“Embrace the beauty of nature… Earth Day Collection.” An Instagram caption, originated from a brand who in that same year emitted more than 16.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide within the atmosphere. That same brand also discards 85% of their clothing annually, incorporates microplastics in every aspect of production, and is known as the world’s biggest fashion polluter. Despite this being common knowledge among its buyers, Shein only continues to profit, bringing home billions of dollars annually. Through protests, writings, and advocations, journalists and environmentalists are consistently seen voicing against these practices. But if Shein continues to annually profit just as much as all the Disneyland parks combined, then why would it change its detrimental ways?
Shein unfortunately is not the first to profit off of environmental ruin, as the wellbeing of the planet is not a usual consideration in general business practices. Coca-Cola produces over 100 billion plastic bottles within a given year, yet the burden to recycle and reduce is pushed onto general populations. ChatGPT has over 300 million weekly active users, with each search using ten times the amount of energy compared to an everyday search on Google, resulting in many urging others to avoid the platform entirely. When environmental issues like these involve companies, brands, or platforms, people are often urged to boycott or change their ways of living as a combat instead of the companies themselves. However, this practice of environmental gaslighting is taking us further from a solution. It is far easier to control the carbon footprint of eight companies, rather than attempting to control the carbon footprint of eight billion people.
Even if the fashion industry entirely stopped production today, there would still be more than enough clothing to dress the next six generations. Meaning the people are not the problem, rather it is the companies who produce billions of garments annually, discard and burn what does not sell, and “celebrate” Earth day with a caption on Instagram. This is not to say individuals do not have an environmental influence, or they should stop any practices which are sustainably beneficial. Both are extremely important, but individual actions are simply not enough. If there were financial repercussions or greater laws surrounding companies’ negative environmental impacts, harmful practices will change. If Shein simply produced less there would be less waste. If Coca-Cola prioritized the utilization of recycled plastics then they would no longer be the biggest plastic polluter. And if ChatGPT required less energy, using it would not be an issue. Forcing greater environmental regulations on companies will result in accountability for consumers as well. Enforcing sustainable laws on a handful of corporations will actually lead to lasting environmental change, rather than placing unrealistic expectations on every individual to change their lifestyle.
