Category: Environmental Issues

Fast Fashion and Its Effect on The Environment

Fast fashion is a term used to describe inexpensive clothing produced rapidly in response to new trends. With exponentially increasing demand by consumer-driven production of cheap clothing, such prices are kept low through outsourcing manufacturing in low-income countries. Unsustainable garments are produced in a complicated process that requires an inordinate amount of resources. Due to the poor quality of mass-produced clothing, consumers are likely to wear the attire just a few times before throwing it away, and various facets in the clothing production process harm the environment, such as chemicals used to bleach, dye, and print on fabric. This issue is omnipresent, however, the process many people’s current clothing go through is not one widely publicized. I find it crucial that people start being informed on environmental issues impacting the health of each individual and their world. Being aware of fast fashion will aid communities as shoppers towards making choices to best avail them and others long term and individually. How does fast fashion affect the environment, and how can people assist in preventing the negative effects?

Textile waste generates numerous issues affecting the environment. Fabrics of garments are thrown away to landfills in accelerating numbers, worsening the health of the environment as detrimental materials are released. According to Solveig Fellows’ article, the fashion industry is responsible for most of the 2.5 billion pounds of clothing that end up in landfills every year. With fast fashion brands’ quality of clothing dwindling to keep up with trends, consumers are encouraged to view apparel as disposable. As stated in fast fashion expert Elizabeth Cline’s article, the lowest prices and trendiest styles of clothing are paramount as quantity is valued over quality, and clothes are being consumed similar to single-use goods. The demand for more mass-produced clothing transforms into a cycle to replace what is thrown away in shoppers’ closets. Tasha Lewis, a Ph.D. and assistant professor of Fiber Science, stated in an article that the U.S. generated over 14 million tons of textile waste in 2012 alone. The increasing textile waste added to landfills each year has adverse effects on the earth. The materials going into cheaply produced garments play a consequential effect on the environment as well. Petroleum-based materials pollute the environment by wastewater and oxygen-depleting materials. According to authors Marta Mae and Sara Victoria, synthetic textiles form a toxic and non-biodegradable waste at the end of their life cycle. Textile waste continues to present a significant issue exacerbating the condition of the environment.

The direct effects of the fast fashion industry on the environment are inimical. According to Solveig Fellows’ article, the fashion industry is responsible for 10% of the world’s carbon footprint. Producing a single piece of clothing takes up an immense quantity of resources and raw materials. Many fibers such as raw cotton, raw wool, and polyester contaminate ecosystems with chemicals from coloring processes using dye through runoff. According to Jessie O’Driscoll’s article, fibers such as nylon require water usage of up to 3,860 liters per kilograms and 150 megajoules per kilogram with several million tons of demand. Toxic wastewater and effluent are formed from the manufacturing process and produce high levels of air pollution. Untreated wastewater from dyes is often discharged into local water systems, releasing toxicants harmful to nearby residents and animals. Heavy pesticides and fertilizer used in resources to make certain fibers lead to reduced soil fertility and a loss of biodiversity.

While the fast fashion industry possesses a great threat to the health of the environment, there are numerous ways consumers can choose to shop smarter and lessen their support to environmentally unfriendly practices. One method that would make an impact is reducing purchases for clothing. According to the Oxfam charitable organization, the emissions from all the new clothes bought in the UK each month are greater than those from flying a plane around the world 900 times. Limiting purchases of attire to necessities of sustainable quality and timeless styles allows shoppers to save money and reduce their carbon footprint. Another alternative for consumers is to thrift. Second-hand garments provide an inexpensive option for people to recycle clothing and prevent having to purchase new, unsustainable garments. Alternatives remain present to fibers that are environmentally unfriendly as well. In Jessie O’Driscoll’s article, looking for fibers organically grown, degummed in factories with strict effluent treatment protocols, choosing recycled fabrics without catalytic agents, or substituting harmful fabric materials such as nylon and acrylic with natural fibers such as wool are all beneficial solutions to buttress slow fashion.

Unsustainable clothing instigates excessive amounts of issues towards the environment due to several causes. Large amounts of clothing are thrown away to landfills annually, and fabrics may take up to several hundred years to degrade, polluting water and air with toxic chemicals from bleach and carbon dioxide releasing chemicals. The environment is directly impacted as ecosystems perish from high emissions of carbon dioxide affecting climate and habitat conditions. Staying informed and educated on substantial issues such as fast fashion’s influence through an environmental aspect guides shoppers to make wholesome choices. Shopping sustainably aids in preventing pernicious effects towards the quality and survival of people’s lives. Every individual as a shopper can use information known about pollution from the fast fashion industry to stay aware of the consequences of specific purchases from various sources.

The Environmental Impact of The Fast Fashion Industry

The clothing and textile industry accounts for 10% of the world’s carbon emissions, and only second to oil is the largest polluter in the world. The rate that we are producing, consuming and discarding clothing has already had a monumental environmental impact, and if action isn’t taken, one-quarter of our total impact on climate change will be due to clothing consumption alone by 2050. The essence of fast fashion is to make clothes cheaply and quickly, to get new trends and styles into stores and online as soon as possible, and it comes at a high social and environmental cost. Keeping production costs low means they can make their garments cheap and advertising campaigns big, using cheap labour in unsafe working conditions, and in countries with bad environmental regulations so that they also avoid repercussions.

Throw away culture is deeply rooted in our society, three in five of our clothing pieces end up in landfills or incinerators within a year. Fast fashion brands keep the consumer hungry and feeling like they need more by tempting them with newness and convincing you that you need what they’re selling. This only results in increasing textile waste as people will not even donate or recycle the clothing they no longer want but throw it away, a staggering three-quarters of Britons throw their unwanted clothes into landfills.

Criticisms of the fast fashion industry include its negative environmental impact, water pollution, the use of toxic chemicals and increasing levels of textile waste. Textile dyeing is the second largest polluter of clean water globally, after agriculture. Fast fashion companies rely on their products being made cheaply and quickly, and so cut corners when it comes to being conscious of their impact on the environment. Greenpeace’s recent Detox campaign revealed that many brands use toxic and hazardous chemicals in their supply chains, many of these chemicals are either banned or strictly regulated in lots of countries as they are toxic, bioaccumulative, disruptive to hormones and carcinogenic.

Growing cotton on a global scale requires lots of water, in countries already at risk of drought, and pesticides to avert crop failure. Some of the chemicals used in cotton agriculture are highly toxic and can have a devastating impact on livestock and humans, in one case, awful birth defects in Indian cotton farmers’ children. Although there is an increasing interest in organic and sustainable cotton, its use accounts for less than one percent of the entire world’s cotton crop, not nearly enough considering the cotton industry’s destructive nature.

In conclusion, the fast fashion industry has a detrimental effect on our environment through their unecological and unethical practices and only continues to perpetuate the problem through extreme consumerist culture. In order for change to happen, the masses need to open their eyes and stop the cycle. However, for significant change to happen, it’s, unfortunately, the companies that need to change their ways when it comes to their production lines, manufacturing, and their sell, sell, sell philosophy, which is unlikely to happen unless the consumer makes them.

Why Fast Fashion is Unethical and Should Be Replaced

In today’s day and age, websites are brimming with online catalogs. Stores like Forever 21, Zara and even H&M are all affordable places where people can get fashionable and trendy clothing at a low cost. This low cost, up to date, clothing is made possible by fast fashion. Fast fashion is a term used to describe affordable clothing produced rapidly in response to the newest trends. Although it may be argued that fast fashion is necessary for developing countries to be lifted out of poverty through employment in the fashion industry, ultimately fast fashion is unethical and society should replace it with other ethical alternatives such as secondhand shopping and eco-friendly laundry due to the detrimental impacts on the environment and the exploitation of workers.

To begin with, some say fast fashion aids second world countries in becoming more developed. Fast fashion often relies on sweatshops where workers in low developing countries work for long hours accompanied by low wages oftentimes in hazardous conditions. Most of the time, agricultural countries attempt to industrialize by constructing more factories that help to provide jobs that contribute to economic development. Brittany Hunter a writer for the Foundation for Economic Education cites Stephan Spath in her article “Banning sweatshops only hurts the poor” that when millions of people move away from subsistence living and into urban areas where factories are able to provide wages that allow for individuals to produce surpluses which can then be invested and spent, nations are able to rise out of poverty. However, although fast fashion does provide jobs ultimately fast fashion exploits workers by paying extremely low wages in dangerous conditions leaving laborers better off working at home rather than in these abysmal factories. This is because laborers are at less risk of getting injured from home while working, rather than working in these factories. Further proving the idea that sweatshops do not care for their workers. In another article titled “Clothing made for Next to Nothing. Worn by You?” by Elizabeth Paton, Paton investigates a new report by the University of California, Berkley where many women and children were interviewed about the exploitative conditions of workers. The report found“ninety-nine percent were paid less than the minimum wage under Indian law which varies from 39 cents per hour to $1.05 per hour”. Thus illustrating the money that these women acquire is not enough to make a living off of. Part of the reason for this is the government does not regulate wages allowing for companies to profit by underpaying their workers. Ultimately resulting in citizens of developing countries not economically progressing since wages are simply not enough to make a living off of, hence citizens are not able to earn the extra cash needed to be invested since they must fend for themselves first. Additionally, the horrendous working conditions of individuals has been proven to be deadly. Gloria Matheson recounts in her article ‘Fast Fashion Culture Repeatedly Proven to be Dangerous’ of the 2013 collapse of the Rana building in Bangladesh where over one thousand garment workers died and thousands more were injured. The incident would have been prevented had the company listened to workers who noticed cracks on the walls the day before, yet were still told to come in the next day which was “a clear signal that the company valued its profit as opposed to its workers’ lives”. In attempts to prevent hazardous working conditions, many factories have attempted to fix these precarious circumstances by following standard government codes, yet this only recently became the case due to fast fashion companies receiving backlash after the 2013 collapse. Regardless there is still risk involved since a vast majority of multinational corporations’ interests lie at creating profit for their brand name, consequently, in order to do this, they must resort to unscrupulous actions such as providing cheap working conditions that ultimately harm people.

Moreover, fast fashion hurts the already decaying planet by coaxing consumers to throw away their old clothes for more trendier ones. Fast fashion revolves around its ability to create clothing at an almost inhuman speed. By producing clothes almost weekly, consumers are tempted to buy new clothing, meaning older clothing is more likely to get tossed in the trash. Kamal Baher states in his article “All what Your Jeans can (and do) Hide!” that the equivalent of one garbage truck of textiles is dumped into a landfill or burned every second. There is no question fast fashion contributes to the effects of climate change through the burning of articles of clothing. Owing to the fact that setting fire to anything leads to carbon emissions in the atmosphere which in turn prompts climate change or the long term rise in the average temperature of the earths’ climate thus, fast fashion aids in destroying the environment. Additionally albeit clothing is recyclable, the amount produced has outstripped people’s capacity to recycle it. Booth Moore quotes Andrew Morgan in his article’Unnatural Fit; ‘the True Cost’ Documentary Tallies the Devastating..’ how the average American discards “eighty-one pounds” of clothing every year and only ten percent of what gets donated is sold in thrift shops. Nevertheless millions of people still buy new clothes every day despite not needing them. Hence why fast fashion should be regarded with contempt. Moreover, oftentimes when looking at the tags of clothing the first material seen is polyester, which according to Hodakel Boris in his article titled “What is polyester fabric” polyester is a type of plastic which requires fossil fuels to create. As a result, this contributes to the global plastic problem and depletes the already finite number of non-renewable resources. Additionally Baher states when people wash their clothes, almost seventy thousand microscopic fibers often find their way into the ocean. Meaning all kinds of animals including turtles are being intoxicated and dying, leading to less biodiversity in the environment and the disruption of food chains as wholes. This disruption in the food chain directly affects humans especially fish and sushi lovers. Because fish use water for oxygen, and that water contains microscopic fibers, fish will consume them, resulting in humans also consuming them. Finally, fast fashion leads to millions of toxins being dumped out into rivers as stated by Kelly Drennan:

On average, it takes 2,700 liters of water to make one cotton t-shirt. That is enough water for one person for 900 days. An estimated 17 to 20 percent of total industrial water pollution comes from textile dyeing and treatment — and approximately 8,000 synthetic chemicals are used throughout the world to turn raw materials into textiles.

This validates the idea of fast fashion polluting the already limited fresh water supply. In many developing countries, freshwater is limited and is used carefully, yet for Americans, water is at the tip of their hands and they do not have to worry about where their water supply is going to come from. Moreover, the water developing countries do have is limited meaning whatever they receive, they receive. So if that means the water is polluted they’re going to have to make do with what they have. Which costs lives since developing countries can not afford to buy purifying water machines that will make the water safe to drink. Further proving the point that fast fashion should be reevaluated since it creates more pollution, and endangers animal and human lives.

Last but not least there are alternate methods to alleviate the environmental costs by being more eco-friendly when doing the laundry, as well as criticizing the unethical behavior of sweatshops through the consumption of secondhand clothing. In American elementary schools children are taught to use the three R’s or to reduce, reuse and recycle. Drennan states “…of the eighty-five percent of clothing dumped into landfills only fifteen is collected and reused”. Thus demonstrating if more people were to buy second-hand clothing then the pollution footprint of clothing would drastically decrease. Moreover, if society second-hand shops more often even if it means buying clothes that were initially made in sweatshops, people are not directly oiling the machine that runs fast-fashion retailers since most thrift stores donate their profits to charities. Secondly taking care of clothes in a more eco-friendly way leads to an extended time in which clothes can be worn. For example, by doing full loads of laundry and hanging clothes to dry, less water is wasted and more clothes are washed. This leads to less pollution of the oceans by microscopic plastic fibers. Moreover, hanging clothes to dry helps to extend the warranty of clothes especially jeans. The matter of the fact is there are more sustainable methods of acquiring clothes without buying from fast-fashion retailers which are overall immoral and unscrupulous.

Affordable and trendy clothes are at the tip of society’s fingers. Computers allow people to shop online at fashion brands like H&M, yet these tycoons are often the cause of millions of people exploited in sweatshops. Although it may be argued fast fashion is a necessity to raise developing countries out of poverty ultimately it is unethical and society should regard it with contempt through the use of other more sustainable alternatives in particular by doing laundry in an ecofriendly way and by shopping at second-hand stores.

Fast Fashion and Its Influence on The Industry in The 21st Century

Fast-fashion is ‘an approach to the design, creation, and marketing of clothing fashions,’ that skyrocketed at the start of the 21st century. This strategy combines three main ideologies: Quick response, frequent-assortment of changes, fashionable designs at affordable prices.

There has been a fundamental shift within the clothes industry, resulting in a transformation in manufacturing to mainly developing in Asian countries in the pursuit of lower production costs. Sull and Turnconi (2008) indicate that Zara, H&M, Uniqlo, and other international retailers have transformed the fashion industry by embracing and pioneering fast-fashion. This method centers on quick response manufacturing designed to knock off a design quickly, keep raw materials on hand, only make more if it is successful, and streamline the distribution of affordable items to the masses. Hayes and Jones (2006) cite this fast response tactic as the source of unparalleled commercial profit and have elevated consumer participation.

Retailers such as Zara searching for an updated and more profitable approach, popularised fast-fashion with help from widespread globalization (Sull and Turconi, 2008). Fast-fashion has produced a sequence of rising trend turnovers and employing marketing skills to captivate consumers’ impulse behavior in an attempt to increase consumption and maximize profits. Choi (2016) suggests that the strategy pushed fast-fashion brands into the forefront of the fashion industry, suddenly becoming the exemplar. Comparatively, the womenswear industry average rose by 1% from 2001 to 2005, while fash-fashion sales rose 31%.

Moreover, Forbes (2016) ranked Zara 53rd in the World’s Most Valuable Brands worth $10.7 Billion and stated that H&M was worth $60.8 Billion, with 3,716 stores worldwide. These brands profit from these tactics; however, these retailers rely on additional intake to maintain their progress. Accordingly, fast-fashion brands frequently restock and apply techniques to feed the ‘must-have’ consumerist lifestyle to continuously increase profits. By creating a need to stay on-trend, retailers influence consumers to purchase items regularly to consolidate a disposable culture that discards articles of clothing often too regularly.

Moreover, this argument posits that capitalism favors commodities and profit while disregarding human and environmental assets (Hudson and Hudson, 2003). Regarding fast-fashion, retailers focus on profit, decreasing response time, and boosting production, without consideration of the social and ecological harm caused. Under capitalism, it fits easier to seek these appealing pieces than to examine the environmental effects of their production. Hudson and Hudson (2003) note that the logic behind the bourgeoisie’s peaceful bliss of capitalism covers the social and the environmental features of production. Debatably there is disunion between consumers buying clothes and the broader ecological results as the consumerist culture shields itself from seeing the cost. Furthermore, Marxism would suggest that the indulgence of commodity fetishism and need-satisfaction consumption can exacerbate the costs and, in this case, harm to the environment.

Cook and Yurchisin (2017) argue that today’s consumers are considerably more fashion-orientated and demanding, which forces brands to cycle their stock more frequently. For brands to capture the profit, they need to predict trends and implement a fast preroll-times to satisfy customers’ developing demand. A ‘musthave’ nature has developed from need-satisfaction consumption, prompting fastfashion to refresh their products quicker year after year (Claudio, 2007). This ‘musthave’ attitude also confirms Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism as fast-fashion is arguably driven by the passion of consumers as they converge on following the latest style, rather than basing purchases on need (Carrier, 2010). Thus, manufacturers ignore the condition of the social and environmental impression to produce commodities. Therefore, the fast-fashion industry is only reacting to consumers’ demands, which previously existed, instead of compelling buyers to consume more. This review will accordingly examine whether consumers buy articles of clothing out of necessity or to remain in style.

In the wake of developments in technological, a socio-cultural shift has occurred in the industry’s landscape, in which consumers have become aware of breaking trends and request them in a low-cost, effective way. Nevertheless, Solomon and Rabolt (2009) specify that there can be adverse facets to these buyer responses to individuals and corporations. Some buyer responses are innate in cultural influences and the social significance set on wealth. Expression through style websites, social media, and a celebrity lifestyle may produce an unachievable notion of beauty and prosperity. However, frequently buyers strive towards the way of life exhibited in social media, ending in buyers pursuing trends and overconsumption. Fast-fashion retailers best reflect this in their practice of regularly cycling their products at inexpensive rates. It might even be disputed that young adults are most influenced by this societal shift, as social media is rooted in their culture.

This research review has presented data that global apparel intake standards have expanded within the 21st century, parallel to the rise of fast-fashion. Therefore, it would be useful to recognize what intake standards are demographically intrinsic to promote or dispute the research. The research produces two distinct hypotheses for the increased intake. Firstly, it can be to fast-fashion brands’ focus on expanding earnings and globally growing their businesses. Still, a different contention proposes that brands are only satisfying buyer desires for rising fashion turnover. Buyer hopes and habits have evolved due to technological progress and the societal changes that ensued.

The effects and tensions need to be recognized so the environment can be valued and preserved. Sensitizing environmental concerns is a necessary means of correcting these concerns. Nevertheless, the fashion industry will also require changes. A two-pronged approach is necessary to promote understanding so the environment can be valued and preserved.

Essay on Disadvantages of Fast Fashion

I. Introduction

Starting with a blank canvas, a significant business sector called the fashion industry generates 1.2$ trillion a year. Therefore, fast fashion is defined as buying clothes and wearing them at a specific time, and using them less [1]. Instead of every fashion season, new designs in stores are updated every few weeks. Even though in most developed countries people get rich and they prefer to buy new clothes every day for different occasions. Nowadays, fashion companies work hard to meet their demand and contribute to the success of their companies. Due to the concern about fast fashion these days, I will examine the effectiveness of solutions for this problem.

II. Problem

Fast fashion aimed is to increase profit by focusing on speed and lower prices. It might not follow the safety rules which endangers employees, so many people did not have an idea about what they are actually consuming. Factories are still determining if fast fashion can affect or cause health problems. According to the World Resources Institute study, apparel production can lead to emissions-intensive [2]. Hence, cotton production caused the environmental problem. It contains chemicals and pesticides that affect the environment negatively. In fact, one garbage truck of cloth is burned or landfilled every second. In addition, cotton production takes 713 gallons of water just to make one cotton shirt, and that meets the average of the person’s drinking needs for more than 2 years [3]. Moreover, clothing production has a societal impact. U. S. Department of Labor report has found in more than one country such as Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, and China evidence of child labor in the fashion industry. Since factories increase their profit, they do not care about human health or welfare.

III. Solution 1

One solution to this problem is to choose organic cotton and grow it without pesticides. An environment audit committee study shows that increasing organic cotton production could minimize environmental issues, as it helps to reduce the use of chemicals and pesticides [4]. Additionally, while using cotton production polluted and wastewater, some researchers have found that working only with smallholder farms in Africa, which are exclusively rain-fed will help conserve water [5]. Also, a modern solution is drip irrigation which drops by a drop of water might help reduce water usage. However, drip technology is highly cost. Since people see the huge numbers of the negative impact that affect the environment and human health, they strongly refuted clothes that require chemicals to be produced.

IV. Solution 2

Fast fashion is harmful and dangerous; it is not acceptable since the environment and human health is the most important to live a better life. Another solution to this problem is to buy less and wear more. As the fixing fashion report says: “The most sustainable garment is the one we already own.” [6]. According to WRAP valuing our clothes report 50% of UK clothing can be extending the active life, by nine months only it would save 10% water, 4% waste, and 8% carbon [6]. Although buying less is helpful, some people think that recycling their unwanted garments is better to save the planet.

V. Conclusion

Despite the fact that fast fashion has some advantages for fashion industries, it is affecting human health and causing environmental issues. Fast fashion is still used now and it might be used in the future. People should know more about fast fashion and get deep into how it might be a risk to people’s safety. They must see the ways it is done and how it affects human health. In addition, people should avoid consuming cotton products and go for buying organic cotton ones. Furthermore, governments should enforce penalties on any company that uses clothes without checking their safety by making sure that the clothes are made with stricter environmental regulations for factories to avoid environmental impact and diseases.

I need help doing the prezi or ppt presentation with the data as well and everyt

I need help doing the prezi or ppt presentation with the data as well and everything instructed and I will do the narration but it would good if you provide one too. I have attached the instructions as a file with examples.