Although not usually on the list of usual suspects when it comes to climate impact, or at least not on the same level as food or energy, the fashion industry has a profound climate and environmental footprint, even more so with the growing dominance of fast fashion. And while we should not shift the focus away from industries that generate significant carbon emissions, we cannot ignore the fact that consumers can also reduce the impact of our habits. In the case of clothing, there is at least one action that seems obvious: choosing natural fibres over synthetic ones derived from fossil fuels. But is this really the case? As always, there are nuances.
According to Alana James, Assistant Professor in Fashion at Northumbria University, “fashion industry’s environmental impact is largely unknown.” The validity of benchmarks such as the Higg Index, created in 2011 by the Sustainable Apparel Coalition to measure the sustainability of materials used in the fashion industry, has been questioned. James adds that the data, often provided by the brands themselves, is often biased, unreliable and non-standardised. As a result, fashion’s contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions varies widely, from 2% to 10%, depending on the source.
Microplastics and fossil origen
Beyond the specific figure, no authoritative source doubts that fashion’s climate footprint is large and growing, and that on its current trajectory it is well off track to meet the 2015 Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. And climate is far from the only environmental impact of this industry: a water footprint equivalent to that of a city of five million people, generating 20% of the world’s wastewater and causing massive pollution, underlines the urgent need for change. Initiatives such as the Fashion Industry Charter for Climate Action, launched in 2018 with the aim of achieving net zero emissions by 2050, or the United Nations Alliance for Sustainable Fashion, have helped mobilise the sector, although, James warns, accusations of greenwashing abound.
But with two-thirds of a garment’s carbon footprint coming from the production of the fibres, according to the Climate Council of Australia, at least consumers have a choice: which type of fibre is more environmentally friendly? One thing is clear: synthetic fibres, polyester, nylon and others are petroleum-derived plastics, non-renewable and non-biodegradable. Their fossil origin seems to be a good reason to reject them, and the data do not contradict this view: synthetic fibres consume about 342 million barrels of oil per year, and the production of a polyester T-shirt emits 5.5 kilos of CO2, compared to only 2.1 kilos if it is made of cotton.
Another alarming impact of synthetic fibres is the generation of microplastics, an increasingly widespread pollutant whose health effects are still uncertain. The manufacture, washing and use of garments release tiny fragments of plastic fibres, which, according to the World Economic Forum, add up to half a million tonnes of microfibres in the ocean each year, the equivalent of 50 billion plastic bottles.
The b-side of natural fibres
With all this in mind, it seems logical to choose natural fibres wherever possible, whether of animal origin, such as wool or silk, or of plant origin, like cotton or linen. Of course, there are reasons why these materials are in the minority compared to the 65% of the market that is made up of synthetic fibres; the latter are more versatile for certain applications, but also cheaper. In addition, natural fibres can be less durable and sometimes require special care, such as dry cleaning.
But even natural fibres are not free of environmental impacts. According to a review of the life cycle of various textile fibres published in 2023 by researchers at Washington State University, the production of conventional cotton “requires substantial amounts of fertilizers, pesticides, and energy, resulting in adverse effects on the environment and human health.” Cotton’s water footprint is immense: it takes 3,000 litres of water to produce one shirt. Cotton was responsible for the disappearance of the Aral Sea in the former USSR. Dyeing natural fibres also uses large amounts of water and chemicals. Organic cotton reduces some of these impacts, but is penalised in terms of land use for cultivation.
Proof that the final verdict is complicated is the disagreement among experts: while James maintains that “one fibre is not necessarily better than the other” because “each material and manufacturing process affects the natural world in one form or another,” fashion and sustainability researcher Ingun Grimstad Klepp of Oslo Metropolitan University, says that eco-footprint and life-cycle analyses “make numerous assumptions that ultimately downplay natural fibres’ advantages and exaggerate those of synthetics.”
But at least the experts agree on some suggestions for consumers: the first is to buy less—fast fashion is driven by consumer impulse—and it is estimated that in some countries up to 40% of the clothes sold are never worn. Second, and related to the first, is to extend the useful life of our clothes. And third, to buy second-hand clothes. As for manufacturers, experts stress recycling: according to the European Environment Agency, one third of textile waste in the EU is separated, of which around 65% is reused, 20% recycled and 15% landfilled or incinerated for energy. Globally, however, only 0.06% of textile waste is recycled into new fibres. Some brands recycle plastic bottles to make polyester fibres, and other innovative options such as coffee waste, seaweed, corn, fruit or mushrooms are also used as sources of new textile fibres.
Comments on this publication