Despite negative environmental implications, many Southeast Asian countries have built their entire economies on the textile industry, catering mostly to fast fashion. Valued at $2.4 trillion and employing over 75 million people, Southeast Asia’s textile industry must adapt in order to weather the pandemic and reduce its impact on climate change. Implementing innovative and sustainable methods of production is critical to the future of Southeast Asian economies and the planet.  

To evade the costs of fair wages and high taxes, companies relocate production to countries such as Bangladesh and Vietnam, where environmental and labor regulations are more relaxed. Companies that constantly seek cheap labor and lax regulations have disastrous consequences for the environment, but have also laid the economic foundations for developing countries in Southeast Asia. Textiles make up 80% of Bangladesh’s total exports. Textile production hubs in Taiwan have also developed into higher value sectors, as these countries open up to foreign trade and adopt new technologies. The industry in Indonesia employs as many as 4 million workers. 

While fast fashion has industrialized many Southeast Asian countries, it has also promoted exploitation of a vulnerable workforce and the degradation of the environment. The 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza factory in Bangladesh and the pollution of freshwater sources are only two out of a myriad reasons for why the industry must change. The Rana Plaza factory was constructed using substandard materials and disregard for building codes, which eventually killed over 1,000 garment workers. The bleaching and dyeing processes in textile production contaminate water with toxic chemicals, endangering aquatic life and poisoning sources of drinking water. 

Fast fashion’s model of production revolves around the notion of “stack-them-high, sell-them-cheap,” pumping out more garments as trends quickly die out. Clothing companies like Zara take only two weeks to transform sketches into garments. The disposable nature of fashion allows approximately 350,000 tons of clothing to crowd landfills in the UK alone, costing the economy over $1 billion. Research by environmental scientists has revealed that one garbage truck worth of clothing is incinerated or sent to landfills every second. The growing global middle class and GDP per capita has doubled fast fashion consumption within the last 15 years. Yet, garments are only worn for half as long. 

In addition to consumer waste, the textile industry’s manufacturing bases are remarkably destructive. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change estimates that the industry is responsible for 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions, which they expect to increase to 25% in 2050. The production of one cotton shirt requires 2,700 litres of water, exceeding an individual’s water consumption over a two year span. The pesticides used to treat cotton fields pose a serious health threat to farmers, degrade soil quality and contaminate water. 150 million trees were demolished in 2018 to farm cellulose- and protein-based fibers used in textile production. Viscose fiber, in particular, is the major source of Indonesia’s deforestation. Fast fashion giants like H&M rely on this cheap and durable fiber, with its sourcing contributing to severe untreated water waste and excess levels of toxic carbon disulfide. The combination of polluted air and water and deforestation is lethal as the climate rapidly warms. 

Storefront closures and dwindling consumer confidence have plummeted fast fashion sales. In the wake of COVID-19, H&M reported a 46% sales decline in March. Bangladesh’s textile industry estimates a $10 billion loss in 2020 as Western retailers continue to cancel mass orders. Overall, ongoing textile manufacturing and a steep drop in consumer demand has led to extraordinary levels of textile waste. Experts worry that, as the economy gradually emerges from the pandemic, excess consumption will ensue, with consumers likely prioritizing affordability over sustainability. Attracting investments back into the Southeast Asian manufacturing bases will likely suspend crucial labor and environmental regulations. 

Pursuing sustainability requires raising consumer awareness and reshaping models of production. Although many name-and-shame campaigns have exposed brands like Nike for exploitative child labor, most consumers tend to neglect this issue due to lack of proximity. Heightened consumer awareness can pressure fast fashion brands to adopt sustainable practices. The slow fashion movement, coined by Kate Fletcher of the Centre for Sustainable Fashion, sets an excellent standard for modern consumerism by focusing on the craftsmanship of clothes, opting for more sustainably made garments. 

Shifting the mindsets of consumers is a challenge, but brands marketing new and sustainable practices can attract more demand. Perhaps the latest ‘trend’ can be sustainably made clothing. Normalizing second-hand clothing is necessary to reduce garment waste, as well as dispelling the misconception that purchasing second-hand is unhygienic or tacky. Brands like Rent the Runway have capitalized on the concept of leasing clothing instead of buying and trashing. 

The recent rampage of natural disasters in 2020 has hopefully enlightened consumers to the dangers of large coroporation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, costliness hinders measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions. To combat this, governments can offer brands certain tax incentives that push brands to provide fairer wages and adopt sustainable methods. Governments can also penalize companies who exceed carbon emission limits. The Asia Pacific Rayon (APR) factory in Indonesia is a great example of sustainably sourcing viscose fibers. Recognizing that viscous sourcing contributes to deforestation, APR has committed to sourcing this wood fiber from sustainably-run plantations. 

Moreover, technological innovation in the textile industry can reduce the quantity of garments produced. Computer processes can now calculate the demand of items, significantly shrinking overproduction. Companies must also adopt the circular economy’s four pillared business model: phasing out toxic chemicals and microfibre release, increasing clothing usage, revamping recycling, and effectively using resources and renewable input. Once companies implement these practices, they should market their sustainability commitments, drawing consumers to more ethical labels.  

Millions of lives depend on the fashion fashion industry’s economic base, yet billions of lives depend on the earth’s survival. Legislation coupled with consumer responsibility will transform the textile industry for the better. If the textile industry wishes to stay in business, the next big trend ought to be sustainably-made clothing. 

The earth’s rapidly warming temperatures are not only affecting the life of the coffee plant, but the lives of farmers in coffee exporting countries — the three major exporters being Brazil, Colombia, and Vietnam. These three countries have built entire economies and cultures around coffee. As many as 25 million smallholder farmers worldwide depend on coffee as their staple crop. Unfortunately, monocropping is disastrous in the face of climate change, and many farmers have incorporated bananas or vanilla into their crops in order to protect their livelihoods. Some farmers have left the industry altogether, in search of more reliable work, such as construction.

In Colombia’s Zona Cafeteria, one of the world’s most abundant coffee production regions, coffee cultivation is considered an art. Yet, climate change has wreaked havoc on their Arabica coffee plant. The warmer environment produced by climate change has allowed pests like the Coffee Berry Borer (CBB) to thrive. The CBB beetle has already destroyed approximately 75% of Colombia’s crops, resulting in $550 million worth of damage per year. To dodge the infestation of CBB, farmers have been clearing natural borders and moving to higher elevations, furthering deforestation. Another approach is increasing the use of pesticides, but this may endanger the health of farmers, negatively impact the environment, and lead to greater pesticide resistance.

Prior to the onslaught of climate change, Colombia’s coffee culture was thriving. Coffee production and consumption was booming in the 1920s, and as a result, Colombia enjoyed higher prices of coffee and integration into the international economy. 

Yet, because the coffee market is subject to many booms and busts, international economic cooperation was needed to keep coffee prices stable. To protect major coffee exporting countries like Colombia, the United States proposed the International Coffee Agreement in 1962 to set a price minimum on coffee. As the world’s largest coffee consumer, the U.S. understood that sustaining coffee production relied on stabilizing its supply and demand by providing a price floor to incentivize farmers to keep producing. 

Unfortunately, the volatile coffee market soon fell victim to the effects of climate change as Brazil suffered extreme frosts in the 1970s, causing producers to abandon the ICA. Brazilian farmers could no longer meet their supply quota, resulting in incrementally higher prices. In turn, coffee farmers around the world capitalized on the higher prices by revving up production. In hindsight, this was a poor decision. They overproduced crops, and the market eventually stabilized, leading to lower prices and wasted coffee beans. 

Southeast Asian coffee producing countries have experienced similar repercussions when faced with climate change. The rapidly warming climate has driven away Timor-Leste’s mists and rain, which are vital to growing coffee at higher altitudes. With inconsistent rainfall, the coffee fruit cannot grow properly and may flower at the wrong time. These coffee farmers only harvest once per year, indicating that the irregular rainfall is extremely detrimental. Timor-Leste’s economy depends on coffee, making up 80% of its agricultural exports. Although farmers there work tirelessly to cultivate their beloved coffee plant, they only receive $0.35 USD per 1 kg of coffee, discouraging them from sticking with coffee production. 

Similarly, Vietnam struggles to find solutions as rising temperatures slowly ruin the lush, central highlands ideal for the coffee plant. The Robusta plant grows well on these elevated farms, however, scientists predict the altitudinal range will shift drastically by 2050— from today’s 300-900 meters to 600-1,000 meters. Like Colombia, Vietnam’s warming climate allows the Coffee Berry Borer pest to thrive. Vietnam’s equatorial location has allowed about 600,000 smallholder farmers to build their livelihoods around coffee, but climate change has already caused around 100,000 coffee farmers to transition to other crops or industries.

One potential solution for Vietnam’s central highland coffee farmers is halving their water irrigation use. Oftentimes, these farmers use more than double the water necessary, further depleting their resources. The latest research shows that water consumption for irrigation can be cut down to 400 liters per tree from the typical 1,000 liters, while still producing an equivalent yield. 

Farmers may also need to abandon monocropping and integrate a variety of high-value crops, such as Black Pepper, fruit trees, and vanilla. Although other crops may not be as lucrative as coffee, intercropping is more environmentally and economically sustainable in the long run, as it increases crop resistance to climatic conditions and requires less pesticide and fertilizer use. Additionally, intercropping allows farmers to diversify their income, making them less vulnerable to market volatility.

In addition to intercropping, farmers may need to adopt more scientifically advanced methods of protecting their crops from the effects of climate change. NGOs such as the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux International have partnered with scientists from Cafexport, a company focused on sustainable coffee production, to establish an early warning system to escape the blight caused by CBB. By implementing a system that measures temperature, humidity, and berry maturity, farmers can anticipate CBB infestations and apply biopesticides to save crop losses. Yet, many questions remain on how to educate and equip farmers with the knowledge and technology needed to protect their livelihoods from climate change. But technological innovation can only take us so far in a world threatened by environmental degradation and climate change. Ultimately, the fate of the coffee industry, and the fate of the planet as a whole, lies in the hands of governments, corporations, and global citizens. Unless the international community can effectively combat climate change, the future of coffee looks bleak.