Are fast fashion's social and environmental costs too high?

Write my answer and get scored

Fast fashion put runway styles within everyone's reach, and its critics say the true bill is paid elsewhere, by rivers, landfills and underpaid workers. To a large extent I agree with the critics, though I think their usual solution misses who actually pays. The environmental charge sheet is hard to dispute. Textile production is among the world's thirstiest and most polluting industries, and garments designed to survive ten washes convert that pollution into mountains of barely worn waste. The social costs are equally documented: the Rana Plaza collapse, which killed over a thousand garment workers, was not an accident of fast fashion but a consequence of its economics, where every cent of cost is squeezed toward zero. Where I part company with some critics is the demand that consumers simply buy expensive, ethical clothing instead. For a wealthy shopper that is virtue at low cost; for a low-income family, cheap clothes are not a vice but a budget. Blaming the poorest customers for a supply chain they never designed is comfortable and useless. The real lever is regulation of the industry itself: enforceable safety standards across supplier factories, import rules that price in environmental damage, and durability labelling that lets even cheap clothes compete on lifespan. In conclusion, the critics are right that the costs are too high, but the payment should be collected from the business model, not from the shoppers with the thinnest wallets.