文章 Articles

Time to abandon cheap fashion

Inexpensive, throwaway clothes -- hugely popular in the UK -- have been criticised in a parliamentary report. Lucy Siegle says the appetite for trendy, disposable garments is becoming an eco-disaster.

Article image

One can only speculate on the fashion footprint of the wardrobes of Lord Howie of Troon and the Earl of Northesk -- both members of the science and technology committee of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords -- but you'd have to suspect it is minimal.

Given each man’s age, gender and peer-group interests, their share will come in well below the average of 35 kilogrammes of textiles per person per year (mostly clothing). The country’s highest fashion-consumption rates are for women in their early thirties who read glossy magazines. Most of these purchases will be thrown away within a year; a small part will be recycled or donated to charity, and the rest will be thrown in the rubbish bin.

As last month’s waste-reduction report from the House of Lords committee noted: “[The] culture of ‘fast fashion’ encourages consumers to dispose of clothes which have only been worn a few times in favour of new, cheap garments which themselves will also go out of fashion and be discarded within a matter of months.”

Many women are inured to the obscene excesses of fast fashion. One British pound in four is now spent on “value” fashion as provided by shops such as Primark, Asda and Topshop (which has had huge success with the British model Kate Moss's range of clothes). From 2003 to 2007, garment prices fell by an average of 10%, and over the past five years the rate of frenzied buying has accelerated; we make room for the new by discarding some two million tonnes of the old every year.

The true weight of this addiction has only really been felt by an unfortunate few such as the Salvation Army. The charity organisation, with around 2,750 of the United Kingdom’s 9,000 clothing banks, has been faced with an ever-growing mound of shabby items to flog to consumers indifferent to “pre-worn” (used) clothing unless it happens to be vintage.

Value-fashion retailers will debate forever as to how they can sell clothes so cheaply -- usually citing economies of scale -- but it has been clear to recyclers for some time that a fall in fibre quality and finishing is part of the equation.

This makes the resale of last season’s paper thin, slightly shrunken sun dress a distinctly unappetising commercial proposition. Besides, there isn’t much incentive for consumers to buy used clothing when a new dress sometimes costs less than a lunchtime sandwich and coffee.

The bulk of discarded “fast fashion” is thrown into landfill. Meanwhile, the fashion industry has been particularly adept at avoiding green censure and criticism. More prosaic consumer sectors (food and drink, electronics, detergents and even car manufacturers) have been forced to own up to environmental shortcomings -- either to pre-empt legislation or conform to new regulations, such as the European Union directive that means your hairdryer or washing machine can no longer be flung into landfill. But fashion appears to have charmed us all in a haze of sequins, air kisses and the seemingly boundless dynamism of fast fashion.

But when DEFRA, the UK department for the environment, began to analyse the impact of different materials in the nation’s landfills a couple of years ago, fast fashion was a factor. The nation's penchant for “McFashion” was found to translate into more than three million tonnes of carbon-dioxide emissions.

More significant to millions of fashion-lovers than the opinions of a House of Lords committee or DEFRA will be the opinion of the style press. And even those who formerly and gleefully proclaimed Primark the new Prada are now suggesting that fast fashion has had its day. Apparently it is now all about “investment dressing” -- buying one piece and loving it for a long time -- as “fashionistas” tighten their tiny little belts. “Gucci or gas?” asks the September issue of Harper’s Bazaar magazine, advising fashion-lovers who are feeling the credit crunch to survive on “one big-ticket item, something in between or a little bit of both”.

There’s some validity in this argument, as anything that cuts down the rapid turnover begins to reverse the fact that - according to Matilda Lee of The Ecologist magazine -- just 2% of the average clothing budget goes on services that repair or lengthen the lifespan of our garments and accessories.

However, to be truly sustainable, the fashion parameters will have to be widened. If fashion is about ingenuity and innovation, this is a good time for the industry to draw on these qualities and return to measuring fashion in terms of something other than quantity. There has been a shift already.

Phil Patterson, once textiles manager at the British-based international retailer Marks & Spencer, has set up ecotextile.com to allow consumers to assess their wardrobe in terms of environmental damage units (EDUs), with the goal that they’ll be more fibre-discerning in future. The London College of Fashion recently launched its Centre for Sustainable Fashion (CFS), and there has been a renaissance of thrift-fashion ideas from reworking existing pieces to sewing classes, kit fashion, clothes swaps, and clothes and accessory libraries.

There would appear to be some ethical motivation for change too. In the aftermath of a recent exposé of child labour used in manufacturing a clothing line for Primark, an ICM research poll commissioned by the UK fashion industry magazine Drapers found that 42% of people who shop at Primark were less likely or a lot less likely to shop at the retailer because of what they had heard.

In reality, any demise of super-cheap, super-fast fashion probably comes down to market economics. Labour costs have increased 50% in the past four years across provinces in south-eastern China, the sewing room of the world. Meanwhile, fast fashion is heavily dependent on cheap fibres – namely, polyester and cotton, which together account for more than 80% of all fibre production worldwide.

Both fibres are dogged by sustainability issues. As petroleum production declines, polyester prices are soaring, while cotton's insatiable need for water (and agrichemicals) -- coupled with the fact that two-thirds of the crop is still rain-grown in areas where rainfall has declined – means that there’s not enough to go around. Add to this a new, hungry consumer in the form of the so-called Chuppie (the Chinese yuppie), who has developed an appetite for fast fashion herself --meaning that Chinese producers are less eager to export.

Exports will almost certainly get slower. In order to keep up with the trend for two new lines a week, brought to the UK’s shopping streets by the Spanish fashion giant Zara, competitors are increasingly reliant on air freight, and that is becoming hugely expensive.

Shipping a standard container from Shanghai to America’s east coast costs $8,000 today, as opposed to just $3,000 a few months ago. Container ships are slowing down to cut fuel costs. If fashion stays fast, it will need to become more localised, which will increase cost. So it can be slow and cheap, or fast and expensive. It is the combination of cheap and fast that is unsustainable.

In any case, we shouldn’t overly mourn the passing of cheap fast fashion. We may be short on cheap fibre and oil, but one thing we have an abundance of in the United Kingdom is creativity. The demise of fast fashion could be as revolutionary as the mini skirt, the Ugg boot and model Agyness Deyn all rolled into one.

 

Lucy Siegle is the Observer's Ethical Living columnist and visiting professor at the London College of Fashion.

www.guardian.co.uk  

Copyright Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

Homepage photo by Rija 2.0

 

 

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

质量也是关键

作为女生我也认为时尚很重要,其实衣服穿一阵就会走样是很现实的问题。在国内最大的心理安慰是旧衣服总是可以捐给灾区,欧美国家的灾区大概不需要旧衣服,让人们买“二手”衣服也似乎相当不现实。只能希望扔到“衣物垃圾箱”里的旧衣服能被教会整理给穷人,尽量延长它的寿命。

Quality is also important

As a female student, I agree that fashion is important, although the garments will also go out of shape after being worn for some time. The greatest mental consolation we receive here in China is that it is always possible to donate your hand-me-downs to the disaster areas, while no need arises for worn clothes like in western countries. It seems impractical to buy 'second-hand' clothes in China, and the only thing you can hope for is that the worn clothes in the 'clothes collection bins' can be well handled by the church before being given to the poor for a longer-term life.

Translated by Ming Li

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

女人的购物瘾

在我生活的范围里,女生们每季都要去买新的衣服,而过去的衣服总觉的失去了兴趣。这是一种很现实的群体攀比心理——大家都喜欢新的设计和当下的流行。所以,的确是很难改变的。尤其在经济、消费欲望都在膨胀的发展中的地区。

Women's Craze for Shopping

In my community, girls are buying new clothes every season, always losing interets in the old one. This is a real world "keeping-up-with-the-Jones" mentality of a group of people - all of whom adore the latest design and fashion. Therefore, to change the trend is indeed difficult, especially in the rapidly developing areas, where desire to consuming is expanding.

This comment is translated by Xiaomei Zou.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

摸着良心买衣服

可持续时尚并不只是衣服过时了丢不丢的问题,值得一提的还有产生这种时尚的过程中还产生了其它形态的“垃圾”。比如制衣厂的低收入工人们在缺乏安全保障的垃圾环境中生产出来的衣服就不该买,靠不可持续地残忍捕杀动物获取皮毛来纯粹满足人类虚荣心的衣服不该买(依现有的科技“奇迹”,纺织材料足够在最严寒的环境下提供保暖)。
好的苗头是时尚产业已经开始在一些发展中国家实施了“国际公平贸易项目”来保证最底层生产者的利益,并且回收利用更多材料。最近的纽约的“论理时尚”活动中,一个年轻的设计团体就因他们的一系列用来自非洲东南部马维拉的二手材料制作的成衣作品而获得了奖项(作品还将在马维拉投入生产)。
绿色论理设计现在还在伦敦和巴黎也成为了热点,希望这股时常潮流能成为真正不落伍的时尚。- 马蒂尔德

改评论由Lijin Zeng翻译

Ethical sourcing is important, too

Sustainable fashion is not just about disposal of clothing when it's no longer considered the height of style. We also need to be aware how and where garments are produced. Clothes made in factories where workers are poorly paid and subject to harsh treatment and to safety hazards should never be part of an ethical shopper's wardrobe. Nor should items that use unsustainable materials or require the deaths of living creatures. Often animals are killed in particularly cruel, brutal ways for the sheer vanity of human beings. (The use of fur isn't even justified any more in the coldest of climates, given the "miracle" modern fabrics now available.)
It is good to see elements of the fashion industry turning to Fair Trade production in some developing countries, and also recycling more ingredients. At a recent "ethical fashion" event in New York, for example, one young design team won a prize for a range of second-hand clothing sourced (and to be made) in Malawi, in southeastern Africa.
Eco-friendly and ethical designs also have been spotlighted lately in Paris and London. Hopefully this is one trend that will become part of the fashion scene for a long time! - Matilda

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous

Chinamy

Just want to say your article is astounding. The clarity in your post is simply spectacular and i can assume you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with incoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the fabulous work.