The Solution To Climate Change Is Government Control Of Fashion

10
838

There seems to be more than a small gap in the understanding of what it’s all about here. The latest concern is that fast fashion is destroying the planet. Therefore – well, therefore something very stupid indeed. We’ve this for example:

A cross-party report has found that people today buy and discard clothes faster than ever, and it means we get rid of more than 1m tonnes of clothes a year, with £140m worth going to landfill every year. The implications of this are so bad that there have been recent claims that the fashion industry can be listed alongside the oil industry as one of the five most polluting industries in the world.

The major implication of this is that far too many people are idiots. As we’ve already remarked elsewhere:

That’s from Mary Creagh and the correct response is “To whom?” Those clothes being landfilled are worth £140 million to whom that is. They’re not worth £140 million to those who threw them away because they’ve just thrown them away – a fairly clear valuation of zero. They’re not worth £140 million to anyone else either as if they were then people would be collecting the clothes so as to gain that value. Outside government circles £140 million is still more than small change after all.

The £140 million valuation is drivel. But Dear God this gets worse:

Consumer attitudes need to shift. But the change needs to be led by brands that are constantly producing fast fashion and persuading shoppers to buy it. There needs to be more government pressure on fast fashion brands, and rigorous checks, to ensure they have no choice but to slow down their production. Only then will the term “fast fashion” begin to hold the same associations as “plastic bags” – and consumption will gradually decrease, with sustainable alternatives quickly becoming the more fashionable choice.

But Comrade, who could possibly need more than one pair of black pyjamas? And do note this drivel is being proposed within living memory of entire countries actually being run that way.

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
9 Comment authors
ShadeburstMattJonathan HarstonPatliterate3 Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Matthew Tee
Guest
Matthew Tee

How else to they expect third world countries like Bangladesh to become more prosperous? Oh yes, the overseas aid budget.

Q46
Guest
Q46

Talking about a solution to climate change is like talking about a solution to gravity.

This is what happens when you shut down the lunatic asylums.

If we are to ‘stop’ climate change – leaving aside how – in what perfect state shall we bring it to rest?

starfish
Guest
starfish

932AD

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

They don’t want to get rid of Harvey Nicks, it is Primark that is the problem. A friend is in the industry. She buys in Bangla Desh for ‘large retail concerns’ in the UK. Apart from the troubles of dealing with Bangladeshi factory owners as a female, she has condotions imposed by the retailers. Like the washing water used in the factory, is it filtered, is it recycled and so on. The factory owners can spend the money to fix it, lose the contract or lie about the concern. Guess what they do. As for the workers, they have jobs… Read more »

literate3
Guest
literate3

The solution that they want is rationing – no-one may buy more than n units (note small n not big N) units of clothing per year. Only they don’t phrase like this until they have conned enough people into swallowing their nonsense. Wouldn’t worry me – I buy clothes to last (and it might stop my wife throwing out my old and comfortable clothes), but I should enjoy watching the faces of all these teenage girls striking for climate change when they were told that they were not allowed to buy any new, or even any second-hand, clothes. Going back… Read more »

Pat
Guest
Pat

I assume the valuation was done by adding up the purchase prices when the clothes were new.
Using that method we flush an enormous value of food down the loo every day.

Shadeburst
Guest
Shadeburst

LOL! (That’s a big lol in case you didn’t know.)

Jonathan Harston
Guest
Jonathan Harston

Clothes cheap enough so the plebs can afford to buy them and throw them away? Disguisting! How very dare they! One state provided pair of kecks per year, that’ll do you.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Exactly. Sumptuary laws where your clothing coupons are included with your subscription to the Guardian.

Shadeburst
Guest
Shadeburst

Value of clothes gone to landfill £140m. Population of GB 65m. Value per person £2.16 or roughly one pair of underpants. That is absolutely shocking and heads should roll. I’m surprised that Tim didn’t mention this because his back of a cigarette box test usually works very well.