Lee Suckling: The big problem with the shirt on your back

By the time you put on a new t-shirt, your garment likely has a carbon footprint not unlike a slab of butter imported from France. Photo / Getty Images

When it comes to the environment, we know about cars, coal, and cows. But what about clothes?

Let's paint a picture of the clothing industry's supply chain.

Cotton is grown using pesticides, then spun into garments in grey smoke-emitting factories. They are stored in plastic bags, put on diesel trucks, transported to ports, and sent across oceans in diesel-powered ships. Upon destination arrival, clothing is put back on more diesel trucks and transported to a distribution centre, then to a store (or direct to your house if being couriered).

By the time you put on a new t-shirt, your garment likely has a carbon footprint not unlike a slab of butter imported from France.

Then it gets worse. You wear your item several times, let it wear out (or get sick of it), and then probably throw it out - 85 per cent of textiles end up in a landfill. You repeat the process as you buy another item of clothing to replace it.

Sustainable clothing has been a buzz phrase for a while now. Whether an item is made from organic cotton, vegan leather, recycled material, or from a factory with high labour and emissions standards, some manufacturers are making an effort.

I have a better idea for being more environmentally-conscious. Stop buying cheap clothes.

In terms of plain and simple logistics, cheap clothes have the same environmental impact as quality clothes. However, because a cheap pair of pants might only last 30 wears and an expensive pair might last 300, you'll need to replace it ten times as often. Not only costing you more money in the end, but re-offending in carbon emissions every time.

Were you to buy some pricey pants that would stand the test of time, your negative contribution to the planet is limited to a single round of manufacturing and shipping.

While it's great to get on the organic and sustainable fashion bandwagon, I also think every individual can one-up the clothing industry entirely. Instead of buying new, eco-friendly clothes, why not just buy vintage? Every item in a secondhand store has already done its manufacturing miles; you might as well get the absolute most out of them.

Your purchase doesn't increase commercial demand (and thus entice more manufacturing). All you're doing is preventing an item from being part of that 85 per cent that go to the dump.

The reverse method should be applied when you want to get rid of an item of clothing. Charity clothing bins are everywhere if you look. Why actually throw a piece of clothing in the rubbish when somebody else could get more wears out of it?

Granted, this approach can't be applied universally to your whole wardrobe. Socks and underwear can't really go to another person once they've done their dash. But just because their elastic is gone and they have holes in them, doesn't mean they are dead yet. Before throwing them away completely, they can have another lease on life as household rags.

Anything you can do to eek out the time you own clothing should be seen as a positive. I like the phrase "I'm not rich enough to buy cheap clothes": it reminds me that a $10 t-shirt is not really a $10 t-shirt. It's five or ten of them.

Try and remember that next time you're ruffling through your drawers, telling yourself you have nothing to wear, and contemplating a quick nip to the mall.