climate action

Climate change has the biggest impact on women but how can we fix it? / August 12, 2020 by Nina Gbor

For both palpable and less obvious reasons, women are crucial to the survival and thriving of our species on multiple levels. From past millennia to date, women have been a perpetual force in upholding family units and communities. And a force that contributes significantly to powering economies. In fact, if we’re serious about creating positive change on a global scale, we need to empower many more women. Yet, of the billions of people in the world living below the poverty line, 70% are women. Based on the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is evident that people who economically and socially are most vulnerable and marginalised experience the greatest impacts when it comes to climate change. Women fall into this demographic. If we continue to allow this to happen, climatic catastrophes will prove even more fatal for humanity. Therefore, avoiding further climate breakdown by protecting women and the environment is imminent.

Climate change bears its brunt mostly on the bottom 2 billion people on the planet. Even though the poorer half of the world’s population generates just 10% of emissions, the Global South suffers at least 75% of the costs of climate change. Wealthy countries in the Global North by far have always been the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. According to the Director of Feedback, Carina Millstone, “citizens living in the countries with the lowest per capita consumption of resources consume two tons of materials per person per year for their food and shelter; while those living in countries with the highest per capita consumption use 60 tons of materials per capita per year.”

Women in the Global South are disproportionately impacted more than any other demographic. For instance, UN figures indicate that women make up for 80% of people displaced by climate change. Tasks such as household chores, family care giving, fetching water and gathering energy sources like charcoal and firewood for heating and cooking, and of course agriculture make women more vulnerable when disaster strikes. Disasters such as flooding, droughts, deforestation, coastal storms, extreme and unpredictable weather patterns, soil erosion, etc displace women usually through life or death circumstances.

When it comes to the susceptibility of women in the Global South, social, cultural and economic factors such as differential roles, lack of credit and poor infrastructure are also to blame. Access to decision-making, tech, training and extension services that would enhance their capacity to adapt to climate change are insufficient or non-existent. Moreover, as a result of continuous impacts of inequality, colonialism and racism, women from the Global South and women of colour in some regions experience an even heavier burden when it comes to climate change. And finally, women in the world have less access to agricultural land. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) stated that around two-thirds of the female workforce in the Global South is involved in agricultural work. However, they own less than 10% of the land despite leading the world's food production by 50 - 80%. Before we explore ways of fixing these issues, let’s have a more holistic, in-depth look at some of the specificities around climate disasters that impact women:

Extreme rain and droughts - With rising temperatures, there has been and there will continue to be more floods in some areas and droughts in others. Flooding drowns food crops and droughts dry them up. This leads to food scarcity which is the precursor to other issues such as poverty through livelihoods being destroyed, malnutrition and starvation.

Food scarcity – Girls and women have a greater susceptibility to malnutrition and vector-borne diseases which are made more prevalent by climate change. And they’re more likely than boys to get less food during times of food scarcity. These food shortages cause communities to go to war over shrinking food resources.

Life security – Women face heightened safety risks during times of war, conflict and disasters with issues like domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and other human rights violations. With limited access to information and limited movement outside their homes, women are 14 times more likely than men to die during disasters, according to reports by the African Development Bank.

Lack of socioeconomic power - Women in the Global North are also affected by climate change. With less socioeconomic power, women overall experience more poverty than men. It, therefore, becomes harder for them to recover from disasters that have affected jobs, infrastructure and housing. An example is Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA in 2005. The city had a high level of poverty amongst its African American residents. They were most affected by the hurricane flooding. Scientists predict that as sea levels rise from climate change, low-lying cities like New Orleans are at risk of flooding.

Education – Women are more likely than men to end formal education early in multiple regions. In Africa, female illiteracy rates were over 55% in 2000, compared to 41% for men. This means they are far less likely to get into leadership positions where they can influence climate mitigation policies. On this matter, environmental scientist Diana Liverman said, "Women are often not involved in the decisions made about the responses to climate change, so the money ends up going to the men rather than the women.” Because women are likely to do more work to secure household livelihoods during extreme weather circumstances, they have less time to access training and education, develop skills or earn income.

Disaster survival – An Oxfam report stated that in the wake of the 2004 tsunami, the men who survived the disaster outnumbered women by almost 3:1 in Sri Lanka, Indonesia and India. It was reported that women spent more time trying to save their children, which delayed their efforts to escape the tsunami. They were also less likely to know how to swim than men. The 2004 tsunami was not a climate change disaster, however, due to the rise in sea levels from climate change and the loss of coastal ecosystems, tsunamis are expected to intensify. This, however, serves as an example of how expectations on women to provide family care also has uneven effects during times of disaster.

Life expectancy – A study of natural disasters spanning 20 years found that catastrophic events lowered the life expectancy of women more than men. In countries where women had higher socio-economic power, fewer women, in general, were killed and fewer women were killed at a young age.

Water shortage – When climate changes cause water bodies to shrink, it impacts the lives of those who are dependent on it. In Central Africa for example, 90% of Lake Chad in West Africa has encroached. Millions of people across five nations use Lake Chad as their water source. As the lake shrinks, women have to walk much further to get water for their families.

Image credit: UN IHE Delft Institute for Water Education

Internal displacement and refugees – Many women are forced into displacement from their homes or forced to become cross-border refugees as a result of climate change factors such as rising sea levels in West Africa and drying river basins in Southern and Eastern Africa. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHRC), adolescent girls and women are refugees at the highest risk of being trafficked for sexual slavery while in transit to a foreign land and of experiencing gender-based violence while in the refugee camps. Women risk assault at the camps when they venture out of the protected environment in search of water and firewood.

Social vulnerability - Social vulnerability can come from lower wages, financial insecurity and inequality. In East Africa and Pakistan for example, drought and flooding have impacted farming, respectively. Men have a higher chance of relocating for higher wages than women. Women typically are unable to migrate due to family care-taking commitments.

How can we fix the disproportionate impacts from climate change?

The simple answer is to end all activities that perpetuate climate change. As I’ll explain later, Indigenous women and communities in the Global South have centuries worth of ecological knowledge on mitigating some aspects of climate damage and implementing environmental restoration. In an equal spirit of partnership and cooperation, perhaps we can combine this traditional, organic and resourceful knowledge with modern technology for broader application to prevent, solve or restore some of the environmental damage. In any case, here are several more suggestions:

1. Imminent zero emission targets

Immediate action is required to protect women made vulnerable by climate change. Emphasis should be placed on protecting people and planet today, not protecting the future. The greatest concern should be for the people that rely on natural resources, the environment and climate every day to survive. Several of the biggest global zero-emission targets by corporations and nations are set to happen by 2050 but vulnerable people do not have 10, 20 or 30 years to wait. Therefore, global zero-emission targets need to accelerate towards present day, not 2030.

We’re currently overshooting the planet’s resources by 60% each year with regards to production and the earth’s ability to absorb and replenish resources that we consume. Our excessive overconsumption is driven by a few rich countries. The 2030 target has a higher chance of succeeding if we start with the 20 biggest greenhouse gas emitter companies in the world, especially with the participation of the US, China and India.

2. Propagate traditional knowledge and wisdom

Despite vulnerability, women should not only be seen as climate change victims. They have proven to be resourceful agents of adaptation and disaster mitigation. Historically, indigenous women and women from the Global South have an organic knowledge of the ecosystem that empowers them to feed their families and uphold communities in the face of disaster and dwindling resources. International geographer, Hindou Ourmarou Ibrahim says Indigenous women have the knowledge of adapting and restoring the forests after a disaster because indigenous people all over the world are very directly dependent on natural resources for food, medicine, education and of course survival. This way of survival has become extremely difficult for indigenous societies in the wake of widespread ecological changes in their environments resulting from climate change.

Indigenous people see themselves as part of the ecosystem with an unparalleled knowledge of the environment developed over centuries where they have depended directly on the forests for dwelling, food, education, medicine, safety, etc. This relationship has advanced their skills in things like preventing and restoring rain rainforests after burning. grandmother in Pacific will know where to get crops after the hurricane to feed her family. In Chad, nomads when they move with cattle, they know how to restore the ecosystem. When it comes to sustainable business practices, the knowledge of indigenous people is a valuable resource and indigenous people are a valuable partner that can protect environment, business.

Image credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Sassan Saatchi

3. Representation

Every societal challenge we face will be better addressed if women and girls participate equally in both diagnosing and treating the problems. Women are best placed to devise responses that are effective and advance their own rights.

The UN has emphasised the need for a gender-sensitive approach to climate issues. And the 2015 Paris Agreement has specific provision for the inclusion and empowerment of women. Despite this, there is only a 30% representation of women in the average global and national climate negotiating bodies. A research study by the Proceeding of National Academy of Sciences found that only 20% of the scientists that authored the IPCC report were female identifying. It concluded that “the scientific community benefits from incorporating scientists from all genders, including women from the Global South. Therefore, intersectionality across multiple and diverse barriers such as race, nationality, disciplinary affliction and language are crucial to progress.

4. Policy and decision-making

Policies must be designed to include outcomes that improve the living conditions of women most affected by climate change. On the matter, Former President Jimmy Carter and Karin D. Ryan said, “… women are far too often excluded from decision making at all levels of environmental policy making.” “We have to think bigger, act quicker, and include everyone.” People in leadership positions need to actively do more to ensure girls and women are in leadership positions under equitable circumstances and with gender-responsive outcomes under the climate movement.

Women of the Global South, being the most impacted must also have full participation in top-level decision-making. The priorities and needs of women must be reflected in planning, development and funding. Fundamental gender issues should be an intrinsic part of policy formation, for instance, equal access to credit resources, training services, tech and education.

Women should also be part of the decision-making process at national and local levels when it comes to resource allocation for climate change initiatives, gender-sensitive investments in projects for mitigation, sustainable development, capacity-building, technology and adaptation.

In Fiji for example, at the community level, groups constituting and lead by women have enhanced the resilience of market vendors against floods, drought and cyclones.

5. Access to education & tech

In 1856, at a time when the work of female scientists were neither acknowledged nor respected, Eunice Foote managed to become the first scientist to lay the foundation of what we know as the greenhouse gas effect, by highlighting the connection between excessive carbon dioxide and increased atmospheric temperatures. The story of Eunice Foote is a symbolic reminder that many intelligent girls and women just need education and opportunities to enable their capability to contribute to creative solutions that will end the crisis. By ignoring the need to educate women and girls in the Global South, we may have lost countless solutions to the crisis that we will never know of. And we will continue to miss out on potential solutions if we do not take action on this matter. This need to invest in education for this demographic is an urgent matter.

Clean energy technologies should be devised and implemented in consultation with local women to reduce harmful emissions whilst aiding their economic productivity and security. Provision should be made for rural communities that don’t have electric power to gain access to affordable renewable solar micro grid energy. This is way more cost effective than coal plants. Access to tech and services can help farmers end food insecurity in their communities. In some instances, tech can potentially broaden the application of the indigenous, ecological climate initiatives.

6. Socioeconomic factors

40% of the poorest households in the world are headed by women. The idea that ending climate change has to undermine the living standards and ambitions of the world’s poorest people is a fallacy. As climate change and poverty are interwoven, we should aspire to have practical solutions to both issues simultaneously by refocusing on the living standards of women in the Global South. According to economic anthropologist, Jason Hickel, there's about 700 billion dollars in debt floating around the global South that needs to be cancelled.

Unsustainable sovereign debt restricts many developing countries from providing adequate support in climate crises. These governments are forced to divert funding from social services to maintain debt repayments to their international creditors. Widespread debt cancellation across the South is needed to get rid of unpayable debts that basically chain global South nations to their creditors instead of directing resources towards environmental restoration and disaster mitigation to save lives and livelihoods. Widespread application of this effort will require the influence and cooperation within the IMF, the World Bank, the Paris Club and the G20.

On a different note, initiatives and bodies that fund climate projects should make efforts to work around social, cultural and economic obstacles that prevent women from receiving such opportunities. A good example of gender-sensitive approach to operations and policies is the Green Climate Fund’s gender policy.

7. Economic degrowth, decoupling and redistribution

Currently we’re overshooting our planet’s biocapacity by about 60% each year with regards to the earth’s ability to absorb our waste and replenish resources. Excessive overconsumption and the constant pursuit of material economic growth by nations hoping to increase their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is mostly responsible for this. This overshoot is of course accelerating environmental degradation, obliterating biodiversity and furthering climate change which is in turn affecting women.

Perhaps we can stop measuring our economic success by GDP because it doesn’t take ecological damage into account. For instance, the loss or damage to biodiversity, land, trees and other resources. Nor does GDP include domestic contributions largely done by women. If it did, perhaps poverty levels for would be reduced and women might be in better financial positions.

What if GDP calculations included environmental preservation factors and levels of poverty eradication as a measure for economic success. An option on this pathway might be to look at models for degrowth and decoupling. Economic anthropologist, Jason Hickel talks about ditching our addiction to GDP growth through absolute decoupling of GDP from material use.

Degrowth means a planned economic shift from ecological overshoot to significant reduction in resource use in the Global North economies. The idea to reduce and maintain global resource use at sustainable levels. This post capitalist model means less focus on material growth. With regards to decoupling, economies that can detach environmental degradation while sustaining economic growth and minimising the amount of resources such as fossil fuels and water are described as decoupled. The focus is on growing the economy without the corresponding environmental pressure. It can also be explained as the "equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions at the local and global level" (Schneider et al., 2010). Models like these would diminish the pillaging of natural resources and hence, the negative environmental domino effect on women.

Another solution could be to evolve past capitalism and eradicate poverty simply by redistributing existing yields of economy from the wealthy nations, institutions, or individuals to the poor. We wouldn’t need to plunder the earth for more resources for economic growth to do this. Yet still, it would bridge the poverty divide and give women a fairer chance at thriving in climate damage circumstances and disasters.

♥ Nina Gbor

References:

Fashion's impact on climate change; government, industry and consumer suggestions for net zero / March 9, 2020 by Nina Gbor

As part of the National Sustainable Living Festival this year, I gave a talk about how fashion impacts climate change with suggestions for how we can make changes to achieve net zero emissions. The event, Fashion Apocalypse, was organised, by the Coalition of Everyone. It was designed as a mock Citizens’ Assembly to engage participants from all walks to contribute and build empowering solutions to a would-be fashion climate emergency. I’ve combined the findings from my research and talk into this article. I’ll first explain why fashion is detrimental to the environment before I go into how it impacts the climate, and then delve into policy recommendations for consumers, industry and government to work together towards a common goal of net zero emissions.

One of the working groups at Coalition of Everyone’s Mock Assembly event. Photo: Grace O’Hara.

THE PROBLEM

Scientists are saying we only have about 10 years to take significant measures to keep global temperatures from rising more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. And on that note, avoid the irreversible environmental destruction that can threaten all of humanity. This is the goal of the Paris Agreement. For this to happen, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will need to be on track to decrease by about 45 percent by 2030. The greenhouse gases from the fashion and apparel industry contributes to about 10% of climate change. Therefore, it has an urgent role to play in climate action.

The 2019 Fashion Revolution Report indicated that only a little over 100 of fashion’s top brands publish their annual carbon footprint on their websites. More than half of the industry’s emissions occur in the supply chain and only 19.5% disclose their emissions in this area.

The fashion and apparel industry is worth approximately $1.8 trillion dollars. Fast fashion’s trend and throwaway culture is based on a lucrative business model where retail stores produce clothing very cheaply and intended for short-term use. Primarily made of synthetic textiles, the manufacture, consumption and disposal operations are laden with processes that damage the environment in major ways. The concept of following fashion trends is the fuel that drives the fast fashion dilemma. The business model enables fast fashion companies to skyrocket profits by selling clothes based on daily / weekly rapidly turning fashion trends. Shortly after manufacture, fast fashion apparel is quickly disposed of in favour of the next set of trends, then the new trends are soon after disposed of as well. And so, the linear cycle continues, earning the industry the title of being one of the most polluting industries in the world.

We’re buying more clothes than ever before, wearing them fewer times, repairing them less, and throwing them away sooner. Approximately, 150 billion brand new garments are being manufactured every year which is 400% more than we were consuming more than two decades ago. 85% of textiles and apparel purchased end up in landfill within a year. And less than 1 % of used clothing is recycled into new garments. The average consumer bought 60% more clothes in 2014 than in the year 2000 but kept each garment for half as long. If demographic and lifestyle patterns continue as they are now, global consumption of apparel will rise from 62 million metric tonnes (as per 2019) to 102 million tonnes by 2030.

HOW FASHION IMPACTS CLIMATE CHANGE

These are several leading ways that fashion impacts climate change:

Greenhouse gases
Water usage
Chemicals & pesticides
Textile waste
Synthetic textiles
Landfill and emissions
Energy
Deforestation

Greenhouse Gases

The fashion and textiles industry is creating 92 million tonnes of textile waste and 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions which is more than that of all international flights and marine shipping combined. At the current rate, the fashion industry's greenhouse gas emissions will spike more than 50% by 2030. And by 2050, use up a quarter of the world’s carbon budget needed to keep the planet below 2 degrees of warming. The fashion industry’s emissions are estimated to be close to that of Russia’s.

Water Usage

Every year the fashion industry uses 93 billion cubic meters of water — enough to meet the consumption needs of five million people. According to figures from the United Nations Environment Programme, it takes 3,781 litres of water to make a pair of jeans. And 2,700 litres of water to make just one cotton t-shirt. That’s equivalent to 3 years’ worth of drinking water for one person. If you were to multiply the number of t-shirts in your wardrobe by 2,700 litres, that’s just a fraction of the amount of water in one wardrobe!

Cotton is in 40% of our garments. It’s the single largest water consumption factor in fashion and textiles. 93 billion cubic metres of water is used in cotton production per year, with 10,000 – 20,000 litres of water needed to make just 1kg of clothing. This puts an incredible amount of stress on water supply in Central Asia, India and China. Regions in these countries are already contending with water scarcity linked to climate change. The Aral Sea in Uzbekistan is a prime example. Once the fourth largest fresh lake in the world and home to over 40,000 fishermen, it has become an arid desert, due to over-irrigation from cotton farming.

Abandoned ships at landscape that was formerly the Aral Sea. Photo: Lochner.

Chemicals & Pesticides

Chemicals:

Water pollution - A quarter of the chemicals produced in the world are used in textiles. With the textile industry being one of the most chemically intensive industries on earth, it has turned out to be the second biggest polluter of freshwater resources on the planet. A United Nations study stated that the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of all waste water which mainly comes from fabric dyeing and treatment. Chemicals are used during other manufacturing processes, such as fibre production, bleaching, printing, washing and finishing. In countries where garment manufacture occurs, untreated toxic waste and fabric dyes from local factories are dumped into the rivers and water bodies. This impacts the communities where this happens by destroying their access to clean, potable water. The chemicals cause high levels of cancer and other illnesses for the people who live in these areas. The contamination is also hazardous to aquatic wildlife. It streams into the seas and then infiltrates waterways around the world.

Considering only 2.5% of the Earth’s water is freshwater and only 0.3% of that is accessible to humans, the urgency for the industry to take drastic action is high.

Pesticides

Cotton makes up almost half of the total fibre used to make clothing. It’s the world’s single largest pesticide-consuming crop. Cotton fields globally account for 2.4% of cultivated land, but consume 18% of all pesticide use and 25% of total insecticide use.

Textile Waste

85% of apparel purchased end up in landfill. The average consumer bought 60% more clothes in 2014 than in the year 2000 but kept each garment for half as long.

Due to fashion oversupply, one garbage truck of clothes is sent to landfill or burned every second, according to the World Resources Institute. Burberry for instance, incinerated $150 million worth of stock within a 5-year period. Burning textiles exacerbates global warming by emitting greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Synthetic Textiles

Microfibres - Synthetic textiles make up 72% of clothing and are one of the main sources of microplastic pollution and account for 35% of all microplastics. The most common materials used in clothing manufacture are polyester (55%), followed by nylon (5%) and acrylic (2%). Nylon produces nitrous oxide which is a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Not only are synthetics non-biodegradable, they all rely on the petrochemical industries for their raw material, meaning because it’s a staple, the fashion industry is dependent on fossil fuel extraction. Synthetics made from this source are a form of plastic. Approximately 70 million barrels of oil are used to make polyester fabric each year, which has become the most commonly used fabric in our clothing.

Every year, half a million tons of plastic microfibers (equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles) end up in the ocean when we wash our synthetic garments. Microfibers cannot be extracted from the water. This threatens marine wildlife. It also ends up in our food supply when the water or seafood is consumed. This can impact our physical health.

Landfill and Emissions

Synthetic textiles, which is what a big portion of clothing is made of, can take more than 200 years to decompose in landfill. In this condition, they release the toxic gas, methane, which being 21 times more potent that carbon dioxide, is incredibly hazardous to the environment and contributes towards climate change.

Materials like leather are also responsible for huge methane outputs. Extinction Rebellion states that one billion animals are killed for leather every year.

Energy

The emissions footprint of a garment happens throughout its life cycle. Past the initial raw materials process, energy is consumed in crop and fibre production, manufacturing, transporting, packaging, warehousing and selling the garment.

Manufacturing takes up an estimated 80% of energy used in textile manufacture. Factories consume much energy and, in that regard, emit a high level of greenhouse gases. A significant proportion of clothing is manufactured in countries like India and China, where there is major reliance on coal-fuelled power plants. This increases the footprint of each garment.

The supply chain requires 10 times more energy to produce a ton of textiles than it does to produce a ton of glass. Electricity is a huge element in the textile supply chain and one of the most used forms of energy. 75% – 80% of energy consumption happens after a garment is purchased because of laundry activities.

Deforestation

Fashion’s impact on deforestation comes from textile manufacture. The process of converting wood to fabric is chemically-intensive and wastes 70% of the tree. The common textiles in this method are rayon, lyocell, viscose and modal. According to Canopy, 150 million trees are cut each year and processed down to a pulp which is later spun into fabrics.

With cotton being the biggest agricultural plant used for clothing manufacture, land clearing for cotton farming is a major issue where deforestation is concerned. Forests are crucial for maintaining harmony of the earth’s complex ecosystems. They balance the gases in the atmosphere, clean the air and produce the oxygen that we breathe. Around a third of the CO2 emitted (approximately 2.6 billion tonnes) from burning fossil fuels is absorbed by forests every year. In the period of climate change, we sincerely need forests.

Coalition of Everyone event. Photo: Grace O’Hara.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

If we’re aiming to reach net-zero emissions, drastic changes need to happen immediately. However, we can all play a part in helping these shifts take place, as individuals (consumers), industry or government. Here are some recommendations:

1. INDIVIDUALS

Change the fashion throwaway culture

Overproduction, overconsumption and waste are responsible for fashion’s emission levels. The trend culture needs to end. The fast fashion industry thrives on convincing people to purchase weekly trends of new fast fashion apparel. This super-fast turnover is at the very core of fashion’s environmental degradation. We need to rethink and change the disposable fast fashion culture by ‘getting off the fashion trendmill’. This requires a 180-degree shift in mindset and approach to clothing consumption.

Brand new apparel

Individuals can disrupt the industry by demanding and monitoring fashion brands consistently until it becomes standard practice that all clothing is manufactured with environmental best practice
All new garments purchased should be from ethical brands who take all necessary measures to ensure minimal emission levels
Apparel purchased should be made of natural textiles such as organic linen, mohair and wool
Only buy what you need and have a plan for sustainable disposal e.g. upcycling, donation.

Nurture the circular economy

Essentially, this is recycling in different contexts. It keeps clothes out of landfill by reusing the surplus garments already in existence. If the number of times a garment is worn is doubled on average, the GHG emissions would be 44 % lower. The ultimate goal here is to phase out fast fashion.

Hire / rent clothing from clothing libraries and wardrobe subscription platforms
Repair, attend, use and host clothes swaps and repair cafes
Buy second-hand apparel and textiles
Individuals are encouraged to remake and redesign existing garments so we can minimise or end the use of raw materials
Wash your clothing less often and air dry instead of machine dry. Use the machine wash on cold setting.

2. INDUSTRY

With the backing of UN Climate Change, fashion stakeholders in 2018 created the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action as a holistic commitment to climate action. In keeping with the target of the Paris Agreement, the charter contains a directive to analyse and set a decarbonization pathway for the fashion industry. The charter also includes a target of 30% GHG emission reductions by 2030.

Manufacture

All brand-new garments should be made using natural textiles such as organic cotton, organic bamboo, organic hemp, organic linen, mohair, wool, cashmere, etc
Production of textiles should be entirely without chemical pesticides, fertilisers and toxic dyes with preference given to crops that require less water in their creation
Garments can be produced on a need basis to prevent oversupply. This will end landfill waste. Put a stop to the incineration of clothing stock oversupply to protect brand image.

Circular economy (making fashion circular)

Brands can offer free repair services for their products where possible. This will encourage brands to produce better quality, more durable, lasting products
Standardise and systemise circular economy channels like wardrobe exchange and clothing subscription services
Education - Designers can be trained in zero-waste and eco designing. Purchasing managers can learn about environmental auditing standards and production managers can be educated on chemicals that cause environmental damage
Industry can standardise the harvesting of existing fabrics (like vintage, deadstock and preloved) to remake and redesign ‘new’ fabrics and garments. This will minimise or end the use of precious raw materials and preserve life sources like water.
* Sustainable synthetics (Patagonia) - switching from conventional to organic cotton can cut harmful emissions by 46%, as the nitrogen waste from fertilisers is eliminated. A switch from virgin polyester to recycled material – made by mechanically or chemically breaking down plastic drinks bottles – can reduce the carbon footprint of polyester by 40%.

Internal measures

Reduce and save energy along the value chain of brands beyond the materials stage e.g. energy use in their warehouses, stores, offices, logistical operations like transportation
The reporting of emissions can be made public.

ASOS cut its electricity use in one warehouse by 76% by switching to energy-efficient light bulbs. Sensors that turn lights off in empty rooms can help too.

Finding efficiencies at the transport and logistics stages can help businesses’ environmental practices. When Hugo Boss analysed the carbon footprint of their transport operations, they realised switching from air to rail freight could cut emissions by 95%.

3. GOVERNMENT

“What is needed are commitments – bold target setting – [from the] fashion industry; at the moment [we’re] not going fast enough… Government regulations can help increase the pace; if there were a tax on carbon or on water, [that could] move big sections of the industry.”
- Eva Kruse, President and CEO of the Global Fashion Agenda

Legislation

Quotas on manufacture and import levels to curb oversupply and waste. Only what is absolutely needed is manufactured
Increased amount of reforestation programs
Incineration of clothing by brands should be made illegal
Fashion brands to have emissions and water usage taxes levied.

Renewable energy (from Fashion Industry’s Charter for Climate Action)

Governments can assist industry in the following ways:

Supportive, transparent and predictable planning contexts for renewable energy investment such as ensuring clear communication of government energy roadmaps.
Agility in responding to rapid scale-up of grid-connected renewable energy sources. And the assurance of a just and sustainable transition in the rapid phase-out of the highest-emitting fossil-fuel-based sources of energy
Through the provision of feed-in tariffs to manufacturers and suppliers, for instance, government can make provisions for incentives for quick transition to renewable energy that generates electricity from renewable sources. Ideally it will feed their excess electricity into the public electricity grid
Ensuring the availability of credible and legal renewable electricity tariffs and power purchase agreements for fashion brands and manufacturers to purchase as part of their efforts in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions
Through research and incentives for alternative biomass sources, government can develop a conducive atmosphere to enable swift phase out of non-renewable energy sources for all high-heat or non-grid processes.

Transition and availability of resources

Working with the Fashion Industry to understand and address potential barriers to sector transformation, uptake of energy efficiency and renewable energy technology with a focus on understanding the key role of tariffs, subsidies or legal barriers at the state and national levels.
Provision of easily accessible resources for fashion climate initiatives to prosper and thrive in the following areas:

§ Funding

§ Research & support

§ Circular economy systems

§ New innovative and sustainable textiles e.g. Pinatex, Activated Silk and Mycellium

§ New innovative tech e.g. Microplastic-proof washing machines and Cora Ball

§ Knowledge share

§ Education

§ Collaborations

Working Groups

Active and consistent Working Groups will be required to identify and amplify best practices, strengthen existing efforts, identify and address gaps, facilitate and strengthen collaboration among relevant stakeholders. They can facilitate the joining of resources and sharing of tools to enable the sector to achieve and maintain its climate targets.

Working groups can be made of professionals, experts, consumers, influencers and initiatives in the fashion and broader textile sector. They can include political leaders of countries that have major fashion production and consumer markets. Working collaboratively to deliver on the recommendations above and the principles enshrined in the charter, will likely sustain the commitment to achieve and retain net zero emissions by 2030.

♥ Nina Gbor

Instagram: @eco.styles

References:

Net-zero emissions; all hail ethical fashion brands like Etiko / February 24, 2020 by Nina Gbor

The Pulse of the Fashion Industry report once forecast that at the current rate, fashion emissions would grow 63% by 2030. In the quest to achieve net-zero emissions and make slow fashion the standard for all fashion manufacture, it’s absolutely necessary to give accolades to ethical clothing brands who strive to end fashion’s impact on climate change.

These brands have environmental best practice, living wages and human rights advocacy as the cornerstone of their businesses. Brands like Etiko are a guiding light for manufacturing optimum ethical standards where the planet and people are concerned.

In operation since 2005, Etiko was the first fashion brand in the southern hemisphere to have acquired fairtrade certification. They also have GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certification and B Corp certifications. The inspiration for this business model came at a time when it was more challenging to find a company whose products were not made using child labour or unfair wages to workers in another country. They decided to be that brand. They ensure living wages are paid to their workers who are all based in Sri Lanka, India, Pakistan and Australia.

Organic cotton

They make athleisure, basics, underwear, shoes and sports apparel. With an annual estimate of 55 million tonnes of pesticide being used on cotton crops, these toxic chemicals end up in local water bodies and oceans, endangering wildlife, humans and the eco system. For this reason, 100% GOTS organic cotton is what Etiko uses for their clothing and footwear.

Vegan friendly

According to the Food & Agriculture Orgnaisation of the U.N., 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions are from animal agriculture. To minimise carbon footprint, their apparel, like their sneakers are vegan friendly.

Natural rubber

The rubber used comes from rubber trees in Sri Lanka. Natural rubber, unlike petroleum based rubber is naturally extracted from sustainably farmed trees that do not release harmful gases and chemicals. Moreover, natural rubber is 100% biodegradable.

Emissions

For several years, Etiko has been on track to achieving net-zero carbon emissions target for their entire supply chain by the end of this year. It’s not too difficult to see why they have won multiple awards in the sustainability & social impact space such as: A+ in Ethical Fashion Report 2013 – 2017, Human Rights Award 2016, Golden Greenies Award 2012 and the Telstra Business Awards 2008.

The more we acknowledge, support and endorse ethical brands, the sooner they will become standard in retail and furthermore, the possibility of having a fashion industry with net-zero emissions will become a reality.

Etiko fairtrade nina gbor slow fashion 1

STYLING

Because I’m nearly obsessed with polka dots, I chose this skirt for this ensemble. I wore my signature ‘50s petticoat with the skirt then paired it with my black Etiko organic cotton t-shirt. No surprises that I’m wearing a waist belt as I often do with a ‘50s style skirt or dress. It really helps to synch in the waist. I completed the look with my red Etiko vegan sneakers.

Colour wise, the black on my t-shirt connects with the black dots on my skirt. The white text on my skirt connects with the white on my skirt (and also the white shoes laces and soles) and then the red on the t-shirt connects with the red of the sneakers. So basic!

Styling tips

True style is all about wearing pieces your own way and putting your own personal signature on them. You can wear a t-shirt and sneakers like these with almost anything. Nothing screams instant style confidence like wearing bold coloured sneakers with an otherwise plain or unflattering ensemble. Try it out for yourself!

Outfit sourced from:

Etiko Black ‘Wear No Evil’ Organic T-shirt – Etiko

White & Black Polka Dot Skirt – Gigi’s Fairy Fashion

Etiko Red Lowcut, Fairtrade, Vegan Sneakers - Etiko

Photography by Pepper Street Photography.

https://etiko.com.au/

https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2019/jun/23/five-ways-fashion-damages-the-planet

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdf

♥ Nina Gbor

Fashion, women's rights and free trade agreements / October 29, 2019 by Nina Gbor

It’s now common knowledge that the fashion industry is not only one of the most polluting industries in the world, but it’s also laden with a lot of social injustice issues such as systemic poverty, unfair wages and lives being lost due to manufacturing. Through the efforts of activists, ethical brands and organisations like Fashion Revolution, Wardrobe Crisis, Ellen Macarthur Foundation and Eco-Age, many people are demanding ethical standards from the brands who make our clothes. However, for a more thorough and holistic shift in these issues, we need the involvement of governments, particularly where laws are concerned.

I wonder at what point in our modern history we degenerated into thinking human life was so worthless. When did it become okay to place profits and economic growth over human lives under the guise of progress? Or has this notion altogether been slyly omitted from the era of modernity and civilisation? Earlier this year the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade agreement came to my attention through AFTINET (Australian Fair Trade & Investment Network) and a human rights campaign created by ActionAid Australia called #TransformTradeForWomen. RCEP is a trade agreement potentially in its last leg of negotiations. If signed in its current state, it will have laws that in essence, trade corporate profits over human rights and the environment. Sadly, this notion of profit over people and planet appears to be a fundamental principle driving much of the top-level decision-making in many governments and business corporations.

Free trade agreements (FTAs) are international treaties between two or more nations that set the rules regarding trade and investment. FTAs reduce barriers to trade by giving more rights to corporations and reducing tax on imports for example. Through giving more rights to multinational corporations as an incentive to trade, they can create access to new markets for businesses in a nation and increased opportunities for foreign investment in that country. The idea is to boost economic growth of member nations. However, it’s quickly becoming a well-known fact that FTAs are rigged in favour of multinational corporations. These agreements are increasingly becoming booby trapped with policies that heavily impact lives and rights of workers, especially women. RCEP is a massive free trade agreement between 16 member states that collectively make up nearly half of the world’s population. They include Australia, New Zealand and fourteen Asian nations, including the ten ASEAN member states. This agreement will have huge socio-economic ramifications on low-income countries – the workers, women and of course the garment workers. Therefore, if this deal goes through in the present form, it’ll boost the power of multinational corporations, to operate in ways that further damage the environment and human rights.

Whenever there’s a disaster of some kind, economic downturn or similar circumstance, women are always hit the hardest. About 80% of garment workers in the world are women. Because a significant portion of garments is made in some of the RCEP nations, the agreement can potentially have a lasting impact on the outcome of sustainability in the fashion industry (and other industries too). As FTAs are covertly designed to profit corporations at the expense of everyday people, the matter is systemically linked to women’s rights, gender equality and poverty. Therefore, signing a trade agreement with such a broad-stroke impact under these circumstances amounts to an act of brinkmanship.

According to information gathered by AFTINET, these are some of the ramifications of FTAs and RCEP:

1. The threat to women’s access to decent jobs

Trade agreements encourage multinational companies to manufacture in sectors like clothing by driving down wages and undermining worker’s rights. This is partially because normal labour rights and standards may not apply within designated “special economic zones”, drafted in some trade deals. RCEP will make provisions for corporations to employ and pay women unfair, low wages. It will validate corporations employing women in poor, sometimes unsafe working conditions. This is already a huge problem in low-income states; therefore, it will make it harder to find solutions to end exploitation and eradicate poverty cycles. Ultimately, it would make it even harder for female garment workers to find some form of self-empowerment.

2. Temporary migrant workers could face increased exploitation

Temporary migration can be an avenue for women from low-income countries to make higher incomes, however, the reality is that these women often end up being exploited in poorly paid sectors.

3. Environment and climate change

FTAs can propel climate damage and threaten action on climate change. By inciting companies to take their manufacturing and polluting operations to nations with lower environmental safeguards, FTAs can contribute to climate change and other environmental issues. They also place barriers on the ability of governments to respond to climate change, which is unjustly impacting women around the world.

Some FTAs have a clause called the ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement’ (ISDS), which is a policy designed to give multinational corporations the impetus to sue governments if they feel a change in national law or policy will reduce their profits. For example, raising the minimum wage or laws to reduce carbon pollution. In other words, corporations can sue governments over laws that protect women’s rights over profits. Many cases presently being deliberated under trade deals include mining companies suing governments because of foregone profits from environmental regulations.

UN specialists have contributed to this theory, noting that the fear of being sued means governments are less inclined to pass laws that are crucial for people and planet. As of mid-September 2019, RCEP has excluded the ISDS clause from the deal.

4. E-Commerce inequality

In an article written in The Interpreter, Rahul Nath Choudhury has voiced concern from the perspective of most developing countries about the inclusion of e-commerce within FTAs. Some feel that it’s a covert method of using international rules that favour big tech corporations from developed countries to exclude developing countries from the digital economy.

5. Access to public services like healthcare and education.

FTAs in general need tariffs to be reduced, which in turn minimises government revenue available for public services like healthcare, transport, and education which are a critical part of ensuring that women’s basic needs are met. By doing this they disable gender equality.

Healthcare – Amongst other health matters, AFTINET Convener, Dr Pat Ranald expressed concern over RCEP proposals for long-term monopolies on medicines that would delay the ability of affordable, generic medicines to be made available in developing countries.

Education - The lack of access to education for women and girls has a huge domino effect on so many things. It makes them more vulnerable to things like modern slavery, early childhood marriages, trafficking, etc.

Women make up more than half of the world’s population. And one can even say, that, that in itself equates to an enormous pool of resource and potential. UN Women has said, “Increasing women’s and girls’ educational attainment contributes to women’s economic empowerment and more inclusive economic growth.” Educating women and girls is the key to solving so many of the world’s problems. It means they’ll have opportunities to participate, contribute and have more leadership opportunities. And when it comes to issues like economic growth, empowering half of the population seems like a very long-term strategy for ensuring continued economic growth. So, when you look at it from that angle, it’s not practical to allow women to be disempowered in these ways. It really makes no sense at all to ignore the rights of women, particularly at the top level-decision-making. It affects economic development, politics, social development and the GDP. Billions of dollars of development and growth are lost from denying women access to education and from disempowering them. This is a fundamental pathway to creating positive change in the world. When women are empowered, the entire family, community and nation benefits. Which means the world benefits.

Just as women in the global north experience pay gaps, inequality, harassment and discrimination, women in low-income countries experience these injustices to a much higher degree. So, I believe that Western people being in a position of higher privilege, have the power to shift circumstances towards positive change, not only for garment workers but women in general.

FTAs can be a great way to systemise women’s rights. We have agency to use agreements like RCEP to change circumstances that will have huge ramifications on half of the globe in regard to women’s lives, communities and future generations. This is crucial not only for economic development but for progression in areas of politics, wellbeing, health, science and climate action. It will be on point for us to have RCEP amended to include the rights of women. And furthermore, using the gravitas of such an agreement, make it the standard for all future trade agreements to have women’s rights as a fundamental requirement before the drafting process even begins.

This is not just a women’s fight for women, it’s a people’s fight for the progression of humanity. And we hope that governments can see the value in it as well.

AFTINET - To stay up-to-date with developments on RCEP, follow AFTINET here.

ActionAid Australia - To learn more and support #TransformTradeForWomen, sign ActionAid’s RCEP petition here. You can also do the following:

Look into joining your local activist group and find out how you can get involved with a campaign in your community.
Watch their events page to find out if there is a campaign event happening near you.
Donate to help power the campaign and make sure they have the resources to run hard-hitting stunts, grow public support across Australia, and use creative tactics to target key decision-makers.
Follow ActionAid on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to make sure you’re first to hear all the latest ways to take action on a campaign.

Dr Patricia Ranald, Convenor of AFTINET will be speaking at The True Cost Movie screening event organised by ActionAid Australia on October 30th. Find tickets here.

- Nina Gbor

Sources: http://aftinet.org.au/cms/Regional-Comprehensive-Economic-Partnership-RCEP https://actionaid.org.au/actions/rcep-petition/

Eco Styles

Style. Sustainability. Positive Change.

Climate change has the biggest impact on women but how can we fix it? / August 12, 2020 by Nina Gbor

How can we fix the disproportionate impacts from climate change?

Fashion's impact on climate change; government, industry and consumer suggestions for net zero / March 9, 2020 by Nina Gbor

THE PROBLEM

HOW FASHION IMPACTS CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

♥ Nina Gbor

Instagram: @eco.styles

Net-zero emissions; all hail ethical fashion brands like Etiko / February 24, 2020 by Nina Gbor