A guilty conscience is the mother of invention….

 As fashion plays an important social role in today’s society, it also plays a negative environmental impact.  The apparel industry has a significant effect on the earth’s environment because of the life cycle it takes to produce clothing and the after care.  Not only is the apparel industry production harmful to the earth’s environment, it is also harmful to humans.  There are a many hazardous condition that the apparel industry as acquired over time that many people are unaware of, unless they work in the apparel industry.  The issues that are seen throughout the apparel industry production are the harmful pesticides chemicals, the over use of water, electricity, and diesel fuel. While these are some of the aspects that are harmful to the environment there are also hazardous aspects such as producing non-biodegradable fibers and unhealthy working conditions that the apparel industry provides.

I believe that the apparel industry is guilty for the changes we have seen in the ecosystems for the past fifty years.  The reasoning for my assumption is because if the apparel industry were not guilty, there would not be a move to make it sustainable.  It is stated in the Fashion Sustainability article that “10 tones of water are used to grow enough cotton to make one pair of jeans”.  The over use of water to produce clothing is outrageous and is increasingly affecting our environment. “1.1 billion people still lack access to improved water supply and more than 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanitation.  Since 1960, the ratio of water use to accessible supply has grown by 20% per decade”(ESMA). Not only do can we see that we are harming the environment by the production of clothing but we are also harming humans that are in need of water that is being over used for the apparel industry. When reading the study of Walsh and Brown, suggestions are implemented that the apparel industry should move towards organic farming rather than conventional farming because the outcome of organic farming verse conventional farming when producing cotton is less harmful to the environment and to workers of the apparel industry.  Not only is organic farming better for our environment, it’s cost is almost half has much as conventional farming. Other implementation are made from the Fashion Sustainability article where more companies are moving towards sustainable options such as; fair trade products, producing renewable materials and using other natural materials that require less pesticide. If the apparel industry would move towards making the industry more sustainable, there would not be so many issues regarding the over use of the environments natural resource to produce clothing and it would not be as harmful to employees that work for the apparel industry.

The connection between the Ecosystem Assessment and Fashion Sustainability are that they both focus on how human’s over use of the earth’s resources and are slowly affecting the ecosystems. Since humans are consistently polluting the environment more and more ecosystems are being affected.  If the apparel industry would take action to become more sustainable, I believe that they would need to start in the growing phase of natural fibers in order to become sustainable.  The suggestions that are made from both Fashion Sustainability and Walsh and Brown’s article are reasonable to carry out for the apparel industry but it all comes back to the how humans should take their part in making the apparel industry more sustainable by the after care of their clothing.  One should take into consideration whether it is worth harming both the environment and humans in order to stay in style.  

Are the environmental problems we face today new?

Many would argue that the environmental problems we face today is nothing out of the ordinary.  We have been facing environmental problems since as early as 1550 when the theory of Easter Island was developed.  

In Anderson’s article, The lesson of Easter Island, she mentions Heyerdahl’s theory on how humans are a prime reason why we are facing environmental problems.  Thor Heyerdahl is the author of the book Aku-Aku, in which he discusses his theory on how the Easter Island was developed. 

“The Easter Island lies in the Pacific Ocean, 3,200 kilometers off the west coast of South America” (Anderson, 2007). The island is well known for the massive stone status that are scattered across the island that average to be over six meters high.  Many anthropologists have considered Easter Island a ‘mystery’ in which many theories have been developed on how the massive stone status were scattered across the island.  Heyerdahl’s “argues that the island was first settled from South America and that from there, the people inherited a tradition of monumental sculpture and stonework”(Anderson, 2007).  

The Polynesians were the first settlers of Easter Island and quickly discovered that they had very little resources but managed to live on the island with a diet of sweet potatoes and chicken.  Because the crop production took very little effort and there was plenty of time, the Polynesians “engaged in elaborate rituals and monument construction”(Anderson, 2007).   As the Polynesians developed their monuments transporting them became a problem.  However, they quickly found a solution to their problem in which they used tree trunks as rollers to transport their monuments across the island.  They relied on human power to drag the statues across the island because the lacked any type of animal force.  Because the developed of the status became famous the population of Easter Island grow 7,000 at its peak in 1550.  When the Easter Island “was at its peak, it suddenly collapsed, leaving over half the statues only partially completed around Fano Raraku quarry.  “The cause of the collapse and the key to understanding the ‘mysteries’ of Easter Island was massive environmental degradation brought on by deforestation of the whole island”(Anderson, 2007). 

In the eighteenth century the first Europeans that visited Easter Island found that it was completely treeless.  The theory behind the Polynesians having to do with the deforestation applies in this situation. Scientists have found that since the Polynesians used tress to transport their monuments they cut done most of the forest as well as cleared their path to transport the monuments across the island.  As the Polynesians continued to cut down tree resources started to decrease, which affected most of the Polynesians life styles.  “The storage of trees was forcing many people to abandon building houses from timber and live in caves, and when the wood eventually ran out altogether about a century later everyone had to use the only materials left”(Anderson, 2007).   The life style of the Polynesians became more difficult because of the deforestation they caused on the Easter Island when building and transporting their monuments.  Humans are a prime example of how we are the reason for environmental problems.  We as humans are taking the earths resources for granted and are taking more resources than needed.

As seen in the Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis, (figure 2) one can see how they have conducted a study to show how much the earth’s land is becoming deforested. 

Just as early as the 1550’s the earths land has been deforested and is becoming an environmental problem because it will start affecting other products that are produced by wood. 

According to the article “Global Deforestation” states that humans have removed forest mostly for fuel, building materials and to clear land for farming.  Just like the Polynesians, we are removing forest to benefit us in other ways but are harming the earth’s resources by taking away its resources.  The argument here is that we as humans will eventually take away the earth’s resources to the extent of not being able to produce the product that are produced by the earth’s resource like wood.