The Problem With Fast Fashion

There’s nothing quite like new clothes, is there? The UK certainly loves them. According to a report by the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC), the UK consumes five times more clothes today than it did in the 1980s. That’s more than any other nation in Europe and amounts to around

26.7 kg per person.This results in 235 million garments being dumped into landfills - victims of fast fashion.

Fast fashion is defined as “an accelerated fashion business model ”involving “increased numbers of new fashion collections every year,” “quick turnarounds(周转期)”and “lower prices,” according to the EAC. Globalization means that clothing is made in countries where labour is cheaper. These savings are passed on to consumers, who then consider the clothes they own disposable - easily replaceable with something more trendy. And that creates problems.

First, there’re the environmental costs. Manufacturing any kind of textile costs resources. For example, synthetic fibres, which are made from plastic, have a larger carbon footprint than natural ones. Natural fibres, although more carbon-efficient, still require more water to grow. And further resources are used as the cloth is dyed, made into clothing and transported to retail for sale. Secondly, the fast-fashion industry is under pressure to put the latest trending items on shelves faster, which can lead to workers being exploited and forced to labour in poor working conditions. In countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia and the Philippines, workers are paid wages that are insufficient to live on. One worker in Ethiopia told the BBC that they had to deal with intolerable conditions, such as withheld overtime payments, verbal abuse, and unsanitary toilets.

So what can be done in the UK to reduce clothing waste? The EAC has recommended eighteen improvements to the UK government, from increasing tax on purchases to fund recycling centres to introducing more sewing lessons in schools, encouraging a make do and mend attitude when things become worn out.

2 . Conservationists go to war over whether humans are the measure of nature’s value. New Conservationists argue such trade-offs are necessary in this human dominated epoch. And they support “re-wilding”, a concept originally proposed by Soule where people curtail economic growth and withdraw from landscapes, which then return to nature.

New Conservationists believe the withdrawal could happen together with economic growth. The California-based Breakthrough Institute believes in a future where most people live in cities and rely less on natural resources for economic growth.

They would get food from industrial agriculture, including genetically modified foods, desalination intensified meat production and aquaculture, all of which have a smaller land footprint. And they would get their energy from renewables and natural gas.

Driving these profound shifts would be greater efficiency of production, where more products could be manufactured from fewer inputs. And some unsustainable commodities would be replaced in the market by other, greener ones — natural gas for coal, for instance, explained Michael Heisenberg, president of the Breakthrough Institute. Nature would, in essence, be decoupled from the economy.

And then he added a caveat: We are not suggesting decoupling as the paradigm to save the world, or that it solves all the problems or eliminates all the trade-offs.

Cynics (悲观者) may say all this sounds too utopian, but Breakthrough maintains the world is already on this path toward decoupling. Nowhere is this more evident than in the United Sates, according to Iddo Wernick, a research scholar at the Rockefeller University, who has examined the nation’s use of 100 main commodities.

Wenick and his colleagues looked at data carefully from the U.S. Geological Survey National Minerals Information Center, which keeps a record of commodities used from 1900 through the present day. They found that the use of 36 commodities (sand, iron ore, cotton etc.) in the U. S. Economy had peaked.

Another 53 commodities (nitrogen, timber, beef, etc.) are being used more efficiently per dollar value of gross domestic product than in the pre-1970s era. Their use would peak soon, Wernick said.

Only 11 commodities (industrial diamond, indium, chicken, etc.) are increasing in use (Greenwire, Nov.6), and most of these are employed by industries in small quantities to improve systems processes. Chicken use is rising because people are eating less beef, a desirable development since poultry cultivation has a smaller environmental footprint.

The numbers show the United States has not intensified resource consumption since the 1970s even while increasing its GDP and population, said Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller University.

“It seems like the 20th-century expectation we had, we were always assuming the future entailed greater consumption of resources,” Ausubel said. “But what we are seeing in the developed countries is, of course, peaks.”

This year, August 15th marked China’s first National Ecology Day,     1     aims were to raise awareness of environmental protection and address unlawful activities and safeguard the development of forestry and grassland resource by law.

The establishment of National Ecology Day will enhance ecological understanding among the public and help the nation     2    (well) participate in global environment and climate governance.

The move     3    (see) as part of China’s efforts to build an ecological civilization, a concept that glorifies balanced and sustainable development and harmonious coexistence between     4    (human) and nature     5     promotes the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.

China’s laws and administrative regulations     6    (involve) the environment and ecology,     7    (base) on what environmental difficulties villagers are eager to solve and what ecological measures should be taken urgently from their opinions, have laid a solid legislative (立法的) foundation     8     the ecological civilization.

    9     makes Aug. 15 special is that on that day in 2005, the concept of “lucid waters and lush mountains” was first put forward, being     10    (value) assets.

8 . The sunflower sea star has been listed as a critically endangered species following a groundbreaking population study led by Oregon State University (OSU) and The Nature Conservancy.

“These giant sea stars used to be easy to find and were a hit with divers. Unfortunately, your chances of finding one now are next to nothing in most of the areas near the United States—this listing is one step to extinction—and I don’t think they’re coming back without help,” said OSU’s Sarah Gravem, a research associate in the College of Science and the lead author of the study.

Populations of the sunflower sea star suffered dramatic crashes because of a marine (海洋的) wildlife epidemic event, which began in 2013. Scientists used more than 61,000 population surveys from 31 data sets to calculate a 90.6% decline in the sunflower sea stars and estimated that as many as 5.75 billion animals died from the disease, whose cause has not been determined. Moreover, the research showed no sign of population recovery in any region in the five to seven years since the event.

Sunflower sea stars are a key catcher of purple sea urchins (海胆) and the sea star decline has helped the increase in the urchin population in many regions. Too many urchins are linked to a decline in kelp forests（海藻林) already facing pressure from marine heat wave events, making the future uncertain for ecosystems that provide habitat for thousands of marine animals and help support coastal economies.

“Because most people are not out in the ocean every day, we don’t realize how much it’s being changed and impacted by humans. We need to think about how to keep our ocean healthy. While reducing the release of carbon dioxide is the most pressing need, rebuilding key catcher populations, like the sunflower sea star, can be an important piece of the puzzle too,” said study co-author Sara Hamilton, a Ph. D. candidate in the OSU College of Science.

9 . Gardeners who use pesticides (杀虫剂) are contributing to the decreasing population of British songbirds, a study suggests. Researchers have advocated stopping using poisonous chemicals in gardens in order to reduce the loss of birds and adopt wildlife-friendly practices instead. The results of the University of Sussex study, which researchers call the first of its kind, were published in the journal Science of the Total Environment.

The study, which examined information on pesticide use and garden management from 615 garden owners in Britain, found 32 percent of gardens used pesticides, and the number of house sparrows was 25% lower when glyphosate-based herbicides was used regularly. Slug pellets (鼻涕虫杀虫剂) also seemed to have an impact on bird sightings; in gardens where Slug pellets were used, house sparrow numbers were down by almost 40%.

Prof. Dave Goulson, of the school of life sciences at the University of Sussex, said, “The UK has 22 million gardens, which collectively could be a fantastic shelter for wildlife, but not if they are overly tidy and sprayed with poisons. We just don’t need pesticides in our gardens. Many towns around the world are now pesticide free. We should simply ban the use of these poisons in cities, following the example of France.” The Royal Horticultural Society, the UK’s leading gardening charity, said the use of pesticides and herbicides should be avoided if possible and they should only be used, if ever, in small and targeted applications.

The research also found that those who adopted wildlife-friendly practices such as planting native bushes and flowers, or digging a wildlife pond, saw more birds than those who did not. Cannelle Tassin de Montaigu, a PhD researcher within the school of life sciences and an author of the study, said, “It’s encouraging to find that simple measures, such as planting native bushes and trees and creating a pond, together with avoiding the use of pesticides, really make a measurable difference to the number of birds you will see in your garden.”

10 . Used electronics are piing up fast: they are filling up landfills with dangerous pieces of waste. Some e-waste is relatively large, such as air conditioners; other e-waste is more unnoticed, such as smart labels that contain disposable batteries and other equipment.

“It’s these small batteries that are big problems,” says University of California, Irvine, public health scientist Dele Ogunseitan, who is a green technology researcher and adviser for major tech companies and was not involved in developing the battery. “Nobody really pays attention to where they end up.” Researchers at the Cellulose & Wood Materials Laboratory at the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology are working to address this problem. Their new paper describes a water-activated paper battery developed from environmentally friendly materials that could eventually present a sustainable alternative to the more harmful batteries common in low-power devices.

The paper battery has the same key components as standard batteries but packages them differently. Like a typical chemical battery, it has a positively charged side and a negatively charged side. A traditional battery’s components are covered in plastic and metal; in the new battery, however, the positively and negatively charged sides are inks printed onto the front and back of a piece of paper. That paper is filled with salt, which dissolves (溶解) when the paper becomes wet. When the paper is dry, the battery is shelf-stable. Once the paper is wet, the battery starts working within 20 seconds. The new battery’s operating performance declines as the paper dries. When the scientists rewet the paper during testing, the battery regained function and lasted an hour before beginning to dry out again.

That future may not be so far off. It is hard to predict a time line for manufacturing such items at scale, but the head of the study says he is in contact with potential industry partners and believes these batteries could make their way into products within the next two to five years.