Do you know that Germany has invested 340 billion euros in home insulation over the last ten years to save energy, and has saved almost nothing? 


Gabrielle

Do you know that <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2020/10/04/en-allemagne-les-renovations-energetiques-des-batiments-n-ont-pas-fait-baisser-la-consommation_6054715_3234.html">Germany has invested 340 billion euros in home insulation over the last ten years to save energy, and has saved almost nothing</a>? Because houses were well insulated, people spent less money for the same amount of heating, which led Germans to heat their homes to 22°C instead of 20°C. This kind of behaviour may seem silly to you, especially considering the amount of money Germany spent and the lack of results. Yet, it is incredibly common and known as the &#x27;rebound effect&#x27;.​ 
<h1>Discovery of the rebound effect</h1>
Sir Jevons was a 19th-century British economist. He studied the subject of coal, in particular the links between the exploitation of this resource and the United Kingdom&#x27;s domination of the rest of the world at that time. Noting an exponential growth in the consumption of this resource, he was concerned about the possible consequences for the country once the peak had passed. Therefore, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09228-7_26">Jevons looked for ways to reduce coal consumption, including more economical use and more efficient machinery</a>.
He then noticed what would later become known as Jevons&#x27; paradox: the increase in the efficiency of machines, thanks in particular to the invention of the steam engine by James Watt, led to an increase in coal consumption [Figure 1].
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/1d2cd64666ea6a8332a0954d68f5cb72b8132a14.png" alt="undefined">
The paradox is that if a machine consumes less coal for the same purpose, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.03.020">one would expect total coal consumption to decrease</a>. This was without considering the adaptation of human behaviour: for the same production, the machine certainly costs less coal. But it allows for more diverse uses, and one can also afford to use more for the same amount of coal. This explains the widespread use of coal in the manufacturing industry, which has led to an increase in consumption. In 1980, Khazzoom called this paradox the &quot;rebound effect&quot;, particularly by studying this phenomenon in the energy consumption of household appliances. He describes the rebound effect as the fact that <a href="https://www.iaee.org/energyjournal/article/1472">‘the estimates of energy savings predicted to result from these mandated standards are derived mechanically’</a>.
However, Jevons&#x27; paradox is a special case of the rebound effect. This term ‘rebound effect’ characterises only the increased consumption of a technology in relation to reductions in the limits to its use. This means that the actual savings from reducing a limit to a technology, whether technical, financial, or ecological - often all three - are less than theoretically possible. This effect is often quantified by the following formula:
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/19a752507f3b2b6aea3e72bf351239b4cd8bacb7.png" alt="undefined">
The term ‘Jevons’ paradox’ or ‘backfire’ only characterises a rebound that would exceed 100%, making <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.013">the situation worse than if no technological improvements in efficiency had taken place in the first place, when the potential gains are more than offset by the negative effects</a>. 
Since then, some people, especially economists, have looked into this phenomenon. François Schneider defines the rebound effect as <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228711544_L%27effet_rebond">an increase in consumption linked to the reduction of financial, temporal, physical, social, etc. limits to the use of a technology</a> [Figure 2].
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/84b86c8d2b86ef92296e2e50f687cbf04490ca8e.png" alt="undefined">
<h1>Consequences and examples</h1>
The rebound effect highlighted by Jevons was due to the removal of a technological and financial barrier (the cost of coal). Most rebound effects are due to this type of barrier, but temporal and ecological barriers must also be considered. Furthermore, the rebound effect is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(00)00021-5">extremely common in two areas in particular: energy and digital</a>.
In the field of energy, the ADEME (Agency for the Environment and Energy Management) has estimated that in France, between 1982 and 2012, while <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-09228-7_26">final energy intensity had decreased by 30%, final energy consumption had increased by 15%, from 134 Mtoe to 154 Mtoe</a>. Indeed, as energy was cheaper, the French consumed more of it, as was the case for coal in Jevons&#x27; time.
For digital technology, the improved energy efficiency of transmission networks has led to an explosion in data traffic. This is the case with 4G and then 5G: it takes less time and less energy to download a given amount of data, so <a href="https://www.fun-mooc.fr/fr/cours/impacts-environnementaux-du-numerique/">users are loading much more data than before</a>. The result is an explosion in energy consumption and GHG emissions from the digital sector, which already accounts for almost 4% of global GHG emissions.
Thus, technological innovations to relieve human pressure on the environment may even turn out to be false good ideas.
In a nutshell, what is important to note is that the rebound effect is likely to occur wherever a barrier is removed. Indeed, Jevons and Schneider have shown that ecological innovation in a growth economy inexorably leads to a rebound effect. According to them, to be effective in reducing environmental impacts, <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228711544_L%27effet_rebond">innovation must take place in a context of economic contraction and frugality in consumption</a>. Indeed, technological innovations are multiplying in an attempt to respond to climate and environmental challenges.
However, what matters is not the energy, material, or emissions per element, but the total energy, material, or emissions. Therefore, if the rebound effect is not considered, the effects are likely to be reduced, cancelled out, or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.013">they will even worsen the situation</a>.
<h1>Different types of rebound effect</h1>
To summarise and clarify the situation a little, it is essential to have in mind the different rebound effects. Indeed, one of the difficulties of the rebound effect is its multifactorial and sometimes even hidden character.
There are two main types of rebound effect, plus the Jevons paradox [Table 1].
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/08aca1079e2b08851d00f9c585e1a3db135599dc.png" alt="undefined">
We can thus see how difficult it can be to quantify the rebound effect, especially when the effects are indirect: <a href="https://bonpote.com/en/jevons-paradox-and-rebound-effect/">&quot;The concept is simple to understand, much harder to demonstrate with numbers&quot;.</a>Unfortunately, when it is difficult to quantify, it is not taken into account in projects and policies, including in scientific articles such as the IPCC or the IEA. Hence the emergency to raise awareness about this topic.
<h1>Some plans for solutions</h1>
It is certainly difficult to put in place solutions to reduce something that we find hard to quantify. However, it is important to know that in some cases, particularly in the energy field, quantifications are present and precise. Moreover, we must not forget that the rebound effect is due to the human factor. Thus, encouraging people to change their behaviour can help reduce the rebound effect.
This can be done by raising awareness of ecological issues: making people aware of the rebound effect makes it easier to avoid it. The responsible fashion sector has conducted several massive awareness campaigns on this subject.
The Patagonia brand has a very strong ethical and environmental policy. It also ran an advertising campaign during Black Friday calling on consumers not to buy. ‘Don&#x27;t buy this jacket’ encouraged consumers not to buy what they did not need.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/e3eac21512d18ff7ab1a136e4c515ff0186d6f42.png" alt="Figure 3: Patagonia campaign during Black Friday 'Don't buy this jacket'.">
Indeed, the brand declared: ‘It&#x27;s time for us as a company to address the issue of consumerism’, thus <a href="https://www.patagonia.com/stories/dont-buy-this-jacket-black-friday-and-the-new-york-times/story-18615.html">stirring up the fashion world by being strongly relayed on social networks</a>.
In the same idea, the French brand Loom, founded in 2016, has a business model based on producing less but better. The clothes are indeed designed to last, and the customer service takes returns after the first year of use to ensure that the quality of the clothes is not deteriorated. The brand also studied the rebound effect (of new clothes) and thus concluded <a href="https://la-mode-a-l-envers.loom.fr/cest-quoi-leffet-rebond/">that it was better to reduce emissions at source by reducing production, and that frugality was a priority</a>.
Finally, initiatives are flourishing to raise public awareness of consumption and frugality. This is the case, for example, with Zero Waste Scotland and Edinburgh Science, which have organised awareness-raising workshops in George Square in Glasgow. Information was provided on the environmental impact of fashion, but also on solutions to be implemented, such as sewing, repairing, but above all <a href="https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/event/consumed-roadshow">questioning one&#x27;s needs</a>.
While solutions exist and are increasingly being found on an individual scale, reflection on a collective scale is much more profound and complex, but not impossible, as it requires us to question the entire consumption model on which our societies are based.
<h1>Conclusion</h1>
The rebound effect arises when financial, temporal, physical, social, etc. limits to the use of a technology are reduced. The consequences are an increase in resource consumption and CO2 emissions, sometimes greater than if no reduction had been allowed in the first place.
It is therefore understandable that this can be a problem in the fight for environmental protection: innovations may improve existing uses but increase the pressures of behavioural change. This is what has happened with electronic equipment, the use of fuel-efficient cars and the renovation of buildings.
This effect appears when we have understood the solutions but not the problem. Thus, environmental solutions in a growth economy will almost inevitably lead to rebound effects. So, what we need to do to avoid it and really reduce our pressures on the environment is to question our consumption at the root. What do we need and what do we do with it? This cannot be done without a massive awareness of the scale of the environmental challenges.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

Rebound Effect: The Whiplash of Innovation

These stripes may remind you of others: the blue and red stripes of the climate. In 2018, climate scientist Ed Hawkins developed this sequence of stripes to represent in colour the temperature departure from normal from 1772 to 2017.

These stripes may remind you of others: the blue and red stripes of the climate. In 2018, climate scientist Ed Hawkins developed this sequence of stripes to represent in colour the temperature departure from normal from 1772 to 2017. Figure 1 (Hawkins, 2021).
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/5d6c54fd2045e63700ec2ce4ed4145f2eb1a68d6.png" alt="Figure 1: Climate stripes from 1772 to 2017, change in global temperatures.">
Another way to represent global warming is to use the temperature anomaly since pre-industrial levels, compared to the average temperatures at the end of the 20th century Figure 2.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/63d7dabfd094462110703acab255ad866c6a83ed.jpg" alt="Figure 2: Average temperature anomaly (Our World in data, 2019).">
World famous, they even made the cover of The Economist in 2019. Inspired by this, Miles Richardson depicted the stripes of biodiversity to represent mass extinction and species loss. Behind this artistic representation, is a very precise goal: to raise awareness of the loss of biodiversity, a subject at least 8 times less mentioned than climate change in media (Legagneux et al., 2018), while its boundary is much more outdated that the one of climate change [Figure 3] (Prados, 2022).

Indeed, the observation seems to come later, the link with human societies seems less obvious, so the consequences seem less serious than for climate change. However, the WHO states that &#x27;Biodiversity loss can have significant direct human health impacts if ecosystem services are no longer adequate to meet social needs. Indirectly, changes in ecosystem services affect livelihoods, income, local migration and, on occasion, may even cause or exacerbate political conflict&#x27; (WHO, 2015). Nowadays, however, we are sinking deeper into the biodiversity loss, mostly caused by humans, without even considering the consequences for our societies.
The evidence is clear: according to the Living Planet 2020 Index, the average population abundance of species has declined by 68% since 1970 (Zoological Society of London, 2022). The IPBES speaks of one million species threatened with extinction (Purvis, nd) and many scientists speak of soon entering the 6th mass extinction.
The representation of the bio-stripes highlights the most important feature of this mass extinction: its extremely rapid rate. Indeed, these stripes span less than 50 years, between 1972 and 2016, and show an extinction rate &#x27;100 to 1,000 times greater than that calculated over geological time&#x27; (Algrain, 2022).

However, in only tackling the climate, or almost, we forget the other nine planetary boundaries (Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2022). The climate frontier may have been exceeded, but it is not the one that has been pushed back the most. Indeed, the biodiversity frontier is much more worrying, and is further accentuated by climate change.
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/b310029997bf22f421c1cf46ad1c12be62459ffc.png" alt="Figure 3: the planetary boundaries (Wang-Erlandsson et al., 2022).">
Nonetheless, climate change is only the third cause of biodiversity loss (followed by pollution and the proliferation of invasive species). The first two causes, accounting for more than half of the effects, are firstly the destruction of habitats (75% of the earth&#x27;s surface has been altered by humans) and the overexploitation of resources (except for marine species, where overexploitation is the primary cause). In all, 28% of the species monitored are under threat, with fewer species and fewer individuals per species (La Fresque de la biodiversité, 2022; IPBES, 2019).
However, not all species are equally at risk of extinction: some 41% of amphibians are threatened, 26% of mammals, 37% of sharks, 34% of conifers, 33% of corals, 14% of birds, etc. Therefore, Richardson has, for example, focused on fish to show the sharp decline of marine species in a few decades [Figure 4] (Prados, 2022).
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/b109c68a4ab67d599f17d5f14cfa49d3fae0d0c0.jpg" alt="Figure 4: Freshwater bio stripes.">
Now that we know this, what can we do as individuals?
<ul><li>Getting information is the most important thing, to have in mind the orders of magnitude, to know on which actions to focus our energy and our time.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Combating land use and the destruction of ecosystems, particularly through the artificialization of land, is of paramount importance.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Shift to a plant-based diet, for 2 main causes. The first is that livestock farming is responsible for a large part of deforestation and soil artificialisation, and is therefore responsible for the destruction of habitats, the primary cause of biodiversity loss. The second reason is that marine biodiversity suffers primarily from overexploitation of resources: dolphins die much more from bycatch in fishing than from hunting in Asia for example (Seaspiracy, 2021).</li></ul>
<ul><li>Getting in touch with nature, because we are much more sensitive when we look at and learn about the living beings that are dying because of our activities. </li></ul>
The biodiversity collage (La Fresque de la biodiversité, 2022; IPBES 2019) also adds these 4 paths to action:
<ul><li>Reducing pressure on the 5 main causes of biodiversity loss.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Recreating the conditions for life, by thinking in terms of shelter and cover.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Contributing to knowledge about biodiversity, particularly through participatory science.</li></ul>
<ul><li>Being amazed!</li></ul>
Particularly for the latter, consider that it is estimated that there are over 5 million species on Earth, but only 2 million are known, and less than 150,000 are studied. The beauty and vastness of biodiversity are not just about humans, or even the few species you have seen in a zoo. The diversity of species on Earth is beyond human imagination, and we should do everything we can to preserve it.
My personal opinion on these stripes is that they are even more impactful than the climate stripes, as they fade and show a world that is losing its colours and dying. Humans are part of the Living, and don&#x27;t realise that if the Living dies, they die with them. However, we now know the facts, and we know how to take action: educating ourselves and raising awareness around us are the first steps to changing the world and fighting for the preservation of Life.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Sustainability &amp; Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h3>References</h3>
ALGRAIN S., 2022. [LinkedIn] August 2022 [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stacy-algrain_showyourstripes-activity-6965617173666873344-jgU4?utm_source=linkedin_share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop_web">https://www.linkedin.com/posts/stacy-algrain_showyourstripes-activity-6965617173666873344-jgU4?utm_source=linkedin_share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop_web</a> (French)
HAWKINS, 2021. Show your stripes [online] University of reading [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://showyourstripes.info/s/globe">https://showyourstripes.info/s/globe</a>​ 
La fresque de la biodiversité, 2022. [viewed 13 December 2021] Available from : <a href="https://www.fresquedelabiodiversite.org/">https://www.fresquedelabiodiversite.org/</a> (French)
LEGAGNEUX P., CASAJUS N., CAZELLES K., CHEVALLIER C., CHEVRINAIS M., GUERY L., JACQUET C., JAFFRE M., NAUD M.J., NOISETTE F., ROPARS P., VISSAULT S., ARCHAMBAULT P., BETY J., BERTEAUX D., GRAVEL D., 2018. Our House Is Burning: Discrepancy in Climate Change vs. Biodiversity Coverage in the Media as Compared to Scientific Literature. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution [online] 5 [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2017.00175">https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2017.00175</a>​ 
OUR WORLD IN DATA, 2019. Average temperature anomaly, global. [online] Our World in data [viewed 19 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly?country=~Global">https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/temperature-anomaly?country=~Global</a>​ 
PRADOS J., 2022. À l’image des « bandes du réchauffement climatique », un nouvel outil pour mieux (se) représenter l’effondrement du vivant [Like the &quot;global warming stripes&quot;, a new tool to better represent the collapse of life] [online] Vert [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from : <a href="https://vert.eco/articles/a-limage-des-bandes-du-rechauffement-climatique-un-nouvel-outil-pour-mieux-se-representer-leffondrement-de-la-biodiversite">https://vert.eco/articles/a-limage-des-bandes-du-rechauffement-climatique-un-nouvel-outil-pour-mieux-se-representer-leffondrement-de-la-biodiversite</a>​ 
PURVIS A., nd. A million threatened species? Thirteen questions and answers [online] IPBES [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://ipbes.net/news/million-threatened-species-thirteen-questions-answers">https://ipbes.net/news/million-threatened-species-thirteen-questions-answers</a>​ 
SEASPIRACY, 2021. [Netflix] Available from: <a href="https://www.seaspiracy.org/">https://www.seaspiracy.org/</a>​ 
WANG-ERLANDSSON, L., TOBIAN, A., VAN DER ENT, R. J., FETZER, I., TE WIERIK, S., PORKKA, M., STAAL, A., JARAMILLO, F., DAHLMANN, H., SINGH, C., GREVE, P., GERTEN, D., KEYS, P.W., GLEESON, T, CORNELL, S. E., STEFFEN, W., BAI, X., ROCKSTRÖM, J., (2022). Towards a green water planetary boundary. Nature Reviews Earth &amp; Environment. [online] [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-022-00287-8</a>​ 
WHO, 2015. Biodiversity and Health [online] World Health Organization [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity-and-health">https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/biodiversity-and-health</a>​ 
ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON, 2020. Living Planet Index [online] [viewed 17 August 2022] Available from: <a href="http://stats.livingplanetindex.org/">http://stats.livingplanetindex.org/</a>​

Show Your Bio Stripes

When tackling climate related issues, energy is a key topic. Indeed, it accounts for 73.2% of the GHG emissions, which represented over 33 GtCO2eq in 2019. (IEA, 2020) Specifically, 16.2% comes from the transport: 11.9% for road transport, 1.9% for aviation and 1.7% for shipping. (Ritchie and Roser, 2020) Although electric vehicles help road transport to emit less, decarbonisation of this sector is not yet a reality. 

The future use of Hydrogen in transport, the good the bad and the ugly

Fashion’s impact is a well-known fact in terms of waste, plastic pollution (polymers, microfibers, etc.), animal cruelty, water needs and health issues (dyes and chemicals). We know as well that fashion is a synonym for consumption, especially in the UK, where the amount of purchased clothes is the highest among all European countries. (UK Parliament, 2019). The reason for this over-consumption is mostly the phenomenon of fast fashion, defined as ‘clothes that are made and sold cheaply, so that people can buy new clothes often’ by Cambridge dictionary.

<h1>Introduction</h1>
Fashion’s impact is a well-known fact in terms of waste, plastic pollution (polymers, microfibers, etc.), animal cruelty, water needs and health issues (dyes and chemicals). We know as well that fashion is a synonym for consumption, especially in the UK, where the amount of purchased clothes is the highest among all European countries. (UK Parliament, 2019). The reason for this over-consumption is mostly the phenomenon of fast fashion, defined as ‘clothes that are made and sold cheaply, so that people can buy new clothes often’ by Cambridge dictionary.
Given the urgent need to reach zero carbon emission, we should have a closer look at the carbon footprint of fast fashion, which is huge and apparently not expected to reduce.
<h1>Status and consequences</h1>
In 2015, the fashion sector represented between 2% and 10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (1,2 Gtonnes CO2eq). (United Nations, 2019) (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017) (Brewer, 2019). If the fashion industry wants to comply with the +1,5°C scenario, it should take a drastic shift in its ways of production and in its mindset.
Fortunately, companies are already trying to cut down their emissions with solutions such as recycled materials from plastic materials or water-saving textile. It is indeed possible to produce polar fleece from PET bottles. This solution could solve the waste problems of both the plastic industry and the resources of the fashion industry (O’Driscoll, 2015). Another example is Pretty Little Thing, which wants to rebrand its image thanks to recycled clothing lines and a partnership with ReGAIN app to foster second-hand clothing, offering discounts to customers who give back their old clothes.
However, the solutions still struggle to leave the prototype stage and bring new problems such as microplastics released by polar fleece when they are laundered. We should also take with a pinch of salt the great brands’ initiatives because it can also be an excuse for them to sell more and can be some greenwashing.
Indeed, companies are yet to take the lead expecting legislators to take the first step as they want to maximise profit and hence push consumption. Thus, our consumption rate is a skyrocketing trend, and so is our carbon footprint.ice6363
<h1>Fashion by 2050</h1>
According to Ellen MacArthur Foundation&#x27;s report about fashion, this industry could represent more than a quarter (25%) of our carbon budget in 2050. Those figures are surprising, since clothes aren’t the heaviest part of our personal carbon footprint at all. For example, in France, clothing weights around 7% of our carbon budget as an individual. Thus, it is the 7th over 9 posts of carbon emissions, above both energy and housing, but far below food and transports. (Malliet, 2020)
The main cause is our consumption rate: it has been skyrocketing. Indeed, in the past 15 years, the use of clothes per capita grew up by almost 50%. We&#x27;re used to wearing less and less our clothes and we prefer to wear many clothes few times, rather than few clothes many times. The world average number of times clothes are worn has been decreasing from 200 to 130 in under 15 years. Therefore, this led to a one-third rise in sales between 2000 and 2005. (IPCC, 2014).
Worse still, our consumption rate has erased the progress made in garment eco-efficiency. The British group Boohoo – is one of the least engaged fashion brands in the UK in terms of sustainability. (UK Parliament, 2019) –, to which the brand PLT belongs, is a telling example of the rebound effect. Indeed, in their report, we can notice the improvement in carbon efficiency, since their 2020 total emissions divided by the revenue has decreased by 7% compared to 2019. However, the rise in carbon emissions has reached 33% compared to 2019 level (780,000 tCO2eq in 2020), which cannot be a good thing, even if carbon efficiency has been enhanced. (Boohoo Group, 2021).
Contrary to what one might think, the transport of clothes has quite insignificant energy consumption and carbon footprint. (Peters et al., 2021) The worst parts are the extraction of resources and the fabrication, because of the electricity used for the sewing machines. The main problem is then the growing production of new products. One reason is the impact of brands, influencers, and advertising: they make us believe this insatiable consumption is a need, so that we consume each time more. (Brewer, 2019).
To counter this overconsumption, Slow Fashion has recently emerged in opposition to fast fashion. It brings people to consume less, with products of better quality. It also fosters a circular economy, such as second-hand clothing and repairing. However, the latter has strong limits in today’s garment of fast fashion. Clothes and accessories are made cheap, of low quality, and quickly old-fashioned on purpose so they are hard to repair or sell. This is called planned obsolescence, defined as “suppliers of durables in imperfectly competitive markets producing goods with uneconomically short useful lives, so that consumers will have to repurchase more often”. (Philip et al., 2020). A telling example is the story of pairs of tights: initially, one pair could last for decades, which wasn’t good for business. Since the 1940s, tights are made thinner and weaker, so the brand can sell each year more pairs. (HOP, 2018). Moreover, those cheap prices are made to discourage customers from repairing. Thus, it becomes easier and less expensive to buy new items.
However, to comply with the commitment of net-zero GHG emissions within 2050, the fashion sector should not follow that trend. The figures show we must reduce the production of new clothes if we want that pathway to be avoided. Hopefully, we can then underscore 3 main lines of action: reducing the amount of purchased items, designing with more responsible textile and less consuming devices, and foster a more ethical end-of-life.
<h1>Truly circular economy and shift in the behaviour </h1>
Although their poor condition is not the main reason for clothes disposal, a big step ahead to cut down GHG emissions should be to drastically enhance garment quality. First, it could increase the possibility of reparation, with specialised shops like Repair Cafés – local workshops organised about the repairs of objects. It would make second-hand market easier and widely enhance the current solutions of recycling. Indeed, in 2015, at most 13% of the clothes could be recycled, and most of them were downcycled, which means recycled with a great loss of use or quality (e.g.: clothes to insulation). (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017).
We should also enhance recycling techniques, to make the textile more cost-effective. A solution can be the upcycling of the textile: “reuse in such a way as to create a product of higher quality or value than the original” (Oxford language). As an example, textile from a curtain could be reused in garments, or garments could be reused as napkins. This tackles both issues of lack of resources and end of life, providing more resistant and less contaminant textile.
If we manage, in the future, to create more durable clothes, then we could improve solutions to reduce esthetical obsolescence: clothes are disposed of while still perfectly wearable in over 80% of the time. Instead of throwing them away, we could think about selling, sharing, donating, or renting them to put them back in the use loop.
However, those innovations cannot be the solution if there is no consumer to change his way of consuming, which means there is an urgent need for a shift in individuals’ behaviour too. Indeed, consumers are aware of the climate issues: around 2/3 of the consumers would pay more for more sustainable clothes and more ethical companies. (United nations, 2019). This is a good point, since brands cannot afford sustainable and ethical clothes at fast fashion prices.
Nevertheless, there are still too few individuals who are ready to change their behaviour. Advertising and influencers did not help, since they made us believe we had to consume to get social value. Moreover, consumers might not be equally informed about fashion&#x27;s impact on climate, which can let some brands take advantage of it through some greenwashing marketing. That&#x27;s why laws and policies are required if we expect a significant change by 2050. We could imagine that advertising for highly polluting garments, such as leatherwork or jeans, should be reduced, except for ethical small producers. Laws could also be set up to avoid greenwashing: governments could compel brands ensure traceability and to put a detailed carbon life cycle on labels to enhance the transparency. (UK Parliament, 2019).
<h1>Conclusion</h1>
In a nutshell, fashion is nowadays a heavy sector in the balance of carbon footprint since it represents up to 10% of global emissions. Furthermore, those emissions do not seem likely to decrease: our fast-paced rhythm of consumption requires each year more items, which implies more raw resources and energy to produce them. At that speed, we may make fashion weight for a quarter of our emissions by 2050.
Nonetheless, both individuals and companies hold the cards to cut down the emissions not to follow this pathway. Although we know carbon-efficiency is not sufficient, it is still necessary and must be coupled to sobriety in our consumption, circular economy, thight laws, and shifts in our behaviours. Finally, we should also be reminded that the environment is not only affected by carbon, so it is vital to also tackle the issue by the view of waste, workers’ conditions, social issues, animal suffering, land use and water needs.
Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
<h1>References</h1>
BOOHOO GROUP, 2021, Annual Report &amp; Accounts [online], Boohoo Group [viewed 19 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.boohooplc.com/sites/boohoo-corp/files/all-documents/result-centre/2020/boohoo-com-plc-annual-report-2021.pdf">https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwi07NSiu-HzAhVRTBoKHbfZBdEQFnoECAYQAQ&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boohooplc.com%2Fsites%2Fboohoo-corp%2Ffiles%2Fall-documents%2Fresult-centre%2F2020%2Fboohoo-com-plc-annual-report-2021.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw0vRi9VQdQofK7Xtwysfl2q</a>​ 
BREWER, M.K., 2019. Slow Fashion in a Fast Fashion World: Promoting Sustainability and Responsibility. Laws. [online]8(4), pp.24. [viewed 13 October 2021] Available from: <a href="https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/8/4/24/pdf">https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/8/4/24/pdf</a>​ 
Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation, 2017. A new textiles economy: redesigning fashion&#x27;s future. [online] Ellen Mac Arthur Foundation [viewed 13 October 2021] Available from: <a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications">http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/publications</a>​ 
FISCHEDICK M., J. ROY, A. ABDEL-AZIZ, A. ACQUAYE, J. M. ALLWOOD, J.-P. CERON, Y. GENG, H. KHESHGI, A. LANZA, D. PERCZYK, L. PRICE, E. SANTALLA, C. SHEINBAUM, AND K. TANAKA, 2014, Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) [online] Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. [viewed 20 October 2021] Available from: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter10.pdf">https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter10.pdf</a>​ 
HOP, 2018, Collants, cas d’obsolescence programmée ? [Tighs, planned obsolescence case?] [online], HOP [viewed 20 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.halteobsolescence.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Le-rapport-sur-les-collants.pdf">https://www.halteobsolescence.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Le-rapport-sur-les-collants.pdf</a>​ 
MALLIET P., 2020, L&#x27;empreinte carbone des ménages français et les effets redistributifs d&#x27;une fiscalité carbone aux frontières [The carbon footprint of the French households and the redistributive effects of a carbon tax at the boundaries] [online]. Sciences Po, OFCE [viewed 19 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.ofce.sciences-po.fr/pdf-articles/actu/carbonevf.jpg.pdf">https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&amp;rct=j&amp;q=&amp;esrc=s&amp;source=web&amp;cd=&amp;cad=rja&amp;uact=8&amp;ved=2ahUKEwiisryJq-HzAhXvx4UKHQ_fBMIQFnoECAUQAQ&amp;url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ofce.sciences-po.fr%2Fpdf-articles%2Factu%2Fcarbonevf.jpg.pdf&amp;usg=AOvVaw1hiJ9_RneehPbR0JGTFtof</a>​ 
O&#x27;DRISCOLL J., 2015. Pop Couture: how PET plastic bottles are spun into polar fleece. Alternatives Journal (Waterloo). [online]41(3), pp.32. [viewed 19 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/45035114">https://www.jstor.org/stable/45035114</a>.
PETERS G., LI M. &amp; LENZEN M., 2021. The need to decelerate fast fashion in a hot climate - A global sustainability perspective on the garment industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. [online]295, pp.126-390. [viewed 16 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126390">https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126390</a>.
PHILIP, R.S., ANIAN, A.M. &amp; ANAND SHANKAR RAJA, M., 2020. Planned fashion obsolescence in the light of supply chain uncertainty. Academy of Strategic Management Journal. [online]19(1), pp.1-17. [viewed 15 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://search.proquest.com/docview/2382044553">https://search.proquest.com/docview/2382044553</a>.
UK Parliament, 2019. Fixing fashion: clothing consumption and sustainability Sixteenth Report of Session 2017-19 Fashion: it shouldn&#x27;t cost the earth. [online] House of Commons – Environmental Audit Committee. [viewed 14 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/report-summary.html">https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmenvaud/1952/report-summary.html</a>​ 
United nations, 2019. Briefing note on sustainable textile value chains in the garment and footwear domain for SDG12 [online], United nations [viewed 20 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://undocs.org/ECE/TRADE/C/CEFACT/2019/26">https://undocs.org/ECE/TRADE/C/CEFACT/2019/26</a>​

Fashion Victim 

Food wastage occurs at every stage, from the fields to the plate, and in the factories too. Enough food is produced to feed 1.5 times the whole human population. Yet, 690 million people – 8.9 % of the population – still suffer from hunger. Besides the considerable issue of inequality and the goal 2 “Zero Hunger” of the UN, this problem raises the question of that excess of food which ends in waste, of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and of all the resources and energies mobilised to end in the bin.


Enough food is produced to feed 1.5 times the whole human population. (Holt-Giménez et al., 2012). Yet, 690 million people – 8.9 % of the population – still suffer from hunger (UN, 2021). Besides the considerable issue of inequality and the goal 2 “Zero Hunger” of the UN, this problem raises the question of that excess of food which ends in waste, of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and of all the resources and energies mobilised to end in the bin.
Food wastage occurs at every stage, from the fields to the plate, and in the factories too. Yet, this article here focusses on food waste at home in developed countries, from the groceries to the bin. It will differentiate the terms food waste, loss and wastage and present the key figures and consequences of food waste. Then, it will develop solutions that everyone can put in practice in his day-to-day life to reduce or, at least, upgrade the waste.
First, it is important to distinguish food loss, food waste and food wastage. Indeed, food loss refers to the upstream deterioration of food than was originally intended for human consumption, while food waste stands for the food, good for human consumption, that is being discarded. Then, food wastage is the combination of both food loss and food waste. (FAO, Summary Report, 2013). Then, one may have in mind that food wastage has a carbon footprint between 3.3 and 4.4 GtCO2eq/year (depending on calculating method). (FAO, Summary Report, 2013), which represents about 8% of the global emissions. Indeed, about 1.3 Gt of in date food is thrown away each year in the world, for which the food loss is more responsible than the food waste.
This wastage leads to unnecessary agricultural space, food production, manufacturing, packaging, retail, distribution and then landfill. Food waste is then a great source of GHG emissions, especially methane and nitrous oxide, for cattle breeding and artificial fertilisers, which are known to have far greater warming effects than CO2. Moreover, it is also a source of energy and money loss, as it represents almost USD 1 trillion each year. (IPCC, 2019). Consequently, food wastage cannot fit with the definition of sustainability, with none of the three pillars of society, finance, and environment. It is hence an issue that must be properly tackled by everyone, at every of its stages.
Nevertheless, as in many environmental issues, countries do not share the same responsibilities. Indeed, Europe, North America, Oceania, and Industrialised Asia have a high rate of available food that is wasted: 42% for North America and Oceania for example. Even more important is that, in those rich countries, the biggest cause of food wastage is the consumption, which belongs to food waste part, (between 46% and 61%) whereas, in less affluent societies, the loss is bigger upstream, in agricultural production, in the food loss part. (figure [1])(FAO, Summary Report, 2013).

<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/514dc770f52502c5af049581804c93d8ebe666fd.png" alt="Figure [1]: distribution of food wastage depending on the phase and country. (FAO, 2015)">
This means, in affluent societies, there is a big issue in consumers’ behaviour. In a country like France, 20kg to 30kg of foodstuffs are wasted per year and per capita, of which 7kg still packaged, which reflects a lack of anticipation and prevention in the groceries planning. (ADEME, 2020). It is therefore important to notice that, even if consumption is not the greatest cause of food waste (20% of the total on average), it represents 35% of the carbon footprint, since the food products have higher carbon intensity at the end of the chain. Moreover, different types of foodstuffs are not equally wasted and do not represent the same carbon footprint. The clearest example is meat, which accounts for 4% in weight of the total wastage but represents 21% of carbon footprint of food waste, especially because of the methane emitted by cattle. (figure [2]) (FAO, Summary Report, 2013) (Baldwin, 2015).
<img src="https://illuminem.b-cdn.net/articlebody/c193fc193021c474d30de9846bcab83a540a742a.png" alt="Figure [2]: “Contribution of each commodity to carbon footprint and food wastage” (FAO, 2015)">
Thus, to reduce food waste and emissions in that sector, consumers, especially in affluent countries, should perform a drastic change in their habits. Here follow quite a few ideas to achieve it, ordered by impact and importance.
When we approach the prevention of waste, a famous method is the 3 (or 5) R: (Refuse), Reduce, Reuse, Recycle, (Rot). The order is essential for the method to be efficient, and can be adapted to all type of waste, as we will explain it for food waste.
First, Refuse and Reduce can be blended in one first step called “Source Reduction”. As outlined earlier, about 30% of the food thrown away is still packaged. (ADEME, 2020). This is the result of two main causes: the lack of groceries planning and the misunderstanding of food labels. The latter causes lots of “early waste” of the food: as soon as the date is past, people tend to throw. This comes from a confusion between “use by” and “best before”. NHS explains that, while the former is about safety, the latter is about quality: most of the food thrown away could have been eaten without risks on health. (NHS, 2021). We should then think twice before discarding food only because the “best before” date has passed from one day. In addition to that, food stocks should be better planned not to buy too many products at a time, otherwise they will expire. Finally, if it appears that we have to much food and cannot eat it before the “use by” date, why not sharing it to association or people in need? Besides reducing food wastage, a good deed would be achieved.
Then, Reusing the food could also reduce the amount of waste. Indeed, Many people still throw away the leftovers instead of keeping them for another meal. As said before, the food could be given to people in need if more than needed has been prepared. But it could also be given as food for animals or re-cook leftovers in another meal. Thereon, more and more recipes are nowadays spread on internet and social medial about how to cook leftovers, peelings, or even zest in easy to do dishes.
As mentioned before, it is vital to follow the order of the method to be more efficient. As an example, if leftovers are eaten or given for animal feeding, it will be between 26 and 250 more eco-efficient than if they are put into anaerobic digestion. (FAO, Reducing the food wastage footprint, 2013). However, if they cannot be reused, it is better to recycle them than to do nothing.
The Repurpose/Recycling step, where the food has the status of waste, gathers all the ideas of using food not for feeding purpose. As for example, coffee ground can be used as a scrub for the skin, or as soil mulching while gardening, as for eggshells or nutshells. Besides upgrading the waste, it has benefits for the skin or for the mulching, which helps soil to keep its humidity and protect plants from brutal temperature variations.
Moreover, a developing sector is also the anaerobic digestion of food waste, which is the microbiologically decay of food waste “in enclosed containers in the near absence of oxygen”. It has the double benefit of digestate and producing biogas, that can be then used as energy source. (FAO, Reducing the food wastage footprint, 2013)
To finish with, if all the solutions above have been exhausted, we still can put our waste to compost (Rot step), so they do not end in landfills and can afterwards be reused as fertiliser in the garden.
Although they are not as efficient as the solutions before, anaerobic digestion and composting are still better than simply landfilling, as they give a value to the waste.
To put it in a nutshell, food waste raises huge issues of wastage, carbon emissions, resource exploitation and inequality. The 1.3 Gt of edible food wasted each year, representing 3.3 Gt CO2eq while almost 700 million people suffer from hunger do not conform with sustainable world. Nonetheless, we all can reduce it in our household with a change in our behaviour, with habits of prevention and reuse, or with some creativity to turn waste into a resource. Many other solutions that the ones presented here do exist too, and education is then vital to raise awareness about that problem and its solutions.

Future Thought Leaders is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of rising Energy &amp; Sustainability writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.

<h3>References</h3>
ADEME, 2020. Réduire le gaspillage alimentaire [Reducing food wastage] [online]. France : ADEME, Agence de la Transition Ecologique. (in French). [viewed 5 November 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.ademe.fr/expertises/dechets/passer-a-laction/eviter-production-dechets/dossier/reduire-gaspillage-alimentaire/enjeux">https://www.ademe.fr/expertises/dechets/passer-a-laction/eviter-production-dechets/dossier/reduire-gaspillage-alimentaire/enjeux</a>​ 
BALDWIN, C.,2015. The 10 principles of food industry sustainability. [online] Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. [viewed 5 November 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://discover.gcu.ac.uk/permalink/44GLCU_INST/1ulognu/alma991002491337403836">https://discover.gcu.ac.uk/permalink/44GLCU_INST/1ulognu/alma991002491337403836</a>.
FAO, 2013. Food wastage footprint; impacts on natural resources. Summary Report. [online]. Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), UN. [viewed 31 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf">https://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3347e/i3347e.pdf</a>​ 
FAO, 2013. Reducing the food wastage footprint. [online] Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), UN. [viewed 31 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3342e/i3342e.pdf">https://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3342e/i3342e.pdf</a>​ 
FAO, 2015. Food wastage footprint &amp; Climate Change. [online] Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), UN [viewed 4 November 2021] Available from: <a href="http://www.fao.org/3/a-bb144e.pdf">http://www.fao.org/3/a-bb144e.pdf</a>​ 
HOLT-GIMÉNEZ, E., SHATTUCK, A., ALTIERI, M., HERREN, H. &amp; GLIESSMAN, S., 2012. We Already Grow Enough Food for 10 billion People ... and Still Can&#x27;t End Hunger. [online] Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 36(6), pp.595-598. [viewed 1 November 2021]. Available from: <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331">http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10440046.2012.695331</a>​ 
IPCC, 2019. SRCCL Report, c. 5. [online] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). [viewed 4 November 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf">https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/2f.-Chapter-5_FINAL.pdf</a>​ 
NHS, 2021. Food labelling terms. [online] National Health Service (NHS). [viewed 4 November 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-labelling-terms/">https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-labelling-terms/</a>​ 
United Nations, 2021. Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 2: Zero Hunger [Online] United Nations (UN). [viewed 31 October 2021]. Available from: <a href="https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/">https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/hunger/</a>​

You can’t miss it!

Gabrielle Piot

Gabrielle Piot

Rebound Effect: The Whiplash of Innovation

Recent publications

Readers also like

Want to know more about illuminem Voices?