We had a wonderful time. But what did we learn?

Last week, in the face of decidedly uncooperative tide and weather patterns, The European House-Ambrosetti put on a marvelous and very well organised event in Venice (my thanks to Benedetta Landi in particular).? The topic was boosting a just fashion transition. So, what did we learn?

Unfortunately, I couldn't make the second day, but here are some thoughts that I took away from day one. As always, comments are welcome - in fact, they're encouraged.

China, India and Climate Change.

More than one speaker mentioned India and China in particular, as leading culprits in global GHG emissions, who are not pulling their weight in carbon abatement. But China and India are not producing all that stuff for the sake of producing it.?They are producing it for the sake of the consumers who want to buy it. And those consumers are neither Indian, nor Chinese. They are us.?Those goods are made for consumers in the global north. Which automatically means that they are our emissions. And it is our duty to reduce them - not China's or India's. Indeed, since brands, retailers, and sales platforms earn their income from this consumption, aren't some of those emissions, actually their emissions? In which case, aren't they responsible for covering the cost of reducing them?

Youth and Climate Change

One very interesting speaker (he also provided a perceptive analysis of the Gaza conflict), made the point that when other participants kept referring to youth's concern for climate change - they were actually talking about the youth of the global north. Despite the fact that the population of the global south skews young, those nations are not focused on climate change at all. I couldn't agree more. In Benin, under 25s are almost 65% of the total population. But for most, surviving tomorrow is far less important than surviving today. For much of the youth of the global south, surviving and thriving today is the only thing they have the time and energy to care about. And by 2050, one in four people on the planet will be African.

Life expectancy in Nigeria, Africa's most populous nation, is only 53. Their future is now. And why should they care about reducing their country's climate impact? It is not their emissions that are the problem. Consumption emissions in Benin, Ghana, Nigeria, Burkina Faso..... average less than 1 tonne/capita pa. In India, it's less than 2 tonnes. They're not the guilty party, so how can we suggest that they have to reduce anything?

We have the luxury of worrying about climate change because, thanks to the economies that we have built, we don't have to worry about daily survival. But it's that very economic expansion that has generated the emissions that are causing so many issues now.?Surely that means that climate change is our problem to fix, and ours alone? In which case, we are the ones who must pay for any and all remediation?

As the population and consumer power of Africa explodes in the next 30 years, we all know what is going to happen. If?our planet is to have any future at all, it is - quite rightly - our consumption emissions that must fall to compensate. If you are going to COP28, perhaps you could ask John Kerry: since US consumption emissions are somewhere around 15-16 tonnes per capita pa, what is he doing to reduce them? And what is the US budget to address mitigation in the nations that have supplied, and continue to supply, the US's abundance?

The Role of Education

The need to educate citizen consumers to value their clothing, to maintain and repair them, was mentioned by more than one speaker. I thoroughly agree that teaching children to consider their clothes - indeed, anything that they purchase - as something of value, to cherish and conserve, is a great idea. But value is closely related to price. If?the average price of clothing purchased in France last year was €12.50, and the average of cost of repairs was €20, is it even ethical to tell children to repair their clothes, when this is so clearly not in their financial interest? Particularly when that is also thoroughly inconsistent with the next point.

The Poor of the Global North need Cheap Clothes

At least one speaker insisted that we cannot make the price of apparel reflect its true social and environmental cost, because that would make it more expensive. And the poor of the global north need cheap clothes.?The colonial era is over. It is not the responsibility of the poor of the global south to subsidise the poor of the global north. Yet again, that is our responsibility. If our poor cannot afford the true cost of their clothes, then our social programs must change to fix that. We cannot keep offloading the responsibility for all our failings onto those lower down the power chain.

Indeed, does the argument have any validity in the first place? the EU's own data shows that despite the significant reduction in the average cost of clothing over the past decades, apparel's share in the average EU consumer budget has hardly changed.?All this cheap clothing, all this pollution and environmental degradation, has not even truly benefited anyone who matters. Is that perhaps the real tragedy of fast fashion?

To be Sustainable Italian Fashion Should Look to its Heritage

One point that more than one speaker made, and with which I wholeheartedly concur - if not quite in the manner that the others envisaged - is that to make Italian fashion sustainable, Italy must look to its heritage. The Antico Setificio Fiorentino has been producing textiles since 1786.?Their warper is a model originally designed by Leonardo da Vinci in 1485. Millenia of continued production in the same manner, protecting culture and heritage in the process, is the definition of sustainability.?It follows automatically, that the Italian textile industry has a real interest in ensuring that all fashion produced everywhere, is priced to reflect its true social and environmental cost. Only then will Italy be able to compete on a level playing field, and excel at what it does best - creativity and beauty that is valued and so, endures.?

Even if it were true that silk has the highest environmental impact of any fiber - and it categorically is not true - but even if it were: a garment with a production impact of 1,000 - in GHG emissions, water scarcity, or whatever - worn 1,000 times, has an impact per wear of 1?.?A garment with a production impact of 100, that is only worn 10 times, has an impact per wear of 10.?Moreover, after 1,000 wears, only one of the first garment enters the waste stream, and needs to be disposed of. But at 10 wears each, to reach 1,000 wears, 100 of the second type of garment will first have to be produced (and 100x100= 10,000) and then disposed of.

This is the fundamental failing of fast fashion. No amount of fiber switching, smaller runs, on-demand production, or even renewable energy, can ever fix this. It is the very fastness of fast fashion - apparel quickly purchased and equally rapidly disposed of - that makes it completely unsustainable, by any definition.

The Psychology of Fashion

There was also mention of the psychology behind fashion purchases and that of fast fashion in particular: the pleasure, however brief, that consumers get, not just from shopping, but also from the prospect of shopping. All true - and how can Italian fashion counter that? Again, by looking to Italian heritage. There is emotional value in anticipation, in the pleasure of the chase. Indeed, I believe that's the thinking that underpins the concept of 'playing hard to get' in romantic associations.?When fashion was considerably pricier, it was common for women in particular, to identify a piece of clothing or shoes that they wanted, and then to save up for them. I know more than one, who when they had finally acquired the treasured item, would place it at the bottom of their bed so that it would be the first thing that they saw upon awakening. That kind of pleasure is one that few of the young today have ever experienced. Why not bring it back?

And finally

Coarse Wool

There was some discussion of sourcing fibers locally, and if the interpreter understood correctly, some appeared to be claiming that coarse European wool is all landfilled, because wool is an unsustainable fiber, and nobody will use it. This is obviously back to front. If a fiber has no value and is seen as waste, then, as a raw material, it has NO environmental impact whatsoever. If it is thrown away, the fiber is not an economic driver of the production process. The emissions will occur whether you use the fiber or not. That's the argument behind using apple skins or pineapple leaves to make leather - and they all require a healthy dose of virgin plastic.

The textile masters of Italy produced some of the finest apparel the world has ever seen, centuries before the advent of Australian merino. With all that modern technology has to offer, is there any reason why they couldn't do so again? Must innovative fibers only mean mycelium or some lab based cultivation? Couldn't the sector invest in innovative ways of using fibers that we have long known about, that have a social and cultural dimension, and that are currently languishing? Can't something be made from the wool of the sheep that mow Pompeii, or that populate the dreams of the Navajo? There was much mention of the importance of narrative, of storytelling, in promoting sustainable consumption. Surely there are stories to tell here?

Just a thought. Please feel free to add yours, not only on coarse wool - but on any and all of the above