We’ve Got a Serious Used Clothing Problem

The fashion industry has, for decades, relied on the sale and repurposing of used and recycled clothing to stem an otherwise unreconcilable waste cycle. But according to a recent Bloomberg story, that system is “breaking down” due to the unmitigated rise of fast fashion and consumers’ ravenous consumption habits.

“In a virtuous and profitable cycle a global network of traders would collect [used] garments, grade them, and transport them around the world to be recycled, worn again, or turned into rags and stuffing,” the story notes.

But, because new (terrible) clothes are now essentially as cheap as used ones, “poor countries are turning their backs on the secondhand trade.” While that shift in focus might seem to be fairly harmless, it’s really not. “Without significant changes in the way that clothes are made and marketed,” the story says, “this could add up to an environmental disaster.”

“Already, the textile industry accounts for more greenhouse-gas emissions than all international flights and maritime shipping combined; as recycling markets break down, its contribution could soar.”

But unlike other industry-related quagmires, there’s actually an incentive within the industry to address the problem, according to the story. “By raising temperatures and intensifying droughts, climate change could substantially reduce cotton yields and thus make garment production less predictable and far more expensive. Industry executives are clearly concerned.”

The bad news, however, is that no concrete solutions have been devised just yet, and though Patagonia and H&M are “experimenting with new fibers made from recycled material” — which could help, but in a band-aid-on-a-wound-that-needs-stitches-kind-of way — more and more mills that used to spin unwanted clothing into recycled materials are pivoting to new, pollutant-heavy products to meet consumer demand.

To really impact change, the story posits, ”the industry will have to try to refocus consumers on durability and quality — and charge accordingly.”

You can read more about it at Bloomberg.

[image via]