I am embarrassed for my behavior but I am woke. Thanks.
14
A recent news story in the Boston area reported that 6% of the waste going to landfills consists of textiles. Towns now have the option of participating in a program that does curbside collection of textiles (not just clothes, but all household textiles such as towels, blankets, etc.). Collected items are sorted and what's useable goes to resale shops, and what's beyond wearing or use is repurposed into items such as insulation for cars, industrial cleaning cloths, etc.
20
@the more I love my dogs :
In my experience, animal shelters are always eager for cast-off sheets, towels, etc.
10
@the more I love my dogs, our town has drop off twice a year, they collect towels beddings etc that’s made into pet beds. We ourselves used old quilts and old towels to use as pet beds and blankets. We also get fleece fabric ends on sale as pet blankets.
5
Clothes horses are a minor part of the carbon problem that are overshadowed by the rapid growth in population that consumes not only clothes (even modest amounts), but myriad other high carbon items and services. While it would be nice for people not to waste carbon on excessive clothing churn, it is not going to save the planet.
10
@Mister Ed, every little bit helps. "One penny is still 1/100 of as dollar."
It is about exploding population. The national and global pop. has expanded so fast our previous habits and methods of consuming and manufacture in every field from clothes to food to straws has to be modified. It is sheer numbers that are creating these results.
Getting a industrial world population to agree to "live with less" is an impossible short term goal. The 20th century taught us all we can have anything we want.
29
@john lunn This, exactly. The global economy depends on over consumerism and overpopulation. Evidence the end of the one child policy in China. Getting people to live with fewer children is also an issue.
6
@Chris M you get people to change reproductive habits by educating women - educated women have less children.
I recently read Elizabeth Cline's "Over-Dressed: The Shockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion," and it was an eye-opener. Read this book and you may never walk into an H&M again. For many years I've been happily buying pre-worn clothing at consignment stores (AKA thrift shops) and on eBay. When I were younger, I even made some of my clothing, but - like many others - gave up sewing when store-bought clothing became inexpensive. The environment is indeed paying a steep price for our overstuffed closets. We seriously need to return to the days of owning a few well-made garments instead of a lot of cheap ones that were sewn in an Asian sweatshop where working conditions are appalling.
33
It is interesting that clothing drives 8 percent of GHG emissions, but it would be nice to know what percent of the economy it drives as well. Obviously clothing is important, but we can do better by stopping the "wear and throw out" mentality of cheap clothes. Part of the reduction in consumption is getting back to the concept of buying quality over quantity. With a finite budget, the consumer naturally buys less in this scenario. And these clothes last longer whether for the original owner of second/third buyer. We still need a decent plan for "final use" although insulation is good one. And we need to figure out employment opportunities for those workers who may be displaced if we stop buying so many clothes. Maybe quality clothes require more time? As a farmer I advocate use of linen, wools, cotton, and hemp fibers as being biodegradeble!
19
If we look closely, almost everything we do contributes to climate change.
In my opinion, the biggest part of the problem is the fact that we have more than 7 billion people on the planet. The planet just can't support that many.
The question is: "how do we reduce our population by 4 billion people?" There is much medical research on how we can save babies who might not live and how to extend our life span.
22
@Bruce
Most of these 7 billion people have very few clothing items and rarely buy clothing. It is the affluent countries that use so much clothing and throw away so much.
2
The carbon footprint of the clothing manufacturing sector would be lessened a great deal if we returned to domestically produced fiber, fabric, and garments. Oil is still too cheap and we therefore consume far too much of it.
7
Sure the clothing industry is a problem. But who “tosses” clothes? Clothes aren’t like plastic bottles, or styrofoam take out boxes. You either sell them, give them to family and friends, or give them to charity. Pretty much no one just throws them away. That said, let’s go thrift/vintage shopping!
17
@Erica Martin
That was true once, but now, the abundance of clothes ( and other textiles, such as sheets which are thrown out not because of wear but due to "home fashion") is so great that in my area we are specifically requested never to do that, but to bring them in on a special collections day. And plastic bottles - the correct ones - are recycled often to make clothing.
From Planet Recycling: "The average Americans throws away about 64 pounds of clothing a year—that’s about 191 T-shirts!"
When we give used clothing to charity, only the best examples are resold here. Most is shipped overseas, in bulk, often to Africa, where it is sold. ( And where cheap Chinese imports of new clothes are also sold). Perhaps not so bad -- but African nations have challenges with waste as well, producing 62 million tons in 2010, expected to double by 2025 ( from a 2010 world bank report on waste generation and solid waste management). And as the populations rise this all gets worse to try to control.
I was thinking that it would be interesting to weigh my own discards, to see how much I waste.
1
I would like to see the cost breakdown for buying used clothes. My 2 20-something kids have only shopped at Goodwill for the past 10 years. They never buy new except for underwear and socks. The hunt is fun and unique vintage clothing is the objective. Sometimes I am horrified by hideous 80’s flowered jumpsuits on my daughter or Brady Bunch striped polyester shirts on my son, but nevertheless I am glad they refuse to “buy new”. Nevertheless, they consume a lot, and then these clothes end up back at Goodwill. Eventually, when clothes serve no purpose here, they are crated and shipped to places like Guatemala where the ugliest of ugly clothes are being sold in “paca” stores and in piles in rural markets.
8
Excellent, with a warming clime we will no longer need clothes ! (forgive me).
7
The good news is that many of these solutions to the climate crisis involve slowing down. This will be good for people and the planet, but we have to slow down together.
7
What about highlighting innovative clothing companies like Rent the Runway? Renting clothes reduces our carbon footprint and clothes waste and is also fun for the consumer. It’s drastically reduced how many new clothes I buy and I’m telling as many friends as I can about it. As you talk about, consumer choices are important.
4
This article raises a classic problem in economics and environmental protection: too few resources and too many needs. Yes, it would be great if we handled clothes more responsibly, but should we be focusing on this small problem when we can't even solve the big one: USA, China, and Russian consumption of fossil fuels? My personal response: Not at the expense of the more important effort to control use of fossil fuels, but I'm willing to be more careful in my choices of clothes as long as it's easy.
3
@31today Plastics used in apparel like polyester, acrylic, and nylon are made from fossil fuels.
3
Gandhi understood this. He wore a diaper and spun cotton but a less extreme solution would be less of us. Human numbers fuel the climate crisis, the 6th mass extinction, deforestation, lack of healthy food and clean water, a few extra plastic bags, pandemics and now it seems, the lack of clothes. One-child incentives work but first we need the corporations to accept fewer consumers. They are the ones in charge.
10
All the plastic containers for food in the grocery store have increased in my home over the last five years, new cloths have not. The food supply chain is a big contributor.
9
@poslug It is, but it only exists because we consume. If it is made clear that single use plastic containers are not acceptable, therefore not profitable, it will change. There are many bulk stations in grocery stores now, our local,co-op is where we get most of our groceries, we bring refillable containers to cut down on consumption.
The essential problem is overconsumption of the earth's resources by a relatively small part of the population. Advertising feeds our desire to buy, but we don't have to play along. Having more things does not make us happier!
Find ways to consume less. Buy quality, care for it wisely and keep it for a long time. Replace/recycle/donate when no longer usable.
24
@Bonnie
As a corollary, perhaps we should re-evaluate whether mass advertising is an appropriate feature in a truly modern society, the power to make millions do your bidding.
I have one or two shirts that are at least thirty years old, and still are wearable. Living here in Germany, we line dry our clothes either inside or outside. Also our washing machines here are much more efficient, using less water and heating it, within the machine. America needs to follow the lead of other countries to be less wasteful!
44
@Old Expat, sane in Australia and New Zealand, very few people own or use clothes dryers. It’s something Americans have never understood, the power of fresh sunlight and wind. Wherever we traveled in Asia, in Greece, we found clothes lines in the balconies..such a comforting sight. Here, in America it’s considered ugly to hang dry your clothes in public view, I guess?
3
@petey tonei
Drying clothing on a line outdoors in your own backyard is against the law in some neighborhoods and Home Owner Associations.
Only in America!
4
So, the choice is wearing clothes longer, buying used clothing, line-drying at least, and all that, or doing something for our children?
Let's see: I'll have to break some routines and suffer some possible status hits. On the other hand, I'll do some of my part to clean up the mess I've made for my children.
Tough call, but I'll have to go with tough-luck for the kiddies.
Love,
Virtually everyone reading this, if they want to start with basic honesty, which is the only hope
5
@Doug Tarnopol, even something so simple as line drying, is frowned upon in this town we live, supposedly a town of conservationists environmentalists ecologists! Go figure. For 6 months every year we air dry outdoors in our backyard, our washed clothes (only use cold wash setting for everything). Remaining 6 months we use the dryer minimally, we air dry clothes on a butterfly clothes rack. We ignored comments on the umbrella clothes line for decades once we noticed the drastic dip in our heating bills! Do you know how much energy these dryers consume!
16
My grandmother had a clothesline in her basement for winter drying & I followed her example. The added humidity is a plus & I rarely use my dryer. Thankful I live in a rural area where many have clotheslines. My aunt comments on seeing my full clothesline every time she rides the train past our farm. Waste not - want not.
10
@petey tonei I find this astonishing. We have literally never owned an electric dryer.
Apparel is a staple, a nessecity parallel to food and shelter. Considering the impacts and creating better business models is essential to our future. Along the same lines, we need more awareness and better legislation, its refreshing to see the impacts of apparel becoming a daily conversation.
6
Growing up we watched my mother (who is 92 this year) care for her clothes as though they were something so precious. Whether it was cotton, nylon, silk, linen or wool. My mother hand washed them, air dried them, ironed the wrinkles when they dried. As collars and cuffs frayed, she expertly hemmed them. As moths made tiny holes in her silks, she expertly used silk threads to camouflage the holes, as the holes grew bigger, she made embroidery patterns on them that looked both good and served the purpose of patching. When clothes shred she made them into strips to stuff cushions with (my daughter still does). She still uses silk squares from 65 year old clothing as dusting cloths! She still uses drapes from 50 years ago reincarnated as cushion covers.
If you haven’t heard the story of Buddhist monks, they would use the last threads of their robes as wicks for the oil lamps. Some people “care” about Mother Earth and humanity because they simple treasure being born on this planet.
56
@petey tonei
"Buddhist monks, they would use the last threads of their robes as wicks for the oil lamps"
Note to self...get out there and buy some oil lamps and look for second-hand robes with wick potential.
3
@h king, oh are you a Buddhist monk or wannabe one? Surely you have read any ancient stories aka mythologies that have informed humanity with lessons and morals, through the ages? The Bible being a popular book of fables tales and myths! Lol
My grandmother made stuffed animals for me, stuffed with her old nylons!
Our foremothers spun wool, linen, and cotton to make clothes for their families. I do this as a hobby. It makes me keenly aware of clothing quality and construction, which everyone should pay attention to. The point we all need to understand is that the less we throw away (of anything), the better it is for the environment. Our clothing choice may seem a small thing, but it is something everyone can do, and collectively we can make a significant impact. Choose clothing that will wear well and which fibers will return to the soil once you are done with it.
12
Well if you want to live in the 19th century that's your business.
The totality of modern human beings are on the track heading toward extinction. The environmental cost of clothing is merely another factor in driving humans humans toward a Malthusian Spector. Look at the birthday suit of the home sapiens; it was designed for climate conditions that were Mediterranean. Then contrast this evolved design to the environments where humans are found. Most humans are living in environments where they need environmental support which they get from energy released by oxidizing Carbon fuels. These fuels were Nature's way of storing Carbon over geologic time. The widespread burning of these fuels causes damage to the biosphere that cannot be undone in the short time needed to save humans and many other life forms. It is too late to turn the clock back for all the reasons mentioned in this insightful artcle and written about in comments by our family of NYT readers.
2
@Michael Edward Zeidler
Not to worry...the planet will do just fine without us.
Amen! And might I add, let's push our government to support the domestic production of natural fibers. American grown wool and flax can be good for the planet AND help to rebuild shattered rural economies. Natural fiber, sustainably raised, is our future.
23
@A You seem to have missed something here. Whether the Cotton is grown here or elsewhere, it takes the same amount of energy and water to process it.
!
I have been wearing recycled clothing for as long as I can remember. I wear 300 dollar shoes that I paid 7 dollars for. I wear pants and shirts of the best quality for less than 5% of the original cost. I look smart and I feel good about how I clothe myself. Recycled clothes have moral beauty to them that the finest clothes in the world never can have.
It all depends on how we define "beautiful." The clothes don't make the woman or man - it's the person in them that makes the clothes beautiful.
15
I had a clothing company for 15 years in Los Angeles. Everything we made was repurposed from something else: scarves into dresses, cashmere into ponchos, denim into skirts etc. We even took old concert tees and made them in tiny kid sizes (until one aged rocker sued us for using his image, that’s another story). Everything we used was from warehouses that collected used clothing, vast bins of you name it were ours for the picking. Bought by the pound. Most of their clothing was then packed up and sent south and to countries in Africa—until: fast fashion came along. That’s not mentioned here—at all! I couldn’t compete with the knock-offs that came so quick, lots of people couldn’t: including the warehouses I mentioned above. Fast fashion is really killing us. I could go on and on, but seriously, how can you write an important article like this and not mention the engine that sends out cashmere sweaters for ridiculously cheap prices. When it’s that cheap people don’t value it, and so it’s tossed.
23
@Ana What is "fast fashion"? I never heard that before.
Instead of talking about how to make new clothing recyclable, let's go back to when clothing was good quality and lasted for *gasp* decades.
People made good quality basic clothing that they wore and handed down in families.
Being 'fashionable' and novelty seeking was not even a consideration for the any but a few.
We were all much better off environmentally, economically and socially when we were less vain and narcissistic.
24
@CNNNNC Before l read this article, l
set out my clothes for work. Wool skirt, cashmere turtleneck, wool coat. The coat was a gift for my 40th birthday.
I’m 67.
The sweater and skirt are newer—about 10 years old. I love them all. Classic clothes work for lots of reasons.
30
@CNNNNC agree totally. I still wear clothes from the 80s that have no tears in them. I don’t mind if they are out of “fashion” cuz in my lifetime I have seen flare bottoms return over and over again, LOL. My daughter and niece come to my walk in closet just to entertain themselves because of all those outfits from the 80s, I feel joy seeing them entertained!! Not insulted.
1
@CNNNNC my favorite item in my coat closet is the Icelandic wool jacket I purchased while pregnant with my first daughter. She’ll be 40 next year.
1
Maybe environmentalists are going a bit too far. You are asking me to live on a worldwide nudist colony, walk everywhere I need to go, eat only what naturally comes up out of the ground, and just let insects, wild dangerous animals, and bacteria run rampant until out species is eliminated. And environmentalists winder why they are not taken seriously.
10
@HFDRU I haven't heard anyone asking us to stop wearing clothes. However, it's vital to be aware, to educate ourselves and do whatever we can to protect our environment. I think the necessary changes are daunting and very difficult for all of us, and yet the Earth cannot sustain us if we continue to live this way. Please just do a little research; each one of us is vital and needs to be on board as we work together for the sake of all life.
11
Amen! Thanks to the do gooders I feel my personal freedom to choose what's right for me is being taken away. Who is Elizabeth Cline to decide what I can and cannot wear?
2
@Ariel It is funny that you assume I am uneducated. I have a masters in Economics and my favorite subject was economic geography. I understand completely how important any changes in climate are to not only our economic survival as a nation but also to our survival as a species. Is there any indication of past "human" behavior to conclude that we will get 8 billion humans on board to help the earth to sustain our species? Especially considering the earth, mother nature, or whatever energy force that may control the universe really does not care about our species.
An interesting piece but clothing is way down my list of environmental issues. Let's solve the big problems first, then we consider investing in genetic manipulation to bring back full body hair.
4
@larry bennett
I think you didn't really read this article. The writer's point is that clothing IS a big problem.
1
Bottom line here: we must return to a pre-industrial revolution way of life — with a pre-industrial revolution number of jobs.
Consumerism (including buying lots of new clothes) sustains our economy, which sustains our population.
4
If one embraces this opinion piece, it's hard to imagine anything escaping the ire of climate activists.
To summarize clothing is bad for the environment and people making clothes are exploited.
So lets take this to its logical conclusion - have minimal clothing and put those exploited workers out of a job. They can pound sand for the environment and be grateful their overlords in the developed nations took their livelihood away.
Smug doesn't begin to describe this opinion piece.
20
@Matt perhaps we should try to purchase fewer items of quality clothing instead of closets full of disposable trash. Workers could then be paid a living wage. You know, like when we used to “look for the union label”.
@Matt
You apparently completely fail to understand the problems we, as a species, face.
Fashion has never been sustainable, never will be. As long as people care about the clothing they choose to cover their naked bodies is as long as the fossil-fuel industry will continue making women's and men's clothing.
Pesticides cause cancers in people. Chemicals dyeing cloth made of plastic, synthetic fibers, have polluted our oceans and rivers. Fashionable people don't think or care about our existential environment.
Climate change is called a hoax by our 45th President and his people. Climate-warming is a fact of life and death now till Kingdom Come. Potable water is more important to human life than clothing. What happened to fig leaves?
3
Poor people lead the most virtuous lives because they don't have the funds to buy stuff. What's the point of working hard and having lots of cash if you have to sit around in threadbare, 20-year old clothing? People will certainly forgo plane trips for the virtuous result of saving the planet too, right? Nope-NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
6
Thanks for this informative op-ed which brings attention to the variety of ways that create greenhouse gases & environmental degradation throughout the fashion industry. If only fashion returned to the 90's grunge trend sported by pop cultural icon Kurt Cobain. If only fashion emulated the thread bare style of the poor and/or homeless so that wealthy consumers would revere the practice of wearing the same T-shirt, jeans & white sneakers for days on end & only shower occasionally. This would save millions of gallons of water & electricity from being wasted not to mention preventing unnecessary hair & body products with toxic chemicals like Sodium Laureth Sulfate, which is mutagenic to animals, cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine and methyl cocoyl taurate which contain heavy metals & have been found to cause cancer plus an assortment of other chemicals being carelessly flushed into the environment. Consumers should begin to understand the correlation between their buying habits & the end stream results of these purchases on the destruction of our ecosystems. Difficult to believe that Kurt Cobain's signature tattered and fuzzy olive-green "Unplugged" cardigan sold for $334,000 at auction. The cover of his album, "Nevermind", sums up the learned behavior of Capitalism. Without which need for greed, consumers could just "come as they are".
8
Don't blame me, blame my wife. As soon as I was married, my favorite shirts started to disappear. When I asked what was going on, she said there were spots on them. I said: so what, but they kept disappearing.
7
My daughter used my laptop the other day, and as a result, I had to scroll through two banner ads for women's clothing merchants while reading this valuable opinion piece. This would be funny if ice caps weren't threatening to make swimwear the next generation of business casual.
4
@Gerry Hi! I use DuckDuckGo. No ads appear on my screens anymore!
@FarmGirl Thanks for the tip!
As always, the solutions to these and countless other problems begin with individual awareness. Trite but true. Ironically, too many of us prefer to only think of ourselves instead of about others which only increases the negative consequences for all of us, which is a luxury none of us can afford.
13
I have been waiting for this time-the time when old and well worn clothes are acceptable-I hate to shop so wear what I buy forever.It is embarrassing in family photos to see me now in the same outfit I wore 15 years ago.I am not making light of your point that clothes production takes another toll on the climate.I am just happy that my distaste for new and fashionable now makes me comfortable and even virtuous.
14
I was enticed by the headline. But, there isn't much information here, just a lot of opinions. This would have been much more effective if it include real info about what helps the environment instead of broad statement about things being harmful.
16
@Karen Actually it does contain a few tips: don't buy new clothes, get second-hands, don't buy cotton made, avoid those with plastics (if you have them, then don't ever wash them, lest you contribute to the destruction of marine life). So the logical conclusion is, we should all ideally just live like cavemen, without fur.
5
When out and about with my wife I'm appalled at the lack of comfortable chairs available for me and the other husbands to sit on while our better halves try on a dozen outfits. And what's with the non-existent men's sections at most stores?
6
I bet if you measured up the consumption of clothing by separating the volume in terms of gross weight or dollars or fossil fuels or agricultural raw materials consumed by the genders it would be a remarkable difference. Men likely are treading a lighter footprint on the environment (energy and resource input ) in this aspect.
5
@Suburban Cowboy
Just think of all those overweight pregnant women.
Remarkable declaration by Jane Fonda I heard her remark on Friday. She says she will no longer buy anymore clothes. None, nada, zilch, bupkiss. Sure, as an 80 year old with presumably a full wardrobe it is easier to do. But it is a meaningful point to emulate to the degree we each can. She has been protesting weekly and getting arrested weakly in DC to shout out the danger of climate change.
32
@Suburban Cowboy
"(Jane Fonda) says she will no longer buy anymore clothes."
No wonder Barney's is going bankrupt.
Until America comes to grips with our dysfunctional political leadership issues, no progress will be made on environmental policy, climate change or any other issue requiring rational discussion, collaboration, policy analysis or sustainable legislative initiatives.
12
Has no one heard of “fair trade certification”? If you must buy new please consider both supporting this movement and continue to examine the organization to keep it moving in a sustainable direction. The tone of both the article and the posted comments reminds me of the old Soviet shopping “GUM” department store socialist consumer experience - I don’t believe most folks want to live that way. Where are we with a technical solution to capturing plastic released by recycled plastics in fabric? And what of the enormous carbon footprint generated by online apparel purchases?
4
Interesting how the subject of clothing brings on an awareness of the role population growth has in the global warming problem. It seems to be up close and personal in a way unlike most of our other activities.
9
Consider donating your old sweaters and sweatshirts to a local animal shelter. Many shelters don’t have a lager budget for heating and they will re-purpose your items into a nice warm garment for a homeless pet.
17
@Paddy8r great idea!
Clothes, straws, flight...nine of these issues matter. The climate crisis comes down to TWO factors and only two factors:
- Clean energy production
And, most importantly,
- population control
It doesn’t matter how much clothes a global population of 1-2 billion produce and wash. The problem is the 7 billion people. Stop having kids and we’ll be just fine.
56
@KW I don't think its helpful to make such sweeping statements. Enough people making the right choices can have a massive impact (clean energy is also a choice). If we apply the 'reduce, reuse, recycle' mindset to every part of our lives, we will undoubtedly change the current story, which is grim indeed. The key one being reduce.
9
@KW it’s true individual choices aren’t going to turn the tide — because all of us aren’t going to make them, certainly not on in the brief time available, and because the overall economy hasn’t been remade to support them. We need vast, meaningful, immediate policy change. Changes in individual behavior now are simply moral choices, which do have meaning. In the best possible outcome, they are rehearsals for a better way of life.
By the same token people aren’t going to stop having children. But this problem will have a different and terrible solution in the form of massive excess casualties. When huge coastal cities flood and become inhabitable, when there are widespread crop failures and water shortages, when epidemics of tropical diseases move north and overwhelm our capacity to treat them, and nations are motivated to go to war over resources, we will see millions if not billions die.
We need to be planning to reduce this unbearable, unassimilable catastrophe.
5
@KW
People won't stop having children, and they shouldn't. But maybe we could enact meaningful policies to encourage everyone to limit the number of children they have, both here and abroad. Step number one is messaging: population targets need to be articulated. Cash should be involved in step number 2.
Better regulations on clothing are not a bad idea either, especially in regards to the chemicals and plastics that are released into the environment. But we all need clothing, and poor people around the world need those jobs.
If the issue is climate change, and if we were serious about halting the current change underway, I think the most effective, immediate and doable is for all of us to stop flying. Aviation's contribution to overall global emissions is estimated at between 4 and 10 per cent (travel also contributes to the plague of invasive species all over the globe, but that's another issue). We could radically restrict the number of planes allowed in the sky: auction off a small number of slots a year, including for private jets, and let the market take care of the resulting pricing for flying. Pay the people in the air travel industry what they make now for the next five years to give them a chance to move out of the industry and into something else. Air travel is not necessary to survival, whereas clothing is.
2
It's probably far more important for the planet that we limit the size of the human population than almost anything else we do other than reduce carbon emissions.
We add something like 80 MILLION to our numbers every year. And we're already well beyond earth's carrying capacity for 7+ billion people to lead decent lives.
Either we voluntarily reduce our numbers over time, or conflict and nature will do it for us.
49
@Michael Tyndall
I agree that population growth is worrying, but it is already slowing in the U.S. and other developed countries. Many, including the U.S. have birth rates under the replacement rate (2.1 children per woman), which can have other negative economic and social effects.
The best way to slow population growth is to support charities that work to help women in developing nations receive education and access to birth control. Give women opportunities to live and work as they want and make their own decisions. So far, that has always correlated positively with lower birth rates.
If you want to feel like you are personally doing something to combat climate change, make conscious consumption decisions like the author is advocating. It will make a much bigger difference than saying people should stop having children.
However, the most important thing is to push for action on the political level. Aside from consuming less/only what we need (which is harder than it sounds), consumers don't have enough information to make really sound decisions. It's not for lack of effort, although it's unrealistic to expect that anyone spend all their time researching the most sustainable goods. It's because in many cases, that information is just not available. I work in the field of environmental footprinting and it is still a herculean task right now with the data available. We need to push for more uniform, simple standards to help consumers make good choices.
15
@Alexandra
I absolutely agree that everything should be on the table if we're going to meaningfully mitigate climate change. It's just that all too often population control is an afterthought, if it's mentioned at all. And women's lives and rights are key issues.
9
@Alexandra
The economic system must shift away from mass consumption as it is not sustainable, period. The world is on the downslope of the population curve and gaining speed. If we do not drastically change our consumption of resources and more tightly control populations growth we will see mass deaths. And yes this means businesses will close and people will need to find other occupations.
7
It’s not just clothing. Consider your bed linen & towel purchases.
There’s a brisk market in secondhand sheets & pillowcases on Etsy & eBay. Nothing icky and stained but barely used crisp vintage sheets. I’m lying right now on gorgeous all-cotton Ralph Lauren sheets from the 1980s, for example. With matching duvet cover & pillow cases.
Well-run thrift stores are a gold mine for textiles. Overnight them in a bucket of Oxyclean, wash a couple times with your towels & you’re good to go. The vintage patterns are great, too.
I’ve also purchased many in never-opened packages with no bar code, meaning pre-1974. Crisp, heavy percale and muslin instead of the fuzzy hot sateen weaves (Or god forbid microfiber) being peddled now.
19
@Earthling Thanks, need some new towels, now I know where to look
@ella biondi
It's funny but the towels I bought at a well-known department store five years ago are rags now, but the towels I still have from my parents' households (ie at least 20 years old) are like new, despite the same use same washing techniques.
I also wish people would use washcloths instead of those beauty wipes, baby wipes and other disposables. Come on.
2
A helpful hint: many clothes can be nicely refreshed by a 15 minute dryer cycle without washing. This takes far less energy than required to wash, rinse, and then evaporate the acquired moisture. Judging from the minimal amount of lint trapped, the clothes might also last quite a bit longer.
5
I'm underpaid and overtaxed, so most of the clothes I'm wearing nowadays are very old, many of them inherited from my mother when she died. Think 1970s, 1980s. The older the clothes, the longer they last, and I still have items that are "made in USA" ("look for the union label"). I have no children and I don't drive. But I live in a community with a huge carbon footprint, so the overpaid, overindulged gentrifying newbies here from NYC don't think about it, breed like rabbits, and all drive SUVs, thinking that this is the way one lives in the suburbs. And I'm sure all their precious little brats have spanking new baby clothes (we wore hand-me-downs - I was wearing '50s crinolines in the '60s) - the newest store in town is a baby clothing store. Ugh.
31
@Stephanie Wood : Wow. That's a sweeping generalization about newcomers. If you want to have a positive influence on people, you might start by not overgeneralizing and attacking them.
12
@Stephanie Wood
I feel your pain, having gone from zero to 17 kids in a four-house radius in my old-fashioned neighbored . And every household needs 2 SUVs and a 1,500 sq ft addition. Eyeroll. These people are blatant over consumers and proud of it.
5
I bet you are not overtaxed if you are so poorly paid. I’d like to see your figures on paper.
A huge improvement can be achieved by using hemp fiber as the starting material for apparel textiles. Hemp requires no pesticides, practically no fertilizer and can now be processed into fiber that is accepted by cotton machinery, resulting in fabrics of cottonlike comfort.
24
@Doetze Sadly everything with HEMP! seems so overpriced.
I confess I have a problem! I enjoy shopping for clothes and have a keen (perhaps unhealthy) interest in certain brands but it wears on my conscience, as I'm well aware of the environmental impact of the clothes I wear. I have a wardrobe just for my jackets! I have managed to be more selective in what I buy, and pick quality items that will last (although I often look at my wardrobe and thing to myself: I couldnt wear this stuff out in two lifetimes). I also encourage my teenage daughter to focus on quality over quantity, which is not easy as you can imagine. We simply MUST change the way we consume, in every part of our lives.
7
Considering the amount of resources one person uses during his/her lifetime, some of us should reconsider being born, or at least seriously think about using nothing more than the birthday clothes we arrive with.
8
Or at least, don't give birth to so many children. Montclair's birthrate is at 1950s levels. Everyone is pregnant, or has multiple children. It's like living in a time warp. I'm one of very few childless older people left, and have to leave. The cost to taxpayers is astronomical. Most of the taxes here are school taxes which also makes for very high rents.
30
@Stephanie Wood : If you're concerned about paying taxes for public schools, you might be better off moving to one of those towns that ban people under 55.
All those offspring will pay into Social Security that you are likely collecting far beyond what you contributed I would guess.
My young adult children have taught me...only shop at thrift stores. Something I never would have seen myself doing. Do it for the planet
21
@Truthtalk, my daughter in her high 20s, now earning a good almost 6 digit salary, still shops at thrift stores, mostly. The only new clothes she wears, are the ones I present her, for her birthday and for Christmas. I am so proud of her!
2
I takemy od clothes to a seamstress. Good fabrics can be fixed and repurposed. I employ a local and the carbon footprint is minimal.
18
@Clara a friend of ours upcycles old fabrics into new dresses, wine bags etc. many of these fabrics can be converted to table mats and napkins.
2
When logging companies were clear-cutting old growth forests, the Ad Council, with lumber companies and the US Forest Service, concocted the famous Smokey the Bear campaign: Only YOU Can Prevent Forest Fires. It was a cynical ploy to blame forest fires on hapless campers and smokers flicking cigarettes out while driving through national forests.
Blame The Victim is the go-to strategy for Corporate America. Most forest fires are caused by lightening and exacerbated by the Big Lumber's scorched earth harvesting practices, like clear-cutting. Telling ordinary folks it's their fault dims the spotlight on corporate destruction of public resources for profit.
Climate change is big. The causes are big, starting with Big Business, and their captive big governments, that thrive on social control cultures and compulsive consumption. Big Business says they get it, they're part of the solution. If Big Business isn't to blame, it must be the little people.
So it's down to YOU! Earth fries if you buy the cheaper garment that isn't certified climate-friendly. And stop acting self-righteous about climate change as business as usual.
It's a potent strategy in a democracy. Make citizens think they're the problem and they won't get too worked up over the real problem: a system that wrecks Earth while enriching few and impoverishing most.
Blaming people for the bad choices offered by their corporate overseers is a prescription for alienation, which is another form of vote suppression.
46
@Yuri Asian
"Blaming people for the bad choices offered by their corporate overseers..."
Thank you, that is truer than true.
The best definition of happiness I have ever heard says that it lies somewhere between too little and too much. If only we could convince our "corporate overseers" of this we'd all be so much better off, we might actually be able to just tend to our own lives and our own happiness.
1
If you buy a pair of well made shoes opposed multiple cheap shoes. Quality over quantity.
16
@nottrew
Unfortunately, this is one of the ways that it is much cheaper to be well-off and much more expensive to be poor. If you or your child's footwear is wearing out and you don't have $200 to spend on a good, repairable pair of boots or shoes, you're going to go to Payless or Target or Wal-Mart and get something for $20 that will at least keep your feet dry and looking respectable for a few months.
Those $200 German, Portuguese or Italian shoes are well-made and can be shined and repaired and resoled for the rest of your life. The $20 plastic shoes from Wal-Mart will be duct-taped or in the dustbin in a few months, and you'll buy them again and again.
Not everyone wears "fast fashion" because they're heedless hedonists happy to live in a throwaway culture; some just can't afford the alternative.
Unfortunately, the "throwaway" idea has caught on with people who *could* afford to buy better, but they are so used to the idea that clothes or shoes "should be cheaper", so they don't absorb the lesson and they toss their things in the bin the moment they are a little worn or a button falls off.
One more thing: since "No Child Left Behind" eliminated Home Economics, nobody is taught how to sew anymore. My wife has purchased higher-end clothing at insane discounts due to tiny, repairable problems. 90% off retail because a button is gone, when the replacement button is sewn to the inner lining!
27
Are you alive? You're part of the problem.
How dare you breathe out carbon dioxide and eat food that could be nourishing wild animals? How dare you tread on grass blades and injure them.
We have a right to be alive and take up resources. We are allowed to wear clothes. The question is where is the threshold of living sustainably? For every lifestyle choice, we can ask ourselves - if 10 billion people lived this way for 1000 years, could the earth and our human community sustain that and be healthy and thriving?
We don't really have the right to operate beyond that threshold. But up to that point, we have every right to survive and use resources.
26
Well said. I clicked on the comments thinking the author will be laughed out of town. Instead I find preachy people telling me I should be concerned about clothes now. When people are worried about basic necessities as jobs, money, security retirement, their children's future in terms of money NYT publishes such rubbish article. I understand perfectly why Trump got elected.
The problem isn't so much the clothes you're wearing as the packed closets and dressers full of clothes you aren't wearing- all of which had to be manufactured and shipped, and will eventually end up in landfills without being worn more than a couple times. If we chose to purchase a few well made clothes that are timeless in style and last through many wearings we'd greatly reduce the impact of fashion on the environment.
35
@Carole Grace
This is true. The main problem—which is not discussed in this piece—is that the business model for most fashion enterprises is to sell the maximum amount of clothing possible. Thus the 5-6 + collections per year and the endless advertising and editorial touting the latest looks. It's up to the consumer to control change the situation, but the appeal of buy-wear-throw it out brands—H&M, Zara, Uniqlo…—is perhaps too strong.
I'm personally proud to say that I had already followed your advice and still wear much good clothing I purchased 20+ years ago. I also have a pair of Yohji Yamamoto socks (of all things) in good condition from 1985. I never in my life spent more for a pair of socks but these are still beautiful.
27
Second hand clothes are awesome if you have time to thrift for them. A lot more brands are coming online that are ethical and sustainable. Hopefully this trend continues. For me personally, I’m shifting away from fast fashion - moving toward capsule wardrobes, mending old clothes, buying only second hand or ethical brands. Slowly but surely. We must change.
22
Not clear why oil going to make synthetic fabrics is a problem, other than the feel of the fabrics. Isn't this a form of carbon storage?
4
@seattle expat
When you wash fabrics like nylon, micropastics are released into the water. The disposal of such fabrics is also a problem. They don't break down like natural fibers do.
19
@seattle expat One problem with wearing and washing plastics is that microplastic particles wash away into the water, to the ocean. We end up eating them. Probably something worth reducing as much as possible.
12
@seattle expat
Cotton, silk, wool, and other natural-fiber fabrics can be fed upon by many different species of microorganisms, e.g., moth larvae, bacteria, fungi, etc., whereas there are very few species that digest oil-based products.
12
On a planet with limited resources, ALL goods should be made to last and easy to repair. That was how clothes used to be. Even when rags they still had a use. Our culture of consumption focuses on the opposite.
For most of man's existence clothing was expensive and took a long time to make. Thread had to be spun from fibers. those threads had to be woven into cloth. Cloth had to be cut and sewn into clothes. Scraps of cloth were used for quilts. It was too costly to waste.
Industrialization of spinning and weaving transformed the world - and put thousands out of work. Men weaving at home were replaced by women and children working in factories. 'The Mill' on Amazon provides a fascinating - if sanitized - view of this life.
People can now afford more than one set of clothes. That is a huge improvement over the past but we have really gone too far.
We might try reining in the new styles every year cycle to cut 'fashion obsolescence' but will the world really be happy with standard long lasting easy to clean jumpsuits?
11
"We can turn our washing machines down to cold and consider air drying more of our laundry."
This is where you lost me. Cold water does not get out stains unless you combine it with harsh chemical detergents. And air drying works if you live in Spain, but not a damp English apartment with poor ventilation (your towels will smell like cheese).
31
@Nate Obviously. The thing is if you live in Arizona, a dryer might not be necessary at all, but it's necessary maybe in England indeed. Also, washing with warm (even cold) instead of hot works well most often, and is easier on the clothes. But of course sometimes we need dryers and hot wash. I think this article isn't meant as gospel, rather as food for thought.
15
I have friends who live in California who would like to air dry but cannot due to the neighbourhood rules that they had to agree to when they bought the place. So it's that sort of thing we are talking about, not what to do in winter in Helsinki. By the way, I lived in London for several years with 4 flatmates and we managed to air dry our clothes throughout winter. We had no dryer, and we coped. It is possible.
10
I lived in Taiwan which is MORE humid than England. Everyone, rich and poor, city and rural, hangs their clothes on outdoor clotheslines. Pick your laundry day when the weather will be drier in next day’s forecast. People can do likewise globally.
5
It would not hurt for people to eat less - smaller bodies mean less materials needed to produce a garment. Lots of other down stream benefits.
18
@Robert Stacy it is not the meat, it is all the processed foods that are causing larger bodies.
2
@Mary I don't care about the process - though that is surely an issue as well - we eat too much, period. Main point is that it is a causal chain of events that making modifications anywhere along the way makes a difference.
1
As a former organizer for the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, I have to note that the exception to the author's statement that clothes are easy to forget because they are made far away and historically by slaves and low paid workers was the era of a unionized workforce making clothes in the United States.
Making clothes and other consumer items nationally means less use of fossil fuels for transportation to sales sites.
Neoliberal globalization is bad for workers and the environment and increases inequality.
26
@steven One thing we forget to discuss is the downward race of pricing. We have closets full of clothes we never wear because they're so cheap. They're so cheap because of unfair labor practice... Euphemism for slavery. If we paid the fair price for clothing, we would take better care of what we have.
The elephant in the Climate Change room is our economic model. We require growth in business volume, flow, and profits, combined with reduction in price. Economics is nothing more than a symbolic expression of thermodynamics... The exchange and transformation of energy and entropy. Our current economic model defies the laws of physics, and the thermodynamic hens are coming home to roost.
12
You cannot air dry your clothes anymore. Well, perhaps you could, but only if you wanted to wear something covered in lint particulars. Until my washing machine with a top lint basket died, I never dried my cottons. Which is pretty much all I wear. I have had several machines since then, and none of their 'internal' lint filters have done near as good a job.
1
@YayPGH
In many places you quite literally cannot air dry your clothes. Clothes lines were everywhere in the suburbia of my youth (and cities as well I expect). Today many communities ban outside clothes lines as 'unsightly'. I cannot recall the last time I saw a clothes line.
Someone could make a fortune if they came up with a better way to dry clothes than the typical tumble dryer.
12
@cynicalskeptic In a word: Bird droppings. Although a neighbor kept bees for a couple of years and the bee droppings were more numerous and frequent.
@cynicalskeptic True, enough. In later years I had rods installed over the bath tub, but when I was a kid we had clothes lines in the garage or breeze way. My mom worked and she did laundry when she could, rain or shine.
5
It's a good article, but I fear the people reading these types have already been doing what they can to reduce consumption for years, including clothing. So it's kind of like preaching and scolding the choir, which is not very productive and might even be counter productive. Nobody likes to be scolded when they have already been doing their best for years now based on their own conscience...
The worst consumers who mindlessly buy as much trash as they can on Black Fridays (we all know who they are) do not care about these issues and do not read the NYT.
I recycle, wear the same clothes for decades, and air dry all my washing, including not shopping as much as I used to except for groceries. But I'm sure there's someone out there who cannot wait to shame me for all that I am not doing. This is not good.
33
I'm sure plenty of NY Times readers wear the latest fashions; don't overestimate these people. Plenty of them have too many children (most of them, in this town) and the old print edition was nothing but fashion ads, including lots of (ugh) fur and jewelry ads. I used to call this newspaper The New Rich Times, with good reason. I'm sure the rich, and not the poorer folks looking for bargains on Black Friday, have shitloads of new clothing.
2
Thank you for this article! I agree absolutely. Just a few days ago I made a vow to only buy second-hand clothing for the rest of my life (I'm 60, so it's not as difficult as for a 20 year old). I have adorable iron-on patches that say "repair, reuse, recycle" that I use to keep my jeans intact.
The last item I bought was support hose in preparation for a very long train trip -- and when the clerk asked my trouser size and shoe size, I couldn't even remember because it's been so long since I last bought any clothing.
The fashion industry wastefulness completely disgusts me, as well as their absolutely inhumane treatment of workers.
20
So, the article says we should set our washing machines to cold water and line-dry our clothes — but it doesn’t even mention the hazards of dry cleaning. Dry cleaning uses noxious chemicals that pollute our land and groundwater and threaten people’s health. It is done in multiple locations in every city. I can’t believe it is even legal, frankly. It is most certainly unnecessary.
27
OK, I haven't been wearing it real often lately, but this week I got out my old Irish sweater (purchased in June 1971 on the Niew Amsterdam in the harbor of Cork Ireland with money I won at Bingo on the ship the night before - we were on our honeymoon on the way to Rotterdam). It is hand knit of Irish wool as it was traditionally before "modern" ladies wanted the softer, more expensive and less durable Merino because it is "soft". I couldn't believe the compliments I received. Also, being real wool, it needs little care - go to the web site of any European wool maker (Alafoss in Iceland, for example) and you find them recommending that wool items can often be "cleaned" by hanging them in the fresh air, or otherwise gently handwashed.
I have other clothing that is also decades old - partly because it make the items myself with care (including raising the sheep, spinning the yarn and/or weaving the fabric prior to sewing). I do use a dryer on towels and underwear in the winter, otherwise, my textiles are line dried. Anything suitable for cleaning or shop rags ends its life cycle that way.
There are a lot of odd ideas about "fast fashion" and "fibersheds" circulating that are not in line with sustainable thinking, even though the ones touting these ideas think they are. Natural fibers, made into textile items that are kept until they wear out and cared for modestly are most probably the best way to protect one's body from the elements.
19
One main goal of fashion is to create demand for different styles, so that we buy new clothes before our old ones have worn out. Designers may also create such demand by making clothes that do not last or that stain and damage easily. Cutting down on the demand for clothes also eliminates jobs; if others spring up, we have no problem, but if they dont, we have the problem we see in the Rust Belt. Good manufacturing jobs disappeared; good replacements were promised but never arrived, and so we got Trump.
6
My clothes last so much longer since I moved to the UK, where we don't have tumble dryers. Dryers beat the fibers out of clothes and degrade elastics, not to mention using tons of energy.
Normally I'm against putting the responsibility for fixing climate change on ordinary people, but clothing consumption is out of control. It's definitely one area where we could really make a difference if we just thought twice about whether we really need that new pair of jeans or dress.
17
Well, my lifelong answer to this problem is to become a nudist.
No one can see into my house or yard so am naked as much as possible, weather permitting.When I was a teenager I gave up
wearing underwear for good. In the last few years I have stopped wearing socks most of the time except when it is really cold outside.I still have some clothes
that I wore in High School which I still wear at times.
(I am 76 years old now.)I realize that my solution to the
problem of owning too many clothes may not appeal
to everyone, but it works for me.
10
Now the problem is clothing? Maybe there is a real point here. But I'm getting the feeling that environmentalists will never be happy until humans make zero environmental impact. Which is of course impossible.
I know an easy way to cut our carbon emissions. Human beings can go extinct!
It reminds me of an old joke. A man is badly out of shape and decides to get a fitness trainer. On the first meeting the trainer ask what his fitness goals are. The man says to lose weight. The trainer advises he cut off his leg. Point being that the man wants to lose body fat and get healthier, not merely to shed pounds.
The goal should be to keep environmental impact at a healthy and realistic level so that it doesn't radically change the climate etc. I'm sure many industries don't do that, and I hope that changes. But we will never be perfectly environmentally friendly. People still need to live. If we say clothes are the problem, or that people should only buy used clothes or that we must shut down fossil fuel production, people will just deny climate change on the fact that environmentalists are radicals with unworkable solutions. Which is counter productive.
12
I think men don’t really understand how much clothing is bought and disposed of by women. We certainly can do better, without much effort.
7
@James Thank you for a very sane response. I too believe that I have the right to wear clothing without feeling guilty about it.
We will go extinct if we don’t find ways to curb greenhouse gases.
We got into the global warming crisis through a century of burning oil and coal, not by buying too many t-shirts. And nobody is going to put a dent in the problem now by buying second-hand. I understand people want to believe they can make a difference in their personal lives, but the truth is they cannot. They did not create the problem and cannot fix it. Governments around the world need to act in concert on it, or no amount of avoiding Target is going to help. And in the meantime you alienate people whose votes are needed to get our own government on board. Focus on the big goals and stop using the environment as an excuse to dictate to people how they should live their private lives.
27
@Edward you do see that it takes a tremendous amount of oil to make that new t-shirt?
12
@Robert Do we know actually how much went into that tee? How much is a tremendous amount? (I see the stat in the article that the clothing industry creates 9% of greenhouse gas over all. What percent of all manufacturing is it?)
2
@Roger
I don't know how that 9% is calculated. Typically, people separate agriculture and deforestation (~25% of global greenhouse gas emissions) from transportation (~15%) from industry (~20%, a lot of it being the production of cement, steel, iron, fertilizers, plastics...) from electricity and heat production (~35%... a third of which is then used by the industry, on top the above 20%) (source: IPCC).
So I am not sure if that 9% is just manufacturing (as part of that ~30+% industry share), or also includes the associated agriculture (e.g., cotton) and transportation emissions... in any case it also likely accounts for the coal-made electricity that is used in places where clothes are made (e.g., Asia).
My point being, there are different ways of counting emissions, slicing them and attributing them to different processes/actors.
1
The only new clothing I have bought for nearly 10 years is underwear, base layers and socks. Once every few years I will buy specialized shoes or outerwear if I’m unable to find what I need used. Everything else is bought secondhand, consignment or thrift. Unfortunately that doesn’t entirely remove the carbon footprint, as the clothes may have been donated or sold by someone who bought other new pieces to replace them.
I take pride in my appearance and seek out well-fitting designer and quality technical brands. Then I carefully care for and repair clothing until it is time to donate them onwards or if absolutely necessary trash or compost them. There is a joy to hunting for nice pieces. But the biggest benefit is the reduced spending. Even if your time is worth hundreds per hour it can be worth it given how expensive new clothes are and how much time people typically spend clothes shopping anyway. If your time is very valuable, pay someone to shop for you. Then have the clothes tailored as you would new clothes. Part of the key is also practicing a bit of minimalism, which can also be quite rewarding.
15
I blame capitalism. Capitalists are the ones making and selling different kinds of clothes and fashions. They are the ones buying ads that stimulate desire for new clothes. A more environmentally friendly rule would nationalize all clothing design, manufacturing, marketing and sales. Smart technocrats employed by the Government and answerable to the people and not to profits can decide what clothing would be most efficient and environmentally friendly. Think of the savings. We wouldn't have rack upon rack of unnecessary clothes. No more Thanksgiving sales. No more waste. Thank you, New York Times, for stimulating this important discussion.
7
@Douglas 'Capitalists' don't sell anything that consumers don't consume.
Your comment brings to mind a billion Chinese, efficiently dressed in Mao suits.
@Douglas So what’s your alternative to capitalism?
Agree with so many. Yes, not buying needlessly is a goal, thinking about what clothes are environmentally produced before buying is a good goal. But the actual real impact is going to happen through industry measures and industry tech changes. Also when you stop buying as many clothes you have to realize that you are impacting the families in poor countries making those clothes....not saying it is not a good idea but maybe causing poor families to be more poor for a minimal impact on the environment is not the best...work on the big industry causes.
7
Clothes dryers are hard on clothes and use lots of energy. If air drying is not a viable alternative, a clothes spinner can be a great help. In 5 minutes or less, a load of washed and rinsed laundry releases a quart or more of water in the spinner before I put it in the dryer. It cuts drying time to a fraction of what it previously was and it is much easier on the clothes.
6
@GH In Poland line drying is the norm since clothes dryers are nearly non-existent. We dry clothes year round on lines on balconies, decks, in gardens, but mostly in our homes (usually small flats) in the bathrooms, kitchens, or wherever there’s a bit of space to set up a rack. Try it, it works.
22
@GH Most washing machines have a spin only cycle.
I am a fashion plate...
I buy two new pairs of Carhart double front jeans a year, wear them about a week between cold water, line dry laundry. When the knees wear out, I cut the back out of the oldest pair and sew a patch an wear them another 6 months. I buy used T shirts and flannel shirts from Sally Anne or Value Village, buy one pair of work shoes a year. that I wear everywhere. I have one pair of work boots I wear as needed, and replace about every 3 years. My wife buys a few clothes, but much fewer than most, and almost never just for fashion.
Drives me nuts what people waste on fashion, laundry etc from an environmental point of view.
15
Need to get back to “natural”fabrics,wool( tweed lasts forever..and so warm, linen cotton etc...much less “plastic”fibers.Also dress more like Europeans..buy the best quality you can afford..classic styling. Some of my clothes are over 30yrs. old ,yet I am frequently complimented by strangers on my style.Also stop “banning”fur...It is the warmest coat you can wear, lasts for years and will decompose when it’s many years of service are over.Am so tired of people buying “fake”ie.basically plastic alternatives And being so smug about it!
19
@Kate Woods Sounds good. What is the environmental impact of raising sheep- certainly not neutral. Cotton, too, is a natural fiber.
2
Ask the suffering animals how much they like wool, leather and fur. I wear old clothes, too, but frankly when they come from animals, it turns my stomach.
4
No, no that's not really it at all. We must shutdown fossil fuel production.
12
@T
So, we merrily go back to the days of horse-drawn transportation, sailing ships and metal hip joints? Except we will all live in tasteful tiny homes and be fashionably minimalist, clad in our handwoven linen tunics as we tend to our organic arugula and pass our evenings having meaningful discussions until nightfall, when we all go to bed because we don't have electricity.
(Yeah, sure, we have solar and wind power, but what do you think those panels and turbines are made of? How they are constructed and transported? What about parts of the world that don't have them or where they won't be feasible: too bad, so sad?)
5
Don't they use geothermal heating in Iceland? I considered it, but it would have cost more than my income, and was told they'd have to dig a 500 foot hole in my property, which is small, so I'm guessing my home would have fallen into a sinkhole. But over there, countries do things cooperatively, they don't all fall on the individual.
1
@Fredegunde
Plastics can be made from agricultural products.
We will decrease use of fossil fuels. They are finite.
No aspect of human activity and its environmental effects too small to talk about. Except one: There are too many people. If world population was a billion we wouldn't have these problems. But we're not allowed to say that. So go on about micro-managing the clothing biz to make it greener. Just don't mention the insane size of the whole human project.
55
@r a You are so right. A person can limit his/her carbon footprint but not eliminate it. And these collective actions of individuals won't help get the Earth back on track to sustainability. The only possibility is having a whole lot less people. Even if the world population were not increasing, I believe it is already too late. With further increases it is impossible to keep it going.
6
@r a
As far as the planet is concerned, we humans are ephemeral. And inconsequential. Sustainability isn't a concern for the Earth.
Think of all life forms, not just us. Even dinosaurs, which went extinct about 65 million years ago, weren't around for much of the over 4 billion years that the planet has been.
You have just said, in the New York Times, what you claim we aren't allowed to say.
One billion of us, or one hundred billion, the earth is indifferent.
Like Ole Man River, the Mississippi, the planet just keeps rolling along.
In the long run, none of us matter at all.
8
@r a
"There are too many people."
Yes, but the reason there are too many people is plenty of people are having too many children. Tax laws, and some cultures, encourage more children.
During a very stressful time in my life caring for my parents, I discovered the power of knitting in helping me to maintain my serenity. Waiting for 6 hours in the ER? No problem, as long as I had a sock on my needles. Over the years, I knit dozens of wool socks and sweaters for not only myself, but for the kind friends who supported me during this difficult time. Eventually I met some shepherds who grew flocks in a sustainable way, and learned to spin wool from their fleece, then knit it up into something useful and even kind of cool-looking.
So today, after all that knitting, I keep my house thermostat at 62-63 F and am never cold in winter. I hand wash my woolen treasures and know they will last me for my lifetime and beyond. As for all the other wash items, I have an Ikea drying rack on which everything (including jeans and sweatshirts) dries overnight when placed over a heat vent. It's not a perfect solution, but I know I'm consuming less energy now than every before in my lifetime.
I hope everyone who reads and comments on this story will find a special way, unique to them, to dial down their energy consumption and reduce their unknowing complicity to the destruction of our planet. We're all in this together.
Obviously our U.S. government is not in a position to help us. So we must find our own way to do it ourselves.
35
@former therapist don't have too many kids. That is the best way to dial down their energy consumption.
Firstly as part of economizing waste for the sake of climate change, clothes in this case, clothes must be seen as clothes, not for fashion. I still wear clothes I had owned for over 20 years, but in different sizes as my weight goes up or down a bit over time. Fashion is what I make of it. I do not look at fashion magazines as most of the models wearing the so called latest fashion always look so miserable. Shoes are categorized for purpose, comfortable shoes for walking, a bit of heel for evening out or formal event. I own no more than five pairs at a time.
I know I am not contributing to the economy with frivolous shopping, but I feel I am contruibuting to preserving our planet. Unfortunately, the latest trend in fashion is to buy cheap and throw away quickly in order to keep up with the latest trend, status, or whatever. American has a throw away culture, with advertisement constantly saying "new and better". Clothes is just but one of the examples.
13
There are a number of Republicans talking about climate action? News to me, unless by talking about it you mean they are talking about the reasons we do not need to engage in any sort of climate action. Republicans are all climate change denialists.
13
@John Smith Sorry John, but you need to get out in the real world on occassion. There are currently 23 house repubs who are members of the bi-partisan House Climate
Solutions Caucus facilitated by the Citizens Climate Lobby.
@John Smith Wow, you just can’t help yourself.
The accusation against Woody Harrelson that his attitude of “I was always anti-fashion, because it always seemed to me there were more important things to care about” seems to me to be exactly the attitude we should have as consumers of clothing. The author even suggests herself that we should extend the life of clothing that we purchase and repair clothing instead of throwing it away. Trying to have the latest fashion and discarding perfectly good clothing is a major part of the problem.
18
This raises a much bigger issue. It is not about excess in the production of clothing, it is about an excess of consumerism in just about everything. Capitalism seems to demand ever-increasing "growth", meaning constant production and disposal of goods. How much of the resource consumption and carbon production is not due to an actual need to replace clothing, but the continuous pressure to be current?
38
@james doohan Fashion has not changed a great deal in the last 25 years. Look at Helmut Lang from the mid '90's and you'll see what I mean.
@james doohan 'Capitalists' don't sell anything that consumers don't consume.
People and corporations are not going to change their ways out of good of their hearts. This is an easily fixable problem with taxes and tariffs. Add a carbon tax to each piece of clothing with larger taxes on clothing made thousands of miles away. Consumption will go down dramatically.
8
@Sam
It can be a carbon tax -- and it could also be a sort of de-valuation added tax to everything to reflects the real costs of recycling or reprocessing fiber -- or the clean up costs.
Everything dumped in the US causes local cleanup costs, as well as the original, production and environmental costs and those triggered when the product is at the end of it's usefulness.
The standard attitude is that the manufacturer - and wholesalers and retailers - don;t have any obligation to pick up the end costs, which then fall on the public. It leads to a lack of understanding about the true costs of most everything we use.
It promotes more consumer spending which is regarded as necessary. But it also leads to monumental waste, and pollution problems at both ends of the make and destroy cycle.
10
It is unusual for the best course of action to be anything other than keep what you have as long as possible. The second best is to buy things that are likely to be discarded if you did not buy them.
Since these tend to also be the cheapest options, there are not many excuses that hold up.
4
My shoes are at least four years old. I probably don't own a shirt that's less than five years old. I only buy pants when they fall apart. My winter coat is 20 years old. In fact, most of the time, I walk around looking like a hobo, so I'm definitely fighting the good fight.
23
I think about the clothing issue a lot. One thing I never hear or see discussed is the environmental cost of transporting both materials and finished goods across vast distances. I buy USA-made clothing whenever I can in part for this reason. They cost more... but do they really?
I wish we could have clotheslines here, but I'm too close to a main road. The dirt from the diesel engines is amazing, and there's not room in the house.
10
Do they make clothing in the USA anymore, that isn't say, at least 30-40 years old? I have these old items, but many younger people don't.
The cited study that says apparel contributes 8% of global emissions, also says that on a per-capita basis, each person's consumption of apparel is equivalent to driving 1500 miles. A far easier and in-reach solution to reducing an equivalent reduction in emissions would be to encourage video conferencing.
7
When exactly is attention going to be paid to cosmetics? I am not talking about the manufacturing side or the preservatives used but rather all the delicious, delectable, must-have(non-refillable)chic compacts that house blushes, eyeshadows, foundations, etc. I have tried to find a clever use for the containers but there are only so many pillboxes a girl can use in a lifetime.
Two companies one newer, Kjaer Weis and one that's been around a few decades, MAC house their products in refillable containers and the refills are readily available. MAC will gladly accept their old containers for recycling.
That's it(that I am aware)and that's very sad.
27
@Ann Korach My city provides bins for recyclables. You just clean out any plastic container well and put it in the bin for pickup on garbage day.
@Frances Grimble, I wish it were the same in Chicago.
Thank you for bringing a basic problem forward. However, a more pressing (and taboo) environmental problem is overpopulation. Can we talk about that? Creating more people is far more destructive to our planet than wearing clothes.
77
@Arjay Yes, overpopulation is way more harmful to our earth than the wearing of clothes. And can we talk about the taboo subject of zero population growth?
23
@Arjay
Wealthier societies depopulate. The trick is to make every society reasonably wealthy so this happens.
This requires GDP growth, especially in places that would trade with the poorer areas such as the USA. And GDP growth requires...wait for it...population growth.
Not to sound like "Gloria" yelling at her husband on "All in the Family", but blaming population growth and having children for the world's problems is just a cop out.
2
Overpopulation is a red herring at the moment. Yes it is a real issue, and will definitely grow in the future. However, a small portion of the world’s population, more affluent than the rest, are currently responsible for a much greater share of emissions than the rest. What does this mean? That really it is overconsumption that is a much larger factor. In recent years India emitted half the emissions of US, while having triple the population. That is poised to change quickly. Not because they are suddenly having a huge population surge, but because wealth and industry are growing there.
We really need to look at what a sustainable average level of consumption is relative to global population before we start pointing fingers at high-birthrate countries. Could all those people live at our US level of consumption sustainably? Maybe but not with current technology. The easiest example is China’s surging emissions, and that is a country with essentially population shrinkage over the last several decades.
17
We all need a deeper education about the source of what we buy and use in our home, on and in our bodies, and the cars we drive, we do have power as consumers to make change. Regulation by laws are essential, look back to when cars had no seat belts. Today, in a time of great economic inequality, where millions of families are struggling to make ends meet and pay rent and student loans, perhaps there is something completely unjust about putting this onus directly and solely on the consumer. Many families are doing the best they can and cannot afford to do anything less than purchase items that fit their budget, which means shopping in stores that do not make the grade for environmental conscientiousness.
11
Recently I bought myself a new solar-powered clothes dryer:
A clothes line and a box of clothes pins.
And no need to add artificial fresheners like Bounce. The sun does it for me.
26
I’ve been doing it for years. Plenty of sunshine where I live, so why waste it.
7
@just a thought - Great idea - that's what my daughter in England does, as do most people in other countries. Unfortunately, the over-55 community in which we live prohibits clotheslines, as do many other places i'm aware of. A bit plebeian, dontcha know..
By the way, I think one way to address the problem more directly would be for people to BUY LESS STUFF. Clothing lasts for a long time if you give it a chance, and really doesn't need to be discarded or replaced very often.
19
@Concerned Citizen TV
Get an indoor clothing rack.
1
Find a good vintage store. Visit it frequently. Most visits will yield nothing. But when you find something, it's nice to think that somebody else took the depreciation.
20
I had to wear a uniform in high school. Best thing ever. That was over 50 years ago and I still have my uniform - instead of a gray skirt, white blouse and blue blazer, I wear black leggings and an oversized black shirt or sweater tunic. Can't miss in black. To spice things up I have jewelry and scarves. A personal uniform makes life so much easier. At my age nobody is looking at me anyway.
55
I have articles of clothing that are 20 years old and still in good shape. The key to long clothing life is (1) Don't wash clothes except undergarments after each wearing. (2) Use a gentle wash cycle with cold water or hand wash. (3) Use less soap when washing, about half of the manufacturer's recommendation (4)) Air dry.
19
Please don’t make assumptions. I air dry about half of my clothing, but you won’t see a clothesline on my property. I either hang them on a rack or hang them on hangers from a doorframe.
I'm amused by this although it is serious subject. My wife and I live in one of the older Maryland suburbs a couple miles North of Washington, DC. We air-dry our washed clothes six months of the year because we're cheap. Yet, after 13 years of walking our dogs through much of our community, I've yet to see any sign of a clothesline besides ours.
21
@Donald Champagne
I remember a childhood with backyard clotheslines. I loved the smell of sun-dried sheets.
But this went the way of rotary phones.
What do you do the other six months? Could you air-dry in a basement?
I live in a small apartment but use a clothes rack -- given to me by my parents!
16
Anyone who does anything is part of the problem. Pretty much whatever any human being does uses coal, oil, etc. to some extent. Everything you do uses some type of resources. 50 years ago people worried about over-population. No one has been interested in that issue for 40 years or so. But...if the population of the Earth were about 3 billion instead of 7.6 billion and growing, climate change would be less and would be a lot easier to deal with.
62
@Gordon Wiggerhaus you are cirrect. Anyone who does anything is part of the problem. Conversely, anyone who changes at least one deleterious habit is part of the solution.
Whichever of the suggested changes is most doable for you, right now, when repeated by you or somene else, will make a difference. hat for almost everything we do, there is more to learn and a way to improve.
We all know that, yet we can't research the science lf how any particular habit change will improve the situation. Nor do we need to. There are so many arricles like this one that educate us. If a person reading this article asks herself if she can improve in the suggested way, even that is a form of progress. If she asks herself this question about any improvement she reads about, and the makes incremental changes in the right direction, even better. If this area of improvement does not work in her life, or if it is too difficult to do today, okay. Maybe she can implement the next one she learns more about. One person making one small lifestyle change today aggregates to humanity's benefit, even if it doesn't feel that way. Then the environment benefits; then we all benefit.
The key is learning and implementing any change, repeated by as many people as possible.
2
There's a charming children's book on dye polluting the streams in Massachusetts during the 19th C when girls and young boys left the insecurity of farm life to live in mill towns and work at fabric mills.
Most of us are aware of the short comings of the consumer economy and the sheer nonsense -- no plastic bags given to hold groceries-- so now one has to buy them to put one's garbage in? Some of us keep our clothes and other people's which we've adopted forever.
You must be a young person, because in the old days, we learned how to iron, how to sew an entire outfit, how to knit (badly), how to embroider, how to mend or take in a seam or hem or let out.. Some of us actually wash our clothes by hand, using leftover bath water and airdry or spot wash the smelly areas. they lastd longer.
How about buy less and use it up. My oldest jeans are 35 years old and I have clothes from High School -- 55th reunion a few years ago. The quality fabrics from those days are hard to come by now.
It's your problem young uns. Buy things you love that fit you and lose weight before you are an entire size larger. Easier said then done. You will prob have things in two or even three different sizes... but hnag on to them. You never know which winter you will put on 10-15 lbs.
17
"But first we need all people who care about climate change to understand that they’re part of the problem and the solution, just by wearing clothes."
Like many people I went through a bit of misanthrope phase when I was in college. Having recovered from that years ago, I am starting to get the impression that many climate change activists really don't like human beings. Everyone is part of the problem. Say that enough and for long enough and it's not hard to see how it turns into a loathing of the human species.
6
I would like to recommend a book called "Mending Matters," by Katrina Rodabaugh. There are many examples of how to extend the life of clothing in a beautiful way.
18
its funny because i grew up in a home where we repaired everything, from clothes to jewelry to cars and rugs and appliances and..and well, everything that could be repaired was. Clothes were higher quality and lasted longer and we wore hand-me-downs. We didn't buy new clothes very often. If we could walk and not drive, we did. We didn't fly anywhere. We cooked every night, and ate all the leftovers and then made soup from the bones. We shut off the lights and turned down the thermostat. We just made due with less overall in every aspect. We lived with less. We didn't have extra money. That's just the way it was. For my whole life, i've had pretty much the same mentality. I donate or sell old stuff, (i mean WHO throws stuff out?) I shop at consignment "vintage" stores, and i've been reusing the grocery bags for years and years. Now it's "cool" or necessary or "green". Before we were just poor i guess. I don't understand why everyone is writing books and articles about methods and tactics and behaviors that should just be a regular way of being. Oh, and also: maybe home builders should stop designing homes with huge walk in closets to fill.
138
@carol I also grew up in such a household, but storage spaces are a big help to being green. That's how you can put clothes away till they come back into fashion, and put that chair with the broken leg away till you have time to fix it.
24
@carol
I will add to your comment about home builders. If the kitchen is functional, do not rip everything out and redo it. What if the kitchen is dated? It still works use it.
4
Another article on climate change that places the burden for environmentalism on the consumer, not on the producer. Yes, we can all do tiny little things to help the environment. But the real difference isn't going to be whether I personally buy one more t-shirt. The real difference is going to come when governments regulate agricultural and industrial production to meet standards of conservation and environmental stewardship, and when there are mandated changes to supply and transit chains so we can purchase items without as huge a carbon footprint.
Humans have created clothing since the dawn of civilization - what's changed isn't humans' desire for beautiful items to clothe and adorn themselves with, it's the industrial process of creating them. Stop dropping responsibility for change in the laps of individual people who are just going through our daily lives. Put the responsibility where it belongs - in the hands of the producers, marketers, and corporations who are making the decisions about manufacturing and production in the first place.
135
@Michelle There's that little mater called winter.... So far as beautiful - some fashionable things are down right ugly.
If one sticks to classics... as do men (except for ties), you can have less and always look nice. Many stores that had wonderful durable clothing are no more: B. Altman, Lord and Taylor, Henri Bendel, Charivari, Best's,, Marshall Field's, Caron, Pirie, Scott, even the Limited and Express. All the individually named Federated department stores have become Macy's. Where can I buy two yards ofd red grosgrain or satin ribbon to nicely lengthen a dress that is just a tad short for my taste? (I am not happy with Amazon and refuse to purchase thru them, even if I am a Prime member.)
12
@Auntie Mame
You can go to M&J trimmings on sixth avenue. I often go there to buy ribbon for the exact same purpose.
9
@Auntie Mame It doesn't really matter if you miss those stores, because millions of other people love the clothes in millions of other stores. And in those other stores are people earning money selling those other clothes, made by people who earned money making them. The premises of the article-- that decent people will end up just as happy with their old clothes, or that everyone can afford those good quality classic old clothes, or that Woody Harrelson's views on fashion will carry weight with people who disagree with him-- those are plain faulty.
7
I've been looking up youtube videos on how to make rag rugs from old t-shirts and jeans. They can be gorgeous.
10
There was a time when rags were so valuable that there were export controls, because they were needed to make paper.
16
In 1856, the Sewing Machine Trust was established to pool together patents related to the invention of the chain stitch sewing machine. Jump forward 163 years and if you entered an apparel factory today, you’d witness that same chain stitch sewing machine technology with a human operator repetitively picking and placing single plies of fabric together to produce a garment. The only innovation that the apparel industry has embraced is where those machines and operators geographically sit. 98%+ of apparel that we purchase and wear in the US has been out-sourced and off-shored too some distant lands to take advantage of low wages, lax environmental standards and questionable labor practices.
Companies in the athletic apparel field; Nike, Adidas, Under Armour, Columbia Sportswear, outsource their production and are only brands that design and market their products. Today, in real time, as has been shown with the recent rise in tariffs placed upon clothing made in China, they simply pick another country with cheaper labor to skirt trade tariffs or environmental burdens.
For this to change, there needs to be a combination of in-house developed technologies from these large apparel brands, collaborations with manufacturers and investment in start-up technology companies. These investments and more importantly, the will of apparel industry leaders to follow through on this vision is the only way this will happen and make the apparel manufacturing industry more sustainable.
16
@Brett Stern Unlike home sewing, industrial sewing depends on a range of machines designed for very specific functions. One machine sews flat-fell seams, one sews buttonholes, etc. The garment is passed down the assembly line to each specialist machine and the person operating it. Even home sewers often have both a general sewing machine and a serger, to get the fancy finished edges a serger provides. Sergers have spread from industrial to home sewing; they sew, trim, and finish a seam in one process. The old chain-stitch machines are long gone, because chain-stitched seams pull out easily. Victorian treadle machines are long gone. Electric motors became available in the 1920s or so. And most machines have been computerized to some extent since, if I recall correctly, the 1980s or 1990s. If you browse the websites of some of the major brands, such as Viking/Husqvarna and Bernina, you'll see the incredible capabilities of a modern machine, even just for home sewing. Also, very sophisticated, highly computerized specialist machines are used for embroidery in both commercial and home settings. I've used a Victorian treadle, I've used an early electric, I've used a 1960s machine that had cams for special stitches, and I've used modern computerized machines. There's been a great deal of technical progress.
13
It is, in my opinion, irresponsible to refer to 8% of global greenhouse emissions as "a leading cause of climate change"--even if we were to take the statistic at face value. Some statistics to make my point more concrete: according to the World Resources Institute, the leading contributor to global climate change is electricity and heat, accounting for 24.9% of global emissions, industry accounts for 14.7% as the second highest contributor, and transportation accounts for 14.3% of global emissions as the third highest contributor. If one was to disaggregate the industry sector, it becomes fairly dubious that 8% of that would come from the manufacture of clothing. However, even if the statistic is relatively accurate, it would seem to only account for a little more than half of the third leading contributor, according the World Resources figures. The question, of course, arises: which statistics are we to trust? One can always trust the statistics which conforms to the narrative they want to believe, or want others to believe. However, this article does not address the uncertainty involved in assessing the various estimates out there. It simply takes as a matter of fact the 8% statistic, leading me to assume that the author does not much value the cautiousness of the scientific process and the complexity involved in trying to quantify such phenomena.
11
While I agree with many of the OPs re: buying used and sewing your own, buying higher quality items, have a thought for families raising young children. They outgrow things so quickly that buying higher quality can seem like an extravagance when you know they'll outgrow it before next season.
5
With a new granddaughter on the way, my kids introduced me to the used children’s clothing stores. We had fun stocking up on some really cute quality baby clothes at one resale store before she came, most of which will be resold yet again after she grows out of them.
We walked out of that store with bags of quality baby wear for under fifty bucks. These places can make buying new the exception rather than the rule.
Which reminds me, it’s time to hit that six month rack!
7
@Chickpea When my oldest, now 40 years old, was a baby, we were on a pretty tight budget and I got most of his clothes and even things like strollers, high chairs, etc. from a local children's resale shop. It was a life saver. However, I haven't seen anything like it in our area lately.
1
There is so much we can do to mitigate global warming. It breaks my heart that all we want to talk about is activism and changing policies while completely ignoring the proverbial low hanging fruit.
Our collective action against rabid consumerism, reduced consumption of meat and dairy, clothes, electronics... the list is long. We seem to want a latest and greatest electronic gadget for each person in every family. What happens to the old ones that we so carelessly toss is a question lost on most people. Every school year every child needs a complete new set of school supplies, backpack, lunch bag and all. What happens to the old set is someone else’s problem. We lull ourselves by donating to goodwill or Salvation Army. A lot of that probably ends up in a 3rd world country. Nevermind if people there need it or not.
How many of us are willing to make any changes to how we consume?
22
@S R Many of us are willing to do something if others are also forced to do it. A standard relying on voluntary sacrifice puts the violators in power.
8
If synthetics are made of petroleum, and cotton consumes too much water, then what are we left with? Wool? Hemp? Silk? What other natural fibers are realistically out there?
14
@John M
Silk is water intensive. They use water that is superheated to unravel the silk from the silk worms cocoons. Pretty smelly. Rayon is made from wood. Wool from sheep, Wear your clothes longer. Buy well made clothing and skip the fashionistas.
6
@John M Maybe genetic engineering will come up with something?
"But first we need all people who care about climate change to understand that they’re part of the problem and the solution, just by wearing clothes."
It may not be the best strategy to accuse every single person that they are a part of the problem, while simultaneously claiming to have shared motives with those individuals being demagogued to.
A 'conscious closet' should be one that serves all necessary purposes, and no more. How each of us define 'necessity' does seem to be a recurring theme at the heart of our current societal schism(s), though, so perhaps it's a good time to be in the business of marketing books to help people micro-manage their clothing.
7
@ubique Quite a number of wardrobe planning books are already on the market, many with an eye to basic, well-selected clothes. One issue, though, is that most people don't dress just for themselves. They also dress for success at work, and depending on what you work at, a comparatively expensive and/or large wardrobe may be required.
7
@Frances Grimble And people just buy what they get a chance to buy, and you know-- from the time they're very young, women's and girls' prestige rests on how she looks. And half of that depends on what clothes she has. Might as well face that, even though it's a shame.
As a few have already commented, the root problem isn't clothes, or fossil fuels, or any other secondary contributor for that matter. No, the basic problem is that there are too many humans on this planet. Period. Full stop. I'm glad I won't be around to witness the final chapter in humankind's era because it won't be pretty.
86
@Jon Onstot
Yes, I totally agree and can't understand why population control seems like such a taboo subject.
I just read, today, that New Delhi, a "megagopolis" of 18 million has such pollution at the moment that they have grounded some planes due to visibility issues and, apparently, only some of their pilots know how to land planes in this climate and so the schedules are constructed, when visibility is awful, so that only these pilots are used. ...and, on the ground, people are using the millions of face masks the government is handing out. YET, the farmers are still burning their fields and others are still celebrating their festival with firecrackers.
So, governments around the world including our own, are being irresponsible for ignoring this problem. The very least they could do is eliminate anything from the tax code that gives tax credits for more than two children. That doesn't mean that we should ignore financial difficulties when families are larger than that but it should be in the form of welfare which they would have to apply for and not granted through the IRS.
But definitely, we and every other country should encourage birth control and should tie our aid to that
condition.
39
@Jon Onstot If there were fewer people then there would be more Earth per capita. But population isn't going to change much, so that end is even harder to fix than consumption per capita. More and more countries have falling birthrates. It's going to stabilize at around ten billion and that's what we have to work with.
2
@Blanche White
Amen.
Alas, most of the population growth is occurring in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and India. Unfortunatey, given the rampant corruption, dysfunction, and conflict in Africa, Catholic opposition to effective birth control in Latin America, and India's political complexity, it looks like there is little likelihood of much government action in any of these regions. But demographics is destiny, and as the recent air quality crises in India show, thermodynamics and biology cannot be denied.
Given such realities, complaining about clothes seems pretty silly.
1
Also, buy fewer clothes. Don’t participate in the “fashion” culture. It’s an easy (and cheap) way to make a difference and to slowly bend the curve on the consumerism that helped get us into this mess in the first place.
38
So what is the point of this article? That we should all go naked? Fashion was one of the first things to mark the beginning of civilization, and it’ll be the last to go. Desire for personal adornment is at the root of what makes us human. I am not going to curtail my clothes purchases, nor am I going to start mending my clothes, even though I know how. We should be looking for technological solutions to climate change instead of trying to guilt consumers into giving up the perks of modern civilization. There are obvious things that can make a change in carbon emissions - better urban planning, public transportation, renewables, nuclear energy, electric vehicles, carbon capture. Dressing in rags is not on this list.
22
You are finding all kinds of ways to justify greediness as neediness even as the wild fires burn. We are going to have enough trouble saving what humanity needs to survive, never mind the luxury goods. I don't know what makes you feel so entitled.
35
@Mor
Your reaction is kind of over the top. No one is suggesting dressing in rags. On the contrary, if you buy well-made clothing made with natural fibers rather than petroleum-based fibers, you will get better quality clothes and they will probably last longer.
If buying second hand bothers you, then buy vintage instead.
41
@Mor
It’s hard to give up things we like and, of course, it would be great if “technological solutions” can magically solve the climate crisis with no sacrifice. But, dude...
Buying fewer clothes or mending the ones that are damaged seems a small sacrifice.
We’re all going to have to make many little sacrifices and share the burdens in the decades to come. The worst thing we can do is dismiss each sensible concern out of hand.
We can drive a bit less. We can watch out for electricity-draining appliances and gadgets. We can vote for politicians and parties that favor climate policies. And we can buy fewer clothes while remembering that consumerism can be a social ill.
Rags you don’t have to wear. But, honestly, do you really need another T-shirt?
37
I was a student in France in the early 60's. I lived with two different families, both middle class but struggling, and took in students to make ends meet. In one, the two teenaged girls had spent time as students in Scotland and each brought home a plaid wool skirt and wood cardigan which they wore every day. With pride. In the other the Mother of the family wore the same outfit to church every Sunday--a simple light gray skirt and sweater with a small strand of pearls. She looked elegant. As a typical American I had arrived with a steamer trunk full of clothes!
Fortunately, since then I have learned to buy better quality clothes that can be worn over and over. I think that this can catch on as a new way to be fashionable. Resale shops and clothes swaps are good ideas.
I'm old enough to remember, too, that people darned their sox when they got holes in the heels. My mother showed me how to do this with the help of a darning egg. Every neighborhood had a shoe repair shop where people regularly brought shoes in for re-soling.
We live in a throwaway culture. Men, who can afford to, discard used wives, turning them in for newer models Older people are not valued in our culture as they are in others. People worry that Biden and Sanders are too old and are looking for younger, "fresher" faces Perhaps treasuring and caring for quality older clothing can have a carryover effect to the rest of our lives?
126
@Jim
Same here. I have clothing that is 10 years old and older. One of them was bought in the early 1990’s and the label says ‘Made in USA”. All have classic styling.
18
@Christa —I used to frequent the cobbler on a regular basis but most shoes sold today can’t be easily re-soled: the soles are one piece, fully molded but with weird nooks and crannies and edges. Totally irks me.
19
@Molly Bloom Common incandescent round light bulbs can substitute for a darning egg are readily available.
5
"The clothing and footwear industry is responsible for 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions...according to a study by the environmental services group Quantis."
I checked out their website. Quantis seems to do good work. But they're in the environmental business. Unless someone can tell me Quantis is virtually trusted by all,I trust no study performed by a company which potentially has something to gain by its results.
4
@Rich
Good grief, what is to be gained by a company pointing out the waste in the clothing industry?
...and really, anyone can see with their own eyes the tons of cheap quality throw away type clothes produced today. That takes an awful lot of energy to produce as well as the degradation to the environment to discard.
We need to all have a care about what we choose to buy and how much of it we need to have.
6
@Blanche White I don't know what's to be gained. That's my point. The article was based on the "fact"that the clothing industry is responsible for 8 percent, etc., etc.
Do you have any idea how many studies are incorrect or skewed? And how many journalists don't look at studies but simply look at the numbers and run with them?
I'm not saying this writer did that but do not blindly believe what you read.
4
I used to buy few, but very nice, clothes because they were made in the US, or in France (when I lived there) and were expensive; some have lasted 3 decades with care.
Other than clothing that regularly needs to be renewed (can anyone make long-lasting socks ?), I’ve found that buying quality used clothing now allows me to acquire nice clothes at a fraction of the original price, while reducing the impact on the environment. With minimal sewing skills, I mend or repurpose as much as I can.
As for the clothes I can no longer wear due to weight gain or age, I sell or donate them in turn.
But all this requires that we return to valuing quality over quantity, and being willing to pay more for something that lasts longer (and provides a fair wage).
20
"We can turn our washing machines down to cold and consider air drying more of our laundry."
"We can turn our washing machines down to cold"- temperature control like that is usually available only in US made washing machine (or their clones). European ones usually heat water automatically, no choice. Some do offer cold, in that case better to wash in the sink; cold wash does nothing in those machines.
"consider air drying more of our laundry" - indeed global warming, ironically, makes that more possible. Of course if you live in an air-polluted area, that is what your clothes will smell like.
This option is also less available and feasible in urban areas.
The clothing industry also has human-rights issues, but I guess that is a topic for a different op-ed.
7
"The clothing and footwear industry is responsible for 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. ,,, But clothing does not appear to be mentioned in the Democratic candidates’ climate plans, nor in the Green New Deal proposed by House Democrats."
That's nearly the same agriculture's 9%, which is included the Green New Deal - at least some versions of it.
To be honest it does not surprise me that Agriculture is included - e.g., placing strict limits on how much fertilizer can be used, while fashion isn't. Because the people making the Green New Deal don't have many connections to farming, but they do have connections to people for whom fashionable clothes are literally critical to employment and social / career networking (unlike farmers).
Democrats need to be careful about demanding change that impacts others more than it impacts them. It's a normal human action, and it's normal to deny that it is being done. But denying it won't change the consequences.
7
@Craig H. I'm not sure I follow what you're saying (a sincere confusion, not a sarcastic confusion). It seems like you're saying Democrats are coming down on agriculture, and that they feel free to, because they don't have connections to farming. But California is the highest agricultural producing state (in terms of cash receipts), and arguably a blue state.
And for the "people for whom fashionable clothes are literally critical to employment and social / career networking" -are you referring to the dear friends of Kim Kardashian and Kanye West? (I am actually being sarcastic here.)
In any case, I do wish (as you seem to wish) that more of our political representatives were considering all of the people affected by their policy-making, not just appeasing a subset.
2
And if I were employed by the textile, gas and mining, construction, travel, or retail industries, I would be scared to death. I guess the solution is to live in tents, subsistence farm, and never travel more than a few miles from home.
8
@C. Spearman is it wrong to try to improve outcomes? Current farming practices result in massive loss of topsoil. We don’t have to become subsistence farmers and shun clothes to make improvements. 3D printed buildings save resources and costs. A combination of new technologies and our willingness to adapt and consume less may create better lives for all of us.
8
Interesting piece, but who are the Republicans talking about climate action, and do any of them with any power want to do anything to curb emissions now?
8
Clothing for the middle class has become cheaply made, poorly designed and mostly made from synthetics. It is almost impossible to find wool or cotton clothing new. I keep my clothing, which is mainly made from natural fibers, as long as it holds together and I have resorted to the Salvation Army and EBay for replacements. Then there is dry cleaning - it costs more to clean the stuff than to buy something new thereby encouraging the throw away mentality. No we do not need more stuff, we need mindfulness about what we consume and put on.
34
Let me put in a plug for home sewing. You don't have much control over (or knowledge of) how the fabrics you buy are produced, nor the thread, buttons, and other things you need. You can, however, buy 100% natural-fiber fabrics. Both new and vintage. You can buy vintage fabric in thrift stores and at garage sales. As yardage, or you can recycle tablecloths and other household linens. Etsy and eBay sell an incredible number of like-new vintage buttons, zippers, trimmings, etc. (I don't recommend vintage sewing thread; it weakens over time.) You can make garments in exactly the styles and colors you like, and make them to fit well regardless of your shape. You'll want to wear them longer, especially because you put your own work into making them. You'll know that at least for sewing, you're not exploiting anyone. You can, of course, also mend and alter clothing. And you can buy good-quality vintage sewing machines used, again at garage sales and the like.
30
@Frances Grimble Yes, indeed!
I've been sewing for 50 years, and used to make everything. Gotten a bit lazy in recent times, but I love to go to eBay for tailored clothes that I can redesign to be updated.
1980s suits are the best - tons of fabric to work with! Sleek and contemporary afterwards.
7
@Frances Grimble
Hear, hear.
Well said!
It is not just clothes, folks. In my town we have 3 school building, that the architect has concluded are satisfactory for their purpose. But there is a move afoot to build new school buildings because the ones we have, though well constructed and maintained, are dated. Building new buildings when we have perfectly safe and adequate buildings is the height of wastefulness. It is time we lived by the reduce, reuse, and recycle mantra, in all consumer things, clothes, homes, and cars. And how about we stop building 4000 sq ft homes. Families are smaller but the homes are larger. Our footprint starts at home.
105
@Mary Ann -- I live in 1250 sq.ft., as a family of 4. Even with an offsite storage locker, for which we pay a princely sum monthly, we're crushed in here. Can't bring another thing in without first getting rid of two older things. Smaller spaces are cute on TV and in magazines. In real life, they're a farce.
12
@A Contributor
The problem isnt tiny spaces. It’s having more than one kid.
26
@Mary Ann A family does not necessarily consist only of a couple and their minor children. People often live with elderly parents. One of my neighbors has the wife's parents living with them, and they are talking about also bringing in the husbans's parents. Another neighbor always rents out a room, both for a little extra income and for company. The issue is not the house size, but whether it's used.
23
The very best thing that Americans can do to help in the effort to get a fair trade deal with China,to call out their disgusting industrial espionage of our intellectual property, and to influence that country to live Hong Kong be, is to buy less that's Chinese. With clothes, it means buying half as much and supplementing from thrift stores. With electronics, it means buying something that is lightly used -- a Samsung 8 instead of a 10, a 2017 laptop and not a new one. 320,000,000 people do this, China will change or have a revolution.
10
People spend a lot of money on clothes to look like they don’t spend a lot of money on clothes. Nonetheless, I give a gentle reminder that purchasing or not purchasing superfluous clothing impacts the abused workers making the clothes. The primary reason clothing is made in sweatshops around the world is that American workers, wisely and justly, would no longer be exploited by the clothing manufacturers.
I certainly support the idea of environmental thrift in future production, but I also believe, as consumers, we must be willing to pay a fair price for the things we have foreign workers make. Those workers should be guaranteed a sustainable wage and not exploited. At one point in the not so distant past, the same deplorable behavior by clothing manufacturers was acceptable in this country.
At this moment in the country Trump made “grate,” (spelling intended) we are bragging about the low unemployment rate, while workers’ pay stagnates and their living expenses grow. It may be a less obvious, but not less deplorable exploitation of humankind. Fairness is all that is asked.
26
@Bryan
OH it's OK to exploit people who aren't American. for the dividend capitalism? NOPE. The reason everything is made abroad is because it's cheap and huge profits can be made. Meantime, never buy clothing at Walmart - their T-shorts don't make it thru one washing. and I think this author is WRONB about microplastics from poly ester or nylon clothing. Microplastics as I understand it come from actually plastic objects disintegrating. Now if you lose your clothes in the ocean... At any rate, nothing wrong with rayon..
Regarding water usage for a t-shirt- what's the problem? A pound of cotton can take 543 gallons to grow. If planted in the right region, rainfall is sufficient. Serious people have been working on water conservation in irrigation for decades. Throwing out a claim of thousands of gallons, without providing context of whether that is significant, could persuade people not to buy cotton, when cotton may be the most environmentally responsible choice!
24
Now that hemp is becoming legal to grow, the potential for good, strong fabrics (and u.s. manufacture of clothing, etc. from that fabric) is looking possible. But I agree with Steve that the main problem--for ALL of it--is human population growth. Please, if you are in or approaching the reproductive phase of your life, choose not to procreate. We don't need more people. We need fewer people to share what resources we have.
21
@Connor Dougherty I find it fascinating that you would deny the next generation a basic imperative - the right to a family. Having children at 40 and 41 means we essentially skipped a generation by delaying starting a family. The birth rate is dropping in most of the world - Sub Saharan Africa being the largest exception. And the birth rate is at an historically low rate in the US. Sadly climate change will bring increased war, famine and disease which will also reduce populations.
3
@Connor Dougherty As far as I know, hemp is no more environmentally sound than linen, which is also a good, strong, fabric.
@Connor Dougherty -- How about YOU don't procreate instead? And all your friends, too.
Actually, making and washing children is the biggest contributor to environmental destruction. So, easy on the clothes, but more importantly, don't produce any more beings to wear them.
105
@Kim our kids tell us they won’t have kids anymore till the adults “fix” the climate that they have broken.
1
@Kim in SF.
Thank you for discussing the elephant in the room - overpopulation.
1
The same is true of old people. They usefull carbon budgets right now. So maybe we should let everyone over 70 die...will reduce population and emissions fast.
Please think of a different way to approach this problem rather than hating on parents.
There is good news on the clothing front, with respect to lightening the industry’s sizable footprint.
Corporate leaders such as Patagonia are leading the way with programs such as their WornWear, to create a larger market for existing, used gear.
Their is much we can do to lesser our impact.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
26
The problem isn't that we wear clothes. The problem is that the clothes we can afford are often badly made, poorly tailored, and ugly. The same applies to shoes, socks, outerwear, etc. Cotton blended with polyester has become too common in the last 40 years. 100% cotton is far more comfortable to wear and, if the garments are well made, lasts for years. Wool is warm and great for the winter. But again, it's mixed with synthetic fibers which lessen its warmth.
Then there are the demands that we not wear the same things more than 2 days running. We have to have enough clothing to go for at least a week without repeating. If we're working we're expected to spend money on "professional" clothing and to have enough of it.
If all the stores that sold clothing carried items that were well tailored, properly hemmed and seamed, fitted well, and didn't fall apart after 2-3 washings we wouldn't buy as many clothes. And we can't always air dry our clothes. We don't all have backyards or space in our homes to put clothes on a drying rack.
Improve the quality of everyday clothes and we will buy less. Until that happens, forget about preaching to us about the evils of buying more clothing than we need.
49
I'd like to see home-ec classes brought back to middle schools and high schools for both boys and girls. Clothes could last longer if the youth learned how to darn a sock and sew on a button and knit a scarf and hem a skirt. They could also learn to budget money and cook nutritious meals. Bring back the old skills! We need them. And the old fashioned sense of thrift too.
181
@Pseudonym And bring back the notions section in stores. We can sew buttons back on, sew seams back together, hem our own pants, and even add some of our own extras to clothes to make them special.
48
@Pseudonym
My mother taught me how to darn socks and sew on buttons and hem skirts. My school taught me how to read, and write, and far more.
3
That’s what the internet is for. I learned to darn my socks from YouTube.
3
I'm 76 and I haven't been in a clothing store for a long time. I donate or make patterns out of my own clothes. When I did go to clothing stores, I always noticed that there were so many, many clothes on sale that seemed to be made for short term use or for just one occasion. Especially shoes. Junk jewelry that would be bought on a whim and never used again if at all. How many watches does one really need? Consumers have been trained to over consume. The latest kitchen gadgets etc. How many gifts do people receive that they don't really want? Why don't stores donate the items that don't sell? Well, that might limit shopping for the next best thing! When I walk through any store, I buy exactly what I came for. Shopping is not recreation.
62
@Suzanne Wheat
We would be great friends. I have probably spent less than $1K on clothes and shoes in the last 15 years. ...and yet, I am often asked where I buy my clothes.
12
I have a vintage clothing business. One of the main reasons I began it was because of the benefits of recycling. Clothing from the 1940s - 1970s tend to be more durable. And as we know what is old becomes new. So much of the current fashions are inspired from the older, so why not go to the source and do the planet some good.
40
@Joanne Klein with our populations getting larger and larger, do people actually fit into clothing from the 1940's-1970's? I would think with today's population being the largest ever (and taller too) that sizing would be a problem and that a lot of people who want to buy vintage cannot because of sizing.
20
@Mary I, for one, am the same size I was in 1970. Well, not quite -- I've shrunk an inch or two.
8
@Mary Quite often young people can fit vintage.
2
I've been trying to talk to people about the environmental cost of "fashion" for at least 25 years. Almost everyone has looked at me like I'm nuts. So I'm very glad this discussion is starting to go mainstream and that hard facts are being publicized about how much the environment is affected by the hideous fashion industry.
Like others here, I've been buying mostly second-hand clothing, shoes and accessories for over 40 years. When I was young, the reasons were financial and also stylistic -- I wasn't interested in being trendy and I loved vintage clothes (which also used to be cheap).
Then I discovered that the best bargains were actually the highest quality clothes -- well-made items of silk, wool and other fine materials. These have the biggest discount when bought used and are usually well-cared for and not very worn since more affluent people owned them. And they continue to last a long time if you care for them.
When you buy "vintage" clothing, even from the 80s, it's remarkable how many tags show it was made in the USA. It's almost impossible to find such clothing now. If you don't want to support exploitative labor practices in the third world, this is one more reason to buy older used clothing.
41
Yep, go to a Goodwill in an affluent area and you can find some really nice stuff. Got an excellent lightweight merino wool sweater for $4 that’s become my favorite.
1
The reality is that everything created for human consumption has an adverse environmental impact -some more than others. The only solution is an immediate halt to all human reproduction and the resulting eventual elimination of the human species in the next 100yrs or so. If we don't do this then the environment will continue to degrade.
16
@Steve
Not really funny or helpful to the conversation. Please get serious. Use your cleverness to produce a thoughtful and useful comment.
1
Come on. Every modern convenience we enjoy has a cost to the environment--although modern heating is better than 5 billion or so wood stoves burning around the planet. I doubt I'll be going around naked any time soon. We can only attempt to be more gentle on the environment.
17
@globalnomad Come on. No one is asking you to go around naked. Just be more conscious of what you buy.-
I wear clothes until they tear (except gardening pants), rarely use a dryer (I call them clothes destroyers to get the point across), and actually buy shoes that can be repaired.
The discarded clothes become rags (a roll of paper towels last months around here) which can be laundered once rinsed out.
Unfortunately, I am finding that spandex and low levels of plastics are appearing in items that used to be 100% cotton.
Linen is an appealing alternative to cotton.
19
Lightweight merino wool is a great cotton substitute too. Since I found lightweight merino wool socks I haven’t worn anything else, even when it’s 100 degrees out.
13
I continue to use a Marmot Gore-tex parka that I bought in 1984. It has survived a ship wreck on Cape Ann, MA as well as 30 years of organic farming. The dog took a destructive interest in one of the pockets about 10 years ago but it still does the essential part of its job. Do I care what I look like? Not in the least, just so long as my customers aren't repulsed.
25
@Sherry Dudas Your comment made me smile. I still wear a down jacket bought when I was 16 - nearly 50 years ago. Like you, my dog went after one of the pockets a few years ago. Perhaps I had been keeping treats in there. But it still is serviceable so I keep wearing it.
5
@Suzanne I have a parka that LL Bean made in the USA that I bought in the early '80's to walk the dog in the cold. It stills works great- I can wear it only on the coldest winter days. I wonder if the new LL Bean clothes not made in the USA (none except Bean's boots appear to be made in the USA) wear as well.
None of the efforts have to be purely synchronous, so the awareness across industries is helpful.
However I think the caution here needs to be the potential for backlash. Any successful industry is going to be bad for climate change. If we press too hard, or single out one or the other — at whim — the brakes might be pulled (even temporarily).
There needs to be a measure of finesse. People who feel threatened will not work together, due to biological wiring — fight or flight.
5
Our stores are crammed with unattractive, low-grade, overpriced clothing, much of it made in China. Who needs all that stuff?
Buy less, buy high-quality merchandise, preferably made in the USA, and buy natural fabrics in natural colors.
Synthetic fabrics are uncomfortable: hot in the summer and cold in the winter. What's more, they don't hold up well.
Be a discerning shopper. And less is more!
41
@Yeah Sure Yes although I was discouraged to read in the article that in some ways cotton isn't so eco, either. Really we should all buy second-hand.
5
@Yeah Sure, high quality clothing is not made in America any longer. And the cost of what is made in America is too high given the low quality. Furthermore, we have very little input into how clothing is manufactured or what it's made from or of. Have you tried to find all cotton athletic socks lately? I have. It's next to impossible. And decent all cotton women's underclothes are also hard to find and very expensive too.
I buy only when I need to. And I try to get high quality clothes that will last and stay in fashion. I succeed when I can buy from LL Bean but their clothes are not made here. I used to buy from Nordstrom's but they don't cater to the middle class any longer. In truth, most of what is "affordable" is flimsy and falls apart. Especially if it's made here.
12
Yeah affordability is a real problem. If you can’t find it at goodwill, if you are of modest means there really aren’t many options.
I buy new stuff when what I have falls apart. I have several things I have worn for years.
6
Many second hand clothes are synthetic because synthetic fibres do not decompose at the same rate as natural fibres. I refused to wear them when they were first manufactured and I refuse now because they do not breathe. I buy cotton clothes and wear them for years, but when they wear out I have difficulty finding replacements. Both quality and design at a reasonable cost are becoming non-existent. I really don't see Eileen Fisher and Converse as viable alternatives to a cost-conscious lifestyle.
The fashion industry is responsible for creating the environment in which people think they have to have new clothes several times each year. Let's look at the brainwashing first. That is the root cause of the problem. If fashion events were not publicized then people would have to make up their own minds about what to wear.
17
A side note, all of that lint that builds up on the dryer screen also goes down the washer drain while the clothes are dancing in the water. What's in that lint? Fibers from clothes. Where does it go? Downhill to the ocean. What are the fibers? Natural and man-made. And the man-made plastic little fibers are stealthily sneaking out of our clothes in the washer, down the drain and into the ocean without anyone noticing.
10
@Matt I use the lint from my dryer screen as fire starter in my wood stove. You can also use it in a compost pile.
14
@Matt I use a Cora Ball in the wash to trap fibers. It’s a clever little device but watch out if you have loose threads or such - they get wrapped around the ball and it’s a nuisance to unwind them. However, while I’m not a spokesperson for Cora Ball (nor for those felted wool balls I use in the dryer for the stuff I can’t put on my drying rack), I’m really hoping it does what it purports to do: capture those micro fibers from entering the water stream and helping in just a tiny bit.
@Christa I thought your comment was meant to be a joke until I saw that 13 people recommended it. The thought of someone using dryer lint to start a wood burning fire to reduce global warming is pretty funny.
As an old-line environmentalist, I'm glad to see this discussion, this concern. Everything we do is now in question, measured by carbon emission and other pollutants and costs. I remember the early days of modern environmentalism, around the first Earth Day, as questioning everything also. Including having children--the idea of zero population growth needs updating, and maybe it will now as we face the seriousness of our situation on this planet. In reducing your environmental impact probably the greatest reduction you can make is choosing not to create a whole new life, or two, or three. My experience the past 50 years isn't promising, though: most people won't get the message, or care if they do.
18
@mmelius Also consider adoption as an alternate to having your own biological children. Give an orphaned child a good home with loving parents, and do the Earth a favor at the same time.
The effect of textile and garment industries on the environment has been a long-standing concern of mine and I am pleased to see it finally receive the imprimatur of a NYT article.
As I understand it many clothes and household textiles are part or all synthetic, and that many "natural" fibers are treated with teflon or another plasticizing coating to make them "care-free." These synthetics or plastics have the same disintegration issues as that soda bottle or throwaway container. Yet every environmental agency I have contacted in the passt 4 years to express my concern has told me they don't (more or less) worry about this. No-one seems to realize the quantity of ployester-based gym shorts, singlets and windbreakers (to name only 3) languishing in our landfills, smothering access to decomposing sunlight for more organic materials, offgassing noxious volatiles.
Separating clothing from more readily-disintegrating organic material would limit the problems than stem from their 1000 year breakdowns.
How do we establish this change?
8
@sally
How do we establish this change? By not promoting a new fashion trend every week and by not shaming people (like me) who choose to purchase durable, comfortable clothes and care for and wear those clothes for years, not days or weeks. The news industry is the enemy of sustainability
17
@JCG
Petition your municipality to isolate clothes adn shoes from other trash.
We're about 1/3 there, with donation boxes scattered around many urban areas and available at malls. Another third would be figuring out what to do with the items collected. And the final part is the culturally difficult one of getting a larger segment of the population to consume less.
Your 10-year-old, well worn jeans, t-shirt and windbreaker present the same problem when you discard them as clothes worn once and then tossed do.
I love fashion! Let me just say that to start. However, I had a mother who emphasized quality over quantity wearing the same things for years. I have followed that example which, in today’s disposable fashion world, is getting harder and harder to do. I have no issue being seen in the same outfit twice and often get complimented on how nice I look.
As one who was a visual display manager for a major midwestern department store, I can tell immediately when I am dealing with cheaply made, chemically treated clothing. The minute I would enter the junior department my eyes would begin watering and my skin itching. However when I went into Town and Country, the name given for better women’s clothing, I had no allergic reactions.
You are not doing the world, or yourself a favor, by purchasing fast fashion. You are putting formaldehyde and who knows what else on your body. Formaldehyde is used to “set” cheap fabrics and make them look crisp. Do yourselves a favor, save up, wait for sales, and buy quality! Also, wash all new clothing before wearing, trust me, what goes on in dressing rooms (let alone hot factories) is not pretty!
16
A number of things:
1. Wash your clothes less. Clothes don't need to be washed after every wear. Pants can be worn over a dozen times (especially if they aren't overly tight) before they need to be cleaned. Shirts can be worn two or three times. If you wear layers, e.g. a sweater or jacket, that can cover minor odor.
2. Wear natural fibers, especially wool. They are more odor resistant and thus need to be cleaned less.
3. Buy less. Most people don't wear most things in their closets. Buy stuff you will actually wear until it wears out.
4. Buy more expensive clothes. This way you will buy less. You will also like your clothes more which will make you more likely to wear what you have and less likely to feel the need to buy more.
5. Don't buy things that are too fashionable. You won't wear those things in five years.
7. Avoid buying clothes made in certain countries where regulations are looser and manufacturers can pollute waterways.
8. Support smaller stores. They sell a larger percentage of their inventory and thus produce less waster.
9. Buy vintage if you are okay with that. Less waste this wau. Some vintage pieces are very high quality (a lot aren't though).
10. Get clothing made of nicer fabric and heavier fabric. They last longer and need to be replaced less often, which means less waste.
11. Don't dry clean often. Many dry cleaners use chemicals that are bad for the environment. Dry cleaning also damages clothes which makes them last not as long.
101
@EL 90% of items that have labels that say "dry clean only" can be washed by hand. Air day.
39
@EL
It's impossible to buy pure natural fabric any more. I'd been looking for a pure wool coat for two years. I finally purchased a wool-acrylic blend. High-end stores carried pure wool coats a decade or so back. Not any more. It's all polyester, acrylic, nylon... We should demand natural fabric from our garment industry.
17
@Mala
You can get pure wool coats in many places. They cost a bit, though, and you have to know where to look. Women's might be harder to find, though. Also, if you are looking in person, CA tends more casual and has less cold weather, which would make it more difficult to find wool coats in person.
7
What about an easily identifiable label on clothing, etc., that identifies it as reducing carbon emissions?
5
@Garry Difficult to validate.
To me, it’s just common sense, like my mom taught me. Buy natural fibers, don’t buy stuff you don’t really need, line dry when the weather allows it, and always wash with cold water. Not that complicated.
16
Did you know that breathing emits C02 into the atmosphere?
If you breathe, you are part of the problem.
65
@Josh
Indeed, but none of us chose to be born whereas we do all make many choices about clothing as well as food, travel, and housing etc that can increase our impact exponentially.
6
@Julian
You didn’t choose to be born, but you can choose to die. This is where your logic ultimately leads. We need to focus our creativity and effort where it will have the greatest benefit, and that is toward better sources of energy and other resources, not arbitrary sacrifices for minimal results.
5
@Josh
Humans are THE problem, but not for too much longer.
Having come of age, so to speak, in a time of interest of using renewable vs non-renewable items (I'm now 64), I've always bought clothes made of renewable fibers (cotton, linen, nylon, etc.) For most of my life, I've largely bought "recycled" well-made clothing at thrift stores and consignment shops, because of an environmental bent.
Admittedly, I haven't ever been particularly interested in fashion per se, but more interested in what suits me and serves the role/persona I needed to be, in my various work roles. In "retirement," I can be whatever I want -- delightful. And I still buy most of my clothes in thrift stores, essentially giving them a second life in my closet.
Thanks for an interesting piece.
29
I’ve been working on greening my wardrobe since I read that some unbelievable percentage of plastic in the oceans is related to washing synthetic fabrics.
I’m moving towards natural fabrics, patching/mending, washing only some parts of the wardrobe frequently, and spot-cleaning.
All of it is directly in conflict with the culture of the fashion industry.
13
Somehow, No-Shave-November caught on. What about Just-one-January. One outfit for all of January. It should be comfortable and cozy, hold up well to spot cleaning and washing, dry quickly, and be able to be dressed up or down...
8
@Deanna
I'm in! I have read quite a few novels set in the 19th century where references to brushing one's clothes are made. Back when someone had to pump water out of a well by hand and tote it into the house for washing, there must have been a higher tolerance for less than perfect grooming! We are all so very spoiled.
9
@Susan It would make our mornings so much easier! I’ve read a couple of articles about women who have instituted uniforms that consist of one outfit on themselves. They said most people didn’t notice.
3
@Deanna Yes, I recently read something by a woman who said she wore a very limited wardrobe for business and no one even noticed. We are not seen as much as we think, everyone is too preoccupied thinking about how they look to pay much attention to the people around them.
9
The 8 pct. of global emissions referenced in this article is doubtful and needs verification and validation. All of transport- boats, planes , trucks, trains and cars are less than 18 pct. of total emissions. Hmm? Whatever the clothing segment does add is mostly likely in the laundering of our existing garments.
2
@RjW yes these numbers are true.
All transportation is less than 25 %.
1
@JPH
Right. I looked it up. It used to be way less only a few years ago but is now pegged at 22pct. and rising. Bring on the electric transport sector.
1
@RjW
70% of our electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.
Driving an electric vehicle doesn't make you eco-friendly.
4
I usually don't care what clothes I wear. In modern times though, that is different. Clothing is a social status and it shapes the reality of how people see one another. If people cared less about what they look like, life would be better in the long run. I do like that companies are trying but it's also consumers. Companies won't make things you won't buy. So just try to cut down on clothing you don't need.
11
@Anonymous that is not a modern concept. Clothing throughout time has always delineated social class - it is one of the oldest ways that the social classes were divided up and goes back thousand of years since humans became sedentary and moved from being nomadic into communities with rulers.
11
@Anonymous Also when I mean cut down, I mean buying new clothing. You can also donate your clothes to Shelters.
@Mary I'm in the Comfortable Class and don't care what people think. Check out Patti Smith's wardrobe.
I had an Aunt who wore the same outfit all through business school and was voted the best-dressed member of her class.
I find better quality clothes at the thrift stores in my town than at any retailer here. New clothes in my town are poorly made of cheap materials. Black jeans and several shirts make up my wardrobe.
Maybe we should all run around naked if we don't wear the hides of the animals we kill for our food. But wait, what would vegetarians and vegans wear? Just messing with you all!
21
@Susan I agree with you on that one. Sometimes, flashy is not the right way. Stick with the simple stuff that will get you through life: don't buy stuff that you don't need it. Applause for your Aunt!
9
A(n) (im)modest proposal: We can also get over our Victorian prudery and just quit wearing clothes when they are not necessary for protection against the environment. Examples: at the beach, swimming, to bed, at home in private.
9
@Byron Postma At home, that may mean you have to turn up the heat, so . . .
1
Unfortunately, the temperature I'd need my house at to be warm enough to be naked would offset the environmentally advantage of not wearing clothes.
1
@Byron Postma Don't say that to Americans.
They cannot even be naked at the beach.
"The clothing and footwear industry is responsible for 8 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions." So if the industry closed up shop tomorrow (not likely), we would reduce emissions by 8 percent. Hardly a significant impact.
1
Eight percent is decidedly significant.
@cruzer5 One thing I learned from milking cows as a kid was that it all adds up. One squirt isn't much, but you can't fill a pail without all of them. Eight % is a big squirt. Just 12.5 of those and you've got a full bucket. Of course the industry won't cease completely, but from producers to consumers, everybody can help reduce the enviro impact of clothes.
I have always wonder why all natural fiber clothing wasn't a much bigger "thing".
I've dislike man made fibers in clothing and towels especially. I like my bike shorts but I am sure I could make do with something else if I ever started riding long distance again.
2
Thankfully, many companies are allowing employees to dress down. Simply not having to maintain both work work and casual clothes will be helpful. That being said, the amount of clothing that must go unused after it goes "out of fashion" (which is honestly a ludicrous statement for something as essential as clothing), is daunting and should be curtailed.
25
@Willis —conversely the dress down policies may add to waste. Suits (or similar) can be reworn multiple times with a change or shirt, ties, and accessories. It’s a little less easy to do with casual clothes.
1
@Minmin Maybe I'm a bit more minimalist, but I generally wear the same pair of pants for weeks or years, (with washing when appropriate, obviously), and only change my tee shirt every day. But, I do hear your point. It seems possible my intuitions about what I think will be a helpful social change will lead to a negative change.
"We can work to extend the life of all clothes by switching more of our purchases to secondhand and online resale, renting for special occasions, and repairing clothes instead of throwing them away."
Who throws old clothes away? Take them to Goodwill, The Salvation Army, a local church or just find a homeless person, there are plenty of places to take old clothes.
The idea that buying used rather than new will make a difference is nonsense. Clothes have a useful lifecycle, whether bought new or used they're lifecycle is the same.
Renting, sure, but is the carbon footprint for renting really less? Are there any studies that prove that argument?
Forget about rags, Americans could make a huge impact on climate change by making a single dietary change - stop eating beef. After that, give up dairy. I guarentee you'll feel better.
39
@Prodigal Son
Plenty of people throw away clothes, mostly because they are lazy, but also because they don't know how to mend a seam or how to replace a button. If you have ever seen a college dorm on move out days, it would make you weep. Piles of clothes, towels, sheets, etc., and food, especially from students who fly home. Luckily, many colleges these days encourage students to sort these items into bins to donate to shelters, but it is still a problem in many places.
17
@Prodigal Son Why single out beef? Most meat the way it's produced and sold has a great enviro impact, land air and water pollution, habitats destroyed to grow feed grains for hogs and poultry. Cattle and bison at least have the positive attribute of needing grasslands for much of their lives. Native grasslands are one of the most threatened ecosystems, in N. America and around the world. Grazing is what's keeping them alive, as sustainable economic alternatives to crop farming.
5
@Prodigal Son - I used to be vegan - felt like dirt. I have been vegetarian for 2 years prior to that and felt fine but giving up dairy and eggs was very noticeable and after 6 months, I bought a quart of chocolate milk and never looked back. I have not bought a gallon of gas in 10 years now or been on a plane since 1991. I use public transportation (electric) once a month. I'll keep the beef teriyaki and mochas breves. But you should try getting rid of your car. I guarantee you'll feel great:)
11
Our clothing extravaganza is indeed one significant part of our assault on planet livability. Like most parts, it is driven by 'wants', and happily fed by business. Humans will either rein in its material wants (no pun, please), find another way to obtain satisfaction besides unbridled consumerism, or likely lose it all.
8
Looking chic, cool, wearing fur, or not, are aspects of contemporary life, that along the edges of the Green campaign to control the climate "crisis," is now yet another target to get people to stop using energy that makes the world go round. If Nancy Pelosis's six year old coal sets example for those inclined to wear old clothing to tatters, the fashion industry, department stores and boutiques, will soon feel the effects of this misbegotten movement. Personally, I prefer to wear clean clothes and to throw them away when I choose, without experiencing the guilt that the writer is attempting to foist on folks who choose not to wear rags to save the world.
3
@heyomania That’s all very fine, but give your unwanted clothes to Goodwill or another similar charity. Don’t put them in the landfill.
@heyomania
Unfortunately you’re very uneducated as to the truth of where the world is heading.
I’d gather you’re a baby boomer who won’t see the worst effects; but if you have kids or grandkids I’d urge you to read up on it. From actual sources other then Fox News. We all must make changes to our “throwing out clothes without guilt” lifestyles if the world is to continue to exist in the manner we’re accustomed.
Thank you for making some good points. I shop for natural fabrics, pay more for good quality, and dry my clothes on a clothesline. I am trying to keep my clothes until they wear out, but it seems like only my sweatshirts and underwear actually wear out! I also gasp at paying $45 for an organic cotton tee shirt, and I only buy those high end name brands only on sale. I agree that we all need to pay attention, but this industry touches so many people that this conversation needs to go way beyond the NY Times.
13
As a self-confessed clothes horse and one who is concerned about the environment, I have found middle ground by designing and making my own clothes. A customized garment usually takes me a few months to make. It is creatively satisfying and I get something to wear that I had to work for both financially and through my own personal labor. (I also purchase garments from thrift stores to cut up and create new items.) Slowing down my acquisition time has resulted in my ability to appreciate what I wear on a new level. Of course this approach is not for everyone, but if one wants to learn, this is an option.
47
Aha! I've long favored the idea of people going naked, but I have a hunch that it won't catch on.
No solution recommended?
Why? because the root cause is overpopulation. There is a long list of things that the Earth's population of 7 billion people do that are not sustainable. We use too many minerals from mines, and too many fertilizers for fields to be able to sustain this rate for another 200 years.
But no one has to worry about that because the world is likely to become uninhabitable in 100 years, so we're just fine, right?
No we're not just fine, but we need enough people who understand our dire straits to vote representatives in Washington to start implementing programs to actually do something before any of the hand wringing can make a difference.
I see us on the Earth Titanic, ordering up another cocktail while the orchestra plays. And that is a fully exact analogy, not an exaggeration at all.
52
@DGP
Please remember that people in poor, overpopulated countries consume much much less than people in the developed world. Of course population needs to be controlled, but the root cause is overconsumption. We in America put out so much plastic garbage per person....it is shocking. The whole planet needs to come together and resolve to consume less.
2
Sounds like it’s time to go find the infinity stones?
Time to find the infinity stones?
Thank god I have never paid retail for clothing and never will. Second hand apparel is affordable and often the most fashionable designer duds on sale in thrift shops and "vintage" venues. When you buy these discounted threads, you are helping to reduce the carbon footprint threatening our planet. Oh, and used shoes and boots are also a perfect alternative to overpriced and environmentally incorrect footwear.
13
Our 15-year old boy decided that he wanted to buy his next round of clothes at a thrift shop.
Things are changing, and faster than people think, which is great!
I've also started mending my clothes if there's a tear. I'm not good at sewing (I'm a guy, not that it should explain it) and it often shows. I don't care and even consider it a badge of honor.
Also, I remember back in the 70's, when a pair of Levi jeans were expensive compared to now. I remember my aunts and uncles doing the same thing, patching up their jeans because they couldn't afford a new pair.
I also remember my grandpa turning off the engine of his WV van when we were going downhill in order to save gas.
And he biked everywhere in town with a cart attached to his bike. I do the same today in NYC, minus the cart.
35
@Eric
check out #visiblemending and #sashikomending on instagram.
it's so awesome and inspiring.
@Eric
I think coasting down a hill like that might be a little dangerous, but I am curious about your grandfather's West Virginia van (!)
1
As a garment manufacturer, all of our clients have been pushing for organic and recycled materials. It sounds great but the catch is that the retailers and suppliers have to bear all of the cost. Consumers all want to buy green clothing but they aren't willing to pay up. As a result, suppliers are forced to use the lowest cost resources including cheap labour, non-green energy, and other non-environmental friendly practices.
As the article states, real monumental change will only come from a change in consumer behaviors. Consumers have to stop buying fast fashion and other retailers that indirectly promote pollution. On average fast fashion retailers pay between $4-7 USD per piece of clothing to suppliers. Anyone can do the math...there is only so many ways to make manufacturing garments profitable at these prices...and none of them are completely environmental friendly. Consumers (the final customers) are destroying the planet, not the suppliers.
Of course, an economist would suggest that the invisible hand of capitalism will eventually make this work. For example, a retailer and supplier will eventually innovate and figure out how to produce green products at a low cost and pass all the savings to consumers and dominate the market. But I have to say that this process will take too long. Furthermore, the margins are already razor thin, investing in R&D makes no sense when the returns are clear....
51
Many of us just don’t have the money to pay more for our clothes. The US may be a rich country, but an awful lot of us are struggling to get by. I don’t know what the answer is, but something needs to change.
10
@K I am one consumer who stopped buying fast fashion and many other things years ago. (My car is old enough to vote.) It has taken a decade to wear out the clothes I had accumulated. I have often joked that if others followed my lead the economy would crash. Nearly70% of our economy is based on consumer spending. Part of what we need to figure out is how to develop a sustainable economic system that does not depend on constant growth or expansion.
16
Don’t forget about all the greenhouse gas emissions from the vehicles home-delivering Amazon, Rent the Runway, and Stitch Fix boxes. Like so many other commodities, clothing is becoming cheaper and easier to purchase with a click or tap.
This article serves as an important reminder that every time we consume anything, there are downstream consequences, and that any time we get something cheaper or more conveniently than we used to, the environment is likely eating the difference in cost.
103
@Fed Up We must have environmental guilt for everyone on every subject possible.
Solution to all the crisis human faces is rethinking economy progress as measuring production and consumption.
7
Buying locally produced goods (avoiding energy intensive shipping) and using green manufacturing / materials can have a big impact on clothing and many other goods we buy.
Also, reuse of materials is a huge opportunity. Lets use creativity to move beyond throw away culture.
12
Have you ever tried to find locally produced clothing? If you can find any at all, it’s so expensive most people can’t afford it.
7
@Smilodon7
Agree.
The last time I bought locally produced clothing was in the early to mid 1970’s in my home state of PA
when they had a garment industry there.
3
The fragmentation of our environmental crisis into a thousand different “causes” makes it impossible to solve any one of them. Adding clothing waste to a hopper that includes species extinction, ocean pollution, habitat destruction, air and water pollution, acid mine drainage, global warming, and all the rest gets us nowhere; it separates into isolated silos what is a systemic problem.
We can’t seem to adopt that larger view, perhaps because it is difficult to question the very terms of our collective economic life, perhaps because there are too many careers to be made keeping these “environmental problems” separate. On the other hand a leap into an alternative system means revolution, and I don’t see that happening, especially in America, until things get much much much worse.
27
@Kryztoffer The point of the article is to be mindful in all respects of our lives. One of the ultimate ones is trash. We think we are throwing things away. There is no such thing as “away.” So discarding clothing is one of the things of which to be mindful.
One thought to share - if possible, hang your clothes to dry. We have no dryer and save a lot of money and energy, but do sometimes have clothes draped all over the house.
31
@Maggie we do the same in our NYC apartment. It is quite a scene at times!
Back in Europe where I grew up, you often saw built-in retractable clothes lines in the bathroom, over the tub.
18
@Eric
I recall those built-in, retractable clothes line over the bathtubs. They were prevalent in NYC region apartments when I was growing up in the fifties. Wish we had one now!
11
@Maggie . I wish I could hang my clothes around the house. I own about six drying racks, but my husband would have a fit if I set up all of them for a long time. In the winter, I can dry some items more quickly over a drying rack that sits on top of our floor furnace. (I have an old house.) We used to have a clothesline in the backyard, but that came down a long time ago--I don't remember why. I miss it.
8
The underlying cause of so much unnecessary clothing being produced and consumed is vanity--especially the vanity of women. Women in advanced societies use clothes to show off. Meanwhile, I have a hunch the gas emissions coming from the production and packaging of lipstick and hair color are close to the of clothing.
P.S. I'm not an Intel. I'm a married woman and a mother.
10
@Emile I have seen no evidence that women are any vainer than men. Instead of making moral accusations, why not promote reusing clothing, upcyling, and other environmentally friendly behavior for both genders? Also, you could promote men mending and sewing their own clothes.
This probably has something to do with the fact that society judges women based on their appearance. Try and get a job if you don’t dress up and wear makeup.
@Emile women in advanced countries also make more money if they wear beautiful clothing and makeup.
So yeah, that a a good reason to keep your wardrobe updated and is not tied to your moral castigation of it being vanity and showing off.
Consumption, plain and simple, utilizes natural resources, taxes ecosystems and increases our carbon footprint.
This article is spot on—if we used less clothing, the planet would benefit.
But this is true for all consumption.
What happens to consumption as incomes increase: well obviously it increases (a little less than linearly as some goes to savings and investment). Richer people spend more money on more stuff. More clothes, food, cars, air conditioners, electronics, banks, consultants, government services etc etc.
If rich countries spent less on clothes, they’d probably spend more on popcorn, doctors and iPhones. Or put their money in a bank that would lend it to someone who would then spend it.
What am I getting at? The only way to reduce aggregate consumption in a world of improving standards of living is to reduce the human population faster than incomes increase. We need fewer people.
94
@Mmm Yes, fewer people will help. However, a redefinition of materialism, a far more enlightened sense of economics "growth", and a more mature sense of what life can be about ... are the requirements that are needed for a sustained presence on this planet.
17
While I do agree with the sentiment presented, I find it somewhat interesting that the clothing brands listed are, more or less, higher-end labels. So then, the message we can take from this is that being environmentally conscious dressers means either (a) having enough money to purchase higher-end labels or (b) wearing used clothing. It's not the choir that needs to be preached to it's the people not attending church at all. There needs to be a "c" choice, and maybe this is somewhere that the elites can lead.
Rather than always going out in something new and stunning that can be reported about on E, let Amal where (gasp) the same outfit multiple times in public! How about if John Legend and Gwen Stefani didn't come to the Voice with a different costume change for every taping?
It's great for liberal/progressive voices to present the problem, and then offer a solution that won't (really) inconvenience them too much. As a liberal (not progressive), I can tell you, preaching without out practice, publicity, and a real understanding of what you are asking of everyone else will ensure that nothing will change.
26
We also are caught in a cycle whereby we keep buying clothes precisely because the things we buy are so cheap: they *need* to be replaced. Buying well made clothing is now ridiculously expensive. The constant race for the cheapest materials, labor, and techniques mean that it's difficult to buy clothing that doesn't wear out quickly. There needs to be a compromise between $10 items from Old Navy and $300 for recycled polyester from Eileen Fisher.
Also, if you shop in plus size, your options are limited; you pay more for the same garbage, with fewer choices.
77
That’s true. I try and get used clothes but it’s difficult to get what I need in my size sometimes.
3
@Alexis People who make their own clothes have been lauding the better quality and fit they can get, for years.
2
Not guilty. I've worn the same clothes for the last 20 plus years. Bought some socks since then, nothing more.
41
@Mickeyd Goodwill in Maine is perfect to buy in and try on clothes and I just wear whatever I buy until they don't fall apart!
2
@Mickeyd Well, and some underwear too, I hope.
Apart from human overpopulation of our planet, a major part of the problem is that clothing is now made not to last. The quality is so poor that it starts to break down after the first washing. The same goes for sheets and towels. If clothing was made as well as it used to be fifty plus years ago, then we would not have to buy it so frequently, thereby somewhat reducing our carbon footprint in this area.
258
@Michele
I am using my last California king fitted sheet, the last of about 3 or 4 bought more than 50 years ago at an amazing sale at the Naval Postgraduate School Exchange in Monterey, CA. It's about to give out.
Now I need to apply the same practice to clothing purchases, although I'm quite sure I won't need 50 more years of wearability from them.
13
@Michele, My guess is that long-lived clothing costs a lot more to manufacture and requires better materials than modern clothing. All the US manufacturers vanished, and imports are cheaper for a reason. Nothing new lasts very long, even pricey brands.
I think there's some chemistry behind clothes not lasting as long, as well. First, laundry detergents used to have high levels of phosphates, which are banned. Without phosphates, clothes have to agitate longer in the machine to get cleaned. Second, I think (but I'm not sure) that some of the dyes used now are not as fast as older, more toxic dyes. Clothes fade faster.
5
@Michele Quality has disappeared for a lot of goods. My sister has my mother’s old refrigerator in her garage. It’s 45 years old. Now appliances are made to last about eight years.
12
We're on a kind of moral treadmill here. because textile workers depend on these jobs. We can't just all switch to second-hand without increasing poverty in places where textile work is done, which increases human trafficking from those places, which drives some people to the right in the countries where these refugees are being trafficked to.
And when people start voting right wing, well, there go any efforts to fight climate change.
I myself have been concerned about this for decades. We bought our house within walking distance of my husband's job and the local shops. I wash my clothes in cold water and most of them I line dry on an inexpensive coat rack that folds up and fits under the bed.
Polyester I cannot tolerate on my skin, so I'm not shedding plastic from my washer at least.
20
Thank-you for raising this issue. We all need to think more about it.
19
I've been wearing the same thing for years- black jeans and different color t and polo shirts that I rotate, a sports jacket, usually found at Goodwill and slip on black shoes. I have one suit which I wear on gigs, and an assortment of dress shirts also found at Goodwill. This gives me one less thing to think about, for which I am grateful.
103
Rather than rely on consumers to distinguish between brands based on whether they're responsible, it would be better to focus on creating broad incentives which would reward clothing manufacturers who practice low-emissions.
Putting a price on carbon would be a very valuable step toward this. The low-emissions producers would then enjoy a price advantage due to the fact that they use less fossil fuel inputs (and thus avoid the financial hit from the carbon price). So consumers would naturally favor their products, which they'll be able to offer at a lower price.
H.R. 763 is a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, with currently 69 co-sponsors. It would put a price on carbon and represents an effective and fair way to significantly reduce carbon emissions which are causing climate change. Write to your Member of Congress today, to ask them to co-sponsor this bill. You can find more information about this bill here:
www.energyinnovationact.org
53
I would say that lawns are a bigger cause of water pollution: all of the fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, and other chemical applications that go on to lawns are mostly washed untreated into storm drains, and from there, into our creeks and rivers. At least washing machine water makes it to a water treatment plant.
Ban lawn treatment companies and all of the chemicals that they, or homeowners, apply to their lawns. The grass just needs to grow well enough to hold soil in place, weeds and all. We are destroying water quality and driving freshwater organisms -- mussels, frogs, salamanders, minnows, crayfish, and brook trout -- to extinction, and all for the sake of a green lawn. It is beyond baffling.
289
@NorthernVirginia My guess is that the same people who shop thrift stores, wash with cold, hang dry their laundry, etc are the same people who plant natives or xeriscape plants rather than lawns and who refrain from applying chemicals to their yards.
We need to change the paradigms of what is socially acceptable in both fashion and lawn care. And quite a few other things too. Like riding bikes and walking instead of hopping in the car for short errands. Like staying local for vacations instead of flying off to Europe or Machu Pichu. Everything needs to be re-examined. What is best for restoring ecosystems? What is best for other species? Simplify, simplify, simplify.
60
Say hello to the neighborhood HOA which is common in many parts of the country. They never have any trouble finding people for violations like browning lawns.
7
@NorthernVirginia I decided a few years ago to take a shot at something that seemed too easy to be true: simply run over my leaf covered lawn with my lawnmower, with the collection bag removed. This chopped up everything and sent it mostly down into the grass. Some debris was left on the surface, but that eventually washed in too. Part two was to not, gulp, apply any fertilizer. The result? I've never had such a nice looking lawn. Who'da thunk that leaves are actually fertilizer? Who'da thunk that nature figured this out hundreds of millions of years ago.
12
What has the biggest environmental impact? Overpopulation.
THE PEOPLE COULD DO MORE to care for the planet than any government ever could, but they refuse to take responsibility, or even recognize simple mathematics.
If you are the biological parent of more than two children, you are, personally, contributing to population increase.
The world population has increased from about 3 billion in 1960 to almost 8 billion today (a doubling time of a little over 40 years, assuming exponential growth). US population has increased over the same time frame from about 179 million to almost 330 million (a doubling time of just over 60 years). Both India and China are getting close to 1.4 billion inhabitants, right now.
IMAGINE OUR CHILDREN LIVING IN A WORLD WITH 16 BILLION PEOPLE, and a U.S. with almost 700 million.
224
@Raz Where do those population numbers you cite come from? I think that they come from your imagination, rather than any reasonable projections based on data. The population growth rate in the US has slowed dramatically and is now at about half the rate that it was during the period from 1950-2015, counting immigration. Discounting immigration, our population growth rate is expected to be about 1/5 of what it was in that period.. This would result in a US population, not counting immigrants, of about 340 million in 2050 and 390 million counting immigration. The UN expects, based on current projections, that the world population would plateau at about 10 billion by the end of this century, with Africa being the only region exceeding the population replacement birth rate. Furthermore, China's growth rate has decreased dramatically. It has been shown that as people become more prosperous they have fewer children. The key is sustainably increasing the prosperity of the poorer parts of the world while decreasing the impacts of those of us who live in rich countries.
22
@Art
You're wrong; I just did a quick google search for all of Raz's statistics and the numbers are absolutely correct.
11
@Raz Oh, please, stop it with the overpopulation screaming. There are plenty of countries on earth with nice living standards whose carbon and other resource footprints are a fraction of that of the US and Canada on a per capita basis. And if we reduced our consumption-=-much of which is simply pointless and serves only to grow the economy--we could support plenty of people.
There is, also, no real estimate of population growth on earth that gets us to 16 billion people.
1
Want a quick thumbnail method on how to estimate the amount of damage you do to our planet? It not only counts the specific carbon footprint of each and every one of your activities, it handily adds in the production costs and their effects on natural and human resources. It also does a pretty good job of figuring in opportunity costs and all the complex interactions and networks that money's fungibility create.
Step one: Add up everything you and your family spent on everything last year.
Step two: Add up all that you spent on carbon offsets, green technology and on conservation oriented charities.
Step three: Take the total from step two and forget it.
You can never get away from the fact that someone with a 1998 Chevette damages the world far less than someone with a Tesla.
13
Buying less is the obvious answer to this problem. I tell myself I don't need a thing when exposed to any retail.
If you need to buy, Elizabeth Suzann in Nashville and Hackwith Design in Minneapolis are responsible options in women's fashion, I'm sure there are others. Just think before you spend.
16
I'll keep buying my clothes at Goodwill. Organic clothes are above my budget, just like the organic food, and hybrid cars. Most people cannot afford to be green.
117
@Bridget McCurry
I'm with you Bridget on Goodwill shopping. Apparently, there is someone in my neighborhood who buys moderately expensive clothing (Talbots, L.L. Bean, etc) and more or less wears them once and drops them off at the local Goodwill collection bin. Happily for me, she wears my size and we have similar taste. I may never buy new again--and high quality clothes will last for years!
56
@Bridget McCurry
My 2005 Prius has 212,000 miles and I’m getting about 45 mpg. If it ever dies I’m getting electric, but I think I’ll have to wait a few more years.
5
I have been buying second hand clothing for decades now. When I was young I would never have done this, but somewhere along the line I realized there are herds of women who barely wear their clothes and donate them so they can shop some more. I can’t calculate how much I have saved, but it is most likely a large sum.
I also like the idea of having a simpler wardrobe that doesn’t require gobs of accessories.
We are constantly told to buy more things than we need and think that it will make us something we are not. Personally I am done with this treadmill of superficial existence.
321
@Ober me too! I have shopped on ebay for many years, often buying from those fashion victim types you describe. I just cannot buy retail any more, the prices in the shops (compared with what I pay) are horrifying. And it's not shabby stuff, much of it is very nearly new.
I didn't know until recent years that I was helping to save the planet, how many more reasons does anyone need?
16
@Ober
After losing my home in an earthquake several years back I suddenly needed new clothes. That's when I stated shopping at thrift shops and have never looked back. I work with the public and receive many compliments on my clothes. It always makes me laugh because I don't think I put that much thought into it. Buy used people! It's usually more interesting than the latest that's being pushed
17
@Ober Another vote for eBay.
Most of my clothing I bought "gently used" on eBay and still own and wear five to ten years later. Put an item in the wash (or have it dry cleaned), and it's as if you bought it new and then washed/dry cleaned it and now plan to re-wear it.
I've never had an item arrived sweat-stained, smelly, torn, or in any way damaged.
Look at seller ratings and only buy from sellers who have a 100% seller rating (or very close to it), only buy clothing that includes proper measurements (bust measurement, length from collar to hem, sleeve length, hip measurement, inseam, etc.) to ensure the item will fit you properly, look at fabric content, and examine the pictures carefully.
I've saved hundreds of dollars in the past 10 years shopping for clothes on eBay. And I get compliments all the time on how I'm dressed.
10
One of the most solid reasons for skepticism toward addressing the anthropogenic impacts to the world's climate and biosphere is that too much of our modern lifestyle and identity are wrapped up in a consumer culture that has become the fundamental measure of how we value ourselves and others, as individuals, communities, and nations.
As one looks at China and India reassert themselves dominantly on the world economic stage--a position they held, by the way, for most of the last 1,000 years, until Great Britain decided to correct its balance of trade on both their backs with the Opium Wars in the 1800's--regrettably, both nations seem to be following western industrial norms to the point where the air is practically unbreathable in much of the two largest nations in Asia.
With the West's inability to divorce itself from convenient consumption, and the reemerging Asian economies chasing the West's trappings of prestige and value in material goods, there is little reason for any hope that the world can get ahead of the approaching cataclysm.
20
@Gui Well said.....but so depressing. We need hope!