Fast fashion has a significant environmental impact. According to the UN Environment Programme, the industry is the second-biggest consumer of water and is responsible for about 10% of global carbon emissions – more than all international flights and maritime shipping combined. Unfortunately, the industry’s problems are often overlooked by consumers.

—

What Is Fast Fashion?

The term fast fashion has become more prominent in conversations surrounding fashion, sustainability, and environmental consciousness. The term refers to “cheaply produced and priced garments that copy the latest catwalk styles and get pumped quickly through stores in order to maximise on current trends.”

The fast fashion model is so-called because it involves the rapid design, production, distribution, and marketing of clothing. This means that retailers are able to pull large quantities of greater product variety and allow consumers to get more fashion and product differentiation at a low price.

The term was first used at the beginning of the 1990s, when Zara landed in New York. The term “fast fashion” was coined by the New York Times to describe Zara’s mission to allow garments to go from the design stage to being sold in stores in just 15 days. The biggest players in the fast fashion world include Zara, Shein, UNIQLO, Forever 21, and H&M.

The Dark Side of Fast Fashion

According to an analysis by Business Insider, fashion production comprises 10% of total global carbon emissions, as much as the emissions generated by the European Union. The industry dries up water sources and pollutes rivers and streams, while 85% of all textiles go to dumps each year. Even washing clothes releases 500,000 tons of microfibres into the ocean each year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.

The Quantis International 2018 report found that the three main drivers of the industry’s global pollution impacts are dyeing and finishing (36%), yarn preparation (28%) and fibre production (15%). The report also established that fibre production has the largest impact on freshwater withdrawal (water diverted or withdrawn from a surface water or groundwater source) and ecosystem quality due to cotton cultivation, while the dyeing and finishing, yarn preparation and fibre production stages have the highest impacts on resource depletion, due to the energy-intensive processes based on fossil fuel energy.

According to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, emissions from textile manufacturing alone are projected to skyrocket by 60% by 2030.

The time it takes for a product to go through the supply chain, from design to purchase, is called lead time. In 2012, Zara was able to design, produce and deliver a new garment in two weeks; Forever 21 in six weeks and H&M in eight weeks. Newer industry player Shein, a major Chinese fast fashion company, has garments ready to be sold in just 10 days.

This results in the fashion industry producing obscene amounts of waste.

You Might Also Like: The Truth About Online Shopping and Its Environmental Impact

Fast Fashion and Its Environmental Impact

1. Water

The environmental impact of fast fashion comprises the depletion of non-renewable sources, emission of greenhouse gases and the use of massive amounts of water and energy. The fashion industry is the second-largest consumer industry of water, requiring about 700 gallons to produce one cotton shirt and 2,000 gallons of water to produce a pair of jeans.

Business Insider also cautions that textile dyeing is the world’s second-largest polluter of water, since the water leftover from the dyeing process is often dumped into ditches, streams or rivers.

2. Microplastics

Furthermore, brands use synthetic fibres like polyester, nylon and acrylic which take hundreds of years to biodegrade. A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) estimated that 35% of all microplastics – tiny pieces of non-biodegradable plastic – found in the ocean come from the laundering of synthetic textiles like polyester.

According to 2015 documentary The True Cost, the world consumes around 80 billion new pieces of clothing every year, 400% more than the consumption twenty years ago. The average American now generates 82 pounds of textile waste each year. The production of leather requires large amounts of feed, land, water and fossil fuels to raise livestock, while the tanning process is among the most toxic in all of the fashion supply chain because the chemicals used to tan leather- including mineral salts, formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives and various oils and dyes- is not biodegradable and contaminates water sources.

3. Energy

The production of making plastic fibres into textiles is an energy-intensive process that requires large amounts of petroleum and releases volatile particulate matter and acids like hydrogen chloride. Additionally, cotton, which is in a large amount of fast fashion products, is also not environmentally friendly to manufacture. Pesticides deemed necessary for the growth of cotton presents health risks to farmers.

To counter this waste caused by fast fashion, more sustainable fabrics that can be used in clothing include wild silk, organic cotton, linen, hemp and lyocell.

You might Also Like: How to Recognise Fast Fashion Brands and Which Ones to Avoid

The Social Impacts of Fast Fashion

Fast fashion does not only have a huge environmental impact. In fact, the industry also poses societal problems, especially in developing economies. According to non-profit Remake, 80% of apparel is made by young women between the ages of 18 and 24. A 2018 US Department of Labor report found evidence of forced and child labour in the fashion industry in Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Vietnam and others. Rapid production means that sales and profits supersede human welfare.

In 2013, an eight-floor factory building that housed several garment factories collapsed in Dhaka, Bangladesh, killing 1,134 workers and injuring more than 2,500. In her project An Analysis of the Fast Fashion Industry, Annie Radner Linden suggests that ‘the garment industry has always been a low-capital and labour intensive industry’.

In her book No Logo, Naomi Klein argues that developing nations are viable for garment industries due to ‘cheap labour, vast tax breaks, and lenient laws and regulations’. According to The True Cost, one in six people work in some part of the global fashion industry, making it the most labour-dependent industry. These developing nations also rarely follow environmental regulations; China, for example, is a major producer of fast fashion but is notorious for land degradation and air and water pollution.

You might also like: The Dangers of Sweatshops

Is Slow Fashion the Solution?

Slow fashion is the widespread reaction to fast fashion and its environmental impact, the argument for hitting the brakes on excessive production, overcomplicated supply chains, and mindless consumption. It advocates for manufacturing that respects people, the environment and animals.

The World Resources Institute suggests that companies need to design, test and invest in business models that reuse clothes and maximise their useful life. The UN has launched the Alliance for Sustainable Fashion to address the damages caused by fast fashion. It is seeking to ‘halt the environmentally and socially destructive practices of fashion’.

You might also like: What Is Slow Fashion and How Can You Join the Movement?

One way that shoppers are reducing their consumption of fast fashion is by buying from secondhand sellers like ThredUp Inc. and Poshmark, both based in California, USA; shoppers send their unwanted clothes to these websites and people buy those clothes at a lower price than the original. Another solution is renting clothes, like the US-based Rent the Runway and Gwynnie Bee, the UK based Girl Meets Dress, and the Dutch firm Mud Jeans that leases organic jeans which can be kept, swapped or returned.

Other retailers like Adidas are experimenting with personalised gear to cut down on returns, increase customer satisfaction and reduce inventory. Ralph Lauren has announced that it will use 100% sustainably-sourced key materials by 2025.

Governments need to be more actively involved in the fashion industry’s damaging effects. UK ministers rejected a report by members of parliament to address the environmental effects of fast fashion. On the other hand, French president, Emmanuel Macron has made a pact with 150 brands to make the fashion industry more sustainable.

The best advice on reducing the environmental impact of fast fashion comes from Patsy Perry, senior lecturer in fashion marketing at the University of Manchester, who says, “Less is always more.”

Featured image by EO Photographer Chin Leong Teo.

The post The Environmental Impact of Fast Fashion, Explained appeared first on Earth.Org.

How can we prevent the next pandemic? In an interview with Yale Environment 360, science author David Quammen says that the COVID-19 pandemic stems from “our relationship with the rest of the natural world, which is consumptive, intrusive, and disruptive.” Preventing the next pandemic requires that we rethink our current systems and change them where necessary.

—

In Quammen’s 2012 book, Spillover, he details how as we continue to disrupt the natural world, viruses are increasingly spreading from wild animal populations to humans.

COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease (like Zika, Ebola, avian influenza, SARS, and MERS) that was passed from animals to humans. This is corroborated by a new study that found that domesticated animals and wildlife, like bats and rodents, are responsible for many zoonotic viruses. 

How we eat, live, travel and consume energy all influence our interaction with the rest of the natural world. In a Scientific American article, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) says that deforestation, intensive farming and climate change are some of the main reasons for a virus spillover into the human population. Many studies have linked deforestation, climate change and loss of biodiversity to economic situations, global production of goods and unequal resource distribution between rich and poor nations which can lead to pandemics. New pandemics will emerge unless priority is given to reducing consumption levels, eliminating wildlife trade and economic inequalities and creating sustainable production systems for people and the environment. 

You might also like: Japan Tackles Plastic Waste by Charging Shoppers for Plastic Bags

How Can We Prevent the Next Pandemic?

Ways to reduce or prevent the occurrence of the next pandemic include ensuring that our contact with wild animals is less disruptive, reducing wildlife trade, consuming less meat and lowering invasive contact with natural ecosystems. Should a pandemic still emerge, Quammen suggests real-time screening of people at airports. Matthew Gray, associate director of the University of Tennessee Center for Wildlife Health, states that the key to reducing the spread of pathogens is a ‘clean trade’ program, in which private industry and government officials work together to implement safer strategies.

In an article in National Geographic, Jonathan Kolby, who has worked for the US Fish & Wildlife Service for ten years, observes that the US has no laws specifically requiring disease surveillance for wildlife entering the country, and that the vast majority of wild animal imports are therefore not tested. He adds that most countries- besides the US– lack a government agency that screens wildlife imports for pathogens.

Another crucial way to minimise or even prevent pandemics is to regulate wildlife trade and trafficking. Lee Hannah, senior scientist at Conservation International, recommends that the global wildlife trade be banned, masks and respirators stockpiled, testing infrastructure made readily available and nature taken care of, which may mean that we minimise our contact with wildlife and become more cognisant of the effects of this invasion on natural habitats.

China has announced a permanent ban on the trade and consumption of wild animals, including in wet markets, like the ones at the centre of the outbreak in Wuhan. China has also banned pangolin scales that are used in traditional medicine, although this has been met with controversy despite environmental and animal rights groups generally applauding the move. Finally, the country has offered buyouts to farmers who are breeding wildlife to discourage the practice.  

Seth Berkley, the CEO of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, says that anticipating outbreaks before they occur is also important. This can mean making childhood immunisation and pre-emptive vaccination campaigns a priority or having greater investment in sanitation infrastructure. For less developed countries, a healthcare system that is able to perform basic diagnostics and surveillance services would enable them to detect an outbreak as early as possible and respond quickly. 

Another solution is the One Health approach by the World Health Organization. It is a public strategy that realises the threat from new animal viruses and taps the combined expertise of livestock and wildlife veterinary surgeons, conservationists and ecologists, medical doctors and researchers to tackle it. The One Health strategy is based on the idea that human, animal and environmental health are interrelated and demands that different fields of expertise and government departments work together; however this can result in bottlenecks caused by politics and bureaucracy, according to professionals working on One Health programmes. 

It is vital that governments cooperate on a global level to stop the trade of wildlife and the rapid expansion into habitats to prevent the next pandemic. If they don’t, we can expect to see more and more outbreaks that kill innocent people and bring economies to their knees. 

Featured image by: Dan Bennett

The post How to Prevent the Next Pandemic appeared first on Earth.Org.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), urban farming or urban agriculture is ‘a part of a local food system where food is produced within an urban area and marketed to consumers within that area’. It has been touted as a means to ensure food security in urban areas, but there are some barriers that may prevent it from being employed on a large-enough scale. 

—

What problems does urban agriculture solve?

Apart from growing produce, urban farming also consists of beekeeping, animal husbandry, aquaculture (fish farming) and aquaponics (integrating fish farming and agriculture). It can also encompass activities like nurturing seedlings and growing flowers. The EPA also observes that urban farms can ‘contribute to the revitalisation of abandoned or underutilised urban land and offer social and economic benefits to urban communities and on the urban landscape’. The main difference between urban agriculture and community gardens is that the former has an aspect of commerce whereby the product is grown to be sold, whereas the latter does not, instead focusing on personal consumption or sharing in the local community. 

One of the most interesting aspects of urban farming is that it thrives in city spaces like backyards, rooftops, balconies, vacant lots and car parks. Urban farming also includes community gardening, roadside urban fringe agriculture and livestock grazing in open space. The Guardian describes how urban farming is being employed in unlikely places such as an underground car park in Paris, underground farms in New York and a Second World War air raid shelter in London. There are also proposals to convert abandoned mines, barges on the Thames and bunkers into sites of urban farming. Incidentally, the largest urban farm in Europe, spanning approximately 14 000 sq metres (150 695 sq. feet) will open in Paris in early 2020. The farm plans to grow more than thirty different plant species and produce around 1 000 kg of fruit and vegetables daily in high season. Urban farming is being undertaken in the US, Singapore and Japan, among others. 

You might also like: Entomophagy: An Easy-To-Digest Solution to Save the Planet

A study conducted by Cornell University, “The Promise of Urban Agriculture,” postulates that urban farms can be ‘commercially viable and economically self-sufficient’, while also offering benefits for residents in the local community. Some of these benefits include promoting financial security, empowering small business owners, providing opportunities for employment, allowing more access to healthy food, beautifying the community and allowing for more occasions for social interaction. Greensgrow, an educational urban farm and demonstration garden in Philadelphia, USA, suggests that ‘urban farms can be the front line of the food system’ and can be ‘a way of reintroducing the public to the many aspects of food that we have lost as a culture’. Greensgrow also proposes that knowing how food grows and what kind of produce grows in different regions and seasons are important for urban consumers. 

However, a study published by NCAT (National Center for Appropriate Technology) in the US found problems with urban agriculture, like the high cost of land needed, difficulty accessing capital resources and limited availability of technical assistance. Another study published by the American Society of Agronomy lists some major issues with urban farming: potential ingestion of lead present in the soil, finding reliable and safe water for irrigation and temperature and atmospheric changes in urban versus rural areas that might adversely affect photosynthesis. Dr. Francois Mancebo, professor of urban planning and sustainability at Rheims University and director of IRCS (International Research Center on Sustainability) and IATEUR (Institute of Regional Development, Environment and Urban Planning), establishes other issues with urban farming, such as ‘dissemination of pesticides and fertilisers as well as waste and by-products of industrial urban agriculture’. 

An article in the Anthropocene Magazine focuses on a case study of controlled-environment agriculture (CEA) in New York City. This type of urban agriculture leaves a greater energy footprint than regular farms because it uses artificial lights in indoor farms. Additionally, high-tech systems, such as wind, rain, temperature and humidity detectors and indoor heating to enhance growing conditions in environments that aren’t naturally suited to agriculture, raise energy costs. Next, lettuce- which is predominantly grown- is not of much nutritional value to people struggling with food security. Lastly, new farming startups might not have the money to pay for urban spaces because of the rising prices of real estate. 

There are numerous benefits to urban agriculture but there are also numerous political, legal and logistical issues that must be considered. Nevertheless, the benefits far outweigh the problems and urban farming is a potential solution to ease the impacts of future pollution, food shortages, environmental degradation and health concerns.  

The post Urban Agriculture: How Viable Is It? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Air pollution has been termed ‘a silent public health emergency’, with the Director General of the World Health Organisation (WHO), Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, calling it ‘the new tobacco’. It is an epidemic that is killing seven million people every year, making it a more pressing threat than any other kind of pollution. As well as affecting the majority of the global population, it also impacts on nearly all parts of the body. 

—

The WHO estimates that over 90% of the world’s population lives in places where air pollution is above its guidelines. Places most affected are in south and east Asia, with India having nearly half of the top fifty most polluted cities, followed by China with eight and Iran with three. 

Types of Air Pollution

The two primary kinds of air pollution are ambient (outdoor) pollution and household (indoor) pollution, the former referring to pollution generated by household combustion of fuels (such as coal, wood or kerosene) using open fires or basic stoves in poorly ventilated spaces. Both kinds of pollution contribute to each other, as air moves between the inside of buildings and out. 

Air Pollution Facts

Household air pollution kills 4 million people a year and tends to affect countries in predominantly Africa and Asia, where polluting fuels and technologies are used every day, particularly at home, for cooking, heating and lighting. Its main victims are women and children, who tend to spend more time indoors. 

This is a pressing threat for developed nations as well. A study by the British Heart Foundation found that almost 25% of people in the UK exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution, whereby the average levels of PM2.5- a tiny toxic particle that predominantly comes from vehicle emissions, wood burning and construction- exceeds guidelines set by the WHO.

Air Pollution Effects

Short-term exposure to dirty air is linked to conditions such as heart failure, pneumonia and heart attacks, as well as illnesses like Parkinson’s disease, septicemia, and urinary tract infections, according to a research study. 

The effects of this pollution are felt in every part of the body, down to the cellular level. A research study conducted by scientists from the Forum of International Respiratory Societies confirms that ‘ultrafine particles pass through the lungs, are readily picked up by cells, and are carried via the bloodstream to expose virtually all cells in the body’.

These findings are also illustrated in an interactive article that shows how it causes different lung and heart diseases, dementia and other brain diseases, hives and brittle bones, as well as reduced fertility and miscarriages. 

The damage that air pollution causes the human body is due to systemic inflammation, whereby the body’s immune cells release enzymes and acids to kill pollution particles, believing them to be bacteria. These inflammatory proteins spread around the body, affecting nearly every organ in the body. 

Another study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, also links toxic air to depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, psychosis and increased risk of suicide. Isobel Braithwaite, who led the research, observes that toxic air ‘can reach the brain via both the bloodstream and the nose. Air pollution has been implicated in increased brain inflammation, damage to nerve cells and changes in stress hormone production, which have been linked to poor mental health’.

The research suggests that if global air pollution levels are reduced to the EU’s (European Union) legal limits, millions of people could have improved mental health. 

Despite this harsh picture, there are initiatives attempting to tackle the mammoth task of reducing this pollution. BreatheLife, led by the WHO, the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, and the UN Environment Programme, is a global campaign advocating for clean air. It is ‘mobilising communities to reduce the impact of air pollution, currently reaching around 97 million people’. 

Dean Roosegaarde and his studio, in partnership with the University of Monterray, created  billboards erected in Monterray, Mexico which have been coated with a specialised resin that attracts nearby air pollutants and converts them into oxygen when exposed to direct sunlight. Functioning for up to five years, each billboard generates the same amount of clean air as 30 trees every 6 hours. 

The impact of air pollution has far-reaching consequences and despite innovative solutions to curb the problem, it is essential that measures to reduce air pollution are implemented at a policy level if the planet is to have any chance of recovering. As Dr Ghebreyesus says: “No one, rich or poor, can escape air pollution.”

To combat air pollution rates, governments should gradually implement green technologies in public areas and infrastructure. Tax incentives should be implemented that discourage high consumer expenditures and focus instead on companies optimising the efficiency of their products over their lifespans and reducing waste.. The strength and appeal of the sustainable technology industry is that it is in its relative infancy, meaning that there are no companies with oligopolistic control of the market yet. This means that innovative start-ups continue to emerge and dominate most aspects of the market, driving up competition and lowering costs. If there is the political will to take a relative risk and invest in these competitively priced companies and their technologies, expenses will only lower as the market grows. The necessary political will can only be spurred by an active and mobilised citizenry, which can hold elected individuals accountable.

Featured image by: 君勇 林

The post Air Pollution: The Silent Killer appeared first on Earth.Org.