Climate change is heavy weight on all of us. Its our personal responsibility to make smart choices as a consumer and a human kind(as we are the greatest threat on planet earth).

Recently Netflix launched its latest documentary Our Planet in collaboration with Sir David Attenborough to bring awareness of the serious topic as climate change.


Today we have become the greatest threat to the health of our planet.
We’re the first generation to know what we’re doing, and the last who have a chance to put things right.


There are so many ways how we all can be involved in the fast action of improvement to save what still can be saved. But most importantly as consumers we need to learn how to shop smart as fashion industry carbon impact bigger than airline industry’s. We are consumers and we all wear clothes daily. Every our decision counts and is part of the change. We must take responsibility of our shopping habits and how practical are the decisions we make.


One of the problems: fast fashion

The meteoric rise of “fast fashion” — the business of quickly turning around new collections, often at lower prices to encourage consumption — in particular is proving to be toxic for the environment. Linear systems use large quantities of nonrenewable resources, and more than half of these styles get tossed within a year, according to McKinsey’s 2016 report “Style that’s sustainable: A new fast fashion formula.”
The apparel and footwear industries together accounted for more than 8 percent of global climate impacts — the equivalent of 3,990 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2016, according to a report from Quantis. Total greenhouse gas emissions related to textiles production are equal to 1.2 billion tons annually — more than those of all international flights and maritime shipping trips combined, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
These challenges aren’t insurmountable. Indeed, the crisis at hand represents an opportunity for industry players do what they do best — be creative.


Fast Fashion Facts by (TLF)

8 percent – The percent of global climate impacts – the equivalent of 3,990 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2016 – that the apparel and footwear industries together account for. (Quantis)

30 percent – The percentage of greenhouse gas emission reductions that signatories of the United Nations’ Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, such as The RealReal, Kering (which boasts an fascinating approach to sustainability), Levi’s, and Stella McCartney, aim to achieve by 2030. Signatories have also committed to analyze and set a decarbonization pathway for the fashion industry drawing on methodologies from the Science-Based Targets Initiative.

60 percent – The increase in the number of garments purchased each year between 2000 and 2014 by the average consumer. Across nearly every apparel category, consumers keep clothing items about half as long as they did 15 years ago. (McKinsey)

63 percent – The percentage of Americans who want businesses to take the lead on driving social and environmental change in the absence of government regulation. (Cone Communications).

10.5 million – The number of tons of clothing that Americans send to landfills every year. (Americans recycle or donate only 15 percent of their used clothing, while the rest goes into landfills, giving textiles one of the poorest recycling rates of any reusable material). (The Atlantic).

70 million – The number of barrels of oil are used each year to make the world’s polyester fiber, including one of the key textiles used in real fur alternatives. (Forbes)

$37.8 million – The cost of the unsold finished goods that Burberry destroyed in one year, according to its 2017/18 annual report. (The British brand has since announced that it will no longer incinerate unsold products).

1.2 billion – Total greenhouse gas emissions related to textiles production annually, according to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.

150 billion – The number of new garments produced each year as of 2010, which means that nine years later, the number is almost certainly higher. (MIT).



Can recycling fix fashion’s landfill problem?

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, the fashion world produces about 53 million tons of fiber every year, more than 70 percent of that ends up in landfills or on bonfires and less than 1 percent is reused to make new clothes. It has led to mounting pressure on brands to clean up their act, and an increasing focus on materials that can be recycled and repurposed in a virtuous and circular system that reduces or even comes close to eliminating waste.⁣

Nearly 100 brands have signed up to the Global Fashion Agenda’s 2020 Circular Fashion System Commitment, which requires companies to set and report on targets to reduce waste and increase reuse and recycling. In particular, Adidas has pledged to only use recycled polyester by 2024 and will produce 11 million pairs of shoes from recycled plastic this year alone. And while it’s taken Adidas nearly twenty years to find a way to recycle its sneakers, the German sportswear giant has launched a new shoe that marked a breakthrough in its decades-long quest. Made out of the same kind of plastic as the company’s Boost sole and fused together without using glue, the new Futurecraft.Loop can be broken down once it’s worn out and reused in a new pair of running shoes. “This project has been a vision for decades,” said Adidas’s technology innovation manager Tanyaradzwa Sahanga. “We’ve had multiple attempts and this is the first successful product.” ⁣

But, for shoes or clothes to be recycled, customers need to be convinced to send back their purchases when they’re finished with them, instead of throwing them away. Collection programs around the world are spotty at best, and sorting the clothes that are collected remains a slow, manual process. Still, around the world pockets of research have led to the development of potentially game-changing new recycling processes that are slowly getting real-world road tests.



Sustainability is not a word synonymous with high fashion.

However, for some labels, the definition of luxury also equals consciousness, meaning consumers wishing to support ethical practices are not relegated to wearing hemp sacks. Although these brands may not shout about their care for environmental issues, thankfully, they are making a difference on a large scale.


Louis Vuitton

The French house has more to offer than the latest overhyped streetwear collab. Did you know that Louis Vuitton designed the Gaia Monogram Cerise handbags by using only vegetable-tanned leather? As an LHVM label, Louis Vuitton is committed to the conglomerate idea of sustainability. According to, LV received a D score report, meaning it sticks to the code of conduct as well as recycling within their packing system. (In comparison, Stella McCartney only received a C ranking.) Additionally, Louis Vuitton also partnered with UNICEF in 2016 to support children in need.



After 80 years in the business, high fashion house Balenciaga should be acknowledged for more than copying IKEA’s FRAKTA bag. Balenciaga plays an important role in the global sustainable fashion movement, claiming to be “committed to releasing collections that reflect its engagement for a better world and a sustainable future.” In other words, that means they offer products that have no damage on the environment, preserve natural resources, and a respect of animal welfare. Another reason to fuel everyone’s Demna obsession.



Gucci has already made waves in 2017 with their urban ready-to-wear collection including must-have T-shirts and tennis socks. Even more, the brand also works hard to stay green, with the Italian fashion house releasing the world’s first handbag collection made from sustainable Amazonian leather back in 2013.

In 2004, Gucci was one of the first companies in the fashion industry to commit towards Corporate Social Responsibility. Additionally, Gucci has contributed over $10 million to UNICEF during an eight-year partnership production cycle.


Although the industry’s environmental footprint is associated primarily with fast fashion brands, the discussion is mostly dominated by big luxury houses, as their actions are often perceived as trend-setting and indicative of the industry’s state.


According to Vanessa Friedman, chief fashion critic at The New York Times, green is not the new black – it’s not just another trend to come in and go out with the seasons, but a paradigm shift. This is also underlined by the fact that big fashion houses are hiring sustainability experts. Such hires were made by brands such as Gucci, Saint Laurent, Balenciaga, Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Hugo Boss, H&M and Zara.

Luxury group Kering, which owns Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent, has pledged to transform its own business and the wider luxury industry at every level. Unveiled in 2018, Kering’s 2025 ethical strategy asserts that the company sees sustainability as a necessity, because “sustainability and luxury are one and the same”. A similar sentiment was expressed by Donatella Versace, who said that sustainability and luxury go hand in hand.

One of Kering’s initiatives which grabbed the media’s attention was launching a WeChat programme named ‘My EP&L’ (Environmental Profit & Loss), an environmental impact measurement tool that informs consumers of the environmental cost of what they buy. A similar initiative was the Higg Index — a set of self-assessments that allow a brand to measure the environmental impact of everything they do – which is used by H&M and Burberry.

The second most prominent luxury brand in the discussion, Chanel, was at the centre of many reports about houses forgoing fur in their future collections. When it announced that it will stop using exotic skins such as crocodile and lizard, Chanel got on board with fashion’s shift toward ethical sourcing, following labels such as Burberry, Donna Karan/ DKNY, Versace and Jean Paul Gaultier.

Fast fashion outlets like Zara, H&M and Asos have committed to taking ambitious steps to become more sustainable. They signed a pledge led by the Global Fashion Agenda, stating that they will start to repurpose wasted material and develop new recycling methods and technologies According to the report, these brands will have implemented change by 2020.



Fighting climate change requires political collaboration and immediate action.

Greta Thunberg, student protesters should demand better solutions to climate change

4 ways to fight climate change and also protect states that depend on fossil fuel jobs

While reminiscent of the earlier grassroots groundswell, there is today far less political accountability for finding solutions to the widely recognized challenge of global warming and climate change.

We need to unite — to awaken a broad climate change voting majority that not only includes young people with passion, but businesses, the military, labor, farmers, energy providers, and subject matter experts alike. Only by linking these disparate groups — then broadening the coalition even further to include global leaders and citizens everywhere — can we galvanize action, command accountability, and unleash a clean energy transformation that will mitigate climate change and assure economic progress at the same time.

Magical thinking is both self-indulgent and dilatory, at a time when we need accelerated action and a pragmatic roadmap to a low carbon/no net carbon global economy by mid-century, when scientists tell us the planet must approach carbon neutrality. There are no “silver bullet solutions” for which one-sized policies and technologies are supposed to fit all.

Instead, we need to support a range of solutions that respect regional and local economies with their energy resource mixes and associated infrastructures. If we do so, we can move more rapidly towards a low carbon/no net carbon economy, while creating millions of good jobs, growing our manufacturing base and modernizing our infrastructures.