Things are heating up in the U.S., with 2018 being the 4th hottest year on record. Natural disasters in the U.S. alone the past year cost the country nearly $91 billion dollars, and as temperature globally increases, it’s almost guaranteed that the volatility of these natural disasters will become more and more reoccurring, bringing on more droughts, more floods, and more hurricanes.
Countless groups and agencies have published reports demonising our global GHG emissions, the rate of animal extinction, and our eating habits. The results have lead to some countries proving much-needed leadership in regards to environmental consideration and adaptation. The U.S., amongst all of this, seems to be impressively absent amidst the global conversation, and mostly a mess in terms of internal action.
The bombardment of pictures, tweets, video clips, and news headlines seems overwhelming—how can anyone not understand that there is a dire need for the U.S. to focus on climate change? According to a Yale University study, a majority of Americans don’t believe that climate change will harm them directly. This confusion can be attributed to a lack of true understanding of what climate change is, as well as not comprehending that it will affect human health.
Though commonly agreed on by politicians within a variety of countries, at fault for this lack of general knowledge is the current political administration in the United States, and their refusal to acknowledge the catastrophic future of climate change.
The age of Trump has seen many losses within the realm of environmentalism, which has made the administration infamous amongst other nations. Setting the tone at the start of his presidency, the Trump administration pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement. Since, the Trump administration has taken on many disheartening actions, like dropping climate change from the list of national security threats, and attempting to scrap the clean power plan policy put in place by the Obama administration. Trump has made his stance on the matter clear, confusing many citizens about the urgency of climate action.
Luckily, it is evident that many people are very unhappy with the U.S.’s current strides towards a greener world. As a result, we’ve seen an uprising of random pockets of environmental concern. Short-sighted solutions for long-term environmental issues seem to be developing in the little wiggle room available without governmental backing and funds. Mitigative solutions such as releasing hundreds of goats to clear dead bush in California as they prepare for another potentially devastating summer of fires splash across headlines. Beyond Meat’s IPO has demonstrated consumers’ desire to promote healthier and more conscious eating standards. The no-straw movement has lead to the demonisation of what used to be a common tool used day-to-day. These strings of actions, though important, are unfortunately not the most urgent action needed in today’s world to truly tackle a reduction in emissions, and certainly not what you would expect from a powerhouse country.
As the country struggles to navigate through the confusion, anxiety, and realness of climate change, the most obvious lack of understanding can be directly linked to the lack of political unity concerning the matter. Policies like the Green New Deal, or others that would reduce emissions and create substantive long-term committed change for the country are lacking during the most crucial of times. Each region of the U.S. will undeniably be affected differently as temperatures continue to rise. The question of how impactful these effects will be, how costly, and how deadly are all related to how the administration chooses to act now. So please Donald, do something quick.
Last month, British MPs rejected plans for a 1p per garment fashion tax albeit our climate crisis. At the same time, a Missguided £1 bikini appeared on the market—something that should be beyond concerning for everyone. The U.K. has the highest consumption of fast fashion in the whole of Europe, with over a million tonnes of clothing ending up in landfills each year. So how much power do we as consumers really have when it comes to sustainability and why is this discussion still going on?
The swimsuit sold out promptly, with 1,000 bikinis dropping everyday on the brand’s website, which further raises the question of how it is possible to produce and retail an entire set for just £1, free delivery included. Missguided presented an official statement claiming the production cost was of a higher value to the retail cost, and that the bikini was a “gift” to their customers, in the name of “empowering women to look and feel good without breaking the bank”. Interestingly enough, 78 percent of the brand’s employees are female, yet, they are a 46 percent median wage gap between men and women. The brand ‘excuses’ itself on its website by claiming that this is due to “having more women than men” in lower paid positions, and fewer in higher ones. The lower paid positions include the factory ones, where workers often make as little as £3.50 an hour—contrasting with the U.K.’s minimum wage of £7.83 for over 25s.
Despite being one of the U.K.’s leading retail brands, according to the statistics conducted by the House of Commons, Missguided is also the least environmentally friendly, rejecting the use of recycled or organic materials in their products, clearly avoiding the Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) programme as well as the sustainable clothing action plan. The government has the most power when it comes to regulating fast fashion, and yet, British MPs have rejected numerous regulations on the industry.
Many of these dismissals include the 1p per item tax to raise £35 million for clothing collection and sorting, the ban on incinerating or landfilling unsold stock, and even making a law requiring brands to publically release a modern slavery statement. In addition to this, the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has also urged to put lessons on designing, creating and repairing clothing into the school curriculum, as a means to end the era of ‘disposable clothing’ as well as for the MPs to explore a ‘sharing’ economy in which hiring and swapping would replace purchasing. The failure to implement these rules and regulations results in the continuation of unsustainable, disposable mass production, which ultimately affects the environmental crisis even further.
Marketing alone has so much power in influencing what the consumer chooses to buy, and fast fashion brands know this. The infamous swimsuit was advertised by last year’s Love Island contestant Ellie Brown, and being the official fashion sponsor of Love Island 2018, Missguided saw a 40 percent increase in sales. This year, another fast fashion brand, I Saw It First, secured a spot as the show’s official fashion partner, spending around £2 million on the partnership. With over 4.2 million viewers of Love Island’s first episode alone (57 percent appear to be 16-34 years old) the show has the ability to reach a huge number of potential consumers, and yet, it still decides to go for unethical brands.
Similarly, Emily Ratajkowski has recently launched a collection with Boohoo owned Nasty Gal, a brand known to be criticised for their mistreatment of workers while Kylie Jenner advertises for knock-off brand Fashion Nova via her Instagram with over 139.5 million followers. Celebrities and influencers make a conscious choice to promote these brands and in an age where Instagram seems to dictate all new trends, the choices they make allow us to feel a sense of relatability that we, too, can afford to dress like one of the Jenners. Although there is nothing wrong with that idea, influencers should also make a deliberate choice to promote more sustainable alternatives to their followers.
While it is the consumer who creates a demand for fast fashion, it’s unfair to entirely blame the consumer for the harmful environmental impacts or unethical working conditions of the industry. Of course, it’s true that spending £1 on a bikini could seem immensely appealing, but it is important to consider not only the impact this product will have on our planet, but also how the people who made it are affected by such low prices.
Affordable clothing is not only appealing but is essential too, and we consumers can help so much by simply buying less, shopping vintage or seeking other sustainable alternatives. Until the government or the brands alone begin regulating their carbon footprint, perhaps those with a platform should consider twice before encouraging impulse buying. Just putting it out there. In addition, Missguided has now changed the price of the bikini from £1 to £5—a feeble attempt at clearing their conscience or is selling a swimsuit for a literal pound not making enough profit? Either way, nice try.