Every time I think that they can’t get more fixated, they push my expectations to new lows. As in, “you WILL have a diminished standard of living, and you WILL be happy about it because you are saving the planet.”
Report Outlines How to Fix the Fashion Industry’s Enormous Emissions Problem
The Hot or Cool Institute says there’s greater value in lifestyle changes than technological innovation.It’s hard not to love clothes. Beyond their practical purpose, they reflect one’s personality and priorities. Clothes spark conversations and harbor memories. They feel good and boost confidence—and they’re an easy way to inject some novelty into one’s life. A quick purchase here and there adds variety to a closet and gives a person something to look forward to wearing. The problem, however, is that many of us are doing too much of this. The fashion industry is one of the biggest global emitters of greenhouse gases, even according to the most conservative estimates.
Yep, there’s always a “but” after their warm, glowing attributes about something. I always know, right after reading something like that prose, a HUGE “butt anvil” is about to descend to complain about those of US that won’t listen to them and stop our GAIA sinning. In this case, our demanded indulgence (as in the old Catholic indulgences, paid to the Church to “pay away” past sin – you know, like what “carbon offsets” are to the Church of the CO2 Believers) are to be this (reformatted, emphasis mine):
The Necessity of Less
…People in the richest G20 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, U.K., U.S.) must reduce their fashion-related footprints by an average of 60% by 2030 in order to stay on track for the 1.5-degree target. Upper-middle-income countries (Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, Turkey) must reduce theirs by over 40%. These necessary reductions would bring consumption down to what the report calls a fair consumption space, defined as “a space where consumption levels stay below environmentally unsustainable levels yet above sufficiency levels that allow individuals to fulfill their basic needs.” Individuals with higher footprints are required to make greater reductions than those already living with less.
It’s not completely totalitarian, but you can see its boot lifting up to stomp on downward. And this “think tank” has already laid out the solution as to what this would be at a consumer level. And I’m not talking about an average consumer – they mean ANY consumer, each and every one of us. And it always comes down to returning to the one enforcer they truly believe in. And they are REALLY enthused about the solution (read the next line slowly) for us all – true believers and we infidels alike:
…This is where the report really shines, with its emphasis on practical solutions. It turns out that reducing purchases of new clothes is the single most effective way to reduce fashion’s carbon footprint, leading to reductions more than four times greater than the next best solution, which is increasing use time of garments, and over 3 times higher than what is considered achievable through accelerated decarbonization of the fashion industry.
Other valuable actions include repairing and mending items, washing less and at lower temperatures, and buying secondhand. But if none of these is implemented, “purchases of new garments should be limited to an average 5 items per year for achieving consumption levels in line with the 1.5-degree target.”
Five items. Per year. And they really aren’t going to hide that “practical solution.” Yep, I know that you know who would be the enforcer:
…If you recoil at the thought of fashion quotas, Lewis Akenji, director of the Hot or Cool Institute, pointed out in a presentation for the report’s launch that some degree of rationing is inevitable. “This is what governments do,” he said. They can ration resource use, pollution, level of volume and frequency in the market and fashion cycle. This is done through taxes or altering practices around returns. “There’s a broad spectrum of possibilities [and] it’s an inevitable part of the discussion.”
Yep, just like this guy: NH State Rep Leigh Webb (D): “The role of government is to legislate behavior.” And the logical endpoint is that bootjack that comes with rationing.
Maybe to these Eco-Socialists, that’s the purpose of Government. Not to we who believe we are Free people who happen to have a government (see Declaration of Independence). So, of course, I had a few things to say, from the “practical” to proper civics to The Role of Proper Government (in a couple of chunks):
But if none of these is implemented, “purchases of new garments should be limited to an average 5 items per year for achieving consumption levels in line with the 1.5-degree target.”
So I’ll be able to buy my usual set of 5 pairs of medical compression socks (due to a congenital condition, I’ve had to wear them for over 30 years) a year…
…and nothing else. And then the author goes on to say that Government will make sure that everyone abides by their rationing because that’s the purpose of Government. Er, no, it’s not.
And what will happen when a Free People decided to change that government with their votes because of being absolutely stupid (govt, that is)?
Followed right behind with:
These necessary reductions would bring consumption down to what the report calls a fair consumption space, defined as “a space where consumption levels stay below environmentally unsustainable levels yet above sufficiency levels that allow individuals to fulfill their basic needs.” Individuals with higher footprints are required to make greater reductions than those already living with less.
Eco-Socialists always give away the game via their “tell” – that word is “need“. The translation for it is that *I* will tell you what you need and you will be happy with it”. As if a grown adult really wants every part of their life strictly controlled in every aspect therein.
Who, Katherine [the author], is going to determine what is “fair” (yes, yet another challenge to the use of this word here at Treehugger as if it is no big deal – when it matters quite a bit). Are you capable of making decisions for me what is “fair” and “adequate”?
If you say yes, then you have failed at the Great Mind Fallacy.
And what is the penalty that you will put into place if your “required” bit isn’t met? Financial fine? Jail time? Or like what has been rumored to have been done in getting the Iranian soccer players to sing their own national anthem – threaten their families?
So, Katherine, since you are quoting this report, what’s your take on China’s Social Credit Score system which actually implements what is required to pull this off? Do you want your kids to be forced into this totalitarian life style? I certainly want better for my Grandson, free to make his own decisions.
This whole post is about people who are constitutionally unable to mind their own business and leave others alone.
There are a few bits by my pal, VB (Vindaloo Bugaboo), that is also one of our friends, that you might enjoy reading (smart guy and takes nothing from none of these Socialists).
But remember, this is where they want “their” Society to head, and they are doing it joyfully. Unfortunately, they are going to drag us with them. That is, unless all of us start getting in their faces and starting that pushback.
I really do hate clothes shopping, and I rarely buy new clothes (although I am REALLY getting to that point of having to do so and more than just compression socks). But that should be MY decision – not anyone else’s and CERTAINLY not Government’s.
What are your thoughts?
(H/T: Treehugger)
