Worried your cheap clothes cost more than their price tag? The fast fashion environmental impact is large: heavy water use, fast-growing waste and textile-production emissions that outweigh international flights and shipping combined.
This guide belongs to a wider set of explainers on sustainability.
| Item | Value |
|---|---|
| Emissions from textile production | 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year |
| Water used in cotton production | 93 billion cubic metres a year |
| Water to make one cotton shirt | 2,700 litres |
| Clothes bought in 2014 compared with 2000 | 60 percent more, each kept half as long |
| Textiles recycled into new clothing | Less than 1% |
| Clothing burned or sent to landfill | One garbage truck’s worth every second |
The figures come from Greenpeace Unearthed’s 2019 review and WRI’s 2019 commentary. Estimates can change as new data appears, so check the source before you rely on them.
How fast fashion speeds up buying and discarding
Fast fashion is a business model that encourages people to buy more clothes by offering low prices and adding more new seasons each year, as Greenpeace Unearthed describes it. An Imperial College London blog notes that fashion companies went from two collections per year in 2000 to five in 2011.
The result is a faster cycle of buying and throwing away. The average consumer bought 60 percent more clothes in 2014 than in 2000 but kept each garment for half as long, according to WRI.
Greenpeace Unearthed adds that the number of times an item of clothing is worn fell by around 36% between 2000 and 2015, in its 2019 review. Every environmental figure below sits on top of this shorter lifespan.
Emissions: the carbon cost of clothes
Global emissions from textile production are equivalent to 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, a figure that Greenpeace Unearthed says outweighs international flights and shipping combined. Good On You reports the same size of estimate from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for 2015.
Counting clothes washing and disposal as well, Greenpeace Unearthed gives an annual footprint of 3.3 billion tonnes of CO2e, equal to 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions. The Imperial College blog cites the IPCC for 10% of global CO2 emissions. The gap shows that the total depends on what each estimate counts.
The fibre you choose changes the footprint:
- One polyester shirt has a 5.5kg carbon footprint, against 2.1kg for a cotton shirt (Greenpeace Unearthed).
- The share of synthetic fibres in garments has doubled since 2000, reaching 60% in 2019 (Greenpeace Unearthed).
- Making a pair of jeans produces as many greenhouse gases as driving a car more than 80 miles (WRI).
Looking ahead, Greenpeace Unearthed says that if demand keeps growing, the industry would use 26% of the global carbon budget by 2050 needed to keep warming within 2 degrees.
Water: cotton, dyeing and microfibres
It takes 2,700 litres of water to make one cotton shirt, enough to cover one person’s drinking needs for two-and-a-half years, according to WRI. The Imperial College blog gives higher figures, more than 3000 L for a shirt and more than 9000 L for a pair of jeans, so treat any single number as an estimate.
At industry scale, Greenpeace Unearthed puts water use in cotton production at 93 billion cubic metres a year, with 10,000 to 20,000 litres needed to make 1kg of clothing. Good On You cites the Ellen MacArthur Foundation’s 2017 report for the same 93 billion cubic metres but describes it as consumed in textile production overall. The labels differ, but both point to a very large draw on water.
Greenpeace Unearthed links this demand to strain in Central Asia, China and India, and says the Aral Sea has been reduced to desert in some areas.
Making the cloth is also polluting. The Imperial College blog cites a 2018 Quantis International report that names dyeing and finishing (36%), yarn preparation (28%) and fibre production (15%) as the three main drivers of the industry’s environmental impact.
Good On You says untreated wastewater from dyeing is pumped back into water systems, contaminating them with toxins and heavy metals. It also warns that some often-quoted shares of global water pollution are hard to confirm.
Washing synthetic clothes adds microfibres. The Imperial College blog says washing releases 500,000 tons of microfibres into the ocean every year.
Waste: where clothes end up
Clothes are thrown away faster than they wear out. WRI reports that one garbage truck of clothes is burned or sent to landfill every second, and that non-biodegradable fabrics can sit in landfill for up to 200 years. It puts the annual value of clothing discarded prematurely at more than $400 billion.
Several datasets show the scale, each with its own scope and date:
- An estimated 92 million tonnes of textile waste was created in 2015, from a 2017 industry report cited by Good On You.
- In the UK, 727.7 kilotonnes of textiles went to incineration or landfill in 2021, per a WRAP report cited by Good On You.
- In the UK, the average person owns 115 items of clothing, but 30% have not been worn within the past year (Greenpeace Unearthed).
- Around 15% of clothing fabric is wasted at the cut-off stage of production, before it reaches stores (Greenpeace Unearthed).
Recycling does not close the gap yet. Greenpeace Unearthed says less than 1% of textiles are recycled into new clothing, and that it is often cheaper to use virgin fibres than to recycle old ones. Good On You notes that in 2019 the European Parliament found less than half of used garments were sent for recycling, and only 1% became new clothes.
Unsold and unwanted clothes often travel abroad. Good On You says that where municipal waste systems are fragile, whatever is not sold in second-hand markets becomes solid waste.
Land and chemicals behind the fibre
Cotton fields account for 2.4% of cultivated land but consume 6% of pesticides and 16% of insecticides, according to Greenpeace Unearthed. The same review lists the deforestation of ancient and endangered forests for rayon and other cellulosic fibres among fashion’s problems.
It also projects that the land used by fashion will grow by 35% by 2030. That means an extra 115 million hectares, an area almost five times the size of the UK, diverted from conservation, carbon capture and food supply.
Pressures like these overlap with the causes of biodiversity loss, which are covered in a separate guide. They also mean there is no easy fibre swap, because Greenpeace Unearthed notes cotton has a lower carbon footprint than synthetics but needs significantly more land and water.
What could change the picture
The Imperial College blog lists ways to cut the impact:
- Embracing renewable energy.
- Developing new methods for recycling.
- Using a biodegradable or sustainable substitute for polyester.
- Producing better-quality, longer-lived products.
WRI points to business models built on longevity, such as Rent the Runway and Gwynnie Bee, as early signs of reuse replacing rapid consumption. It cites a report finding that tackling the industry’s environmental and social problems would bring a $192 billion benefit to the global economy by 2030.
People are part of the picture. WRI, citing the non-profit Remake, says 75 million people make our clothes, and that garment workers in Bangladesh made about $96 per month, with the government’s wage board suggesting a worker needs 3.5 times that to live decently. Any move away from fast fashion therefore raises the question of what is a just transition for those workers.
For your own wardrobe, the evidence points to three habits:
- Wear what you own for longer, since shorter lifespans drive the waste.
- Favour better-quality, longer-lived items over trend pieces.
- Try reuse options such as rental before buying new.
Frequently asked questions
Is fast fashion really worse for the climate than flying?
Show answer
According to Greenpeace Unearthed, emissions from textile production are equivalent to 1.2 billion tonnes of CO2 a year, more than international flights and shipping combined. The comparison covers textile production alone, not the whole of aviation.
How much water does one cotton shirt need?
Show answer
WRI says 2,700 litres, while the Imperial College blog gives more than 3000 L. Methods and system boundaries differ, so expect a range rather than one exact number.
Can old clothes be recycled into new clothes?
Show answer
Only to a small extent. Greenpeace Unearthed reports that less than 1% of textiles are recycled into new clothing, partly because recycling damages and shortens fibres.
Are these statistics reliable?
Show answer
Good On You says textile waste facts are notoriously tricky to certify. Several figures here date from 2015 to 2019, so check the original source for newer data.
Is cotton a better choice than polyester?
Show answer
It depends on what you measure. Greenpeace Unearthed says cotton has a lower carbon footprint, but its production needs significantly more land and water than synthetic fibres.
