Oil wars show how badly fashion’s billionaires keep binging fossil fuels

Hey there, as this latest American-Israeli attack on Iran has dominated headlines this week, fashion media’s business press has narrowly focused on the problem of rising costs. But we’re zooming out. 

This crisis puts into stark contrast how little the rich guys at the top of fashion’s food chain have done to reduce the industry’s reliance on fossil fuels. 

Oil is, of course, everywhere across the supply chain. It’s obviously used to make polyester, which is the most common fibre. But oil is also used to produce fertilizer for the crops that make plant-based materials; for the plastic in packaging, hangers, buttons; as fuel for shipping; and much more. And as oil prices have soared, so have those of polyester feedstocks, demonstrating fashion’s dependency on oil.

Fashion is not a frivolous player; it maintains the demand for fossil fuels, driving wars like the one we’re seeing right now. 

This week, Amy maps the relationship between fashion, oil, and other fossil fuels, exploring the impacts of the latest crisis and spotlighting how fashion’s billionaire class are actively halting progress on a transition to alternative materials, energy and more ethical manufacturing. 

This issue is publicly available thanks to our Founding Members. They fund the journalism. They keep access open for everyone else.

Thanks for reading,

Amy and JD

In the space of a fortnight, prices for oil-derived materials including polyester have risen by more than 10% due to the US-Israel attack on Iran. 

Yes, polyester is made using fossil fuel-based chemicals, and crude oil is the top ingredient. It is also fashion’s most-used fibre, and it has a huge impact, contributing to greenhouse gas emissions, microplastic pollution, textile waste, and environmental destruction. It is also key to the ultra fast fashion business model, which relies on the material being a cheap option for pumping out reams of poor quality garments. It makes up 82% of Shein’s production, for instance. And retailers including Shein have already had to increase prices recently due to Trump’s tariffs.

There’s growing concern around rising costs, especially in this economy. But it’s worth asking, who’s going to absorb these war-induced price increases? Garment factories are hoping that raw materials suppliers will swallow some of the extra costs, but if manufacturers are squeezed to tighter margins or if garment production is cut as a result of the disruption, then garment workers will suffer. This seems likely as some factories are already running low on fossil fuels to power their generators. 

As exports take longer to reach factories and brands due to the Strait of Hormuz closure, there’s also a potential for order cancellations and pressure from brands to discount goods — that’s according to Durai Palanisamy, chairman of Southern India Mills Association, who spoke to Apparel Resources this week. Garment workers are, again, left with the short stick.

All this emphasises something we already know, but that is mostly hidden in the value chain: fashion drives the oil industry’s growth in a significant way. It is political and it is a climate problem. The issues go much deeper than polyester alone. 

Textile supply chain media was quick to pick up on the impacts of polyester price rise, with Fibre2Fashion describing the situation as a “nightmare” for the Indian textile industry, and noting just how vulnerable petrochemical-reliant materials are to geopolitical shocks. 

Meanwhile, the mainstream fashion media was largely quiet in the first week of the war, but finally woke up to discuss consumer confidence and the risks for long-term supply chain disruption if energy facilities are damaged, as Business of Fashion reported.

But it doesn’t have to be this way. Climate writer Ketan Joshi put it best, writing on LinkedIn, “Oil demand could be so much lower than it is today, and a big part of why it isn't has been the active effort of a large group of people with their names on the record.” Joshi’s observation is equally true in fashion.

As a major consumer of oil, fashion has a responsibility to reduce the global appetite for it. But the rich boys in charge are not doing that. Organisations and activists have been pushing brands to move away from synthetics for years. And yet, 78 million tonnes of it was produced in 2024 – up from 71 million the year before – according to Textile Exchange’s latest Market Fiber Report. 

None of this is by accident. Changing Markets Foundation’s tracking of “fossil fashion” in recent years has repeatedly exposed the industry’s contribution to fossil fuel growth while being fully aware of the ethical issues. Its 2024 report on plastic pollution found that fashion brands are “employing tactics similar to those used by the fossil fuel industry – denying the severity of plastic pollution, distracting the public and regulators with false solutions and actively stalling meaningful efforts to address it, particularly in the case of microplastic pollution,” as well as continuing links with suppliers dependent on Russian oil that funds its war. 

Another oil war, another case study in fashion’s avoidance of transitioning away from fossil fuels.

It shouldn’t need to take a war for fashion to evaluate its relationship with fossil fuels, especially when so many viable alternatives exist.

To be clear, we’re not trying to tell you one thing is more important than another. We’re viewing this through a fashion lens because, as JD noted in last week’s Worry Diary, it’s vital we understand how things are linked: “If every crisis feels disconnected from every other, you can’t build coalitions. If fashion feels trivial compared to war, nobody scrutinises the modern slavery behind the High Street brands.” That’s true of fossil fuels too.

If fashion brands take the climate crisis seriously, they should be working to reduce their reliance on virgin polyester and other fossil-fuel derived synthetics, for example. That’s what action would look like, and that’s not really happening at a meaningful scale. And it is worth underscoring how materials are only part of the story: much of fashion’s manufacturing relies on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas, despite there being viable renewable alternatives. 

Indeed, decarbonising fashion is not a pipe dream; it requires a series of almost boring investments. Reports like Fashion Revolution’s What Fuels Fashion keep on showing that big brands just aren’t doing enough to support suppliers that don’t have the means to implement such costly projects themselves: “Fossil-fuelled boilers still dominate dyehouses, laundries and finishing mills where the fabrics behind our clothes are made — the single largest source of supply chain emissions. Clean alternatives already exist, yet most brands are failing to act,” its latest 2025 report reads.

It’s not even that hard to imagine how brands could act. There are so many practical examples of what that transition could look like. Stand Earth’s Fair Share for the Future report, published last month, outlines the steps brands can take towards this, including consulting on fair financing frameworks, providing upfront payments for decarbonisation projects, advocating for regional policy improvements towards renewable energy, and improving transparency around their investments. 

And as we reported in anxiety.eco in January, the problem is one of shareholder capitalism. The wealth to tackle these problems already exists in the system, as revealed in our Ultra-Rich List, which tracked more than $1.5 trillion in wealth across more than 80 fashion-related billionaires. This elite group would rather not talk about the fact that their businesses run on oil, that their industry marketed on self-expression is so closely linked with exploitation on a global scale.

Ultimately, fashion companies produce for profit, and few are willing to choose a more expensive option, as publicly-held companies must act in the financial interests of their shareholders. But a new report from the Apparel Impact Institute could help change that, warning that climate inaction could cause brands’ profits to drop by 34 percent by 2030. Any way you look at it, the status quo is unsustainable. 

Fashion runs on fossil fuels. Fashion runs on conflict, in this way. And status quo “sustainability” speak serves these interests when it avoids stating the facts clearly, lest the billionaires continue to control the “sustainability” narrative.