Author Archives: Christina Trupiano

Fast Fashion Brands Can Never be Sustainable By:Tina Trupiano

Fast Fashion is a term that describes cheaply made clothing manufactured at rapid rates by mass market retailers. It has become a growing problem negatively affecting our environment and the people who make our clothes. With the enormous growth of Fast Fashion, a counter movement has appeared that is promoting “Sustainable” Fashion in response to the increasing consumer awareness of where clothes are made and of what materials. Even though this is a positive and necessary shift in consciousness, there is confusion over what “sustainability” means within the Fashion Industry. 

This individual project will discuss whether Fast Fashion brands are hurting climate change initiatives by advertising sustainable clothing line offerings withing their product categories. This topic is important because there has been an increase in greenwashing among all product categories but specifically fashion brands as an attempt to drive consumer loyalty.

As a fashion industry professional working in the New York Garment District for the last decade, I have had the opportunity to work behind the scenes, predominantly working in design and production of women’s apparel. I have worked alongside domestic manufacturers and garment workers.  Seeing firsthand how fashion is made, I have experienced the many issues regarding sustainable and ethical practices. The fashion industry has large supply chains which leads to a lack of transparency on ethical and sustainability issues. I have become interested in this topic while working for fashion labels that portray environmental and ethical concerns outwardly either through company branding and marketing yet convey a different story internally and behind the scenes.

I begin my project with an introduction on what Fast Fashion is. Although this term has gained popularity, it is still not widely understood by all consumers. In Amanda Koontz Anthony and Ian Taplin’s article, “Sustaining the Retail Pilgrimage; Developments of Fast Fashion and Authentic Identities” historical changes leading to Fast Fashion are discussed as well as analyzes the way in which the consumer affects and is affected by this revolution in apparel manufacturing. Discussing the differences of pre- and post-1950 mass consumption, Anthony and Taplin show how consumer demands shifted during those times. The ability of manufacturers to produce goods at a faster rate in response to those demands are responsible for the Fast Fashion model.

Although I have worked for dozens of top designers and brands, I am not privy to information on corporate carbon footprints or a company’s sustainability initiatives, although this should be transparent, not just for consumers but employees as well. In order to find out more about what popular brands are promoting versus what they are actually doing to combat climate change, I looked to Guy Pearse’s book Greenwash: Big Brands and Carbon Scams. In this book Guy Pearse discusses the ‘climate-friendly’ revolution being advertised among many industries. “Almost every major global brand has embarked on a campaign designed to persuade us that it is cutting its carbon footprint. Thus marketing, rather than politics, seems a more relevant window onto the issue of climate change for most people.” Pearse compares the climate friendly campaigns and claims by leading brands and what they are doing with the carbon footprint to what they are selling. Although this book covers many industries, Pearse offers an entire chapter on Fashion where he looks at brands such as Levi’s, Diesel, Patagonia, Timberland and Zara to name a few. It’s a great in depth look offering real statistics that not only correlate with my argument that most climate change advertising is not actually effective on fighting climate change but offers additional insight on brands that actually are trying to make an impact.

In addition to big brands being dishonest about their carbon footprints, unethical labor practices in foreign as well as domestic factories are a huge issue. The collapse of the Rana Plaza Factory in Bangladesh brought global attention to the fashion industry’s ethical problem. The collapse of the Rana Plaza factory building outside Dhaka in Bangladesh is the deadliest disaster in garment industry history. Over 1,000 workers were killed in a preventable tragedy. The collapse of the Rana Plaza building has brought global attention to the working conditions of garment factory workers worldwide.

Positively, there has been a growing awareness amongst conscious consumers to question how the clothes they buy are affecting the environment, their bodies and the workers who make them. In response to this, brands are re-branding themselves as sustainable and environmentally concerned however, little of it is real or impactful.  Fast Fashion cannot be sustainable with the very business model which promotes waste and unethical labor with its excessive lead times and cheap prices. Even with the death of 1,000 garment factory workers in Bangladesh, fast fashion companies are thriving. Ironically, brands such as Levi’s, Diesel, Patagonia, Gap and Nike to name a few are claiming they are sustainable.  It appears saving the environment has become a trend and markets, as well as retailers are jumping on board, yet they have somehow forgotten the people who are making the clothes. Corporate Social Responsibility should not just be a ploy to lure consumers or benefit employees but should assist in increasing competitive advantage and the bottom line long term, by creating new job roles utilizing sustainable technology, as well as innovating product development that is environmentally friendly.

What can you do to make an impact? Educating yourself and others on this issue, as well as bringing awareness to the topic are a great start. Consumers need transparency and information on how clothing is made, by what materials and by whom. Greater visibility allows consumers to make educated choices with their purchases in addition to knowing what to hold corporations responsible for.  The consumer also needs to be made aware of not just how things are made but what the end life of their favorite products entail. Consumer identities should be challenged to include ideas of re-use and recycling and not creating more waste just because something is inexpensive or easy to acquire.

In conclusion, accountability needs to happen in legislature. Sustainability cannot be seen, as a political platform, but as a basic social and physical science. More regulations are needed and must be enforced with regards to fabrics, notions, and trim’s chemical and, or fiber content. The banning of certain materials harmful to the environment, such as non-recycled polyester should be implemented. Companies should be required to submit their total carbon footprint, as well as be required to report annual plans to decrease it and held accountable to meet their goals. Supply Chains should be visible. Vendors should be required to include addresses for every step of the process, outsourced to other factories or within their own, so that large brands can produce accurate accountability. Fabric content in addition to where fabric is made should be included on every bolt and yard sold. Lastly, garment workers’ rights should be non-negotiable. With mandated increased visibility of supply chains, working conditions would no longer be hidden from view and working environment, as well as livable wages could be properly enforced. No garment should be manufactured or bought at the expense of human life or the protection of the environment we inhabit.

“Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science Action Gap”

Core Text

Moser, Susanne C., and Lisa Dilling. “Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science Action Gap.” The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–18., doi:oxfordhandbooks.com.

Summary

Susanne C. Moser and Lisa Dilling’s article published in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society discusses different manners of communications and their effectiveness in society. Moser or Dilling do not promote and particular response to climate change throughout their article, however their goal is to present research on how communication on climate change can be carried out more effectively. They offer four main reasons that climate change communication has been less effective: lack of information, motivation by fear, lack of diversity in framing issues to diverse audiences, and utilization of mass media. Moser and Dilling believe more efforts should be implemented in diversifying strategies for communication on climate change to get more people engaged.

Teaching Resources

Norgaard, Kari Marie. “Climate Denial: Emotion Psychology, Culture, and Political

Economy.”The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society, Aug.2011, pp.1-17.,

doi:oxfordhandbooks.com.

Kari Mari Norgaards article, “Climate Denial: Emotion Psychology, culture and Political Economy” published in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society discusses the very real problem of climate denial. Norgaard highlights the roles of emotional, culture, social structure and inequality that plays into individual’s response towards Climate Change. She also uses psychological and sociological explanations for climate denial. The denial is often cultural and can be attributed to positions of privilege. This article is relevant in discussing communication on Climate change as there are often other barriers to receiving information in addition the the manners in which the message is conveyed and disseminated.

Daggett, Cara. “Petro-Masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 47, no. 1, 2018, pp. 25–44., doi:10.1177/0305829818775817.

Cara Dagget writes a compelling article in the Millennium: a Journal of International Studies, “Petro-masculinity: Fossil Fuels and Authoritarian Desire”. It is a unique article looking at climate change denial through a feminist lens that argues that the proliferation of fossil fuel extraction and consumption can be held up by the white male patriarchy. Dagget notes that extensive networks of privilege are sustained by the fossil fuel industry and are threatened by climate change initiatives. Dagget further discusses how climate denial obviously serves fossil-fueled capitalist interests, however it can responsible for the catalyst of authoritarianism as the profits from fossil fuels secure cultural meaning, identities, and political opinions. This article is relevant in discussing climate change communication as in addition to reasons of denial there may be larger systemic patriarchal hindrance to making real change towards sustainability.

Bina, Olivia, and Francesco La Camera. “Promise and Shortcomings of a Green Turn in Recent Policy Responses to the ‘Double Crisis.’” Ecological Economics, vol. 70, no. 12, 2011, pp. 2308–2316., doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.06.021.

Bina and Camera’s paper analyzes six international-scale responses to the financial and climate change ‘double crisis.’ The paper predominantly focuses on the role of economics as the dominant model and belief system that controls responses to climate change. They discuss a global Green New Deal which would not only combat sustainability on a global and cooperative scale but would address issues of vulnerable people, job loss and a disrupted financial system. Bina and Camera also discuss how responses to the double crisis need to be addressed with better regulated markets.  Overall Bina and Camera argue that without an economic approach to climate change, solutions will not be achieved regarding the double crisis. They also suggest the response to the crisis has been poor and development without the promotion of justice and environmental sustainability as a sustained goal will continue to fall short. This article is important to discussing climate change communication because in addition to sociological, psychological, and patriarchal that pose obstacles to progress on climate change initiatives, economics is predominant force that will be necessary to address in addition to addressing climate change communication effectiveness.

Discussion Questions

  1.  In what ways can communication on climate change be geared towards diverse audiences so that a ‘one size fits all’ approach can be avoided in order to facilitate understanding of issues and inspire real initiatives?
  2. What are some examples of ways that we can combat cultural climate change denial?
  3. If economics are interrelated with climate change, what types of incentives can be given at the corporate level to achieve real climate change goals?

Can Translocal Climate Justice Solidarities transcend Segregation?

The word solidarity is used over and over in the article “Translocal Climate Justice Solidarities” written by Paul Routlegdge, which was published in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. As written in the Abstract, “This article argues that a specialized understanding of both particular placed-based struggles as well as how such struggles attempt to forge solidarities beyond the local are crucial in order to construct meaningful translocal alliances.” By briefly discussing climate justice concerning climate change and food sovereignty specifically in Bangladesh, the article discusses the manner in which a potential solidarity can be formed at the translocal level. While other keywords mentioned are translocal alliances, food sovereignty, climate justice agenda, translocal climate justice solidarities stand out the most to me. While I could not agree more with Routlege that solidarities and alliances are formed from shared experiences I think it is interesting race, racism or segregation is not mentioned once in the article.

The style of Routledge article is quite clear. He uses specific occurrences happening at  global and local levels to back his argument that translocal solidarities are effective in organizing against climate change. People are more engaged and proactive when they have a shared sense of struggle or injustice. Routledge does discuss the spatiality of struggle, covering broad categories yet still not mentioning race.  “The distribution of vulnerabilities among bodies households, neighborhoods, etc. are unequally experienced by men and women rich and poor.” As accurate as this statement is, how could he not further add between white and black, and people of color?

Interestingly, Routledge notes, “An initial requirement for the construction of such solidarities has been the construction of ‘convergence spaces’…” His two examples are interesting as they do not discuss racial issues: the ‘global south’ and Bangladesh. While Bangladesh is a poor country, vulnerable to climate injustice, it is a largely ethnically homogeneous society where it would be easier to find solidarity. Conversely, the global south, while affected greatly by capitalism and the front line of climate change spans broader across diverse countries and regions that are greatly affected by racism and segregation. Although the global south pertains to regions outside of North America, this can be seen in the southeast regions of the United States, where locations such as ‘Cancer Alley’ in Louisiana predominantly affect black neighborhoods. Many third world countries considered part of the global south are also structured in this way with poorer and oftentimes black or minority populations lumped into spaces separate from the majority. The shared experiences can be night and day, even if location wise they are close.

While racism and segregation do not have to limit translocal solidarities, as can be seen currently with the Black Lives Matter movement, after the George Floyd murder, it still presents an ongoing struggle and obstacle when discussing the fight against injustice and specifically climate change injustices. This article, while clear and informative would be more persuasive if it had included discussions on racism and segregation as potential obstacles to climate justice solidarities. As George Floyd’s murder was recorded and thus seen by people of all ethnicity and nationalities, climate change injustices can go on, hidden in many spaces due to segregation by way of racial injustice. As the majority of climate injustices affect segregated spaces due to racism, are consequently hidden from view, shared alliances would be hard to form.

St. James, LA – Oct. 23, 2019 – Sharon Lavigne (L) leads community members and activists from New Orleans on a march through her hometown of St. James. “The March Against Death Alley” was coordinated by a coalition of environmental activists to raise awareness and advocate for residents who live nearby heavy industry along the Mississippi River.

#climatejustice #segregation #CancerAlley #translocalalliances

Constructive Criticism is not Always Beneficial Op Ed by Tina Trupiano

The Green New Deal lists copious problems as well as solutions to confront not only environmental emergencies but a decreasing social mobility, as well as nationwide injustice and poverty. The proposed legislation is clear and inclusive of many issues and addresses the need to keep global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. While sadly considered controversial to the Republican Party and Conservatives, it would make significant national and global progress regarding sustainability to the environment and society. There have been other proposals as well outside of the United States, yet some scholars think it is more beneficial to analyze their short sightings and negating their effects without offering a better solution or realizing that some steps are better then none. Sustainability and climate change is not only a challenging conversation, it has been a challenge to implement real change with conservative political parties arguing that it is a hoax or are more concerned with lining their pockets then saving the planet. Olivia Bina and Francesco La Camera’s journal article, “Promise and Shortcomings of a Green Turn in Recent Policy Responses to the “Double Crisis” aims to critique recent proposals as short sighted and not effective.  This type of analysis can lead to defeatism, and in a time where dire change is needed the goal should be to inspire steps to be taken then criticizing them before they even are in motion.

The double crisis is in fact a crisis. It will not be solved overnight but it will also never be solved without real conversation and implementation. In a perfect world, regarding The Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the US House of Representatives, real impactful change would be set into motion. There is even proof of its efficacy seeing as how The New Deal created the greatest Middle-Class growth during WWII. By taking this foundation and applying it in a “green” way, as well as a “just” way, we would see a profound difference.

While I agree with Bina and Francesco that, “Progress continues to fall short of what is deemed necessary.” This, in my opinion has nothing to do with the strategies discussed and offered but due to the interference of opposition from fiscal conservatives and racists. Additionally, while certainly market and environmental regulations will not completely end our worries on climate change and social inequality, it will however be far removed from where we are now, and will provide real, positive change on a scale unseen since WWII. While at least 6 international-scale responses are discussed in Bina and Francesco’s article, I am mostly concerned about The Green New Deal, one because if real change takes place the US will have to be the leader of the movement, and 2, I have a more detailed understanding of its strategies. Lastly if it did not cast the ability for real change, there would not be so much opposition towards it from opposing political parties.

Solving the “Double Crisis” will take time. As often argued, we do not have that much time when it comes to climate change, yet we also should not take any more time to give human beings equal justice and opportunity for a good life either. The US will need to lead the world on climate change initiatives and The Green New Deal must be implemented. That may not come without new leadership, but it will never come if we criticize every way it won’t be good enough instead of taking the first step today. Complicated problems take complicated responses and sometimes you must take the first step and work out the “kinks” along the way, but never getting started is the worst solution of all.

#greennewdeal #AOC #greenturn

What happens to the Paris Agreement without the United States?

[Illustration by Jawahir Hassan Al-Naimi]

In the beginning of June Donald Trump announced that the U.S would end its participation in the 2015 Paris Agreement. His reason was that the accord would weaken the US economy and not adhere to his America First policy. In my opinion this is a flowery way of saying the economics aren’t in it for them to care about the environment and that they want to exploit resources as much as possible to generate as much money as possible.

  Recent technologies have made it in fact more feasible to choose sustainable options then non sustainable ones in many industries, as well as create new jobs, yet the current administration is trying to gut every regulation possible that would prevent such progress.

The UNFCC site explains in detail what the Paris Agreement is:

“The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. There will also be a global stocktake every 5 years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.”

For this agreement to work, a program was launched to develop modals, procedures and guidelines on many issues including: Long term temperature goals, climate neutrality goals, mitigation and market/non-market approaches to name a few. With the United States being the leading economy, (for now) how will real change take place if the US is not on board, especially in terms of imports and exports? Our noncompliance would affect others compliance by working with us or purchasing our goods.

            It is quite ironic that President Donald Trump believes that the Paris Agreement does not coincide with his America First policy as it is obvious this makes us America, last. As the leading power in the world, noncompliance would drag others down with us, if not at the least have a huge negative impact, globally on any progress made. The idea of nationalism is so dangerous because it makes people believe we have any choice in the matter, that we are on our own planet, when in truth we are all one race on one earth. What happens in one small city across the globe can eventually affect everyone. We see clear evidence of this with the recent pandemic. Environmental efforts as well as catastrophes affect us all in one way or another. Efforts in sustainability should be as urgent as efforts on containing global disease, yet we see America is not first on that either.

            So much is at stake this November. We will be voting for so many issues, but one major issue will be our actions on saving the planet. Many would argue, without sustaining our world, there won’t be any other issues to fight for. There are even environmental links to the rise in pandemics. We will not fight this issue in solitude, within one nation, but we will need to join in globally, with fellow nations to combat climate change.

#climatechange #parisagreement