Nudity: the only answer to sweatshops

Mass-produced clothes are such an ethical minefield. The only way we can be absolutely sure about the conditions under which they‘re produced is if they actually have a label saying “Produced by under-aged pre-teens working 12 hours a day for a plate of gruel.”

So in the end we just kind of buy what we can afford and hope for the best. OK, I know that American Apparel is made in LA (I’ve seen the factory) and Xara is made in Spain but if the newspapers told us tomorrow that the stuff was being sneaked in the back door of the factory from containers imported from an underground child labour camp in Birmingham, we’d probably just shrug, sigh and reach for our Fairtrade cups of coffee which we’re pretty sure come from real hill farmers but may just be channeled through a hill farmer who’s really a front for a multinational drugs gang.

One way to get around the clothing guilt thing is to buy second hand clothes, which is fine except someone’s got to buy the stuff first hand to make it second hand for us ethical types. It’s really just a matter of deferring the guilt. Besides, what about the people in the developing world who’re getting most of the second hand clothing now? If the stuff stayed in our wardrobes or just ended up at the neighbours, what would they wear and what would all the middlemen around the globe who deal in second hand clothing do for a living?

(Well, there is the chance that all the textile companies that were forced to close down when their markets were swamped by the West’s discarded clothing could start up again, but it’s probably a bit late for that.)

No, the answer is to wear nothing. No guilt, no shame. Just the flesh you were born with. And if you’re arrested, your defence would be that of the environmental activitists who were acquitted from damaging the Kingsnorth power station in Kent: “I admit my crime but I committed it purely to prevent a greater crime.”

Coming soon to a news channel near you.

Climate change litigation - even sooner than I thought

£50m in blood money to Bangladesh. Acquittal of the Kingsnorth 6. Being a major carbon emitter may be about to become very, very expensive.

Just two days ago I wrote about the probability that people and nations affected by climate change would try to take the countries, corporations and individuals most responsible for climate change to court.

Well, well, well.

Later that same day Britain agreed to give Bangladesh at least £50m to help them stave off the effects of climate change. International development secretary Douglas Alexander talked about the "moral duty" of developed countries to help countries like Bangladesh adjust to climate change. Perhaps he even meant it. But you can be sure that the deal includes a clause prohibiting Bangladesh from suing the UK for billions more pounds if their flood defenses prove inadequate. For Britain, it's a bargain.

But would it stop Bangladeshi individuals from suing the UK government, whose climate change policies have so far lagged far behind some other EU nations, or from suing the corporations that they have allowed to carry on emitting carbon willy-nilly?

Today, the six Greenpeace protestors arrested for climbing a 200 metre chimney of the Kingsnorth coal-fired power station in Kent, UK, were acquitted of causing criminal damage. They defendants admitted causing the damage, but the jury agreed with their defence: that they were simply trying to prevent energy company E.ON from causing much greater damage to property around the world.

"The jury was told that Kingsnorth emits the same amount of CO2 as the 30 least polluting countries in the world combined – and that there are advanced plans to build a new coal-fired power station next to the existing site on the Hoo Peninsula in Kent."

It's the first time this defence has been used in a case of this kind. It won't be the last. But more importantly, it'll make it very attractive for people who believe that their property has been damaged by the activities of large-scale carbon emitters to attempt to take them to court.

There must be a lot of nervous CEOs out there. Shareholders, watch out.