climate justice

Secondhand fashion, trash and inequality: how the global North continues to colonise by Nina Gbor

Eco Styles toxic landfill fashion waste Accra, Ghana Nina Gbor

For decades, we’ve acted on the notion that donating our unwanted clothes to thrift stores is charitable, a way to extend the life cycle of our clothes and to reduce fashion waste to landfill. This is all true.

To an extent.

With the increasing rise of fast fashion over the last two decades and an estimated 150 billion being manufactured each year, this notion has become malignant for the most part.

With this mass onslaught, came the reduction in clothes quality.

A huge portion of our unsold second-hand garments from thrift stores, clothing bins, charity collections and the like get shipped to countries in the global South for profit, also often under the guise of charity.

Considering this linear process has been increasing in the last couple of decades, do we ever think about what happens to our fashion castoffs once they hit foreign shores? Or question if this growing linear loop is healthy or is it creating an environmental disaster elsewhere in the world?

Have we thought to consider whether poorer nations need our ‘charity’ or do they, perhaps need justice and equity?

How did this all begin for me?

I was born in Nigeria, grew up in the USA, and lived in Nigeria (West Africa) as a teenager. A vivid memory from my teenage years combines my love of style and my later studies in international development.

It was one of the happiest days of my life. It was the day I began shopping for secondhand clothes as a teenager in Nigeria.

They were all imported from countries in the global North (the richest countries in North America, Europe, and Australia).

The sight of colourful, vintage, retro and trendy fashion in a shop window grabbed me by the throat and drew me into the thrift store like it was Willy Wonka’s chocolate factory. Seeing the eclectic range of fashion styles from different eras was like being in Aladdin’s cave of treasures.

I was spellbound for several hours playing dress-up until the shop closed.

Little did I know that that was the eureka moment that would shape my life purpose and career in sustainable fashion and international development.  I frequented these shops as often as I could with a kind of ferocious enthusiasm that I had never experienced before that day.

Credit: Zigguarat Fashion Emporium

Credit: Zigguarat Fashion Emporium

But as time went on, I began to sense a brewing inequality that came from observing the impact that imported second-hand clothes were having on the local environment and the local textile industry.  

Where I am today

I live in Sydney, Australia, now. And my teen years in Nigeria is not just a memory but a touchstone that is still revisited through my work as a sustainable fashion educator, consultant and climate advocate.

ABC Australia aired a documentary called The Environmental Disaster that is Fuelled by Used Clothes and Fast Fashion. It exposed the lives of shipped second-hand clothes and those that handle them as they arrive on the shores of Kantamanto Market in Accra, Ghana in West Africa.

As someone originally from West Africa, this issue hits very close to home.

In July 2020, I wrote another article about the quandary African countries are forced into because of secondhand imports. Today’s article is using the ABC documentary as a case study to scrutinise the implications of our addiction to shopping, overconsumption and the hidden inequalities that surround secondhand fashion exportation.

Moreover, to face the reality that the problem is far rooted in neocolonialism, imperialist and neoliberal systemic inequalities. And how we can dismantle these systems to bridge the gaps of inequality and global justice for more permanent, genuine development in poorer countries. Which ultimately could have a knock-on effect on helping to reduce fashion’s impact on climate change.

Kantamanto market, Accra, Ghana. Image: ABC Australia

Kantamanto market, Accra, Ghana. Image: ABC Australia

The Documentary

The documentary investigated the journey of exported secondhand clothes from their arrival at Kantamanto market in Accra to the very end of their life cycle. The market is one of the largest markets in West Africa.

From there, clothes get shipped to other African countries.

The ABC reporter, Linton Besser, explored this from 3 perspectives:

1.     the experiences of a second-hand clothes importer,

2.     a reseller

3.     the city’s waste manager.

For several decades, second-hand clothes have been shipped from richer countries in the global North to countries in the global South (poorer countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America).

These clothes are shipped in bales for resale and reuse. The population of Ghana is 30 million, while at the same time, 30 million garments are imported every week.

This trade has created tens of thousands of jobs in the receiving countries including Ghana over the years. The amount of clothes being shipped continues to increase significantly and the quality of clothes being shipped continues to decline dramatically.

So, what were these 3 perspectives?

Emmanuel Ajaab Ghana toxic landfill abc

Emmanuel Ajaab, The Importer

Importing second-hand clothes ‘wholesale’ is Mr Emmanuel Ajaab’s livelihood. Importers have to pay upfront sometimes as much as $95,000 for a container with no guarantee if the clothes inside it are any good. Mr Ajaab pays $92 for a bale of clothes with about 180 – 200 pieces. In the film, one of his bales was opened to reveal that only 7 items out of the entire lot were saleable!

The rest had to be thrown away because they were dirty, stained or damaged in some way. This is very common in this trade. An estimated 40% are of such poor quality they are deemed worthless on arrival and end up dumped in landfill.

In a conversation laden with disappointment and bolstered by anger, Mr Ajaab said "In Europe and UK and Australia, America they think Africa here, we are not like human beings... Because what they are giving to us is like- even if somebody knocks on your door and you want to help, you cannot give, pick something from your dustbin and give to the person. So, in this case, it's like they are doing this to us.” He is right. We are literally shipping our trash to countries in the South. And worst of all, many people in the North add insult to injury by calling it charity.

This reeks of racism.

Aisha Iddrisu, The Reseller

The sustainable fashion movement often advocates for justice and equality for garment workers who make new clothes primarily in Asia. The plight of secondhand garment workers is rarely mentioned. Until now. In the documentary, we got a rare glimpse into the life of a female second-hand garment worker named Ms Aisha Iddrisu, with her 18-month-old toddler.

Aisha collects a bale of clothing from importers weighing approximately 50kgs to sell. With her toddler tied to her back, she carries the bale on her head and walks to her destination. Ms Iddrisu lives from hand to mouth as she makes less than $5 a day which is well below the global poverty line and not enough for daily expenses.

Aisha Iddrisu and son Sharif. Image credit: Andrew Greaves (ABC)

Aisha Iddrisu and son Sharif. Image credit: Andrew Greaves (ABC)

Ms Iddrisu says she is often exhausted and sore and has to take painkillers before bed. She says many second-hand garment workers get injured to the point where they’re no longer able to work and have to be sent back home to rural towns and villages where they came from.

Most of them experienced internal displacement by conflict or unemployment which forced them to move to big cities like Accra to seek employment. Ms Iddrisu also lives in a small room with her child and 5-6 other women.

*It’s very interesting that the lifestyle of secondhand garment workers like Ms Iddrisu is nearly identical to that of garment workers in other parts of the South who make brand new clothes for fashion brands. 

Solomon Noi Accra City Waste Manager landfill

Solomon Noi, The City’s Waste Manager (Environmental impact in Accra)


Mr Solomon Noi, The Director of the Waste Management Department at Accra, took us on an excursion in the documentary to see what happens to the unsaleable clothes. About 15 million used clothes come into Accra every week from Australia, the US, UK and Europe and fill the Kantamanto Market according to Mr Noi.

He also said “this place is serving as a dumping ground for textile waste in the name of second-hand clothing. Close to 40% of whatever shipments are coming daily ends up being complete chaff of no value.” In other words, imported fashion waste has turned parts of Ghana into toxic landfill. Because each week 6 million garments deemed waste from Kantamanto Market end up being dumped in landfill, the city of Accra is saddled with the task of finding a place to dispose of 160 tonnes of textile waste every day.  

Image: ABC Australia

Image: ABC Australia

The environmental damage in Accra is very real

Whenever the monsoon rainy season hits, the unwanted garments that litter the streets and trash are washed into the city’s waterways where they cause blockages.

The massive downpour of rain also washes unwanted clothes into the ocean where they sit at the ocean bed, choke aquatic animals and become entangled in the motors of fisherman’s boats. They also litter the beaches and get buried deep in the sand to the point where they must be dug out.  

The area designated as landfill in Accra was meant to last 15 years before being filled up but instead, it’s been filled up within 5 years because of imported fashion textile waste.

The city is now forced to use unregulated areas and means of disposing of this trash such as burning it which blackens the city’s skies. A significant majority of the clothes are made of synthetic textiles (such as polyester, nylon and spandex) that take hundreds of years to decompose. Thus, leaving neighbourhoods in Accra with mountains of waste pollution that will cast a toxic impact on current and future generations.

Credit: Ted Christian Andrea

Credit: Ted Christian Andrea

All three perspectives are important. And voices like those of Mr Ajaab, Ms Idrisu and Mr Noi need to be at the centre of the discussions.

As someone with a solid background in both the global South and global North, who has studied international development, works in the sustainable fashion space and has first-hand experience of these markets, I’d like to add my perspective.

Economic and ecological observations of a teenage fashion lover in Nigeria

  1. Environment

As much as I loved secondhand shopping as a teenager in Nigeria, I got a lot of anxiety from seeing a massive portion of imported clothes ending up as mountains of trash mixed with household trash.

These trash mountains were situated in and around residential areas. Whenever it rained, the rain would seep through these mountains, washing through the synthetic textiles, releasing toxic groundwater (build-up of chemicals) that would flow into freshwater bodies that people used for drinking, household consumption and farming.

Toxic groundwater reduces soil fertility and can potentially become acid rain (meaning it can evaporate with the toxic chemicals and then turn into rain, then rain the toxins across a wider area). Toxic rain and groundwater alter the pH levels of freshwater bodies. It can be hazardous or deadly to some marine species.

Credit: itv UK

Credit: itv UK

2. Local fashion and textile industry

There was another observation that I made as a teen that I would later come to realise was deeply rooted in a sinister, structural inequality. Many of the local tailoring shops, traditional, local fashion businesses that fuelled the local textile and fashion industry were closing down.

They could not compete with the oversupply of cheap, used fast fashion.

So, it was destroying the local clothing industry from developing and furthermore, strengthening the nation’s economy could lead to poverty reduction.

This was also featured in the documentary when it pointed out that “Western castoffs are so cheap that local textile makers can't compete. Since the 1980s their output has fallen by as much as 75%. Traditional African clothing has now become too expensive for everyday wear.” 

Credit: UNHCR

Credit: UNHCR

Structural inequality: the colonial, neoliberal and imperialist dynamic between global North and South

What would it mean for the South if millions or even billions of dollars were appropriated towards the development of its industries?

It was said in the documentary, “every year as many as 4 million tonnes of used textiles are shipped across the planet in a trade estimated to be worth $4.6 billion.”

If figures like this were invested directly into cultivating the nascent local fashion and textile industries within countries of the South, it could potentially lead to a boom in their economies, poverty reduction and bridging some of the inequality gaps.     

So why isn’t this already happening? Because it would make these countries more self-reliant, and less dependent on the North for aid, loans and assistance. Why is this an issue?

The North would lose its power grip over the South. And with it, the ability to rob the South of raw materials, resources, cheap or free labour, wealth and other benefits of postcolonialism. Herein lies the root cause of this systemic inequality and oppression of the South. 

Some countries in the South want to break out of this type of dynamic but are unable to because of the complexities of the situation.

Rich nations have all the bargaining power over the South when it comes to international trade agreements, policies, reforms and creditor arrangements with poorer countries. They leverage these powers for their own interests and build up their own industries.

Credit: Review of African Political Economy

Credit: Review of African Political Economy

The power stronghold began in the colonial era (arguably from mid to late 19th century to mid-20th century). During which the North ravaged the South for gold, slaves, land, silver and cheap labour to develop their industries and economies. This created a massive income gap that placed the North firmly in a position of power.

But colonialism didn’t stop in the middle of last century. It shapeshifted.

Through imperialist and neoliberal policies like illicit debt reforms, trade arrangements, etc, colonisation lives on within the global political and economic systems.  

To the point where the income gap between North and South is now about four times bigger than it was in the 1950s. Richer countries have created structural inequalities that keep poorer countries from executing policies that would grow their economies, reduce poverty and establish power over their own development.

This is the overarching systemic oppression that keeps the South poor, vulnerable and seemingly in need of aid. It’s why the North for many decades has consistently been able to ship its ‘garbage’ to the South.

Eco styles Nina Gbor overconsumption fast fashion waste

Consider and reflect…

The ABC documentary and my personal experience in Nigeria tell the stories of secondhand clothes in two West African countries. But the truth is that these types of stories happen in hundreds and possibly thousands of other towns and cities in the global South that receive used clothing.

Each place will have its own story of how fashion waste has been toxic to its environment, communities and landfill.

And if we were able to see each story within each city in the world, I believe the true extent of the global fashion waste crisis would make us gasp in absolute horror.

If we’re seeking solutions, it’s necessary we look at the dilemma with a wider lens and from multiple angles. This will equip solutions with a stronger chance of being permanent. Applying a holistic approach is crucial for this process. Here are some factors to reflect on and consider.

  • The fashion waste crisis exists because as consumers, we’re addicted to shopping. And fashion brands produce far too many clothes. According to American Fashion Waste Campaigner, Liz Ricketts, in the documentary, a lot of fashion brands overproduce by up to 40%. Waste is part of the business model of fashion. And overall, about 150 billion garments are being manufactured each year. Overconsumption is the key issue here. It’s as if we’re trying to consume our way into our own extinction.

  • It’s actually the South that’s developing the North, not the other way round. This is a fact based on the colonial, imperialist and neoliberal structures of material extraction, production, and economic growth. From the colonial era to date, the established model has been set up in ways that the South often provide much of the raw materials and labour that goes into growing the economies of the North. Sadly, the South too often has to deal with the environmental repercussions of this system. As for the socio-economic implications, the poorest half of humanity is still in the South.

  • The creation of jobs from imported secondhand clothes in developing countries is a huge benefit. At the same time, it has been a major roadblock for countries trying to grow their own textile and clothing industries which can help boost their economies, reduce poverty and create thriving businesses with secure employment for the population.  

  • Banning secondhand fashion imports by governments in the South to support the growth of the internal clothing industry seems like a viable option for poorer countries. However, if a ban is suddenly imposed, it would plunge many garment workers such as Ms Iddrisu into destitution. A more viable option would be to gradually scale down the number of clothes that get shipped each year. While introducing alternative careers, businesses and other opportunities correspondingly. Realistically this will require planning and the support of local governments, the private sector or not-for-profit organisations.

  • The ferocious increase in the pursuit of material stuff over several centuries has brought us here. To a place and time where the world is rife with inequalities and oppressions that affect so many. If you dig deep and then dig even deeper again, you’re likely to discover that at the core, it’s all about materialism. Our world has been designed (by us) in a way where material is king. Therefore, whoever holds the most, has the power because materialism fuels power. At the time in our history when this notion became the guiding principle of humanity, that was the beginning of our downfall. Overvaluation of material stuff, be it money, raw materials, etc was and is arguably the driver of colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism and neoliberalism. It’s the underlying factor that sometimes underpins big capitalism to focus purely on profit at all costs regardless of lives damaged/lost and despite environmental damage levied on the planet. Materialism also pushes individuals (us) to overconsume and devalue empathy, justness, our intuitive guidance, connection and community.

  • Banning the import of used clothing can have economic and political risks for Southern states. As stated above, rules prevent some poorer countries from refusing to accept the ‘trash’ of the North. They risk sanctions, trade opportunities or being blacklisted in the global political and economic network. It’s unjust and unfair. It makes these countries pawns in the game instead of equal partners with capabilities to decide their own fate.  

  • Through the stories revealed in the documentary, the racist implications of shipping unwanted items are made visible. On several occasions, I’ve spoken at sustainable fashion events where heads of clothing charities and secondhand clothing exportation businesses here in Australia give themselves a huge pat on the back while bragging about how many tonnes of secondhand clothes, they ship to the South each year. When I bring their attention to the social and environmental consequences of their actions on the countries they ship to, they continue to insist that they’re doing very good work. They emphasise that their work is charitable (which it is in some instances). They respond by saying that the clothes they send are desperately needed and wanted by people in the receiving countries. The supremacy coming from these people is undeniable and it has to change.

  • Where consumers are concerned, too often people donate unwanted clothes to charity shops in deplorable conditions like unwashed, dirty, or damaged, knowing that many of those clothes will eventually get shipped to poorer countries. It feels like a testament to their lack of respect or regard towards the people who will receive them. From my experience, people who donate damaged clothes still believe themselves to be charitable even in dumping unusable clothes. The other reason is that they either can’t be bothered to take their unwanted clothes to the tip/the dump or they do not want to pay the fees required in doing so. The disposal costs are then shifted to charity shops. If respect and empathy existed, the situation would be different.

  • This notion of shipping our ‘trash’ in the name of charity goes far beyond the fashion industry. This concept happens in similar patterns within other industries like automobile and tech for instance.                           

Where do we go from here?

Now that we’ve uncovered some of the ways that this global issue is far more gargantuan than meets the eye, it deserves to be addressed through multiple concepts that incorporate holistic and thorough considerations. The purpose is to elicit more permanent solutions based on fairness, equality and justice.

Image: ABC Australia

Image: ABC Australia

1. Quality control in shipping

The intuitive, simple and straightforward solution to shipping unsaleable clothes is to impose quality control with all shipped clothes to ensure they are of saleable quality. And of course, this means everything we donate must be of decent quality and in good condition.

Currently, only about 10% of shipped, used clothes are of saleable/usable quality (according to the observation of Mr Ajaab’s bale in the documentary). With standard controls, the amount of clothing being sent will drop down by about 90%.

This means less environmental pollution in countries like Ghana will be far less.

It’s fair and just for importers like Mr Ajaab who pay huge sums for bales with only 10% value.

As for the rest of us in the North, we’ll immediately be confronted with about 90% of used clothes on our shores that previously would have been shipped.

The good news? Having this on our shores, quickly filling up our landfills is a challenge that will hopefully force us to address our addiction to material things and overconsumption.  

Image credit: A Thrift Mrs

Image credit: A Thrift Mrs

2. Drop the saviour complex! The South needs justice and equity, not charity

To counter the inequalities and racism of this big dilemma, the cardinal rule for all interactions and agreements with the South must be to operate from a place of equality and justice, not charity.

Banishing the notion of aid and the mindset of the saviour complex is critical. If the North had never colonised the South, the South would still exist and might very well be thriving. So, drop the saviour complex.

I mentioned earlier it’s actually the South developing the North and not the other way round. Aid is given to the global South by the North each year, but the amount taken out of the South from the North each year is up to 24 times the aid the South gets! This is because an estimated $2 trillion streams from the North to the South every year in the form of aid, investments and loans.

Meanwhile, $5 trillion dollars flows back from the South to the North each year, meaning the North takes $3 trillion dollars a year from poorer countries.

This is made possible by international trade rules structured in ways that enable the North to receive cheap resources and cheap labour at the most unjustifiable and unfairly minimal prices.

Also, through crooked financial transactions like interest on debts already paid, tax evasion and illegal financial transfers by large international corporations.

Reflect: even though humans in the South supply the biggest chunk of resources and labour towards the global economy, every year the most impoverished 60% of people on the planet get only 5% of the fresh income that is created through global economic growth. The remaining goes to those who have already been wealthy. Justice is the solution here, not more aid, charity or used stuff.  

Image: Capacity Media

Image: Capacity Media

3. Dismantle Systems of Injustice: Neocolonialism, imperialism and neoliberalism

The key part of this process is giving equal voting power to countries of the South within international trade rules and with global financial institutions such as the World Bank and IMF.

The power to decide their fate and future can shift circumstances in their favour.

The South has about 85% of the world’s population yet only has less than 50% of the votes that will determine their fate. These financial institutions have been set up in ways that give wealthier countries all the power to hamper poorer ones from creating progressive policies that will develop their industries such as fashion for instance.

This is the biggest injustice that keeps the South dependent and vulnerable. It’s the smokescreen that creates the illusion that they’re constantly in need of aid. Meanwhile, the truth all along has been that equality is absent from the entire situation.

With equity via equal voting power and fair rules of trade, it’s far easier to dismantle neoliberal, imperialist, neocolonial systems and bring genuine balance, harmony and equality to the global system.

When there is power balance, poorer countries will have the audacity to refuse trade agreements and other regulations that are not in their own best interests such as shipments of ‘trash’ from wealthier countries. They will stand on equal footing with their Northern counterparts. Dismantling oppressive systems is how equality and justice can be won for the South, allowing clothing & textiles and other industries in the South to fully blossom and thrive.  

4. Face our personal and collective demons of overconsumption                                               

We’re each responsible for tempering our shopping and consumption habits. One key part of this is letting go of the need to use fashion trends or material things and products to boost our self-worth or self-esteem.

Here’s where we can remove shopping and the accumulation of material things from the highest pedestal of human life and replace them with personal growth, connection and community development.

The progression of humanity and individuals does not depend on the acquisition of products and material things.

Endless consumption is not the purpose of our existence. At the current rate, we’re consuming ourselves into a state of obliteration.    

Image credit: Getty

Image credit: Getty

5. Human progress over material stuff

To reverse material overvaluation, it’s critical that we place empathy, justness, intuitive guidance, human lives, genuine connections and community well above any notion, policy, trade agreement. And most of all, it’s critical that we do this in our personal lives. Fawning over ‘material kings’ does not help matters. Instead, we can question them about the human beings involved and the environmental impact of their material wealth accumulation. It’s far more helpful if we fawn over communities with opportunities, healthcare, amenities and education for everyone.

6. Scale down production. Drastically!                                                                  

Major (fast) fashion brands and big corporations in other industries need to stop overproduction. Profiteering through planned obsolescence should be banned. It’s possible through a plan to implement drastic scaling down of resource use in ways that restore harmony and balance with the planet.

This is an adjustment that must be executed with care so that it’s safe, equitable and fair for garment workers, ecosystems and the rest of the earth. Profits previously accumulated by these brands from cheap labour and resources extraction can and should be redistributed to support and improve the lives and communities of garment workers in the South.

What’s fundamental here is the necessity for fast fashion brands to shift from the capitalist model of endlessly accumulating profits at all costs (regardless of the harm done to people and the planet). And also quit the addiction to financial growth over human life and planetary health, even if it’s in the name of economic growth.

Economic growth as it stands today drives the cycle of pillaging the earth for raw materials, overproducing, overconsuming and then dumping the burden of disposal onto poor countries who are forced to take the social and environmental fall for this model.

It’ll be a sad story if humanity becomes extinct all in the name of economic growth.

Instead, we can turn things around by removing profits as society’s measure of success and replacing it with massive advancements in healthcare, education, environmental regeneration, rehabilitating landscapes, the arts, teaching and renewable energy. 

Dress by Cameroonian designer, La Vie by Claude Kanemi. Credit: La Vie by Claude Kanemi

Dress by Cameroonian designer, La Vie by Claude Kanemi. Credit: La Vie by Claude Kanemi

7. Support (and learn from) the development of fashion industries in the South

Historically, the business model of most fashion industries in the South has never involved cheap, mass-produced disposable garments. Slow fashion and sustainable production was an unspoken aspect of their business model. There is much to learn from the artisans and makers of the South that has been ignored and disregarded for far too long.

There are many ways to do this like buying and promoting products from brands, designers and makers to help their businesses gain a wider and global reach.

Nonetheless, to help develop the entire industry to self-sufficiency, it’s most vital to scrutinise rules and policies within existing and future trade agreements with developing countries that could hinder the growth of their clothing industries in any way. We can demand this from governments of richer countries.

Buying from and promoting communities, cooperatives, social enterprises and brands in the South is far less racist and a better way to bridge inequality gaps than sending them trash.

Dress by Nigerian designer, Mae Otti. Credit: Mae Otti

Dress by Nigerian designer, Mae Otti. Credit: Mae Otti

♥ Nina Gbor

Instagram: @eco.styles

Curbing biodiversity loss in fashion's supply chain by Nina Gbor

Image: Chris Charles

Transforming the Fashion Sector to Drive Positive Outcomes to Drive Biodiversity, Climate and Oceans’ is a new initiative with $4 million in funding to cut biodiversity loss in the fashion supply chain. Biodiversity loss and climate change are two out of nine planetary boundaries. In a previous article, I wrote about how fashion impacts climate change and suggestions for collectively setting a net-zero trajectory. Fashion’s impact on biodiversity loss, however, has gotten less coverage than climate change.

The current state of biodiversity loss

Biodiversity loss according to Britannica is “a decrease in biodiversity within a species, an ecosystem, a given geographic area, or Earth as a whole.” Global biodiversity loss has recently been calculated to be 100 to 1000 times higher than how it should occur naturally (or by the pre-industrial revolution). And this extinction rate is accelerating. We’ve destroyed 83% of wild mammals and 50% of all plants with an average 68% decrease in population sizes of mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and fish between 1970 and 2016. With about 200 to 2,000 extinctions estimated to be occurring each year, that comes to roughly 2 million extinctions. We are destroying the Earth’s biocapacity by at least 56% to fuel our 21st-century lifestyles driven by capitalism, overconsumption, over-exploitation of natural resources, climate change, pollution and land-use change. 30 - 50 % of existing species are projected to be extinct by the end of the century.

The threat to humanity

As the planet is facing its sixth mass extinction, biodiversity loss is one of the greatest risks facing humanity on earth. It’s impacting all life on the planet presently and will do so for millions of years into the future. In the pursuit of economic growth, colossal amounts of aquatic, terrestrial and marine ecosystems have been annihilated. Capitalist activities have wrecked the biodiversity that all life in water, in air and on land depend upon. In this sense, we’re being our own worst enemy.

Image: Europeana

Image: Europeana

Amongst other factors, biodiversity loss threatens food security. The services rendered to humanity by the ecosystems are undeniably valuable to the existence and wellbeing of human beings. Services such as water purification, carbon sequestration, crop pollination and flood protection. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has calculated the worth of the services provided by ecosystems in the world at $125-140 trillion (US dollars) per year. That’s more than one and a half times the size of global GDP! Immediate action is necessary to address the loss of the biodiversity that feeds the world and maintains the balance and harmony of life on the planet.  

Fashion is taking action

We’re well aware that fashion is one of the biggest culprits amongst industries that contribute to environmental damage and biodiversity loss. As the demand for clothing gets bigger, the impact on the earth’s raw materials and therefore biodiversity loss will also increase. On the current trajectory, the fashion industry is expected to use 35% more land for the production of fibre by the year 2030. This is an extra 115 million hectares that can be left alone to preserve biodiversity. The good news is that fashion is starting to address its role in biodiversity loss within its supply chains.

The Fashion Pact is an international coalition whose signatories represent about a third of the fashion industry by volume with 60 signatories representing over 200 brands. In 2020 The Pact committed to biodiversity restoration and protection. The plan is for the ‘Transforming the Fashion Sector to Drive Positive Outcomes to Drive Biodiversity, Climate and Oceans’ initiative to develop and provide guidance to The Pact on best practice for reducing deforestation, clean supply chain and better agricultural practices. The hope is that fashion will eventually curb biodiversity loss through regenerative approaches to agricultural supply chains and by reducing carbon emissions while improving the lives of producers.

The endless pursuit of material growth for overconsumption means constantly plundering the earth for raw materials to manufacture products to sell for financial gain. It has turned the worst parts of humanity into agents of destruction, threatening to eliminate the firm support given to us by the earth for our continual existence. Instead, we can allow nature and the ecosystems to remain natural and thereby flourish. The result? We will reap a joyful upbuilding of the planet that’s far healthier, balanced, harmonious and equitable for all species including humans.

♥ Nina Gbor

Instagram: @eco.styles

Climate change has the biggest impact on women but how can we fix it? by Nina Gbor

Image credit: Information Age

Image credit: Information Age

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.

Image credit: Nandhu Kumar

Image credit: Nandhu Kumar

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.

Image credit: Guardian.co.uk

Image credit: Guardian.co.uk

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.

Image credit: Yogendra Singh

Image credit: Yogendra Singh

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.

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

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.

Image credit: Marc Cooriolesi

Image credit: Marc Cooriolesi

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.

Image credit: Girls Not Brides

Image credit: Girls Not Brides

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:

  1. https://www.wecaninternational.org/why-women

  2. https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/august-2016/women-grapple-harsh-weather

  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51u4JECraLQ

  4. https://www.brookings.edu/research/girls-education-in-climate-strategies/

  5. https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/womenin-shadow-climate-change

  6. https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/03/08/power-structures-gender-make-women-vulnerable-climate-change/

  7. https://www.pnas.org/content/115/9/2060

  8. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43294221#:~:text=Women%20are%20more%20likely%20than,when%20flooding%20and%20drought%20occur.

  9. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/HRAndClimateChange/Pages/GenderResponsiveClimateAction.aspx

  10. https://time.com/5739622/women-girls-climate-action/

  11. https://www.dw.com/en/climate-induced-sea-level-rise-to-worsen-tsunami-impacts/a-45730449

  12. http://thesustainabilityagenda.com/episode-56-interview-dr-jason-hickel-author-divide/

  13. file:///C:/Users/ninag/Downloads/9719.pdf

  14. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-11-26/climate-change-worse-women/11735842

  15. https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/oxfam-international-tsunami-evaluation-summary_3.pdf

  16. https://www.greenbiz.com/article/why-economic-degrowth-ethical-imperative

  17. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652610000259

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

Photo by Trisha Downing.

Photo by Trisha Downing.

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.

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.

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.

Photo: Allie Smith.

Photo: Allie Smith.

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.

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:

  1. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/style-thats-sustainable-a-new-fast-fashion-formula

  2. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/A-New-Textiles-Economy.pdf

  3. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27082019/12-years-climate-change-explained-ipcc-science-solutions

  4. https://blog.euromonitor.com/podcast/fashion-friday-global-apparel-in-2019-and-beyond/

  5. https://ecomono.com.au/blogs/news/how-fashion-affects-climate-change-10-key-facts

  6. https://www.commonobjective.co/article/can-fashion-stop-climate-change

  7. https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/01/numbers-economic-social-and-environmental-impacts-fast-fashion

  8. https://www.ekoenergy.org/how-polluting-is-the-fashion-industry/

  9. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2019/633143/EPRS_BRI(2019)633143_EN.pdf

  10. https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/fast-fashion-this-industry-needs-an-urgent-makeover/

  11. http://www.fabricoftheworld.com/collossal-environmental-damage-caused-by-discarded-fabrics/

  12. https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/climate-change/

  13. https://www.bbcearth.com/blog/?article=will-fashion-firms-stop-burning-clothes

  14. https://www.commonobjective.co/article/the-size-of-the-global-fashion-retail-market

  15. https://www.fastcompany.com/90379824/zara-built-a-20b-empire-on-fast-fashion-now-it-needs-to-dismantle-it

  16. https://www.sustainablefashion.earth/type/water/synthetic-fibres-used-in-72-clothing-items-can-sit-in-landfills-for-200-years/

  17. https://www.theconsciouschallenge.org/ecologicalfootprintbibleoverview/clothing-energy

  18. https://unearthed.greenpeace.org/2019/09/12/fast-facts-about-fast-fashion/

  19. https://www.treehugger.com/htgg/how-to-go-green-laundry.html

  20. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-moda-medio-ambiente

  21. https://goodonyou.eco/fashions-footprint-forests/

  22. https://canopyplanet.org/campaigns/canopystyle/

  23. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-20/fashion-brand-burberry-defends-burning-of-unsold-products/10019328

  24. https://www.vogue.com.au/fashion/news/5-ways-the-fashion-industry-can-reduce-carbon-emissions/image-gallery/724f0b0e088b5a52f72f0943243db1d8

  25. https://unfccc.int/climate-action/sectoral-engagement/global-climate-action-in-fashion/about-the-fashion-industry-charter-for-climate-action

  26. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Industry%20Charter%20%20Fashion%20and%20Climate%20Action%20-%2022102018.pdf

Fashion, women's rights and free trade agreements by Nina Gbor

Photo courtesy of ActionAid Australia.

Photo courtesy of ActionAid Australia.

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 FacebookInstagram 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/