Good news for ethical fashion types: for summer 2010 “a general lack of clothing will be approved of” says Vogue.

It certainly makes a change from being told to run out and buy more stuff, and not wearing anything is certainly more sustainable than, say, the leather trousers and fringed jackets fashion journalist Polly Vernon seems to think we all need.

The idea of sustainable fashion is increasingly being bandied about, and in recent years there has been a marked rise in a reuse recycle-fuelled vintage fashion and charity shop chic. On the flip side, trends clearly heading straight for the “why did I wear that?” pile – such as statement shoulders or studding – are leaving a firm definition of what a sustainable fashion industry actually entails very elusive.

When Financial Times fashion editor Vanessa Friedman attended a sustainable fashion conference, held alongside the better publicised United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen last year, she left more knowledgeable about the fashion industry keeping its head well below the parapet on this topic. But she was still none the wiser as to what sustainable fashion means.

She says: “An industry predicated not on need but desire is one that is often associated with indulgence and excess.”

Brighton-based ethical stylist Lou Taylor says: “I’d say that sustainable style was more attainable than sustainable fashion. I don’t think the speed and fickleness of the fashion industry really allows for true sustainability.”

The shoe sensation that is Crocs is the perfect example. At one point the Crocs factory was allegedly turning out more than three million pairs a month, and were still unable to meet demand.

When the craze has died down, what’s left? A massive pile of non-degradable (ugly) plastic shoes.

Alongside this hyper-speed, ephemeral world is also often jaw-dropping over consumption, which isn’t just limited to Victoria Beckham and her alleged 100 identical handbags.

La Luminata is an online eco-fashion magazine based in Brighton. It says its aim is to “to inspire and inform their readers to make sustainable decisions without comprising on style or quality”.

Typifying its content, one blog post is hyping a new kind of rose oil hydrating mist. The article points out the environmental problems of cut flowers and comments that a staggering that 10,000kg of rose petals is needed to make just 1kg of the rose oil found in the mist spray.

It’s also from Australia, presumably flown to the UK, and is also, arguably, completely pointless. Yet the product is vegan, and therefore given two thumbs up by the city’s leading sustainable fashion magazine.

Editor Rachel Holland admits it’s a problematic area. She says: “We showcase new brands and we’re about introducing new things so it’s difficult for us to have a moral overtone with that. We can’t possibly claim we’re trying to encourage people to cut consumption.”

Instead the magazine runs by an ethos called “further fashion”, which encourages mindfulness in shopping.

“It might be unethical in today’s terms,” says Rachel. “But if you use it for 20 years it’s going to be more ethical than something ‘ethical’ that you throw away after a year.

Sustainable fashion is very difficult. Fair trade is really important, as is organic, but vintage or recycled is the best option right now.”