The Misconception Behind the Environmental Impact of Thrifting
Alex Suniga, Guest Writer from Global Human Rights Advocacy
Note: This article was written by a student of Dr. Meghan Cohen, in the class, Global Human Rights Advocacy. The Highlander is proud to serve as a platform for guest contributions and encourages collaboration between our community and our publication.
Have you seen social media glorify the thrifting experience? Maybe you’ve seen the “Bad Day at the Thrift” videos where a creator’s shopping cart is aesthetically piled up with the most desirable pieces of clothing. This trendy emergence creates a want for new clothes and a strong new flow of people seeking their own sense of style by filling their closet with the largest amounts possible. Whilst the consumer believes the heaps of clothes they are collecting are helping, equal amounts of heaps are stacking the landfills. Thrifting can be deemed as sustainable, which is true in certain cases. But the vast majority of thrifters often cause more harm than good. While the act of thrifting may seem sustainable, the overconsumption and problems it seeks to solve often remain the same.
During the pandemic, a massive uprising manifested on social media platforms: going to thrift stores in hopes of finding cheap clothes, a sense of style, and stewardship for our planet. TikTok’s influence persuaded viewers globally, even in economies that run on textile production. Indonesia is one of the world’s largest producers of new clothes. A 2021 article by the Academic Journal shows how Indonesia’s youth rapidly turned against the cultural norm of clothing production and towards second-hand shopping. The affected population sees firsthand how fast-fashion contributes to 10% of greenhouse gas emissions and 20% of global wastewater. How ironic is it that the very people living amongst this wretched norm turn their backs on the industry for the taboo way of shopping? Indonesia’s case is evident that younger generations are seeking change in style and sustainability.
The big idea that influences human beings to shop second-hand is rooted in stylistic self-interest and stewardship for our environment. Take Regis, for example, where our goal of sustainability has been made concrete through programs such as the Community Closet. The Closet aims to attain these goals through a constant circle of free clothes: donors' items come in, people who are in need take them out. This constant circle represents the big goal in thrifting by minimizing our waste by essentially recycling our clothing. A 2024 Business and Environment article states this model is called a Regenerative Economy, which aims to minimize the generation of waste through retaining the value of materials and products in an economy. Through this approach, we can seek the better interest of our planet by lowering carbon footprint, wastewater, and textile use; that is, what most people believe they are contributing to through second-hand lifestyles.
Several years ago, the trendy emergence of thrifting made consumers believe they were making a massive impact on corrupt industries and our planet. This belief still holds today; the reasoning is not incorrect in certain cases. However, it begs the question: just how much impact are we making when we buy second-hand? A 2025 blog by Project Cece calls to mind the amounts of donated clothes put to waste: 70% of donations end up in foreign countries, deemed as “unwearable” or “waste” clothes. A useful statistic such as this one helps us, as second-hand consumers, gain perspective into our impact. A lot of these consequences can even seem out of control. This problem highlights a structural issue vs. an individual’s control. The very real issue gives second-hand consumers a false perception of their actions. Often, in an attempt to combat the evils of fast fashion, one may buy into the second-hand gimmick of true grassroots change/impact. Just as often, this leads someone with good morals into the very problem they are trying to solve: overconsumption.
In terms of textile production, waste, and pollution, the blame is often directed at the fast fashion industry. Although this industry is the root cause of many climate injustices across the globe, the same blame could be pointed at the consumers, especially those who shop second-hand. Equal dynamics of overconsumption and greed apply to both fast fashion and thrifting; the self-interest of finding the best style or piece often gets to the consumer’s head. Let’s paint the picture in terms of the Regis Community Closet: a student seeking their own needs steps in and leaves with 15% of the closet. Why does this student need this many pieces of clothing? Although the student may believe the amount they took home is a win-win for them and the environment, it is not. We can see the harm that overconsumption can cause in industries on both sides of the spectrum. Not only does a large increase in demand drive up prices and cause gentrification in thrift stores, but overconsumption also constitutes the same problems for our environment. The habits of a large thrift haul are the same as buying from a massive overseas producer: large amounts of clothes that end up not being used or put back through the system, thus contributing to the percentage of waste clothes shipped off to other countries.
Although thrifting can be effective in certain scenarios, the same overconsumption frowned upon in the fast fashion industry is present in second-hand stores. As a consumer, it is important not to bite off more than you can chew anywhere you shop. Love our environment by giving the same love back to your clothes, and keeping them for a lifetime. Buy what you need!