Fast fashion or fatal fashion BY VIVIAN KREVOR AND LUCIE TENENBAUM Opinion Editor, Staff Reporter Fast fashion is a phenomenon that many, including ourselves, are guilty of contributing to. The term was coined to describe the fast production and marketing method used to produce a large amount of clothing, usually using low quality materials. Upholding fast fashion may look like someone purchasing a lot of cheap clothes online to only wear a few, videos of massive SHEIN hauls, wearing clothes a few times before throwing them away, or only wearing half of the clothes in their closet. We have made many of these mistakes, but are navigating ways to decrease our contribution to fast fashion with smarter purchasing decisions. These shopping habits, encouraged by society and what we see in the media, are rapidly worsening the climate crisis. What is the history of fast fashion? The History of fast fashion Historically, fashion designers produced clothes according to the four seasons and weather patterns. Designers took months to devise new collections. In comparison, many brands now produce clothes according to 52 “mini-seasons” according to TheGoodTrade. This is equivalent to one new “collection” from a certain designer per week. The first fast fashion trend was in the 1960s, where millions of dollars of paper clothes were purchased. The somewhat peculiar and colorful trend included an infamous zebra-print pantsuit. The clothing brand Zara was somewhat of a pioneer for fast fashion, shifting to releasing new collections to consumers every two weeks in the 2000s. They were able to produce clothes more quickly as fast fashion trends cycled at quickening rates. Companies started to think of ways they could earn more money from sales, which meant lowering materials costs. As the products prices lowered, so did their quality. The amount of time that clothes withstood typical use decreased drastically, meaning that consumers started to buy clothes at a much faster rate. This led to fast fashion
today, reflected heavily by Zara, H&M, Shein, Victoria’s Secret, UNIQLO, Topshop and numerous other brands. Negative impacts of fast fashion In a report by The Good Trade, fast fashion produces around 10% of the world’s total carbon emissions, meaning that clothes produce more carbon dioxide than plane travel and cargo shipping combined. The fashion industry is the second largest consumer of the world’s water supply due to textile dyes and pesticides contamination. Water used to produce clothes is polluted with dyes and harmful chemicals. According to Forbes, over 79 billion cubic meters of water were used for clothing production in 2015. This is incredibly concerning considering the United Nation’s estimation of 80-90% of waste water being untreated and recirculated into the environment. Fabrics such as polyester, nylon and acrylic use a lot of fossil fuels to be produced and release tiny microplastics-most of which end up in the ocean-that can not decompose. Along with their carbon emissions when creating and exporting their clothes, a study by FastCompany, an American business magazine, found that around 100 billion clothes are produced each year; keep in mind there are only around 7 billion people in the
world. The same study said that H&M had over $4.3 billion worth of overstock clothes that they acquired after months of markdowns. The company ended up incinerating the clothes, leading to the release of over 2,988 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, a much greater rate than that from the burning of coal, in 2018. People consider H&M’s actions as the “great bonfire of 2018”. In addition to the extensive environmental impact, many clothing workers are in other countries without humane working rights. Selling cheap clothing or generally adhering to fast fashion requires the exploitation of workers. According to Sustain Your Style, these workers typically have a 96 hour work week, and work through the weekend. Many companies advertise that they pay their workers minimum wage, also inferring that other companies pay below minimum wage.
RAVEN REPORT | JANUARY 2022
17
