I appreciate that Roger brings up several alternatives to the current fashion fashion status quo, but I'm particularly interested to read him mention bespoke. Inkeeping with his 'fashion waves' argument, I have witnessed several waves of bespoke/demi-couture/call it what you will, in the seven years I've worked in fashion.

In 1990, there were lots of articles about how Roland Mouret, Boudicca and Jessica Ogden offered their faithful clients a 'demi-couture' service and much was made of Hedi Slimane's 'secret' under-the-counter bespoke range for women. Kilgour, too, I am told make bespoke suits for women.

In each case, much was made of the 'quality' angle and the benefits of something fitting your body and only yours is obvious. But my question is how to make this appeal to a generation sold on the idea of bargain fashion? In Britain, where people are mostly embarrassed to express an interest in the way they dress, never admit to liking 'frivolous' fashion, if someone is complimented on a garment they are wearing, they are most likely to blurt out that it is either old or was cheap.

How to convert this psychology to that of our continental counterparts who might see more sense in paying 2-3K GBP for a hand-tailored outfit?

I'm not sure I buy the 'we need to consume less' argument.

The decision to buy less luxury items pales to utter insignificance compared to gas engine cars, which contribute an estimated 2/3 of greenhouse-gas emissions, and the massive growth of China and India. (why aren't people DEMANDING electric, zero-emission cars? If Joe Lunchpail can build one in his garage it can't be hard? Rhetorical question, I know. The American government, Canadian government, Big Oil and the Car manufacturers can answer that one) Aren't these the real challenges?

Simply deciding to 'consume less' - it seems naive to think this is going to make any difference in reversing global warming. Maybe even a distraction from the major macro-scale systems that have the biggest impact.

Also, that's an astute point Penny Martin made above - if you spend a large sum on perceived 'luxury' items that you can expect to be durable enough to last a lifetime, maybe even a few generations - isn't that the truly eco choice? But the same people who would be the most earnest about making 'conscious' purchases would probably have a knee-jerk dismissal of the idea.

Reminds me also of American Apparel. They are probably one of the most 'progressive' major manufacturers going, but I don't really see Green-types embracing them. I'm guessing American Apparel's sexual advertising doesn't fit with the Green self-image, even though there's no logical reason for it not to, if you think about it.

God...this feels like a homework assignment Penny!

I don't think the fashion system will do a 180 U-turn in another direction. A lot of factories will not produce unless you have a large order, and all the growth in China and India is largely because all the manufacturers moved their factories from the west to the east; all the raw materials that are being used everyday-this is not just in fashion production, think the magazine industry, all the fashion magazines, all the papers, the dyes, and magazines are worse because their shelf lives are much shorter, all the energy that goes into making an ad in a magazine, or an editorial story, and once it's printed, people will look at it for the most 20 seconds, then it's pretty much discarded. It's really difficult to change the system, so many people's jobs are depending on it.