After reading Marta’s lovely blog, “What Trump’s Election Means for Sustainable Fashion”, I felt inspired to take a bit of a closer look into the impacts of Trump’s winning election on sustainability in the fashion industry.
Back in September, at a rally in Erie, Pennsylvania after Hurricane Helene, Trump declared that climate change was “one of the great scams of all time”. Hurricane Helene’s associated rainfall was found to be higher due to climate change and killed over 200 people across the southeast U.S.
Like Marta, I don't have a background in political sciences or economics. But, I do know that politics permeate beyond the border and I did not exclaim “Phew! Thank god I’m in Canada!” when Trump won the 2024 US presidential election (especially when he threatened to merge Canada with the US using “economic force”).
In light of Trump’s climate denialism, I wanted to touch on some of the potential effects of his election on sustainability in the fashion and retail industries.
Tariffs, Rerouting and Increased Emissions
During his campaign, Trump talked about shifts in tariffs on all imports into the U.S., in trade, and economic policies.
For example, in November, Trump threatened to add 25% tariffs on goods coming from Canada and Mexico, and an additional 10% on China, (reaching a total of almost 60% tariffs) in an effort to force them to crack down on illegal immigration and drug smuggling into the U.S.
Back when the Trump administration increased tariffs on goods from China in 2018 with the hopes of promoting the U.S.-based manufacturing, manufacturers simply opted to change assembly and shipping processes (e.g., rerouting textiles and apparel through additional countries to change the country of origin) before shipping to the U.S.
Many American fashion brands and retailers rely heavily on Chinese imports of apparel and textiles. In 2023, approximately 20% of U.S. apparel imports in value and 25.9% in quantity originated from China. To bypass these additional costs, this study found that the tariffs from this trade war led to polyester and cotton textiles, common clothing fibres, rerouting to other supply chains, like Vietnam and Bangladesh.
From an emissions standpoint, given that the shipping sector is responsible for 2.9% of global emissions caused by human activities and the transportation sector is responsible for 28% of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. (making it its highest greenhouse gas contributor), the additional transportation and handling steps involved in rerouting will result in amplified carbon emissions, and will only worsen if the Trump administration implements this plan.
Tariffs and Increased Fast Fashion Consumption
Between 2017 and 2020, studies on Trump’s tariffs revealed that U.S. consumers bore most of the economic burden, as companies often passed on the additional costs to buyers. For Canadians, whose standard of living heavily depends on trade with the U.S. (77% of Canada’s exports are directed there), Trump’s proposed tariffs—even if there is skepticism regarding its implementation —could have severe consequences. These include higher production costs and significant supply chain disruptions, further straining an already fragile economic landscape.
As inflation and the cost of living continue to rise in Canada and the U.S., under an administration that deprioritizes sustainability, the appeal of fast fashion brands like Shein is likely to grow. This, in turn, will contribute to the 17 million tons of textile waste the U.S. sends to landfills each year, as well as increased microplastic pollution from the short-lived, low-quality items typical of ultra-fast fashion.
Regulation of Clothing Manufacturing
Historically, Trump has followed through with his environmentally-harmful promises. In one example, he placed people who don’t believe in climate change in charge of protecting the environment, such as choosing Scott Pruitt, a known climate-denier, to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. After Pruitt resigned as a result of his many corruption scandals, Trump selected Andrew Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist, to take his place. In another example, he withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement in 2017, an international climate change treaty, and has expressed intentions to repeat similar actions once he takes office.
Concerns with sustainability in the apparel industry may appear to pale in comparison to more pressing environmental matters (e.g., “drill, baby, drill!”), but they’re far from unimportant. The fashion industry is responsible for 4.6-8% of global carbon emissions and is the second-largest water-consuming industry.
Already, the fashion industry is one of the least regulated manufacturing sectors in the country. Efforts to address climate concerns through federal legislation, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal for climate-related financial risk disclosure—which aims to provide transparent and consistent information about publicly traded companies' climate risks—has been challenging to pass, particularly due Republican opposition.
Overall, a Trump presidency that denies climate change exists, with its plans to roll back climate agreements and plans to increase tariffs on foreign foods, could undermine or nullify efforts to promote sustainability in fashion.
Comments