Black Friday crowds got a little rough.
More than 164 million consumers will shop on Black Friday.
Images like these of people losing their minds over items of clothing
is just the tip of a giant iceberg called fast fashion.
On Black Friday in 2011, Patagonia ran this full page ad in The New York Times.
The Don't Buy This Jacket campaign was a bold move
that addressed the issue of consumerism head on.
Yet, Patagonia is a business that designs and sells products to consumers.
So why on earth would they make this statement?
Put simply, the ad was all about communicating
their position on the climate crisis.
In 2019, a U.N. report found that the fashion industry is responsible
for 8 to 10% of global carbon emissions.
To give that some context, that is more than all international flights
and maritime shipping combined.
Many businesses in the fashion industry are aware of the devastating effects
they are having on the environment.
Some, like Patagonia, have attempted to convey messages of change.
But sadly, that is not the case for the majority of fashion brands.
One of the major culprits when it comes to the environmental impact
is what is often known as fast fashion.
It's a term coined for retailers mass-producing garments
at a very low cost.
And while events like Black Friday showed
that there's a huge consumer appetite for clothing like this,
a fundamental change is needed.
Because if the industry doesn't take steps to mitigate its global impact,
fast fashion will keep speeding us towards environmental disaster.
Fast fashion is a multitrillion dollar industry,
with these 10 countries dominating the market for retail purchases.
Oxford Street in London is Europe's busiest shopping street,
with around half a million daily visitors pre pandemic.
I'm here during the pandemic, and even now there is plenty of shoppers.
Retailers save billions of dollars by locating their factories
in emerging countries like India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia and others.
But there's a different, higher cost
to having a large fashion industry in these countries,
which includes the environmental impact and violation of workers rights.
An eight-story building has collapsed.
Human rights violations within fast fashion,
a systematic and an important issue that needs to be addressed.
However, in this video, we're going to be focusing primarily
on the environmental impacts of the industry.
So let's look at Bangladesh.
After India, it's the world's second-largest producer of fast fashion
and is exceptionally vulnerable to climate change.
It's one of the world's worst polluted countries
and faces regular flooding
thanks to rising sea levels in the Bay of Bengal.
In the north of the country, land is also being lost due to flooding
caused by the melting of ice on the Himalayas.
The garment industry is responsible for 83% of the country's exports
and employs around four million workers,
making Bangladesh heavily reliant on it.
But the world's top consumers of fast fashion
are also producing the most greenhouse gases.
And the resulting global warming is drastically changing the climate
here in Bangladesh.
It's been estimated that by 2050,
one in seven people in Bangladesh will be displaced by climate change.
That's despite Bangladesh producing just a fraction
of the CO2 emissions per capita of these countries.
Repeated scandals and controversies related to working conditions
and environmental pollution in clothing supply chains,
are leading to a growing realization of the impacts of garment manufacturing.
It's news that the public can no longer brush aside.
Because of this, brands increasingly like to use the word "sustainable",
but sustainable fashion can't exist without transparency.
In fashion, transparency is the practice of openly sharing information
about how, where and by whom a product was made.
That can be checked on websites or apps
like fashionchecker.org or the Fashion Transparency Index.
Transparency in production supply chains is the first step towards
improving working conditions and lessening environmental impacts.
But this alone isn't the solution.
Concrete statistics on water usage throughout the supply chain
is a statistic a lot of brands declined to share, including Patagonia,
despite their big push for sustainability.
Water is one of the world's most precious resources,
and the fashion industry is the world's second-biggest consumer of water
behind fruit and vegetable farming.
It's estimated to use around 1.5 trillion litres annually.
Wastewater that has been polluted by toxic chemicals during garment production
has been found to have been disposed of in freshwater streams
and rivers that people fish and live from.
This pair of jeans alone requires 5000 gallons of water to produce.
In April 2021, Levi's released their latest campaign #buybetterwearlonger.
On their website, you'll find this page dedicated to sustainability.
It also makes statements about the progress Levi's have made
in the production of their garments.
But as great as their efforts may be here,
they don't disclose how much they are currently still using.
According to Fashion Checker,
Levi's do share basic information about their supply chain.
But there is no public evidence about how much water they actually use.
And the company scored just 48% in the 2020 Fashion Transparency Index.
Full transparency requires a score of 80% or more.
None of the 250 brands that were reviewed,
which include H&M, Levi’s, Patagonia, Nike and Gucci
scored above this number.
Although they don't have an ideal score,
Levi's are attempting to disclose more about their supply chains
than some other extremely popular fast fashion brands,
all of which is scored less than 10% on the Fashion Transparency Index.
To keep costs low, many fashion brands also use cheap synthetic materials,
which can be incredibly damaging to the environment.
In 2015, the production of polyester for the use in the textiles industry
resulted in more than 706 billion kilograms of CO2 emissions.
Polyester is essentially plastic.
Fabrics like this now make up around 50% of our clothing.
But the damage isn't just limited to production.
Hundreds of thousands of fibers can come off of our synthetic clothing
in a typical wash.
These fibers go into wastewater, ending up at a sewage treatment facility.
As the fibers are so small, many pass through the filtration process
and make their way into our rivers and seas.
Here, they can be ingested by marine animals,
which can have catastrophic effects on individual species
and to the entire ecosystem.
Even putting aside these concerns,
what we do with our clothing can have a major environmental impact.
Right now, more than 500 billion dollars is lost every year
due to clothing being underused and a general lack of textile recycling.
The number of garments produced annually has doubled since 2000
to now exceed 100 billion.
An estimated 92 million tons of textile waste
is created annually by the fashion industry.
But what about recycling these clothes?
Can't brands recycle old items?
And shouldn't we as consumers be more conscious about recycling
our old clothes by giving them away to charities?
Well, another huge problem is the definition of the word "recycling".
If you have a look at the fine print, you'll find out that recycling
can actually mean "shipping off to poorer countries".
Sending our clothes off to distant countries,
is a multibillion dollar industry for charities and private companies.
There is a massive market for second-hand clothing
in countries like Poland and Lithuania.
It's actually a common misconception
that organizations such as Oxfam and the Salvation Army
distribute second-hand clothing for free in the developing world.
The major charities don't claim to give away old clothing for free,
but it isn't readily apparent to donors
that the old clothing will be sold to traders who will then retail them.
On the whole, you could argue that it does more harm than good.
In Africa, the influx of used clothing is ruining local textile industries.
Regardless of where the clothing ends up,
they create long-term disposal problems.
Kirsten Brodde, Head of Greenpeace's Detox My Fashion campaign,
suggested some solutions for the fashion industry back in 2016.
She said:
"Our research indicates that the second-hand clothing system
is on the brink of collapse.
Fashion brands need to urgently rethink the throwaway business model
and produce clothing that is durable, repairable and fit for reuse.
As consumers, we also hold the power.
Before buying our next bargain item,
we can all ask: Do I really need this?"
This takes us back to the Black Friday message we saw from Patagonia:
"Don't buy this jacket."
The root of the problem lies in our excessive consumerism.
We are constantly being told by brands, influencers and the media
that buying new clothes will make us happy.
Maybe it's time to reconsider the foundations of our lifestyle
and ask ourselves a few simple questions:
1. Do I really need this?
2. Can I repair my old clothes instead of buying new ones?
3. Can I buy second-hand or swap my clothes?
4. Do my circumstances allow me to buy better quality from sustainable brands?
Outdoor clothing brands are leading this new way of thinking.
Patagonia has a “Worn Wear” site
where you can trade in, repair or buy used items of the brand's clothing.
The strides that sustainable and slow fashion companies are taking
are very much needed.
But it remains a reality for many people
that even if they would like to, they are not in a privileged position
where they can afford to pay the high prices of sustainable products.
The cheaper alternatives on our high streets and in our shopping malls
are still a more viable option.
The most important thing fashion brands can do
is to be transparent with their customers and themselves
If they don’t know how, where and by whom their clothes are being made,
it’s difficult for the relevant stakeholders
to work together to fix the problems.
Consumers are getting more interested in sustainability.
Part of the problem is a lot of the wording
and the terminology used is completely vague and undefined.
What does "more sustainable" mean?
We should be moving away from those kind of vague terms,
to something much more specific.
When consumers are equipped with more, better quality and credible information
about the social and environmental impacts of the clothing they buy,
they will be able to make a better-informed decision.
My advice to consumers is to ask more questions.
Long-term, this transparency also builds trust in brands
that they buy from.
Fashion brands need to make fewer garments, but of higher quality.
And starting now, we as consumers need to think twice before we buy.
But remember:
The most environmentally sustainable item of clothing
is the one that you already have in your closet.
So thanks, but no thanks, Levi’s.
I'm going to stick to the jeans that I already have.