3 ms·

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 tran

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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
BI is not a reliable source tbph
Melatonic 5y 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.

spaetzleesser 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago

BI is not a reliable source tbph

Melatonic 5y 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.