Hit a full year without buying any new clothes

I started tracking my purchases about 13 months ago just to save money, but then I added up the carbon footprint of making a single pair of jeans and it hit me hard. The number came out to 3,800 gallons of water for one pair, and I suddenly understood why limiting consumption matters so much. Anyone else tracked something specific like this and had it change what you do?

3 comments

3 Comments

kimfisher1mo ago

I get the numbers game, but I'd push back on that "hit you hard" part. The whole water argument for jeans always seems selective to me - you're comparing the water footprint of one product to a global fresh water supply that's basically infinite and constantly recycled through the water cycle. Plus, have you looked at the energy costs in producing new "sustainable" clothes? Those eco-friendly brands often use even more resources making their materials than regular manufacturers do. I'm not buying anything new myself either, but mostly because my wallet dictates more than my conscience does. Why do we only count water for jeans and not for like, the phone you're typing this on?

cooper.drew1mo ago

And honestly @kimfisher, I’d probably use more water taking a long shower than my jeans have seen in their whole lifecycle, so maybe I’m the real problem here. But you’ve got a fair point about phones since we never talk about the gallons of water it takes to mine the metals inside them or power the data centers for my social media scrolling. Maybe we should all just wear potato sacks and use carrier pigeons, except knowing my luck the sack would be made of unsustainable potatoes.

leehall1mo ago

Settle the water debate by remembering the point is to consume less, not just swap one eco-stat for another. @cooper.drew is right about phones being worse, but that should make us more careful about all purchases, not just jeans. The real win is using what you already have until it falls apart.