Do you want to make a change?

 Everyday the fashion industry is changing the ways it becomes more sustainable and eco-friendly. However, a lot of designers are not following this trend. There is a group of designers that support the use of leather and fur, which is very controversial. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) consists of several internationally famous designers such as Giorgio Armani, Stella McCartney, Donna Karan, and Calvin Klein. These designers are not alone in their decision to refuse to include fur in their collections. In the report Fashion Sustainability it discusses different several issues in the fashion industry. What I found most interesting about this report was that it states the problems while at the same time offering several solutions.

Many issues included in this report discussed the pesticide use in the cotton farming industry, water use and working conditions for workers. One fact included in the article that was of particular interest to me was that it takes over 10 tonnes of water to grow enough cotton in order to produce one pair of jeans. Therefore, with the climate change continuing in its current state, the water stress will increase. The article also discussed how workers in poor conditions were exposed to toxic chemicals that cause bladder and breast cancer. Due to the high stress farmers were committing suicide. Isn't there a way to prevent this? 

Other issues discussed were animal welfare and human rights that are jeopardized everyday. When you go to a store and purchase a fur vest do you really think about all the work that went into it? Not to mention, the animal and how it was treated?

In the article Pricing Environmental Impacts, there was a study done to compare two farming techniques; conventional and organic. They studied the life cycle of a t-shirt and discussed how manufacturing an organic piece is less expensive and better for the environment and not as much water or pesticides are used. 
The article talks about pesticides, water consumption and soil erosion. Water consumption is something that people need to start becoming more aware of and limiting. In the article it states how many times a person washes one t-shirt and how much water that uses. That particular study and evidence really stuck out to me. I was excited to hear that Patagonia is now finding ways to change their techniques and use alternative production methods. I think that identifying the environmental costs leads to more informed decisions for companies and consumers.  

I think that with these suggested issues people have the opportunity come together and actually make a difference. In ESMA, they had even more descriptive and researched solutions that were recommended. I believe that it starts with the designer and then follows with the consumer. Ultimately, everyone needs to make a decision whether or not they want to make a change in the fashion industry. Do you?

Are the worlds environmental problems reversible?

"If people want to change, they will. If they don't want to, it's hard to make them do so. The current interest in the environment is a good thing. The best way to make a contribution in fashion is to promote the idea that a fundamental interest in preserving the environment is itself fashionable." 

-Giorgio Armani

This quote shows that not only scientists and researchers take special interest in the world around them, even fashion designers understand the growing dire need for conservation. Armani is showing that the best way to create a better, more sustainable, world is to make it "fashionable," and use the idea of a trend to create a way of life. I agree with this philosophy because until society is presented with the realization about the state of the environment, no good change can be made. By promoting a new of living, a "green" way, we can come one step closer to solving the problem.  

There are many individuals and groups who spread the message of conservation and the ability to reverse the damage that has already been done to the environment. The question remains, are these wasted ambitions? I agree with the statement made in Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

      "The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services." 

 The possibility of changing the damage on Earth can be a reality, however the amount of change and compromises that need to be made in order to achieve this seems unlikely. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that there are too many opinions and experts that seem to want to make their position the "right" one and therefore nothing gets accomplished. I also think that most people will agree that they want a better environment for themselves and future generations, however that aren't willing to do something as simple as recycle or turn off the lights when not being used. 

   In the passage about the Easter Island, I learned that in some instances, even when conscientiously "living of the land" and working to preserve the natural habitat, it isn't enough. In society today, there needs to be a balance that is achieved between conservation and progression, this is not something that the people of Easter Island could accomplish, and therefore, they self-destructed. In modern times, we are at an advantage in that we have more technology and abilities to create a world of innovation, however  this often comes at the price of destroying our environment and ignoring natural resources. I believe that balance between these two ideas will create new opportunities for conservationism.