Appetite for Consumption 

The best seat in the house: the back row of the classroom. No better people-watching. Not only are the whiteboard and teacher fully visible, but so are all your peers’ computers. Of course, we have some studious notetakers, but I would be lying if I never saw a Wordle, 2048, or Sudoku game. However, there is a star of the show: the online shoppers. It is a fun game to guess what their motives are. Are they looking for a gift? Probably not. Is that dress for a date party? Do they really need new sweatpants, or are they just browsing out of boredom? They are buying an oversized, down winter coat. Where are they from? Certainly not New Orleans because you don’t need one here. Are they actually going to buy the fourteen $20 shirts in their cart? 

The month of October makes for an elevated experience. It’s fairly clear what event they are shopping for, so the game instead turns to wondering what the costume will be. Halloween leads to more creativity and diversity amongst searches. People order some mysterious things. From my observations, Amazon, Shein, Dolls Kill, and Forever 21 are big hits for costumes and accessories. One minute in class, your peer is taking notes on past tense Spanish conjugations; the next, they are on Amazon buying bunny ears. 

Purchasing clothing and accessories is endangering our environment by using the earth’s natural resources and creating a significant amount of pollution. Energy is used in the process of clothing production and transportation. People overbuying makes climate breakdown slower. Once the clothing is disposed of, it endangers our wildlife by littering oceans and spreading toxins. Producing 101 million tons of clothing annually leads to these specific problems in the marine systems. An equivalent of 50 billion plastic water bottles worth of microfibers get released into out oceans annually. Additionally, over 100 billion new clothing items are produced each year.

The United States is particularly immersed in mass consumption relative to other places globally. The world would need to be over five times larger in size to function if each individual lived like the typical American on Earth. Americans buy more than they need because it is expected within the culture. In fact, we are obsessed with over-buying. Halloween is a perfect example of this because, most likely, the girl in my class will not need to wear those Amazon bunny ears again (or even in the first place). 

Halloween at Tulane University pressures students to mass consume costumes; social media amplifies this. Social media normalizes and encourages excessive purchasing, which makes practicing sustainable shopping more challenging to keep up with social trends simultaneously.

My survey of four Tulane sororities examined shopping habits during Halloween and received comments like this: “I know my Halloween habits are environmentally unfriendly, but right now in life, I am honestly more concerned with looking hot on a budget. Unfortunately, the cheapest way is also worst for the environment if I am going all out (which I always do).” This Tulane student chose honesty.  

People born between 1997 and 2012 are considered Gen Z. This generation has experienced climate change in real time and will be around for another 50 years to see the long-term effects. Deloitte’s 2023 Gen Z and Millennial Survey of over 22,000 participants in 44 countries showed that six in ten Gen Zers have felt anxious about climate change in the past month. According to the PEW Research Center, Gen Z is more likely than other generations to address climate change as a personal concern, personally take steps to address climate change, and have discussed climate change as an issue in the past weeks. Additionally, Gen Z is more likely than any other generation to have seen and engaged with social media content regarding a need for action against climate change. Social media usage amongst Gen Z can contribute to environmental awareness and advocacy. However, social media is not always beneficial and has been detrimental. Social media usage amongst Gen Z can encourage unneccary purchasing of clothing, a severe driver of climate change. 

I spoke with J.B. MacKinnon about the tension between the value of Gen Z's environmental practices and the actual practice of sustainability under social media pressure. JB MacKinnon is a contributor to New Yorker, the Atlantic, and National Geographic and the author of The Day the World Stops Shopping. MacKinnon’s book advocates that limiting consumption is necessary to save the planet. 

MacKinnon discussed his realization after working with the environment for decades. People point to carbon emissions, toxic waste producers, and deforestation as overarching problems. Still, when you look at these issues, MacKinnon says, “Consumption itself is the root of the problem.” He said, “We don’t cut down trees for fun. We cut trees down to turn them into products and turn them into paper. We aren’t blasting carbon into the atmosphere because we feel like it, but we are driving automobiles to earn the money we drive to malls to spend. The heart of the environmental crisis that we see today is our appetite for consumption.”  

MacKinnon points out that it is tough not to consume because that is how our society is structured. Much of the damage caused by purchases is concealed from the consumer. The production of a cotton t-shirt, a typical purchase in the United States, involves a huge demand for water supplies. Cotton and other related materials are often produced in countries that need water to grow food, not cotton shirts. Producing the shirt releases toxic pollutants and uses extensive amounts of energy to ship globally. “Every single thing we buy has an environmental impact,” he says.  

KQED published an article regarding the global journey of a t-shirt, focusing on the lifespan of one Forever 21 shirt. The production of this shirt goes through Texas, China, Bangladesh, and then back to the United States to San Francisco. Enormous amounts of water, chemicals, and fuel are used to create this singular piece of clothing. Tulane students probably do not know that their t-shirts just underwent a 16,500-mile journey just to be sold for $4. Students are likely unaware of the amount of energy and resources extracted for these shirts which they will wear twice.

There is a lack of understanding of the reality behind where we get our clothing from. However, there is also some ignorance to addressing the issue. People may not know the extent of their purchase’s damages, but they aware these cheaply made clothes are a peril to our environment. This issue is more complex than it seems. 

MacKinnon focuses on the dichotomy of Gen Z. On the one hand, Gen Z is tasked with being the generation to solve climate change while also being pressured to constantly change their style and “look” more frequently than any other generation before. “These kinds of pressures are really causing their consumption to skyrocket compared to other generations,” he says. Fashion companies play a significant role in this by producing new clothes regularly, which creates the notion that there are “in style” and “out of style” clothes. Companies are taking advantage of the fact that social media creates short-lasting trends, meaning more room for consumers to consistently switch their styles. 

Zara is a popular fashion brand, both globally and within the Tulane community. The company creates over 450 million garments each year. This entails 20,000 new styles annually. This makes the new clothes seem desirable because they are quick to come and quick to go, so one must purchase while one can. It also means the clothes are rapidly replaced. This leads to more resources extracted from the earth, more energy used to create and ship the items, and all of last season’s outfits end up in places like our oceans and landfills. This puts consumers in a tough position because not only are they tempted by new items, but they are pressured into buying new ones.

One student from my survey was blunt about her reasoning behind her consumption: “I definitely agree that social media has been the greatest factor in my spending towards Halloween costumes.”

A Gallup study found that 51% of teenagers are spending almost 5 hours per day on social media. This deeply influences the speed at which trends begin and end, making clothing styles quick to go. In addition to seeing what celebrities, peers, or other users are posting on their accounts, individuals are exposed to countless ads throughout their scrolling. For example, Instagram incorporates advertisements into their platform. When scrolling through a public account’s feed, advertisements will pop up every few posts. When clicking through Instagram stories, multiple advertisements can be seen each minute. The ads are casually incorporated in a way that they are something one can scroll past easily, unlike a video, which must be watched before moving forward. This normalizes ads and makes buying new products easier. The ads also use data from your usage algorithm. This makes the ads targeted and more likely to be products the individual might be interested in.

MacKinnon considers social media a significant consumption accelerator because it is a place where showing off wealth, products, and possessions is typical and expected. He says that “influencers are showcasing levels of consumption that are just completely irresponsible from an environmental perspective.” Additionally, social media literally creates a record of what is being worn, leading to people not wanting to re-wear. It is common to hear my friends and peers say they do not want to wear an outfit out because they recently posted in it. 

This aligns with what Tulane students mentioned in my survey. One student stated: “Social media most definitely puts pressure on people, especially college women, to spend money on new clothing that will only be worn once, i.e. Halloween costumes, Mardi Gras costumes, date party dresses.” Another student said: “Social media definitely puts pressure on me to buy new costumes. Without it, I would definitely re-wear old costumes more than I do.” These perspectives highlight a clear link between social media being the catalyst for buying new clothes. Thanks to social media, this purchasing behavior is out of the fear of being seen in the same clothes, as it has now become somewhat socially unacceptable. 

One student expressed the fear that leads to overpurchasing: “Social media and the ‘all weekend bender’ mentality contribute to the purchasing and sourcing multiple outfits, sometimes even overbuying because you are afraid of not having want you to need.” People are feeling pressure to buy more than they need and more than they even have time to wear.  

MacKinnon agrees that social media has dramatically increased the pressure to purchase, and this is combined with the fact that products and clothing prices have dropped significantly now, so many can afford to update their style all the time. This is particularly dangerous because of the speed at which new styles trend. Something that is valued on social media is having a “unique” style, while also conforming through not taking too much risk. This trend is leading people to constantly buy new clothes in order to stand out, but also fit in, which is society’s expectation due to social media. People need to delicately balance their own personal style with what society tells them the current style is. “People are buying twice as many clothes as they did 20 years ago, and those clothes last half as long,” said MacKinnon. 

Money is required to keep up with social trends. For college students, money is not always abundant or dispensable. This leads students to buy the cheapest options -- something seen in my observations from the back of classrooms. With clothing going out of style so frequently, people are more willing to buy something cheap that will not last versus saving and investing in something more expensive that will last longer with better quality.

One student in the survey said: “I do think about sustainability, but I don’t have the money to buy sustainable clothes, and it’s just harder for college students to do so, especially when second-hand clothes are harder to find that fit and look good.” Students find themselves at a crossroads of violating their environmental values or going against the social norms of fitting in. 

I am reminded of a conversation I had with a friend after Halloween this year. We discussed how she recognizes the environmental implications of her purchasing decisions, but around Halloween, the peer pressure becomes more critical and engulfing than practicing sustainable purchases. 

She said, “I’m an environmental studies major, and I consistently ridicule my friends for contributing to fast fashion brands like Shein, but when Halloween rolls around, things change. Everybody is buying three or more elaborate costumes for so cheap off of Shein, and I give in to society's pressures and buy from fast fashion brands.” This student has dedicated her entire academic career in college to the environment, yet still finds herself victim to societal pressures to consume that social media creates. My friend feels guilty for this after buying the new items, but in the moment of ordering, her feelings of concern disappeared. It is a cycle that even she, an environmental studies major, has to deal with. 

A student in my survey says: “When I’m purchasing things from Amazon or fast fashion places, I am consciously thinking about the environmental impact (less so when shopping on Amazon for whatever reason and more when buying from online stores). I’m aware that what I’m doing has a negative impact, but I still go through with the order.” This student recognizes that there is a problem with her consumption of the environment and even that she is self-aware of how Amazon is more deceptive to her for some reason. However, even with this knowledge about her environmental impact, she still makes the purchase. This was the trend across my survey of Tulane Students: they know that their consumption negatively affects the environment but continue anyway. The fast-paced world we live in creates competition for everyone to keep up. Without following these trends, it is common for people to feel left behind by their peers. 

The need to conform to fashion trends out of social fear and desire to fit in overpower many students’ ability to uphold their environmental values with their actions. This was the underlying excuse for the students I spoke with and surveyed, but social media can only control one’s actions to a certain degree. Individuals have the autonomy to make their own choices despite how they are influenced. While social media makes it more challenging to uphold environmental standards, it does not dictate one’s authority of action. To what degree will we excuse ourselves from our choices rather than doing the difficult ask: buying less?

Caring about the environment and taking action can mean two different things. An individual may understand that their consumption will have a long-term impact on the climate and worry about this. However, this does not mean they are going to change their habits. While caring and reflecting are important, our actions ultimately make tangible change. This is why limiting consumption is still beneficial, even if it is modest. It can be easy to say you care about the environment, but then something comes up, and you can justify your purchases for "just this time.” This, then, is what becomes a pattern of consumption that is toxic to our planet. 

It can be challenging to understand how our impact as an individual has any weight on the environment. With billions of people in the world, millions of cars driving each day, thousands of oil companies globally, and hundreds of millions of tons of waste each year out of the United States, an individual can easily convince themself: “hmmm…ya. This t-shirt means nothing long term.” One Tulane student wrote: “I think I should be able to order princess lingerie for Halloween when there are billionaires jetting around daily. I care about sustainability but I don’t think my ordering Halloween costumes from Amazon is going to save the world unfortunately.” The importance, however, is realizing that while an individual choice not to buy that extra shirt may not have a significant influence, it is a part of something larger. 

Paying attention to consumer habits is essential, but consumers are not at the core of this problem. Blame and responsibility must be pointed to the companies and corporations exploiting consumers and workers, sometimes paying as little as $40 a month to workers. While there is the argument that consumers have purchasing power, it cannot be ignored how companies and social media manipulate consumers. Laws need to be in place to hold companies accountable rather than allowing their invasive production to continue. The bad actor is Zara, not the girl in my math class. 

Companies need to stop normalizing a constant need for new clothes. Patagonia, an outdoor clothing and gear brand, had an advertisement campaign called “Don't Buy This Jacket.” The point is for the audience to consider whether their consumption is necessary. Patagonia creates clothing that is high quality, allowing for it to last rather than need to be replaced, like companies like Zara. For years, many of Patagonia’s styles have remained similar, if not the same. Patagonia’s strategy is considered “green demarketing,” which encourages consumers to buy less and consider their environmental impact. While Patagonia still contributes to using resources and energy to create new clothes, its focus on longevity and quality over quantity should be replicated by other companies.  

Keeping what JB MacKinnon discussed in mind, I reviewed the data from my survey sent out to the four sororities regarding Halloween costumes and sustainability. I received a total of 106 responses. 94% of participants said they bought something new for their costume. 95% said they planned to take a photo in their costumes for social media. The range of money spent was anywhere from $20 to $400. My following questions were about sustainability stances. When purchasing Halloween costumes, 44% thought about the environmental impact their purchases have. I then had people rank their concerns with sustainability from 1-10 (1 being lowest, and 10 being highest). Over 78% ranked their care for sustainability between 6-10.  

A majority of these students claim to care about environmental issues yet continue to engage in unsustainable behavior. Limitations of this survey include knowing how educated these students are and if they realize how significant their actions are. Also, there is pressure to care about sustainability, so even though this survey was anonymous, some students may have rated their environmental care higher than it actually is. 

As an individual in today’s society, it is difficult and inconvenient to avoid contributing regularly to the overuse of goods and unsustainable services. Traditionally, to be successful, you need a job. To have a job, you need to be educated. To get to school and work, you need a car. To dress for school and work, you need specific clothes. To stay alive for school and work, you need food and water. All of these basic needs use an abundant amount of resources, given how they are generally manufactured today. The real question is gauging whether or not partaking in mass consumption devalues your environmental efforts. If so, social media is a direct factor to decreasing sustainable activity. Quitting social media would limit exposure to toxic trends of consumption. This may seem extreme, but so does social media's power over its users. 

As a Tulane senior, I won’t witness the seasonal classroom shopping around Halloween next year. While it has kept me entertained, the normalization of consistently searching to buy is unsettling. Human attention spans are only getting shorter, and their need for instant gratification is increasing. Shopping is a release of dopamine, so as Tulane students sit in class, aimlessly scrolling through Forever 21 and Shein, are they doing this because they need new clothes or because they want to feel better instantly and appease social expectations from social media? Probably the latter. 

Writing this article about how people are powerless against their will to shop, despite knowing the environmental ramifications, was disturbing. I found the clothing industry’s manipulation and ability to control consumers sickening. The blame my peers and friends put on social media and social norms regarding fashion frustrated me and seemed like an excuse. Yet, within minutes of emailing my professor my first draft, I quickly opened a new browser to catch the last hour of Cyber Monday sales for my sister’s Christmas gift. I found her the perfect sweater, and it was even on sale. “Wow, what great deal,” I thought to myself. 

Works Cited

Allon, Gad. “Our Addiction to Quick, Cheap Fashion Is Adding 101 Million Tons of Waste to Landfills Each Year - and Holiday Shopping Only Makes It Worse.” Business Insider, Business Insider, www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-christmas-shopping-clothes-returns-shein-zara-waste-mountain-2022-12. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023. 

“Bio.” J.B. MacKinnon, www.jbmackinnon.com/bio. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023. 

“Consumption Natural Resources and the Environment.” Friends of the Earth, friendsoftheearth.uk/consumption-natural-resources#:~:text=Overconsumption%20worsens%20climate%20breakdown%20and,health%20and%20quality%20of%20life. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023. 

“Gen Zs and Millennials Doing, Demanding More around Climate Change.” Action.Deloitte.Com, action.deloitte.com/insight/3378/gen-zs-and-millennials-doing-demanding-more-around-climate-change. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023. 

Green, Matthew. “Where Does Your T-Shirt Come from? Follow Its Epic Global Journey [Visualization].” KQED, 18 Mar. 2015, www.kqed.org/lowdown/7943/making-your-t-shirt-a-journey-around-the-world. 

Group, Medinge. “Green Demarketing vs. Green Advertising.” The Medinge Group, 17 June 2018, medinge.org/green-demarketing-vs-green-advertising/. 

“How Much Do Our Wardrobes Cost to the Environment?” World Bank, World Bank Group, 28 Mar. 2022, www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2019/09/23/costo-moda-medio-ambiente. 

Rothwell, Jonathan. “Teens Spend Average of 4.8 Hours on Social Media per Day.” Gallup.Com, Gallup, 21 Nov. 2023, news.gallup.com/poll/512576/teens-spend-average-hours-social-media-per-day.aspx. 

Semuels, Alana. “Why Shopping Is Addictive-Especially for Stuff We Don’t Need.” Time, Time, 21 Nov. 2022, time.com/6235522/why-shopping-is-addictive/. 

Southern, Matt G. “Instagram Is Now Putting Ads in Your Profile Feed.” Search Engine Journal, 5 Oct. 2022, www.searchenginejournal.com/instagram-is-now-putting-ads-in-your-profile-feed/466983/#close. 

Stout, John. “How Much Trash Does America Really Produce?” Environment America, 26 Sept. 2023, environmentamerica.org/articles/how-much-trash-does-america-really-produce/. 

“The Day the World Stops Shopping.” J.B. MacKinnon, www.jbmackinnon.com/the-day-the-world-stops-shopping. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023. 

The World Counts, www.theworldcounts.com/challenges/planet-earth/state-of-the-planet/number-of-consumers. Accessed 27 Nov. 2023. 

Tyson, Alec. “Gen Z, Millennials Stand out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement with Issue.” Pew Research Center Science & Society, Pew Research Center, 26 May 2021, www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/.