4 ms·

This is bullshit, the amount of oil and gas used for garments and plastics is a pittance compared to what we burn to move those products around. Nobody is sayi

This is bullshit, the amount of oil and gas used for garments and plastics is a pittance compared to what we burn to move those products around. Nobody is saying oil and gas is evil. What is evil is profiting and pretending we don't need to change how we fuel our economy. What we build our durable goods out of isn't in question.

hh3k0 4y ago
Clothes that use synthetic fibers are shedding microplastics whenever you wear them, wash them, etc. You shouldn't wear such garbage if you care about the environment (and your health).
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  What’s the alternative?
  - Melatonic 4y ago
    You can also minimize the shedding by using special bags while washing ( I forget the name ) if you want to use them for specific outdoor pursuits. But for everyday use there are lots of natural fibers that are great alternatives to polyester, nylon, etc. Cotton of course is well known, linen is generally much better environmental wise, and if properly taken care of (and if the animals are cared for correctly) there are many animals fibers that have really great performance properties. Merino wool being the most well known of course and Alpaca being the biggest up and comer (basically has all of upsides of merino and none of the downsides)
karaterobot 4y ago
It's not exactly bullshit, 10% of the global carbon emission is a result of the fashion industry[1], which isn't a pittance. But you are totally right that transportation is a much bigger share. The North Face's own contribution is probably a pittance. This is one of those situations where I don't like anybody on either side, and just hope that the argument doesn't get too annoying before it goes away. I don't think oil and gas is evil (because it is amoral) but the industry certainly is destructive, both in its externalized costs, and in how it tries to prevent people from fixing the mess we've made together in order to sustain itself. The fashion industry is similar in that it depends on weaknesses in human nature, and both would happily ride our civilization into the grave rather than abandon their business models. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-i...
- spaetzleesser 4y ago
  North Face’s contribution is probably pretty low because their stuff lasts a long time. I have several pieces of their clothing that are holding up after 20 years of use.
  - DoingIsLearning 4y ago
    I would believe you if north face had the same collection every year. I have a 17 year old jacket that I still use in the snow. But if all north face customers were like you and me they would be bankrupt. The whole premise of these brands is fast fashion, every year, minimum of 4 collections, and millions of people throwing away good clothes to buy brand new shinny things. Those are the customers they are making money on and that is where the carbon impact of fast fashion is.
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Yeah I'm going to really not take that 10% at face value from a source like BI. It links to a page that says 2-8%, which in turn links to another group, which cites a working paper that says 2%. No references for the 8%.
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  BI is not a reliable source tbph
- Melatonic 4y ago
  Most of that contribution though is not the end garment breaking down but from shitty manufacturing processes. We need to stop letting chemical companies and textile manufacturers dump waste products willy nilly and really hold them accountable while researching a shitload into better manufacturing practices.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

hh3k0 4y ago

Clothes that use synthetic fibers are shedding microplastics whenever you wear them, wash them, etc. You shouldn't wear such garbage if you care about the environment (and your health).

spaetzleesser 4y ago
What’s the alternative?
- Melatonic 4y ago
  You can also minimize the shedding by using special bags while washing ( I forget the name ) if you want to use them for specific outdoor pursuits. But for everyday use there are lots of natural fibers that are great alternatives to polyester, nylon, etc. Cotton of course is well known, linen is generally much better environmental wise, and if properly taken care of (and if the animals are cared for correctly) there are many animals fibers that have really great performance properties. Merino wool being the most well known of course and Alpaca being the biggest up and comer (basically has all of upsides of merino and none of the downsides)

karaterobot 4y ago

It's not exactly bullshit, 10% of the global carbon emission is a result of the fashion industry[1], which isn't a pittance. But you are totally right that transportation is a much bigger share. The North Face's own contribution is probably a pittance. This is one of those situations where I don't like anybody on either side, and just hope that the argument doesn't get too annoying before it goes away. I don't think oil and gas is evil (because it is amoral) but the industry certainly is destructive, both in its externalized costs, and in how it tries to prevent people from fixing the mess we've made together in order to sustain itself. The fashion industry is similar in that it depends on weaknesses in human nature, and both would happily ride our civilization into the grave rather than abandon their business models. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-i...

spaetzleesser 4y ago
North Face’s contribution is probably pretty low because their stuff lasts a long time. I have several pieces of their clothing that are holding up after 20 years of use.
- DoingIsLearning 4y ago
  I would believe you if north face had the same collection every year. I have a 17 year old jacket that I still use in the snow. But if all north face customers were like you and me they would be bankrupt. The whole premise of these brands is fast fashion, every year, minimum of 4 collections, and millions of people throwing away good clothes to buy brand new shinny things. Those are the customers they are making money on and that is where the carbon impact of fast fashion is.
jeffbee 4y ago
Yeah I'm going to really not take that 10% at face value from a source like BI. It links to a page that says 2-8%, which in turn links to another group, which cites a working paper that says 2%. No references for the 8%.
whimsicalism 4y ago
BI is not a reliable source tbph
Melatonic 4y ago
Most of that contribution though is not the end garment breaking down but from shitty manufacturing processes. We need to stop letting chemical companies and textile manufacturers dump waste products willy nilly and really hold them accountable while researching a shitload into better manufacturing practices.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]