Discussions about the fashion industry thread

[conceptual 4est]

Sustainable style: How fashion can afford and accelerate decarbonization

Translating fashion’s decarbonization commitments into action has proved difficult. A new McKinsey analysis outlines what the industry can do to reach its targets.

www.mckinsey.com

“About two-thirds of brands, (fashion brands and retailers with revenue above $1 billion that are included in the Carbon Disclosure Project) according to a new McKinsey analysis, are behind on their own decarbonization schedules, and 40 percent have seen their emissions output increase since making their sustainability commitments.”

“Our research shows that most fashion brands could reduce their GHG emissions by more than 60 percent for less than 1 to 2 percent of their revenues. (This excludes levers related to reselling, renting, and repairing fashion, which would reduce a brand’s emissions intensity significantly but also be dependent on consumer behavior shifts.)”

 

[LA Guy]

Sustainable style: How fashion can afford and accelerate decarbonization

Translating fashion’s decarbonization commitments into action has proved difficult. A new McKinsey analysis outlines what the industry can do to reach its targets.

www.mckinsey.com

“About two-thirds of brands, (fashion brands and retailers with revenue above $1 billion that are included in the Carbon Disclosure Project) according to a new McKinsey analysis, are behind on their own decarbonization schedules, and 40 percent have seen their emissions output increase since making their sustainability commitments.”

“Our research shows that most fashion brands could reduce their GHG emissions by more than 60 percent for less than 1 to 2 percent of their revenues. (This excludes levers related to reselling, renting, and repairing fashion, which would reduce a brand’s emissions intensity significantly but also be dependent on consumer behavior shifts.

The faster tne rate of production and consumption, the higher the consumption of energy, and the greater the greenhouse gas production, because, aside from nuclear, all of our energy comes from the sun, and so our use of energy always, always, disrupts natural cycles. When we were fewer and our technology crappier, we just had less of an effect overall. The idea that greater efficiency leads to lower energy use also seems to be a fallacy. If anything, we simply consume other resources faster. Look at the supercomputer in your hand. In a few years, it's destined for a landfill, and with it, rare earths, precious metals, and whatever else we need to build complicated computers but that are too expensive to recycle.

The only "realistic" solutions we could implement in the immediate and short term would result in not just greater inequality but greater actual poverty everywhere, so that's not acceptable either. So that leaves us doing what we can, which is making dire but realistic predictions on a forum. Have a great day everyone lol.

 

[Fuuma]

The faster tne rate of production and consumption, the higher the consumption of energy, and the greater the greenhouse gas production, because, aside from nuclear, all of our energy comes from the sun, and so our use of energy always, always, disrupts natural cycles. When we were fewer and our technology crappier, we just had less of an effect overall. The idea that greater efficiency leads to lower energy use also seems to be a fallacy. If anything, we simply consume other resources faster. Look at the supercomputer in your hand. In a few years, it's destined for a landfill, and with it, rare earths, precious metals, and whatever else we need to build complicated computers but that are too expensive to recycle.

The only "realistic" solutions we could implement in the immediate and short term would result in not just greater inequality but greater actual poverty everywhere, so that's not acceptable either. So that leaves us doing what we can, which is making dire but realistic predictions on a forum. Have a great day everyone lol.

Well considering we're reached peak oil (putting aside hard of access resources like oil sands) quite a few yrs ago we're going to transition anyway, we either do it with some preparation or not...
Of course as you say we aren't so much using more renewables as using more of everything, expanding our energy and mineral use.

 

[K. Nights]

Well considering we're reached peak oil (putting aside hard of access resources like oil sands) quite a few yrs ago we're going to transition anyway, we either do it with some preparation or not...
Of course as you say we aren't so much using more renewables as using more of everything, expanding our energy and mineral use.

Pretty sure we've not reached peak oil yet, either in demand or production.

 

[Fuuma]

Pretty sure we've not reached peak oil yet, either in demand or production.

I haven't checked any sources so working from memory (and only for conventional!) but considering that national production tend to follow (with a delay) a peak in discoveries many of the big producers have passed the peak in discoveries quite a long time ago. Of course the real reserves are unknown for various reasons (secrecy, false declarations and of course undiscovered reserves). Ok found a pop explanation by someone I'd trust (to gather the info, he's not a a geologist). It is 10 yrs old btw and he doesn't focus enough on ease of extraction being a barrier but in the end you see interesting graphs separating the two. YMMV

When does the world oil production peak? – Jean-Marc Jancovici

As for demand well you know, thermo-industrial civilisation is fucked and if we go on, the Germans will produce better wines than France and Italy :'( (in additions to all the deaths)

 

[double00]

if a commodity has not peaked in supply it has not peaked . coal , oil , etc .

perversely peak supply is also in all likelihood peak profit . make of that what you will .

 

[Fuuma]

if a commodity has not peaked in supply it has not peaked . coal , oil , etc .

perversely peak supply is also in all likelihood peak profit . make of that what you will .

Is this resources pomo? I have no idea what you just said.

 

[double00]

Is this resources pomo? I have no idea what you just said.

do you know anything about microeconomics ? I mean is that a word that you understand

 

[Lofi_Moby]

The faster tne rate of production and consumption, the higher the consumption of energy, and the greater the greenhouse gas production, because, aside from nuclear, all of our energy comes from the sun, and so our use of energy always, always, disrupts natural cycles. When we were fewer and our technology crappier, we just had less of an effect overall. The idea that greater efficiency leads to lower energy use also seems to be a fallacy. If anything, we simply consume other resources faster. Look at the supercomputer in your hand. In a few years, it's destined for a landfill, and with it, rare earths, precious metals, and whatever else we need to build complicated computers but that are too expensive to recycle.

The only "realistic" solutions we could implement in the immediate and short term would result in not just greater inequality but greater actual poverty everywhere, so that's not acceptable either. So that leaves us doing what we can, which is making dire but realistic predictions on a forum. Have a great day everyone lol.

I think the focus should be less on reducing energy consumption and more on the materials used. Synthetic fibers are causing a microplastic catastrophe. Scientist found microplastics in the tissue of penguins in antartica to give an idea of the scope of the problem. Organic material biodegrade. Yea they have their issues but still, they compost

 

[LA Guy]

I think the focus should be less on reducing energy consumption and more on the materials used. Synthetic fibers are causing a microplastic catastrophe. Scientist found microplastics in the tissue of penguins in antartica to give an idea of the scope of the problem. Organic material biodegrade. Yea they have their issues but still, they compost

It's part of the same overall issue, which is that our global economy is based on growth, and growth is always resource consuming, Having been in this space (environmental engineering and sciences, and to lesser extent, environmental ethics) since 1997, I can nearly say for certain that I have never seen increased efficiency resulting in fewer resources used. And it's not because we could not design things that way either.

 

[conceptual 4est]

The endless growth will continue until morale improves!

 

[conceptual 4est]

https://archive.is/LeHVU

"The Japanese team went so far as to create a streetwear brand with its own website and custom-designed products. They called it Not So Ape, saying it was founded in Tokyo in 2017 and “inspired by the street style we see everyday.”

Not So Ape’s English-language site’s terms of service says it is operated by Big River and lists a Seattle contact address of “2300 7th Ave, Ste B100, Back Entrance”—a building adjacent to a main Amazon campus.
"

lol

 

[sftiger]

https://archive.is/LeHVU

"The Japanese team went so far as to create a streetwear brand with its own website and custom-designed products. They called it Not So Ape, saying it was founded in Tokyo in 2017 and “inspired by the street style we see everyday.”

Not So Ape’s English-language site’s terms of service says it is operated by Big River and lists a Seattle contact address of “2300 7th Ave, Ste B100, Back Entrance”—a building adjacent to a main Amazon campus.
"

lol

The whole article is worth a read - fascinating.

 

[Keyser_Söze]

The faster tne rate of production and consumption, the higher the consumption of energy, and the greater the greenhouse gas production, because, aside from nuclear, all of our energy comes from the sun, and so our use of energy always, always, disrupts natural cycles. When we were fewer and our technology crappier, we just had less of an effect overall. The idea that greater efficiency leads to lower energy use also seems to be a fallacy. If anything, we simply consume other resources faster. Look at the supercomputer in your hand. In a few years, it's destined for a landfill, and with it, rare earths, precious metals, and whatever else we need to build complicated computers but that are too expensive to recycle.

The only "realistic" solutions we could implement in the immediate and short term would result in not just greater inequality but greater actual poverty everywhere, so that's not acceptable either. So that leaves us doing what we can, which is making dire but realistic predictions on a forum. Have a great day everyone lol.

Until western capitalism changes and a CEO doesn't have the fiduciary duty to squeeze every penny of profit for the board members and stock holders that 1-2% mentioned in the article isn't going to change.

 

[Fuuma]

do you know anything about microeconomics ? I mean is that a word that you understand

I really don't see why you'd bring the topic of tiny male g3nitals into this conversation.