Agree totally with the analysis of the problems posed here, but not the answer. Governments are going to tell us what clothes to wear or how to wash them? Things will only change when customer demand shifts to sustainable products and suppliers offer attractive alternatives - in both cases because they want to. It can happen but not overnight.
Blog Comments
All your replies and responses to SHOWstudio Blog articles here
At London College of Fashion's ethical fashion debate last night, a panel of five, chaired by Clothes Show alum Caryn Franklin, weighed in on the dire impact of ‘fast fashion’ and pondered why celebrities weren’t doing enough to promote sustainable clothing.
The real concern festering through the debate, however, was that ethical fashion might just be another blip on shoppers’ wish lists. ‘Green’ or ‘ethical’ clothing seems to be enjoying a bit of a renaissance at the moment, galvanised by copious column inches in the papers about global warming. Logic would follow that if sustainable products have the same retail lifecycle as the latest it-bag, we might have ditched the fairtrade cotton by next season and opted instead for all the less eco-friendly options – seduced no doubt by the slew of techno fabrics coming out of Milan this A/W.
The question as to what constitutes ‘ethical’ in fabric production turns out to be much more elusive than you would anticipate anyway. The circuitous nature of clothing production, from how cotton is grown and harvested, to which chemicals are used in the dyeing, to what temperature the care labels tell you to stick it in the wash at – leave you with an altogether wooly process with its own set of hidden variables. Without any official guidelines to shed light on what should be deemed ecologically acceptable, the whole issue is only enshrouded by a sore lack of classification.
Perhaps the bottom line is that fashion, as it exists today culturally, is a precipitously tricky arena in which to swing an argument about eco-ethics. The very mechanics of the industry are currently predicated on a rapidly-renewing consumer drive that relies heavily on the allure of novelty to keep its fires stoked. What kind of significant change can really be effected then without the intervention of government-led industrial regulation? That a few people might be making hemp undies in their back garden is great, but unless the bigwigs are onto it, it’s a mere drop in an ever-augmenting landfill.
But, as you point out, the most environmentally damage of fashion is that things date. The problem isn't just one of fashion, but exists across all forms of consumerism ... whether it's the drive to upgrade your mobile phone to a model which is more svelte in your pocket, or buy your trousers in this seasons colour and cut. Changing materials, dropping environmentally unsound practice is a cop out to the issue that people are being driven to buy more - eco-friendly, organically produced or not.
"Where there is a will there is a way"....to simplistic ?...think twice ...when your house suddenly burns down...people...always say... " my precious possessions, my family heirlooms, my expensive designers clothes, my jewellery, my favourite shoes ...my memories...all gone ....! but thanks God we still alive !....'...suddenly what really matters in life in such devastating moment seems 1000% more clear.....the point ?....so far we still have the luxury to debate...and to accommodate....that is while we have the LUXURY of having PLENTY of time on our side ...the TIME to find the right and just solutions to a burning QUESTION....
Details ....all details....when you think hard and long about it.....