But do consumers really know what these terms mean? With growing pressures from consumers and governments to meet sustainability goals, many companies have resorted to “greenwashing” to maintain customer support without investing in meaningful, impactful solutions.

What is Greenwashing?

According to the United Nations, greenwashing is defined as “misleading the public to believe that a company or other entity is doing more to protect the environment than it is.” This may involve making vague, misleading, or irrelevant claims, or in certain cases presenting completely false information about a brand’s sustainability performance. The practice of greenwashing has become far more common than consumers may realize, with a reported 53% of green claims being vague, misleading, or unfounded.

Greenwashing in the Fashion Industry

Greenwashing is prevalent in the fashion industry, a sector known to adversely affect the environment across its supply chain. With the growth in global demand for fast fashion, brands have adopted business models that incentivize overproduction of garments, intensive resource use, and environmental pollution. 

As consumers have become increasingly aware of these problems, they have demanded greater transparency and sustainability from fashion companies. However, instead of making necessary changes that address the environment, many brands turn to greenwashing to maintain customer support. An analysis by Truth in Advertising found that over the past decade, 9% of class action lawsuits against greenwashing have involved the clothing and textile industry.

Shein: EvoluShein or Exploitation?

Shein, the largest fast fashion brand in the United States and the largest online-only fast fashion retailer in the world, has been the subject of numerous greenwashing accusations. In April of 2022, Shein released their “EvoluShein” campaign. The brand touted its use of “green” and “recyclable” materials and claimed to support a circular economy. However, Shein faced a 1.16 million dollar fine from the Italian Competition Authority in August of 2025 as these claims were found to be misleading and overstated. This followed a 40 million euro fine just a month earlier by France’s competition regulation authority.

Additionally, critics have argued that Shein emphasizes insignificant or mandated sustainability improvements rather than addressing their business model and supply chain as a whole. A Yale Climate Connections article from 2024 notes Shein’s rapid garment production, with as many as 10,000 new designs being released every day. Their production goals are reportedly upheld through exploitative labor practices, environmental pollution, and a massive carbon footprint. Despite pledging to reduce emissions by 25% by 2030, Shein’s emissions doubled from 2022 to 2023 and rose 23.1% in 2024.

Zara: New Initiatives, Same Industry

Zara, a pioneer of the fast fashion industry, has also been criticized for greenwashing. In 2015, the brand began rolling out its “Join Life” labels, a sustainability initiative launched by its parent company, Inditex. These labels were ultimately removed from its products in 2023, as they were deemed “no longer necessary.” The product line was advertised for its use of “eco-friendly” materials, such as organic cotton, recycled polyester, and lyocell (wood pulp). Though select items may be made from more sustainable materials, like Shein, Zara is built upon an inherently unsustainable fast fashion business model.

In 2022, Zara introduced a “Pre-Owned” campaign, which claims to streamline clothing resale and repair. However, these types of programs only address the end of the life cycle, allowing the company to continue overproducing clothing. It also places responsibility on the consumer to initiate environmental solutions rather than addressing the corporation’s role in creating the problem in the first place.

H&M: Conscious Claims Under Criticism

Swedish fast fashion retailer H&M faced similar accusations surrounding its “Conscious Collection”. First launched in 2010, H&M’s Conscious collection advertised its use of materials like cotton, linen, recycled polyester, and lyocell. They have also released multiple limited “Conscious Exclusive” collections focused on innovating sustainable textile technology.

However, the brand phased out its Conscious marketing following a 2022 lawsuit and investigation surrounding the accuracy of their claims. A report published by Quartz found that H&M used environmental scorecards containing overstated and, in many cases, completely false claims about the brand’s sustainability. 

H&M has also implemented a clothing circularity program under the slogan “Let’s Close the Loop.” The garment collection service was introduced in 2013, and sorts returned clothing to be sold, reused, or recycled. Yet in 2023, an investigation by the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet found that some items brought to H&M to be recycled were ultimately lost or sold to third-party recycling companies. Instead of “closing the loop” as advertised, the garments traveled thousands of miles from where they started, contributing to the textile waste crises in Europe and the Global South. Even if the program worked as intended, like Zara, these solutions require consumers to address the clothing waste problem and do not sufficiently offset the massive scale of H&M’s manufacturing. 

What Needs to Change?

Overall, brands must increase their transparency in marketing campaigns to allow consumers to make informed decisions about their purchases. Some legislation is in place to regulate environmental claims, such as the “Green Guides” enforced by the US Federal Trade Commission, which are undergoing revisions for the first time since 2012. The UK Competition and Markets Authority has similar regulations in place through its “Green Claims Code”, and the EU has adopted the “Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition” directive. 

These policies provide a legal framework for ensuring that environmental claims are truthful, clear, and comprehensive. However, enforcing anti-greenwashing legislation remains difficult due to varying rules across states and countries, limited resources for monitoring, and a lack of consumer education. Enforcing legislation through consistent criteria and careful monitoring is key to keeping consumers informed and advancing meaningful sustainability initiatives.

How to Recognize Greenwashing

Though brands and corporations should be held accountable for honest marketing and reducing the environmental effects of manufacturing, consumers can also make an impact by learning what greenwashing “red flags” to look out for. Greenwashing has been broken down by COSH into “Seven Deadly Sins,” building on the “Six Sins” identified by TerraChoice in 2007 and the framework’s subsequent development into seven sins, as described by UL Solutions. These common tactics include:

• Vague terminology: using broad or undefined terms, such as “eco-friendly” and “all-natural”
• Hidden tradeoff: claiming sustainability based on a particular aspect of a product, to the exclusion of other significantly detrimental environmental impacts
• No proof: not providing evidence for a sustainability claim
• Irrelevance: emphasizing an environmental claim that is either irrelevant or legally required
• The lesser of two evils: comparing a product favorably to competitors while ignoring the environmental harm associated with the overall industry or product category
• Greenwashing by unsubstantiated affiliation: falsely implying third-party endorsements or certifications
• Fibbing: making false or deceptive environmental claims

In addition to pressuring brands for transparency, shoppers should do their own research to verify sustainability claims. Resources such as Good on You, B Corp, the FTC’s Green Guides, and the Ecolabel Index can be useful for assessing brand sustainability, ethics, and marketing accuracy. 

Check out EARTHDAY.ORG’s Fashion for the Earth campaign to learn what else you can do to combat environmental challenges caused by the fashion industry.

The post Greenwashing Fashion: How Brands Sell Sustainability appeared first on Earth Day.

Over 11 million tons of clothing and footwear end up in landfills or incinerators in the United States alone every year. While people are making efforts to switch to more sustainable methods of shopping, such as thrifting and buying fewer clothes, these methods do little to attack the root cause. 

It is estimated that between 100 and 150 billion articles of clothing are produced each year, polluting air and water, damaging the earth’s ecosystems, and harming all living things that rely on the earth’s increasingly finite resources. Materials like polyester and clothing dyes shed microfibers and toxins that enter and disrupt ecosystems, while clothing packaging is discarded and sent to landfills where it doesn’t biodegrade. Even though it may seem convenient and economical for consumers, the fast-fashion model of clothing production is creating irreversible damage to the climate. The fashion industry needs to change, but voluntary efforts from fashion companies have not resulted in progress.

However, despite the growing issue of fast fashion there are many recent innovations that could help shift the industry towards a more sustainable future. Companies using natural resources and unique processes to produce planet-friendly clothing and packaging offer hope for change to a destructive industry.

Alternative Materials

Global fiber production is projected to grow to 146 million metric tons by 2030. One innovation that could change the game for sustainable clothing production is the creation of eco-friendly, biodegradable alternatives.

Mango Materials, a bioenergy startup that produces biodegradable plastics, creates fiber grade pellets that offer a biodegradable alternative to petroleum-based polyester. The process involves converting methane gas into a naturally occurring biopolymer. To do this, ancient bacteria convert methane gas into PHA, which acts as a base polymer that has many applications, including creating a groundbreaking and cost-effective alternative to polyester fabric. Mango Materials’ process can replace the synthetic materials used in athletic wear and shoes, which produce greenhouse gas emissions when created as well as contribute to microplastic pollution. 

Another company innovating the fabric materials market is Ecovative. Ecovative creates plastics and textiles from lab-grown mycelium, or fungus roots. The company works with tanneries to convert the materials into leather alternatives. The process is ocean-safe and generates compostable leather with 50% lower carbon dioxide emissions than traditional leather. They also partner with Reformation, a company that sells sustainable clothing. 

Creating and promoting eco-friendly fabrics over unsustainable, synthetic clothing could help put an end to one part of the fast-fashion crisis. If more fashion brands elect to switch to these fabric alternatives, companies like Mango Materials and Ecovative will gain traction and eventually become the widespread choice for clothing materials.

Eco and Human-Safe Dyes

Brightly colored clothes are eye-catching and fun, but the chemical dyes used to produce vibrant colors are dangerous to both the environment and human health. In addition to using and polluting large amounts of water in their production, 60-70% of all fabric dyes are carcinogenic. While this is an alarming statistic, there are several safe dyes entering the market in an effort to reduce the industry’s environmental and health impacts. 

Denim is a staple in many wardrobes, but the well-known indigo hue contains synthetic chemicals and harms ecosystems by darkening the color of river water and polluting it with toxins. However, the good news is that CleanKORE provides a solution. The company uses a patented technology that coats fibers in dye rather than soaking them through. This significantly reduces the amount of water and chemicals used in the dying process without requiring manufacturers to purchase new chemicals or equipment, making it incredibly cost-effective. 

Another trailblazing start-up that is making fabric dye safer for the environment is Ever Dye. Ever Dye is a zero-waste dying process that uses biobased pigments and a simple mechanical filter that releases clean water into the ecosystem, all while using less water, heat, and time. When companies like Ever Dye pair with large clothing manufacturers, the dying process becomes less harmful for us and the earth. 

Packaging with a Purpose

With almost every article of clothing shipped to our homes, more plastic waste is generated and ends up in landfills. Packaging may be overlooked when considering the environmental impact of the fashion industry, but using sustainable packaging is just as important as using eco-friendly materials. Fortunately, there are solutions.

For example, Sway is turning abundantly growing natural materials into plastic bags.  Sway’s 100% compostable Polybags are high-quality clothing bags made from seaweed polymers and printed with ink derived from algae. The innovative packaging meets industry and supply chain standards while promoting healthier ecosystems. 

In addition to Sway, Greenhope is also making a biodegradable plastic bag alternative. Made from locally sourced starches, Greenhope packaging is compostable in home and industrial settings and can break down in just 12 weeks, whereas regular plastics take anywhere from 10 to hundreds of years to decompose. Also, instead of leaving toxic microplastics in the environment, Greenhope bags have been proven to promote plant growth by adding nutrients to the soil when they biodegrade. 

Conclusion

From fiber to finish, there are many innovations that could revolutionize the fashion industry and move it towards an eco-friendly future. Pioneers in fashion are finding ways to reduce the environmental impact of fibers and dyes and develop packaging methods that can promote healthy plant growth and soil when they decompose. 

If companies continue adopting biodegradable, water friendly, and plastic-free alternatives to clothing materials, the industry could begin to reach the goal of sustainability and reverse its never-ending exploitation of earth’s resources and damage to the environment. Do your part by looking for brands that partner with sustainable innovators and by buying clothes made of low-impact materials, and the Green makeover can begin. 

Sign our FASHION MUST CHANGE PETITION to advocate for a more sustainable fashion future! 

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is also cleared for use. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Eco-Innovations Reshaping the Clothing Market appeared first on Earth Day.

In 2024 sweeping legislation aimed at regulating fashion was passed in the European Parliament. It included the landmark Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), with the important requirement that brands trace their supply chains all the way back to their raw material sources. But on February 26, 2025 under pressure from some member states, the United States and businesses a new “Omnibus Proposal” was introduced that would curtail the CSDDD. If passed, brands will only need to identify their direct customers, meaning their Tier 1 cut and sew factories.

There is no better illustration, however, of why the CSDDD was passed in the first place than the current controversy over Brazilian cotton and the certification scheme known as “Better Cotton”.  It is precisely the need to know whether a fashion brand’s upstream supply chain – where almost all the environmental damage occurs – is contributing to the environmental or social destruction.

Fashion regulations are new. Until very recently, brands have never been required by law to perform due diligence when it comes to their supply chains – the factories that process their materials or the source of their raw materials. Brands have opted, in order to make sustainability claims, signed onto certification schemes that they hope will do the job for them. One such certification scheme is Better Cotton (BC). 

Founded to create a more sustainable cotton industry, Better Cotton claims to train cotton farmers in responsible practices like reducing pesticide use, reducing water use, promoting ethical labor conditions, and producing healthier yields for farmers. Unlike organic cotton, which adheres to strict guidelines and avoids synthetic chemicals, Better Cotton allows the use of genetically modified seeds and synthetic pesticides—raising questions about just how “better” it really is. The program has gained widespread industry support, with major retailers relying on its certification to market “sustainable” collections to conscious consumers.  

The BC platform works with registered companies that include ginners, yarn producers, garment manufacturers and retailers. It certifies farms and tracks large volumes of cotton from its country of origin as it moves through a supply chain. Each farm gets a code to identify their source, but hundreds of small farmers can be lumped into 1 code making it impossible to trace cotton to the farms beyond the ginners who collect it.  At the ginning stage, Better Cotton theoretically can be mixed with cotton from conventional farms and so the scheme has a verification problem.

Cotton Farming in the Cerrado

In recent years, efforts to protect the Amazon have displaced agriculture to Brazil’s Cerrado, a vital ecological region in the eastern part of the country. The Cerrado, a vast area stretching 1.2 million square miles, is a tropical area of grasslands, forests, and savannas. It is a major carbon sink and water basin. It is the world’s most biodiverse savannas – home to 5% of the world’s species, including unique wildlife like the maned wolf, jaguar, giant anteater, and giant armadillo. However, the region is under immense strain from industrial agriculture, including cotton production linked to Better Cotton’s certification program. 

Nearly half of the Cerrado’s native vegetation has already been lost, and clearing the land for agriculture risks the extinction of over one-fifth of the region’s wildlife, and generates 230 million metric tons of carbon per year—equivalent to the annual emissions of 50 million cars. 

The Cerrado is called “the underground forest because so much of the biomass is found in long thick roots that funnel water down to aquifers and store impressive amounts of carbon”, according to a Grist investigation into investments in agribusinesses that produce soy in the Cerrado. Cotton is grown half the year in rotation with soy.

According to the report, indigenous groups can lay claim to land in the Cerrado but lack deeds, and land-grabbing by large agribusiness companies is common. Businesses seeking to claim land will hire armed men to intimidate the residents or run them off. The land is cleared of trees and vegetation and seeded for crops. Eventually, they gain formal ownership through legal maneuvers. Much of the biome’s last remaining tracks of native Cerrado vegetation are in Matopiba, a region that includes the state of Bahia, the country’s last agricultural frontier.

In recent years, Brazil’s domestic cotton has expanded enormously – so much so, that the country now competes with the United States as the largest exporter of cotton in the world. Bahia State is the 2^nd largest cotton producer in Brazil.  Farmers have been spurred on due to the higher returns on cotton than other crops. In fact, in 2023/24, Brazil’s cotton exports surpassed that of the U.S. making it the largest global exporter in that year.

According to Better Cotton, in the 2023/2024 cotton season, the 440 farms that they certify produced more than three million metric tons of cotton and represent more than 83% of Brazil’s total cotton production.

But in that same year, according IBAMA, the federal agency under the Ministry of the Environment charged with oversight, monitoring and controlling natural resources in Bahia, there was a 43.7% increase in this area under alert for deforestation compared to the previous year and the infraction notices issued by IBAMA for crimes against flora in the biome increased by 45% compared to the average for the same period in the previous four years.   

Agribusinesses in Brazil

Large agribusinesses in the Cerrado have been responsible for deforestation and crimes against local populations.  SLC Agricola and the Horita Group are the two largest agribusinesses in the region of Bahia. Both SLC Agricola and the Horita Group have repeatedly faced accusations of illegal deforestation, land grabbing and corruption scandals. 

Now a new report from the NGO Earthsight, Fashion Crimes, has revealed that the cotton production grown on farms that are part of large estates owned by these agribusiness has been certified by Better Cotton.

Earthsight’s report traced the raw cotton from SLC and Horita to eight clothing manufacturers in Asia that supply garments of finished cotton goods to numerous well known Western retailers including millions of items to H&M and Zara.

Better Cotton responded to the exposé by launching an audit of their own that showed only three farms in the area were actually certified by Better Cotton and stressed that they only assess farming practices and not how the land was acquired, or the companies that own or operate them. It admitted, however, that it “knew SLC Agrícola and Horita’s farms had been fined for environmental infractions before it certified them”.  Earthlight countered that the 3 farms audited by BC excluded those where they found wrongdoing, and that none were in the area where the major case studies in their report took place with the worst violations.

In 2023, Better Cotton’s 2030 Strategy “Better Cotton Traceability” states that BC can trace their cotton back to the “country of origin”, but has “ambitions to trace back to farms” in the future.

What is the Answer?

Legislation being passed in the E.U, the U.S. and other countries around the world is the only way to effectively address the fashion industry’s social and environmental harms.  

The most important regulations require transparency and accountability. The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) passed in 2023 could be the most effective legislation to directly address the destruction of places such as the Cerrado. It covers commodities like cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber soy and wood and their derived products. It demands products be deforestation-free, and companies carry out due diligence in order verify the origin and production methods of the materials used in their products – an important shift in the burden of proof, particularly given the vast grey areas surrounding legality in certain places, including Bahia.

Unfortunately…the EUDR does not currently cover cotton in its scope. Adding cotton would mean brands would have to trace their cotton to farms, and without due diligence, face fines that could amount to 4% of a company’s annual EU turnover. The other shortcoming is that the EUDR covers “forests” and the Cerrado is a “savannah”, but there are calls to include “other wooded land”. 

What we can do

Consumers can educate themselves with credible, fact-based sources. The Transformers Foundation, for example, provides an insightful case study on cotton production, offering a deeper look into the complexities of the industry. By staying informed and questioning corporate narratives, consumers can push for real transparency and hold brands accountable for their promises.  

Secondly, Fashion for the Earth has published a Fashion Legislation Report. It brings together all of the recent regulations around the world aimed at the industry. Consumers can write to their lawmakers to demand that those laws that have been proposed, but not yet passed, be adopted. 

Earthsight’s report, Fashion Crimes, has highlighted the need for brands to conduct “rigorous supply chain due diligence”, for policymakers to ensure that their laws are vigorously enforced, and that we, the consumer, continue to educate ourselves and be vigilant.

The post Certifying Cotton from the Cerrado appeared first on Earth Day.

If you’ve opened the news lately, you’ve probably seen the word tariff more times than your own reflection. Tariffs on this, tariffs on that — suddenly, trade policy is the main character. And while it might sound like background noise for economists, these not-so-glamorous headlines are quietly creeping into your closet.

Yes, tariffs are hitting fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu. But they’re also squeezing the very brands trying to make fashion better — the sustainable ones. And if you care about what you wear and how it’s made, this trade war might matter more than you think.

So, what even is a tariff? 

In short, it’s a tax on imported goods. When a country imposes tariffs, it makes it more expensive to bring certain products in from abroad — usually in the name of protecting domestic industries. Lately, the US has been cracking down on low-cost imports from China, including a push to close the “de minimis” loophole that lets ultra-cheap goods like Shein hauls and Temu gadgets slip in tariff-free. The result? A shake-up across the fashion industry that’s creating some unexpected winners, plenty of losers, and a few truly ugly consequences.

Let’s break it down. 

The Good

These tariffs could achieve something that no sustainability professional has been able to deliver: slow down rampant, senseless consumption. Ultra-fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu rely on lightning-fast, low-cost supply chains to flood the US market with microtrends and $4 t-shirts. If tariffs raise import costs and slow shipping times, this business model starts to crack. 

While this is a good thing, it is important to note: these policies were not designed with climate change or labor rights in mind. However, they may inadvertently help pump the brakes on overproduction, textile waste, and carbon emissions by making it harder for these companies to churn out cheap clothes at breakneck speed. If fast fashion stops being fast and cheap — the very factors that make it so appealing — consumers might pull back. These tariffs aren’t the solution to fast fashion, but they might be a speed bump.

In the fashion world, buying less is the most sustainable thing you can do. The second best? Buying second-hand. Economic strain and higher prices pushes consumers toward thrifting, clothing swaps, and rental fashion as a budget friendly, eco-conscious alternative. We saw this in the 2008 recession: about two thirds of US second-hand stores surveyed by the National Association of Resale & Thrift Shops said that their sales increased in 2009.

We are seeing this pattern again. Money is getting tighter, and people are getting thriftier — literally. According to ThredUp’s 2025 Resale Report, 59% of consumers (and 66% of younger generations) say that if new government policies around tariffs and trade make apparel more expensive, “they will seek more affordable options like second-hand.” 

The Bad

The bad news: tariffs don’t care how good your intentions are. While fast fashion giants might get tripped up, the brands actually trying to do the right thing will likely face the steepest uphill battle. Sustainable fashion companies, which already operate on tighter margins due to ethical sourcing, fair wages, and lower production volumes, are especially vulnerable. 

Unlike ultra-fast fashion brands that can absorb price hikes by cutting corners elsewhere, small and mid-sized sustainable labels don’t have that kind of cushion. They rely on carefully sourced materials, smaller batch production, artisanal skills, and slower, more transparent supply chains — all things that cost more to begin with. Adding hefty tariffs to the equation forces many of these brands into a lose-lose situation: either raise prices and risk alienating customers, or eat the costs and threaten their own survival. 

Tariffs also don’t distinguish between a $2 polyester shirt made in a factory with poor labor standards and a $150 organic cotton dress made by artisans earning living wages. It’s a one-size-fits-all penalty that ignores the nuances of better fashion business models. In the end, brands pushing for positive change could get squeezed the hardest.

The Ugly

When costs rise and margins tighten, someone always pays — and it’s usually not the CEO. In the global fashion supply chain, that “someone” is often a garment worker. Tariffs raise costs for brands, but instead of cutting into profits or trimming energy use, many companies will look to maintain margins by pressuring their suppliers to lower production costs. This often results in factory owners — who operate on slim margins — reducing wages, speeding up production, or shifting manufacturing to countries with weaker labor protections to meet the lower price demands.

Jason Judd, executive director of ILR’s Global Labor Institute, explained the impact of tariffs on apparel workers and the fashion industry. He uses Sri Lanka as an example, a country that already has a dangerously low minimum wage for garment workers: “More downward pressure on wages after several years of very high inflation will mean — for workers who hold onto their jobs — hungry children and desperate families. The predicament for those who lose their jobs will be worse.” Manufacturers will almost always bargain working conditions and wages to maintain their margins, especially in countries where labor unionizing is suppressed. 

History shows garment workers nearly always face the burden in the wake of a crisis. We saw how brutal the trade-off was during the COVID-19 pandemic, when dozens of global brands canceled billions of dollars in orders — many after garments had already been made. They left factories unpaid and workers without wages, severance, or safety nets. Brands prioritized their bottom lines over basic human dignity, and millions of garment workers paid the price. 

Tariffs could trigger a similar chain reaction — one where costs rise, compassion disappears, and the most vulnerable people in the supply chain are forced to carry the weight.

In the End

If you’re tired of hearing about tariffs, you’re not alone. But the chaos they’ve created reveals just how fragile and unfair our system really is. Tariffs have stirred the pot, and in the simmer, we can see the cracks: a system that punishes good actors, shields the worst, and sacrifices workers when the math doesn’t add up. 

Sure, fast fashion might slow — for a moment. Second-hand might surge — for a season. But sustainable brands are strained, and workers are once again footing the bill. Tariffs aren’t going to fix the fashion industry, and they certainly aren’t going to save the planet. However, they remind us why fashion needs changing in the first place. 

You can contribute to meaningful change by supporting Earthday’s Fashion for the Earth Campaign, where we strive to educate consumers on sustainable fashion practices. Check out our How To Shop Sustainably Toolkit and learn how you can make an impact with your shopping choices by signing the Fashion Industry Must Change petition.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at davies@earthday.org or fielder@earthday.org.Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post Tariffs are Hurting the Wrong Fashion Brands appeared first on Earth Day.

“I posted a photo on my Instagram of me wearing a shirt I just bought. I will wear it again but not if we’re taking photos — I can’t be seen wearing it in a post twice!” 

This is a common conversation I have had many, many times with my fellow Gen Z friends. It’s a reflection of how Gen Z has gotten caught up in today’s unrelenting fast fashion cycle of social media hype. With influencers constantly encouraging us to shop for the newest trends and latest fads —  that they are often promoting.

Hooked on all this constant messaging, young people feel as if they must keep up with every fast fashion cycle or trend or risk not being cool, or relevant, or they develop FOMO, the fear of missing out.

Green vs Mean

Meanwhile we know that 70% of young adults claim to be concerned about climate change and 90% say they have changed their daily habits as a result. 50% claim to care about the ethical and sustainable sourcing of products. But realistically, have they really changed their consumption habits? 

Gen Z are young, 12 to 27-years-old, and they often claim they can’t afford more sustainable fashion, which is nearly always more expensive. Why? Because it uses natural materials, like cotton and linen that cost more, and to make sustainable fashion – there are higher production costs.

But perhaps Gen Z would shop more sustainably if they were able to properly measure the true cost of their purchases. Which brings us to Girl Math. Could this be a potentially new and more honest way to judge the real cost of our clothes?

How Girl Math Works

Let’s be clear, Girl Math is a new, satirical term that was popularized on TikTok and is used to describe the way girls justify their spending habits. Women jokingly use girl math to “save” money but ultimately justify buying more all while poking fun at themselves in the process.

For example, using girl math logic, buying anything on sale is actually saving money, cash isn’t real money so spending it doesn’t count at all, if there is a buy-one-get-one free, we have to buy because not utilizing this sort of offer is actually “losing” money.

Always use “free shipping” offers that kick in over a certain spend – for example, if your online total is $65 but you can get free shipping when you spend $100, you will spend $35 more to get that free shipping instead of paying $8.99 for shipping.

Plus, anything bought with a preloaded account or in advance is technically free. So, if you order a handbag on preorder before it is even available, that’s free. Because by the time it’s arrived you will have forgotten you paid for it. Finally, anything under $5 is also free.

Clearly Girl Math is Wrong!  

Girl Math rationalizes nonsense and unnecessary shopping and often downright excessive spending and reinforces the culture of consumerism — the same culture that is perpetuated by various social media platforms such as TikTok.

To be sustainable with our fashion choices we need to get real value out of the clothes we wear – we need them to be well-made, long-lasting and not faddy. Typically, clothing in the US is thrown away after only being worn 7-10 times. Discarded fast fashion either gets thrown directly into the trash or is “donated.” Of all the clothing items donated to charitable stores, only 10-30% are actually purchased before around 85% of those clothes end up in landfills alongside all the other clothes sent straight there! On top of this, the volume of clothing production has doubled in the last 15 years.

Real Price Per Wear

One way of using Girl Math for the good is to change the formula it uses to determine the “true” cost and use it to break down the value of the clothes we are paying for by calculating the true cost per wear.

To do this, take the price of an item divided by the number of times you have worn it or the number of times you plan on wearing it. If it costs $25 and is only worn once, the price per wear is $25. Conversely, a dress that costs significantly more but is worn many times is much less expensive. You might end up with a cost per wear of just a few dollars. 

Again, Gen Z claims to value sustainability, but not the ability to afford it. However, if they purchased clothing based on how many times they were likely to be worn — instead of cheaper items used briefly and disposed of — they would save money and own more durable, timeless pieces. It might become part of the cultural shift we need to think about our clothes differently and act. So, start calculating!

The post Girl Math: Breaking Down Price Per Wear appeared first on Earth Day.

If you regularly consume product advertisements or shopper news, you have most likely come across the word “sustainability.” Consequently, depending on your news intake, you also may have come across the word “greenwashing” and seen brands you know and love be accused of it. If you’re not sure what these terms mean or how they’re relevant to consumers — here’s a guide!

What is greenwashing? 

Greenwashing happens when products or practices are falsely advertised as environmentally friendly or “green.” Companies may invest money in making themselves seem green without actually making their products more sustainable. When this happens, consumers may think they’re making an environmentally conscious choice when they are, in fact, being deceived.

Concern for the environment is on the rise, and greenwashing allows producers to adapt accordingly without facing setbacks in the market. Consumers are willing to pay more to live a more sustainable lifestyle, which renders them targets for unethical advertising tactics. Companies use deceitful advertising to make their products seem eco-friendly in order to make more money and build up their brand’s public image.

How It Works: Firstly, Guilt

Perhaps the earliest and most famous greenwashing example that had nationwide impact and disseminated the phenomenon of consumer guilt was The Crying Indian TV advertisement, which aired on Earth Day, 1971.

A man who appears to be Native American features in this advert, shedding a tear about pollution and waste caused by irresponsible public littering. Accomplished American author Ginger Strand said that this ad, paid for by Keep America Beautiful (KAB), struck “greenwash gold.” The organization’s name doesn’t exactly scream “industry friendly,” but in reality, KAB is backed by the soda and beer industries, which are the single-use plastic producers responsible for the same litter being cried over in the commercial. 

Strand wrote that the ad shifted the Indigenous person’s weariness of littering from a rejection of consumerism to a rebuke of individual laziness. In other words, the ad placed environmental responsibility on consumers instead of producers, causing a radical shift in the course of environmentalism. This transfer of blame was as effective as it was because it created a sense of guilt and shame for the audience, motivating them to take individual action instead of holding corporations accountable for polluting the environment.

Overall, the Crying Indian ad was perceived as pro-environment, despite advancing a counterproductive and outright deceptive agenda. This encapsulates the core theme of greenwashing, which has evolved since the 70s —  it is constantly reforming and reshaping to fit the culture in which it operates, all while doing little if anything to achieve sustainable outcomes. 

Second: Cognitive Dissonance

One of the areas of consumerism that plays a critical role in contemporary culture is fast fashion. As more and more environmental and humanitarian injustices in the fast fashion industry have come to light, greenwashing has quickly adjusted to conserve the profits of the producers.

The uncovering of fast fashion practices — from how it treats its labor force to the damage it wreaks on the environment to the fact it’s largely made with plastic synthetic materials —  is hard to ignore, which creates discomfort among shoppers who still buy it. This embodies cognitive dissonance, which refers to psychological discomfort we experience when our beliefs or attitudes are not in harmony with our actions. So, if a shopper is aware of the tragedies of fast fashion, yet still chooses to buy the brands responsible for it, they will experience cognitive dissonance. 

To return customers to a state of comfort that keeps them buying fast fashion and even subsequently increases sales, sellers create faux “green” or “sustainable” clothing lines. 

However, brands typically don’t disclose what makes these clothes environmentally friendly and they do not actually alter their overall business model or practices. 

Take, for example, H&M. They launched their Conscious Collection — representing less than a quarter of the clothes they produced — as a “green” initiative on a small scale in 2010 and then expanded to their Spring 2019 collection. However, they didn’t provide adequate information about what made their line sustainable. 

After being called out by The Norwegian Consumer Authority for misleading and ambiguous claims regarding their Conscious Collection, H&M disclosed that Conscious clothing consists of at least 50% “sustainable materials.” They also set a company goal of using 100% sustainable materials by 2030. 

The “sustainable materials” claim, however, remains vague, especially considering that there is no industry standard for what makes a source or material “sustainable.” According to H&M, cotton and recycled polyester count as sustainable. Whereas cotton is a less problematic textile option, polyester – even when recycled – is still made from oil-based plastics, sheds plastic microfibers and does not biodegrade, thus accumulating in landfills. 

However, even if H&M reached its sustainable materials goal by 2030, its business model would still be unsustainable. Why? Because they produce 3 billion clothing garments per year. As if that weren’t enough, they also strive to double their sales by 2030. With an unsustainable fast fashion model such as this, any sustainability claims made ought to be called out as greenwashing.

Similar to the Crying Indian commercial, the fashion industry puts the environmental responsibility on the consumer rather than themselves. H&M is simply offering a “sustainable” option, rather than pursuing initiatives and practices that would make them a sustainable company. “Just look for the green hangtag!” the brand suggests. 

The difference between these two examples lies in how they make consumers feel — KAB makes consumers feel guilty about ‘their’ littering as if the littering is the root of the pollution problem, while H&M tries to make shoppers feel better about themselves to resolve their cognitive dissonance. Nonetheless, both approaches successfully greenwash, and neither outcome results in any impactful steps toward sustainability. 

Thirdly, Trust 

Ultimately, greenwashing is a combination of industry rejecting the idea of real corporate accountability when it comes to environmental responsibility, making misleading or false sustainability claims, and transferring the fault for negative environmental impacts to consumers. One concept that ensures the success of greenwashing is trust. 

Until a company has been proven untrustworthy or unethical, consumers might be inclined to assume the best of them. For instance, some producers simply make false environmental claims, yet consumers don’t have a reason to question whether these claims are deceitful.

Consumer trust is what allowed Volkswagen to sell 590,000 “clean diesel” vehicles that cost them $4.3 billion in criminal and civil penalties in 2017. VW marketed their vehicles as environmentally friendly, with impressively low emissions and a 90% reduction in nitrogen oxides — pollutants that threaten environmental and human health. In reality, they implemented a defeat device that cheated emission tests, while the cars released up to 4,000 percent more nitrogen oxides than legally permitted in the U.S. 

Not only did VW mislead consumers, but they broke U.S. emission laws and allowed dangerous amounts of pollutants into the air — all for the sake of seeming environmentally friendly. However, consumers did not have a reason to distrust the company’s environmental claims, so they purchased the cars, falling victim to greenwashing.

The Crying Indian Ad, H&M’s Conscious Collection and VW’s clean diesel vehicles all showcase different facets of this greenwashing phenomenon. Whether it is used to make the consumer take on responsibility for a problem they didn’t cause and cannot solve, persuading them to believe that an irrational idea is possible, or just cynically abusing a consumer’s trust in a brand — greenwashing is alive, well, and a growing issue. 

Next, we explore how to protect oneself from these tactics and distinguish trustworthy products and companies from the greenwashing type. Stay tuned. Stay green. Stay on alert!

The post Greenwashing: How Industries Lie to You appeared first on Earth Day.

Amid New York Fashion Week, we are excited to see big designer’s new seasonal looks on the runway. In recent years, Black fashion designers represented in New York Fashion Weeks have numbered less than 10% as was the case this year where only 6 out of the over 70 designers at New York Fashion’s Fall/Winter 2024 appeared on a runway show.  

In 2020, following George Floyd’s death, the CFDA (Council of Fashion Designers of America), responsible for organizing New York’s Fashion Week, recognized the need for increased diversity and inclusion. Historically lacking Black representation, the invitation-only CFDA initiated efforts to enhance inclusivity under the leadership of their former President, Casandra Diggs, and a Black Advisory Board was established to guide the organization’s diversity initiatives. 

The impact of these efforts became evident in 2022 when 25% of the 110 designers featured at New York Fashion Week were Black — a significant shift from previous years. While strides have been made, ongoing prioritization of Black designer representation remains crucial for sustained progress.

Amidst the celebration of Black History Month, it is essential to recognize the numerous talented black designers who captivate fashion enthusiasts. Beyond creating aesthetically pleasing garments, these designers are notable for considering the true costs associated with their work, including their impact on both the people involved in the production and the environmental implications, whether within the country or abroad.

Here we highlight seven designers who strive for equity within their communities as well as globally by implementing sustainable policies to lower their environmental impact. 

• Tracy Reese 

Tracy Reese launched Hope for Flowers in 2019, aiming to empower women and make a positive social impact. The brand stands on three pillars: Conscious Design, Community Art in Detroit, and Partnerships. Using digital printing with OEKO-TEX-certified inks, Reese ensures that prints for her clothes are free from harmful chemicals. The brand embraces on-demand and small-batch production with organic and eco-friendly materials. The brand also contributes to community education through The Hope for Flowers Art enrichment program and engages in sustainable partnerships with Naturalizer, NEST, and Pottery Barn.

• Studio 189

Co-founded by Rosario Dawson and Abrima Erwiah, Studio 189 is an artisan-produced fashion lifestyle brand. The brand supports community-led projects in both the USA and Africa. Emphasizing empowerment, job creation, and ethical and sustainable practices, Studio 189’s clothing is hand-made in various West African countries such as Ghana and Mali just to name a few. The brand employs ethical production methods like basket weaving, batiking, recycled glass breeding, and natural plant dye, favoring hand-made items over mass production. They also incorporate recycled fabrics, including pineapple pinatex leather and recycled cotton, using low-impact azo dyes.

• Brother Vellies

Designer Aurora James’s, Brother Vellies aims to preserve traditional African design practices while promoting sustainability. The brand employs vegetable-tanned leather, recycled tires for soling, hand-carved woods, and floral-dyed feathers. Besides upholding the value of fair materials, labor, and fair practices, Brother Vellies allocates one percent of each purchase to a non-profit. Customers can select from a list of nonprofits on their website.

• Chelsea Bravo

Inspired by indigenous philosophy, sacred texts, and art and rituals, Chelsea Bravo, a healing arts practitioner, seeks to reclaim her ancestry through her brand. Offering menswear, womenswear, and unisex styles, the brand features custom designs made from repurposed and reclaimed clothes and fabric. Incorporating hand painting and hand embroidery, Chelsea Bravo’s designs prioritize sustainability, using materials like hemp, linen, wool, and organic cotton.

• Autumn Adeigbo

Autumn Adeigbo focuses on investing in women, evident in her limited quantity purchases and made-to-order production approach. She contributes to a more sustainable fashion industry by minimizing fabric waste and excessive manufacturing. Adeigbo partners with female-owned production facilities throughout the United States, ensuring fair wages and employment. Her commitment extends globally with the launch of four fair-trade fashion production pilots in Africa.

• Taylor Jay

Designing with an emphasis on clothing durability, Taylor Jay prioritizes effortless fashion for all occasions. The brand embraces size inclusivity, aiming to instill confidence in all women. Ethically sourced from a fair-labor factory in Oakland, California, using eco-friendly textiles, upcycled threads, and non-toxic tints, Taylor Jay actively pursues green certifications to contribute to a cleaner environment.

• Gracemade

Featured by Jasmine Rennie, Gracemade is a place and means for women to find modest yet expressive clothing. Gracemade produces locally in Los Angeles, and not only does the brand use natural fibers such as linen and cotton.. The brand also incorporates deadstock material, leftover fabric from garment production that often gets wasted. They also resell their unused fabrics—Gracemade partners with Life Impact International and other organizations to give back to their global community. 

While supporting ethical, sustainable brands is an important step to supporting a better fashion industry, there is still more to be done. Our campaign Fashion for the Earth strives to educate and take action to create a more sustainable industry and to stop the mass production and consumption of clothing.

The post 7 Must-See Sustainable Black Designers Redefining Fashion appeared first on Earth Day.

Take a look in your closet. Chances are, most of your clothing is composed partially or even entirely of polyester. This synthetic fiber is the world’s most widely used material in clothing. 

Research on polyester began in the 1920s. Its main ingredient, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), was patented in 1941 and the legal rights to produce polyester were bought by the DuPont Chemicals company. The synthetic material was an attractive product because it was durable, lightweight, and water- and fire-resistant. It was also incredibly cheap. Blending polyester with natural fibers like cotton became the norm for garment production. 

Now, polyester and other synthetic fibers make up almost 70% of our clothing. But while this strong and versatile material has fostered new developments in fashion and made clothes more affordable for many people, there are plentiful downsides to polyester. 

The most obvious issue is polyester is directly derived from oil, a fossil fuel. But the fabric is also responsible for leaching toxic dyes and microfibers into the environment. Additionally, emissions from clothing factories contribute significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Polyester production has also resulted in human rights concerns for workers in developing nations, where most garment factories tend to be built. Let’s take a closer look at how polyester impacts the environment. 

The Devil is in the Details

Polyester is a fabric composed of various chemicals derived from petroleum. Ethylene and p-xylene are extracted from petroleum and mixed with dimethyl terephthalate to create the polymer polyethylene terephthalate, or PET. It is estimated 342 million barrels of oil are used for producing plastic-based fibers each year. At its core, polyester is a material derived from fossil fuels, making it incredibly unsustainable and harmful. 

Not only does polyester require fossil fuels in its direct production, but the factories where it is made contaminate the local air with pollutants and emit greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. It is estimated the fashion industry accounts for over 700 million tons of CO2 emissions each year. 

The Chinese textile industry, which exports the most textiles each year, released an estimated 18.5 billion tons of greenhouse gasses in 2020 primarily due to the fact their energy generation still relies primarily on fossil fuels like coal. The soot produced by coal lingers in the communities surrounding the plants and has been linked to cardiac and respiratory diseases in workers and residents alike. 

The process of dyeing polyester is just as detrimental to human health and the environment. 90% of clothes today are dyed synthetically. During this phase of production, an immense amount of water and chemicals are used to dye the clothes, and most factories have no way to properly dispose of this toxic concoction — it is simply discharged from the plant back into local waterways. Citizens living near these polluted bodies of water have reported higher rates of cancer. The health of workers is also at risk, as they are exposed to these dyes, chemicals, and heavy metals every day. 

At every stage in the process, from production to consumption to disposal, polyester clothing releases microfibers. When you wash polyester, thousands of tiny pieces of plastic are released, and without an adequate filter, these synthetic fibers enter laundry wastewater. From there they enter waterways, wreak havoc on aquatic organisms, and contaminate the environment with toxic chemicals. Polyester does not biodegrade, meaning it will stick around for hundreds of years and continue to shed microfibers. These microscope particles are also present in our bodies — studies have found PET in human blood, lungs, and hearts, as well as in umbilical cords, placentas, and breast milk. 

Who is buying polyester? 

The fashion industry is growing by 8.67% each year. China, the US, and the UK are the world’s biggest markets for fashion. Most of the garments are produced in China. In 2020, for example, over 43% of the world’s clothing exports came from China. By contrast, the US exported just over 3%. But the European Union, the UK, and the US imported almost 40% of clothing produced worldwide. 

Polyester is the most cost-effective fabric for fashion brands to use. It costs half as much per kilo as cotton. The cheap material along with the low wages of garment industry workers means companies continue to produce polyester clothing because it is most profitable to do so. 

One factor contributing to the growth of the fashion industry is the overall rise of the global middle class population with the disposable income to buy more clothing. Currently, lower and upper middle class individuals account for around 45% of the global population. This percentage is projected to jump to 57% by 2030. While the wealthy elite spend more per capita, the middle class spends the most overall, and spending on clothing in particular is projected to increase by 595.3 billion dollars by 2028 as more people have the funds to access the fashion market. 

Additionally, more people than ever are shopping online. The advent of fast fashion websites and apps promising quality garments at scandalously low prices are pushing the trend of clothing overconsumption. E-commerce exploded in 2020 and has continued to pull in around 20% of clothing sales per year. The allure of variety -– Shein alone boasts 300,000 new items each year — along with cheap prices makes online shopping attractive for the burgeoning middle class. 

Is polyester worse than other fabrics? 

Polyester is often portrayed as a more sustainable alternative to fabrics like cotton because it takes less water to produce and does not require pesticides. Global cotton production requires over 250 billion tons of water per year. Cotton can grow in arid climates, but is often planted in dry countries with scarce amounts of water where irrigating and diverting water for agriculture leads to excessive water use and drought. 

However, pointing just to water use ignores the pernicious implications of polyester — the leaching of chemicals and microfibers into water, the discharging of greenhouse gasses from factories, and the fact the material does not biodegrade which all combine to make polyester less sustainable overall than natural fibers like cotton. 

Even recycled polyester, which transforms plastic bottles into fabric, is not without its downsides. The fabric is still made from oil-based plastics capable of  releasing microfibers. And, the plastic bottles used to make polyester can also only be recycled one time; after that, the clothing still ends up in a landfill where it will sit for years. 

Without a doubt, polyester production is on the rise. In the next ten years, an estimated 92 million tons of polyester are going to be produced. The sheer volume of garments created by companies like Shein is simply unsustainable. The success of fast fashion brands in the internet age will only prompt more companies to enter the sector and contribute to this wasteful industry. 

We need to take a serious look at our consumption habits and question if we really need all of these clothes, especially those poor quality items which will be out of style before the current fashion season comes to an end. Our clothing conundrum is absurd — we are causing irreparable damage to our planet just to have a new garment to wear and throw away each week. We must pressure the fashion industry to make more sustainable choices. If you agree, take a look at our Fashion for the Earth campaign and sign the petition to force the industry to change their wasteful practices. 

The post The Devil Wears Polyester  appeared first on Earth Day.

SKIMS is a shapewear juggernaut. The brand was co-founded by Kim Kardashian in 2019 and like other celebrity led clothing brands has been incredibly successful, especially in the influencer age where creators are dedicated to buying the newest fashion and promoting them for their audience. 

As of 2023, the company is valued at $4 billion and projected to reach $750 million in annual sales. SKIMS has been praised for their body positive and inclusive products which come in a wide range of sizes. But her brand has also drawn the ire of those opposed to fast fashion for its lackluster commitment to sustainability. 

In recent years, as the average consumer becomes increasingly aware of the harms associated with poorly made and unethically sourced products, SKIMS, like many others in the fashion industry, has come under heightened scrutiny. And, in particular, the fashion industry is a significant contributor to plastic waste.

Most clothing items are made from petrochemical-based synthetic fabrics — in 2021 alone, 54% of fiber was made from polyester, and only 14.8% was recycled. The popularity of polyester and other petroleum-based fibers is a result of their inexpensive production costs, which ensures clothing companies can turn a considerable profit.

But these crude oil derivatives are a nonrenewable resource, and the production of plastics contributes to 4.5% of annual greenhouse gas emissions. These materials are also responsible for microplastics, which are stripped from the clothing in the washing machine and end up in water sources.

Textiles are responsible for 35% of microplastic pollution in the ocean. California has taken steps to limit microplastic pollution by introducing a bill that would require microfiber filtration systems in new washing machines. Consumption of synthetic fabrics does not exist without environmental consequences, even if the clothes claim to be sustainable or recyclable. 

SKIMS currently has 9 fabrics available in their line. Four of these are made mainly from cotton, but the remaining fabrics contain materials like spandex and nylon. For example, products made from the Cozy fabric are 21% nylon, and the Essential Bodysuit fabric contains 95% nylon. These synthetic materials are cheap and useful for their elasticity in shapewear garments. But they are also responsible for releasing tons of microfibers — which are known to have adverse environmental and human health impacts — throughout their lifecycle. 

Upon reaching out to the company, SKIMS stated that their products were sourced in Thailand, China, and Turkey, and produced in Thailand and China. Fast fashion companies have been accused of abusing garment workers in these countries by overworking and underpaying them. SKIMS’ website states that their workers are “ensured fair wages, safe environments and healthy working conditions.” 

Many garment factories are located in less developed countries where underpaid workers feel the most direct effects of fashion pollution. Chemical dyes contaminate groundwater, unsold clothes are piled up in landfills, and the industry as a whole threatens biodiversity. 

SKIMS uses misleading marketing to present the company as sustainable. Their claims in regards to packaging is an example of greenwashing. On the official SKIMS website, the company claims that they’ve “removed all plastic and non-recyclable materials” from the packaging and replaced them with biodegradable bags. The packaging itself reads “I am not plastic” and touts itself as “compostable,” promising that it will biodegrade at an industrial compost facility. 

However, closer inspection of these bags reveals a number 4 icon, which indicates that it is made from low-density polyethylene (LDPE). LDPE is a synthetic plastic that is very difficult to recycle. The company’s claim that the bags are not made of any plastic is misleading. 

SKIMS made $500 million in 2022 alone, so the company is more than able to invest in eco-friendly practices. The founders of SKIMS are incredibly wealthy — Kim Kardashian’s net worth is $1.7 billion, and co-founding couple Jens and Emma Grede are estimated to be worth at least $360 million — and have the resources to commit to sustainability. 

With their prominent presence and considerable influence in the fashion industry, SKIMS is uniquely positioned to spearhead the transition towards sustainable fashion practices. While this body-positive brand has already empowered individuals, its potential to inspire consumers towards a more sustainable future is immense.

Kim Kardashian has a hugely influential platform that she can use to call for the protection of our planet. Prioritizing sustainability is not just a financial consideration, but a moral necessity in an increasingly environmentally-conscious world. At EARTHDAY.ORG we are fighting for a more sustainable fashion industry. We believe that success in today’s fashion industry should focus on both creating beautiful clothing and fostering a beautiful world for future generations.

The post Exposing a Fast Fashion Wolf in Shapewear’s Clothing appeared first on Earth Day.

Countries around the world are experiencing more environmental issues each year as climate change presents new challenges and exacerbates familiar ones. However, the causes and effects of these problems are not equally distributed. The Global North — also known as post-industrial or developed countries — are more responsible for emissions and pollution. However the effects of consumption in industrialized nations are felt more directly by developing countries — also called the Global South — which often lack the funding or infrastructure to adequately handle environmental or human health problems. There are major disparities between these regions in the causes and effects of climate change and pollution. 

Post-industrial nations have disproportionately contributed to climate change

Climate change is affecting everyone across the planet, even though the culpability for rising global temperatures lies with countries contributing the most greenhouse gasses. The United States alone is responsible for 20% of historical CO2 emissions. Since the 1750s, developed nations have industrialized rapidly, and with new technology came increased carbon output. This disproportionate level of emissions has not dropped off in recent years; in 2021, these post-industrial nations were still responsible for over 7 billion metric tons of CO2 output. 

Although countries currently in the process of industrializing are beginning to emit more greenhouse gasses, the U.S. and Canada are emitting far more per capita. Some countries in industrializing regions argue that because developed nations have historically contributed more to emissions, they should bear the majority of the responsibility instead of condemning industrializing nations for their increased pollution levels. Developed countries are still falling short of their promises to fund climate solutions in the developing world. 

Plastic pollution is generated in developed countries and discarded in developing countries 

Plastic is ubiquitous in post-industrial nations — it is impossible to avoid it in our daily lives. In 2016, the U.S. and the EU generated 71 million metric tons of plastic waste. The per capita plastic waste generation of the U.S. alone was over six times that of India. Plastic waste from these countries — including materials deemed “recyclable” — are shipped and dumped in developing countries like Malaysia, which contributes 20 times less plastic waste than these wealthier nations. 

The plastic we use every day in developed countries has devastating impacts on the places where this garbage ends up. Most developing nations do not have adequate facilities to destroy the influx of plastic, forcing local workers to pile up the trash or incinerate it. This has considerable health impacts, as the garbage often contains toxins that can alter neurodevelopment, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

The fashion industry is booming in post-industrial nations at the expense of workers in the developing world 

Clothes are easier than ever to access at incredibly cheap prices. But these inexpensive goods are only available because the price is offloaded onto laborers in the Global South, who are often underpaid. Many clothing exporters are in developing countries where labor laws are less stringent, allowing the fashion industry to exploit their laborers. In places like Eastern Europe, India, and Bangladesh, workers earn far less than the legal minimum wage in these countries. 

Meanwhile, countries in the Global North import millions of dollars worth of clothing. Textile production is also incredibly harmful for the environment. Factories release high levels of harmful chemicals into bodies of water. Microplastics from synthetic clothes leech into the ocean. And poor quality, secondhand clothes are often exported back to developing countries, which are used as textile dumping grounds. Environmental and human health suffers greatly in developing countries where the textile industry continues to grow. 

Health impacts of pollution and climate change are felt more acutely in developing regions

Air pollution is one of the world’s most dangerous health risks — seven million deaths per year are attributed to the effects of poor air quality. Particulate matter in the air can contribute to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. But pollution is more harmful in industrializing countries — it is estimated over 1.4 billion people are exposed to levels of air pollution exceeding the World Health Organization guidelines, many of them residing in countries experiencing rapid population growth and industrial development. 

In addition to exacerbating existing social determinants of human health, climate change also poses new challenges for health in less developed regions. Communicable diseases are projected to increase in developing areas like China as a result of urbanization and changes to the climate. Urban sprawl in industrializing areas intensifies the effects of heat waves, causing excess mortality. It is estimated 100 million people will become impoverished as a result of climate change, further decreasing access to healthcare and healthy living conditions for already vulnerable populations. 

Extreme weather as a result of climate change will more directly affect developing nations

Extreme weather events — floods, heatwaves, droughts and storms — are occurring with relatively equal frequency in developing and developed nations. However, the lack of robust infrastructure in industrializing nations makes them more vulnerable and less resilient in the face of destructive weather. Climate change contributes to issues like water shortages, agricultural productivity, and rising sea levels — all of which destabilize developing countries. In 2022 alone, there were 81 weather, climate and water-related disasters in Asia, of which over 83% were flood and storm events. Heatwave duration and intensity has increased over parts of Africa. 

Natural disasters lead to mass displacement of “climate refugees” whose homes and livelihoods are altered or destroyed by these events. In 2019, the number of displacements as a result of environmental disasters was three times the amount of people displaced caused by conflict and violence. India, the Philippines, Bangladesh, and China saw the most displacements. But the poorest citizens can often not afford to migrate, leaving them essentially stranded in unsafe areas. 

Climate change is a global phenomenon, but it is important for us to remember that those who feel the most direct consequences are not necessarily the most responsible. Yet it is possible for everyone to take action — sign our global plastics petition today and encourage the United Nations to adopt a Global Plastic Treaty that would ban the export and incineration of plastic waste in industrializing countries. Educating ourselves on climate issues is a key part of saving our planet. For more information on how EARTHDAY.ORG is working towards a more sustainable future, visit our campaigns.

The post Plastics, Clothing, and Climate Injustice appeared first on Earth Day.