Cont: Global warming discussion V

[Roger Ramjets]

Which is great, but one report (see below), states that the UK must close most of it's airports by 2030. By "most" they mean all of them other than Heathrow, Glasgow, and Belfast (among various other measures). Although this is to get to absolute zero...

Absolute zero, because there is little to no scope for capturing the CO2 from the atmosphere to make net zero viable. Although I occasionally talk to a group who would disagree with this, as they are trying to install carbon capture in our area.

The above is clearly not going to happen, so I just hope they are prepared to greatly upgrade the flood defences for Hull.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. If current trends continue, by 2030 few people in the UK will be able to afford to fly, so those airports will close anyway.

The problem with Carbon capture is applying it at a large enough scale to offset emissions. But once most of the sources of carbon emissions have been eliminated and there is plenty of renewable energy to make use of, carbon capture from the atmosphere will make more sense.

Verdox

Verdox’s patented technology is radically different from existing carbon removal solutions that use large amounts of heat in their processes. Our systems control the capture and delivery of CO₂ simply by applying a current at select voltages.

Our electrochemical approach is agnostic to the CO₂ concentration of the source gas, allowing us to efficiently capture CO₂ not only from industrial sources, but also from the air. Additionally, the electrochemical nature enables our systems to run entirely on renewable electricity and avoid further emissions.

 

[macdoc]

So 'fast fashion' actually just means 'clothing'

It does not. It means trendy clothes subject to fast changing styles and often discarded after a single outing.

The UK is hardly a model for "cure AGW by poverty".
More a lesson in how not to run a country.

 

[lionking]

So 'fast fashion' actually just means 'clothing'.

That’s what I thought.

I think this whole “fast fashion” thing is stupid beyond words. Sure, get rid of clothing and we can all revert to sackcloths.

Impractical, pointless virtue signalling.

 

[Aridas]

That’s what I thought.

I think this whole “fast fashion” thing is stupid beyond words. Sure, get rid of clothing and we can all revert to sackcloths.

Impractical, pointless virtue signalling.

Fast fashion pretty much is stupid beyond words. We could end it and still have plenty of clothes. Ending fast fashion really just ends up meaning reducing excessive wastefulness, not getting rid of clothes entirely. The distinction there should be really easy to grasp, though.

 

[lionking]

Fast fashion pretty much is stupid beyond words. We could end it and still have plenty of clothes. Ending fast fashion really just ends up meaning reducing excessive wastefulness, not getting rid of clothes entirely. The distinction there should be really easy to grasp, though.

Oh come off it. People the world over do things, like buying a new shirt, for a range of reasons. Are you going to define “proper” reasons for buying clothes?

But go ahead. Jump up and down, even wave a placard (environmentally wasteful of course), declaring that you refuse to buy the latest fashion while wearing no doubt inefficiently manufactured clothes from the 1970s. I will simply laugh at this classically pointless virtue signalling.

 

[macdoc]

I think Aridas has a much better grasp of the problem with "fast fashion" than you......or perhaps you are being wilfully obtuse.

 

[Aridas]

I think Aridas has a much better grasp of the problem with "fast fashion" than you......or perhaps you are being wilfully obtuse.

I'm going to go with willfully obtuse as the likelier of the two there, given the extremity of the caricature.

 

[lionking]

I'm going to go with willfully obtuse as the likelier of the two there, given the extremity of the caricature.

You can go with what you want, it doesn’t make elimination of “fast fashion” less stupid.

Now you tell me, how would you define “fast fashion”? Be specific. And what would you do about it?

 

[Darat]

You can go with what you want, it doesn’t make elimination of “fast fashion” less stupid.

Now you tell me, how would you define “fast fashion”? Be specific. And what would you do about it?

Google:
fast fashion
noun
noun: fast fashion
inexpensive clothing produced rapidly by mass-market retailers in response to the latest trends.
"the high-street leader when it comes to fast fashion"

The classic example in the UK is Primark (they are in other countries but I don’t know if they are the same outside the UK).

https://earth.org/fast-fashion-brands-to-avoid

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The classic example in the UK is Primark (they are in other countries but I don’t know if they are the same outside the UK).

https://earth.org/fast-fashion-brands-to-avoid

An excellent example of a cheap fast fashion brand is Primark. The Irish multinational retailer and England’s top-seller markets trending clothes at incredibly low prices, a practice that encourages consumers to buy an abundance of items only to discard them after wearing them a few times and go back to buy more. This practice alone generates colossal amounts of fashion and textile waste. The only way the fashion giant is able to maintain prices low is by sacrificing other sides of the business: Primark does not spend much money on marketing as some of its competitors like H&M and Zara do and, by sticking to retail sale instead of providing an e-commerce platform to its customers, the company is able to cut costs that would derive from having an online website, such as packing, shipping, and providing customer support. While this makes it a ‘less fast fashion’ brand, Primark is still promoting overconsumption which massively contributes to its significant environmental footprint.

So to be 'not fast fashion' clothes have to be:-

1. Expensive.

2. Massively advertised.

3. Not available in stores.

What a crock.

If the 'environmental footprint' of a product is a problem then it can be taxed to account for the externality. But that better be applied evenly.

The average carbon footprint per person in the UK is 12.7 tonnes per year. That equates to driving 23,000 miles in the average car. Sounds like a lot? It's only 63 miles per day. Now imagine how much 'fast fashion' clothing you would have to buy per day to match it.

I don't believe the numbers being quoted. How do they separate out essential clothing items from 'fast fashion'? I don't buy 'fashion' clothing, but I generally avoid expensive clothes because they aren't worth the money. And I don't 'discard them after wearing them a few times', that would be stupid. Who would do such a thing?

As for the idea that selling online with massive advertising is somehow better simply because it makes clothes more expensive, that's completely bone-headed. Advertising also has a carbon footprint, and I thought the idea was not to push people into buying more? Then there's all the clothes people buy online that don't fit, and the increased transportation costs (= more carbon) for sending items separately (and possibly returning them).

The other issues raised in that article are irrelevant. If clothing isn't recycled in the UK that's a failure of the recycling industry, not an inherent flaw of 'fast fashion'. Clothing is one of the easier things to recycle so why aren't they doing it? Labor exploitation is another subject, but I would bet that 'slave' labor is actually less carbon intensive.

What it comes down to is a singular argument - that cheap products encourage over-consumption. Which is true, but 'fast fashion' is only one contributor among many, that is being overemphasized because it's deemed 'frivolous'. I bet rich people - who think they should be the only ones wearing 'fashion' clothing - love the idea of not allowing the rest of us to afford clothing that looks nice.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The UK is hardly a model for "cure AGW by poverty".
More a lesson in how not to run a country.

Not a good model, but an interesting phenomenon to be studied.

Prices are going up. What will that do to clothing sales - will 'fast fashion' be the first to contract? Will politicians accused of not dealing with inflation suggest that poor people eat cake wear sugar sacks instead? (according to my father that's what they did for clothing in the Great Depression).

 

[arthwollipot]

There's a quite detailed discussion of fast fashion on Wikipedia. It's definitely a real thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_fashion

In the clothing industry, fast fashion is the business model of replicating recent catwalk trends and high-fashion designs, mass-producing them at a low cost, and bringing them to retail stores quickly, while demand is at its highest. The term fast fashion is also used generically to describe the products of the fast fashion business model.[1]

Fast fashion grew during the late 20th century as manufacturing of clothing became less expensive — the result of more efficient supply chains and new quick response manufacturing methods and greater reliance on low-cost labor from the apparel manufacturing industries of South, Southeast, and East Asia, where women make up 85-90% of the garment workforce. Labor practices of fast fashion are often exploitative, and due to the gender concentration of the garment industry, women are more vulnerable.[2] Retailers who employ the fast fashion strategy include Primark, H&M, Shein, and Zara,[3] all of which have become large multinationals by driving high turnover of inexpensive seasonal and trendy clothing that appeals to fashion-conscious consumers.

The global fashion industry is responsible for ~8–10% of global carbon emissions per year, to which fast fashion is a large contributor. The low cost of production favoring synthetic materials, chemicals, and minimal pollution abatement measures have led to excess waste.[4]

 

[Aridas]

You can go with what you want, it doesn’t make elimination of “fast fashion” less stupid.

Now you tell me, how would you define “fast fashion”? Be specific. And what would you do about it?

I'm entirely fine with using the version that was both in the links I provided and was pretty well just referenced by Arthwollipot with the wikipedia quote -

In the clothing industry, fast fashion is the business model of replicating recent catwalk trends and high-fashion designs, mass-producing them at a low cost, and bringing them to retail stores quickly, while demand is at its highest. The term fast fashion is also used generically to describe the products of the fast fashion business model.[1]

In short, fast fashion is a pointedly limited subset of the modern clothing industry. To revisit what I said before, the elimination of that subset would likely not meaningfully impact the availability or accessibility (including price) of clothes in general. It's fairly certainly the most wasteful subset of the modern clothing industry, on top of other problems like how much in the way of cheap but toxic dyes are used for fast fashion specifically and end up polluting our water. We'd fairly certainly be better off with that subset shrinking or vanishing. As for the how? That's obviously a more fraught issue, given poorly regulated capitalism's sway and appeal. Better regulation, especially of the referenced toxic dyes, would be great and all, but such would naturally require international cooperation to deal with most effectively.

 

[macdoc]

Which is true, but 'fast fashion' is only one contributor among many

Fashion is 10% of global emissions - fast fashion is a big contributor to that monstrous fact.
By comparison airlines are 2%.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Fashion is 10% of global emissions - fast fashion is a big contributor to that monstrous fact.
By comparison airlines are 2%.

First off, the 10% figure is disputable.

Secondly, according to the NOAA, aviation is responsible for 3.5% climate change. However it gets worse. According to the EESI, by 2050 commercial aircraft emissions could triple given the projected growth of passenger air travel and freight.

Finally I have to say that use of the word 'monstrous' is itself monstrous. The fact is that fast fashion contributes considerably less than 10% of global emissions, which means that well over 90% is produced by other sources. Singling out one minor contributor for vilification because you don't think poor people should be allowed to have some 'fashion' in their lives is quite monstrous.

There are many ways that fashion could reduce its (small) contribution to global warming. There are not many ways that aviation can do it. I doubt we will see any significant reduction in aircraft emissions in the next decade. More likely it will increase.

 

[macdoc]

No one said fast fashion was 10% so that is wrong...not a good way to start.

Okay air travel is 3.5% does not change the nature of the monster that is fast fashion...it is very akin to single use plastics but harder to ban.

Yes it will be difficult but far from impossible to decarbon air travel but it is a work very much in progress......I don't hear much about curbing fast fashion.

You keep diminishing its role ....oh fashion is ONLY 10% ....
You a purveyor of fashion goods perhaps?

There are many ways that aviation IS NOW reducing its carbon footprint and for the future.
A Boeing Dreamliner has a lower carbon footprint per km per passenger than a Prius with four people aboard and since the start of mass aviation with the 747

The 747-400 uses 10 tons of fuel per hour. The 787 uses five tons per hour.

This electric airliner is in certification.

Electric Planes Are Taking Flight
More airlines are ordering battery-powered aircraft to help reduce their environmental impact

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/electric-planes-are-taking-flight-180980821/

Book your seat for SAS's first all-electric flight
Electrek
https://electrek.co › 2023/05/31 › book-your-seat-for-...
norway books first electric aircraft from electrek.co
31/05/2023 — SAS is inviting travelers to join them as they make history with the first electric commercial flight in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark,

and even using ICE engines new designs are coming with longer ranges and less fuel consumption.

Boeing to build braced-wing airliner, shooting for 30% efficiency gain
By Loz Blain

January 30, 2023

and there are dozens of companies vying for the airtaxi and helicopter replacement roles.

You are simply off base on your thesis both by diminishing the impact of fashion/fast fashion and overstating the difficulty of the aviation industry to change.

Here's some ideas on curbing FF
https://www.unsustainablemagazine.com/why-and-how-to-stop-fast-fashion/

 

[Olmstead]

First off, the 10% figure is disputable.

Secondly, according to the NOAA, aviation is responsible for 3.5% climate change. However it gets worse. According to the EESI, by 2050 commercial aircraft emissions could triple given the projected growth of passenger air travel and freight.

Finally I have to say that use of the word 'monstrous' is itself monstrous. The fact is that fast fashion contributes considerably less than 10% of global emissions, which means that well over 90% is produced by other sources. Singling out one minor contributor for vilification because you don't think poor people should be allowed to have some 'fashion' in their lives is quite monstrous.

There are many ways that fashion could reduce its (small) contribution to global warming. There are not many ways that aviation can do it. I doubt we will see any significant reduction in aircraft emissions in the next decade. More likely it will increase.

How about a compromise where employers aren't allowed to discriminate against someone that is dressed in rags? I feel like that would solve a bunch of problems.

 

[macdoc]

Fast fashion is not about employment dress. Everyone needs durable well styled clothes depending on their employ and budget.
Not wear once and toss clothes for the club scene.
Now if we see printed recyclable fashion clothes for wear once ...then problem solved.

I spend little on clothes but considerable on motorcycle gear. One of my jackets is going on 40 years old and still very useable - in some ways better than current.

 

[novaphile]

Fast fashion is not about employment dress. Everyone needs durable well styled clothes depending on their employ and budget.
Not wear once and toss clothes for the club scene.
Now if we see printed recyclable fashion clothes for wear once ...then problem solved.

I spend little on clothes but considerable on motorcycle gear. One of my jackets is going on 40 years old and still very useable - in some ways better than current.

My rain jacket (Goretex) and warm jacket (Polarfleece) were both bought more than 20 years ago.

Someone once complained that I always look like I've just stepped out of a tent.
I took it as a compliment.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

How about a compromise where employers aren't allowed to discriminate against someone that is dressed in rags? I feel like that would solve a bunch of problems.

Having been the object of an attempted dismissal for refusing to wear a fashion item (that was not specified in the dress code, and prohibited on site for safety reasons) I agree. All I can say is,