The negative effects of Fashion

As fashion continues to change and clothing becomes more affordable, the negative environmental impacts of this epidemic grows. Harmful pesticides, pollution, animal endangerment, non-biodegradable fibers,  and unhealthy working conditions are just a few dangerous aspects that the fashion industry has accumulated. Fashion Sustainability has suggested some solutions to these issues that I believe could catch on and in the long run, help save our planet. Sustainable production could be pursued by making new goods from renewable material, produce only organic cotton or fibers that do not contain harsh chemicals, and only allow animal skins/fur from the meat industry. If harmful chemicals are banned from t textiles productions, unhealthy working conditions will no longer be a problem. Sweat shops should be banned all together and should remain illegal. The disposal of garments should be pursued in terms of recycling, refurbishing, and biodegradability. Caring for a garment should be performed with little resources.
The Ecosystem Assessment correlates with Fashion Sustainability in the fact that both articles show how the ecosystems are dwindling due to the abundant amount of resources that are being abused. Flows of nitrogen in terrestrial ecosystems have doubled, and flows of phosphorous have tripled. More than half of all the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer, which was first manufactured in 1913, ever used on the planet, half has been used since 1985. This shows that as ready to wear apparel availability grows, harmful waste is being produced along with it. Ecosystem Assessment suggests effective responses for specific sectors. For agriculture, removal of production subsidies that have adverse economic, social and environmental effects. Investment in agricultural science and technology that can sustain the increase of food supply without harmful tradeoffs involving excessive use of water, nutrients and pesticides.
The Fashion Sustainability article suggests many valuable eco friendly changes that could potentially change the way consumers go about buying, caring, and disposing of their garments. This resource gives a narrow spectrum of how these changes should be made and does not go into what the costs may be when making such restrictively narrow changes. Ecosystem Assessment provides a much broader view on how the environment could be positively changed and gives an explanation on how these changes will affect the cost of goods and how that could possibly turn negative.

Give back more than you take

A New Green History of the World by Clive Ponting, is the story of Easter Island, which is a prime example of the dependence of human communities on their environment and the devastating consequences of not giving back what they take from the environment. The first polynesian settlers came sometime in the fifth century and discovered quickly that the island contained a scarce amount of resources. The people were restricted to a small diet of sweet potatoes and chicken due to the climate which left them with an abundant amount of free time. Closely related households formed clans with a chief leader to distribute food and form activities and each had its own place for religious practices. The society became one the the most advanced and complex community in Polynesian history. As the population of humans grew, the lack of resources dwindled. Trees were cut down for agriculture purposes, fuel for heating and cooking, shelter construction, building canoes and for transporting elaborate stone statues across the island for religious clan purposes. As the trees disappeared, underground homes were having to be made, canoes were no longer available, and the crop growing soil became eroded and lacked nutrients. Clans began fighting over the reason for the lack of resources which led to a war break out. Lacking in protein, people resorted to cannibalism which led to extinction. 


Planet Earth as a whole, faces similar problems as did the people of Easter Island, however we are now capable of reversing the  damage humans have done. The Earth is slowly eliminating resources needed to survive due to unnecessary societal demands. People on Earth have no escape after resources run out like the people of Easter Island. For the luxury of living  frivolously, humans are polluting the atmosphere/oceans and deforesting, which both then lead to animal extinction, soil erosion, contaminated water, all of which are vital means of survival. I believe we are able to reverse this epidemic if everyone on Earth gives back to their ecosystem more than they take from it. According to The Millennium Ecosystem Panel, the changes that have been made in the ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains for the well being of humans and economic development. The achievements have been made only through the sacrifice of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risk of non linear change and increase of poverty. Unless these problems are addressed, they will substantially diminish the benefits that these ecosystems obtain for future generations. 


According to www.ourcivilisation.com, air pollution has been falling in modern industrialized countries for the last 40 years, and it has been falling precisely because of economic growth and improvements in technology. Even in Los Angeles, which has the worst smog in the United States, air pollution levels have fallen by about half in the last 25 year and that is at a time when the area's population has doubled and its economy has tripled. I believe that this is a great counterargument to global warming, however I also believe that the statement shows that there was a problem but advanced technology has helped reverse potential harmful pollution.