High Hopes for the Future of Cotton

It’s just a basic t-shirt, right? As an avid t-shirt wearer, I had somewhat of an idea as to the amount of work that went into constructing this simple and very comfortable apparel item. However, after reading The Sustainability of Cotton and viewing a couple of different videos featuring cotton production methods online, I came to the realization of how harmful my basic t-shirt was on the environment as well as on the individuals who contributed to its creation. When I think about it, there are similar misconceptions around multiple facets of life. As the cliché goes, “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. And it is the truth! It is difficult to measure the hardships of cotton cultivation until someone explains them to you, or you learn about them in a class such as this one. Fortunately, the future of cotton seems to be a bright one.

Reading The Sustainability of Cotton brought to my attention many pressing issues that cotton producers experience, as well as what the environment experiences. Some of the issues mentioned include irrigation, fertilizers, pesticides, pests and diseases, and human impact.  All of which, if taken into consideration, make a significant difference between conventional and organic cotton growing methods. One issue that I found myself wanting to know more about was irrigated cotton cultivation. I was shocked to read about how much water is required for the farming and processing of cotton. According to the reading, it takes 10,000-17,000 liters of water to produce 1 kilogram of cotton lint. To put it into perspective, that is equal to 2,642 gallons, which is enough to fill close to 30 standard-sized bathtubs of water! (answers.com; answers.yahoo.com). In order for irrigation to be applied, many environmental sacrifices have to be made. This includes diverting rivers, constructing dams, and pumping water up from the soil. While there are prospective innovations to more efficient irrigating techniques, the high investment costs bring cotton producers to a halt. In order to avoid spending a fortune and sacrificing higher profits, farmers have to pay attention to the quality and quantity of the water being used, and be more efficient overall as much as possible.

The Cotton, Inc. website did a great job in lifting my spirits and informing me of the current conservation methods being enforced today. The video “Cotton & Water: White, Blue and Green” pointed out that apparently, there is a recent “spark” being seen within cotton farmers as they are being driven to find creative ways to conserve their water usage. In another video titled “Protecting and Preserving Soil with Today’s Cotton-Growing Techniques”, I learned about a new “conservation tillage” technology where instead of consistently plowing the farm fields, no tilling is involved and a new residue is planted. This new residue has many benefits not only in water conservation, but in reducing soil erosion as well. It makes more water available for plants because of its ability to soak up the rainfall and spread it more efficiently across the crops. It would be great if these conservation methods showed successful results, but it is ultimately up to the farmer as to whether or not they will be practiced.

The valuable information presented in the reading and the short videos led me to form the opinion that the current cultivation methods of cotton are not sustainable at all. However, I do see definite potential in the future for sustainability to be better enforced. This will ONLY occur if the more efficient methods are actually adopted and correctly performed by farmers. Consumers can also take part in this effort by being more aware of the production history of the garments that they purchase. So in conclusion, your t-shirt isn’t basic at all! However, the required steps to be more sustainable in producing your t-shirt CAN become basic and simple if we choose to exert the needed effort.  

Naturally? Not Necessarily.

It is a common misperception among those both within and outside of the apparel industry, that natural fiber production is the answer to ending the environmental sustainability issues faced today. The hidden truth however, is that there really isn’t a favorable direction to go when it comes to deciding which material to use for textile fiber production. As an apparel designer and an avid synthetic material user, I was taken aback when I overheard a fellow coworker discussing the negative impacts that synthetic materials have on the environment. Her comments prompted me to do some research on my own to prove to her that natural materials were not as “pure” as she insisted that they were. I also wanted to gain insight into possible ways that I could produce my garments with a more diverse mindset, incorporating the idea of change, in hopes to inspire my consumers to do the same. Kate Fletcher made some great comparisons in the first chapter of Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, while Textile Exchange’s Charline Ducas also made some strong points as far as the realities of the production and consumption of the two materials.

As I read through Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, I was surprised to learn that it is not ONE specific textile that will lessen the effects on the environment, but rather the LACK of diversity of the materials used. The fact that material diversity is a concept that is lacking in garment production surprised me, as I was convinced that the apparel industry was one of innovations and risks. Apparently, more attention needs to be paid to the use of alternative, more resourceful fibers of a garment and less to a particular look or style of a garment. The reading is not promoting that cotton and polyester, or the “big two fibers”, be cut out of fiber production completely. Instead, Fletcher believes that more work should be done to incorporate more environmental-friendly fibers within the production process. Essentially, it is time for the “underdogs” of fibers to shine!

Synthetic fiber processing is just as harmful as natural fiber processing, according to Fletcher’s assessment of sustainability impacts. Even though 1 kilogram of cotton draws on 8,000 liters of water while 1 kilogram of polyester uses little or no water, polyester does consume twice the energy that is needed to make the same amount of cotton. The reading continues to discuss the range of natural fibers that exist, which include cotton, wool, silk, and linen. Each of these natural fibers are similar in their harm done to the environment, as they all require excessive amounts of water, pesticides, and fertilizers to ensure accurate processing. In comparison, the manufactured fibers mentioned include polyester, nylon, acrylic, and viscose. Once again, high energy consumption, chemical usage, and pollution indexes resulting from generated air emissions are necessary in ensuring accurate processing of these fibers. There are many alternatives listed that can be used in replacement of both the natural and manufactured fibers, but the most impact is attributed to consumer care. Again, by extending ways to improve harmful environmental impacts for BOTH producers and consumers, we are better able to view these issues as a “whole” unified problem. Therefore, we all need to work together on each end to elicit a change.

Textile Exchange’s Charline Ducas also emphasized a stronger focus on improving the impacts of fibers on the environment. She discussed six “trends” that are currently being assessed in order to address these harmful influences, one of which is titled “doing more from less”. This trend highlighted how producers can be more clever in using less water, energy, and chemicals. According to Ducas, the chemical industry is practicing such a change by lessening the amount of indigo used in denim production. A new “Clariant” technology for denim apparently uses 92% less water, 30% less energy, and 87% less cotton waste! Utilizing this technology can save so many of our natural resources while reducing the amount of harm that is done simply by producing one pair of jeans. When you view the cost of improvements through percentages, it is easier to understand how much of a change can be made by researching alternatives in production. I enjoyed the last bit of information that Ducas shared in the video, which was that solutions are available if we just take the time to adopt them into our everyday lives! Collaboration between designers and supply chains are also deemed as vital in promoting such solutions, which means that a change in mindset must also be made to achieve success.

Both Sustainable Fashion and Textiles and Charline Ducas extend very insightful information regarding the natural vs. synthetic conundrum currently being reviewed. In my opinion, making a decision between choosing a natural fiber or a synthetic fiber shouldn’t generate much of a “headache” to whoever is doing the picking, because it is clear that both are equally at fault for the sustainability issues we are facing today. While incorporating some of the mentioned fiber alternatives would make a world of economic difference, it is also important that the consumer do everything in their power to extend the use of their garment. Inspiration to do so however, comes from the careful sustainability efforts used in the production phase by the fiber grower or designer. So my question to you is do you agree with the fact that the environmental impacts should be a two-sided approach? In my opinion, this continual system of push and pull efforts will be sure to bring about a change within the apparel industry, regardless of whether a product is made naturally or synthetically. And even though my coworker and I are on different “fiber teams”, at least now she can realize that changes need to be made by every member of both teams.

Fashion Intervention 101

As an apparel merchandising major studying the industry, it is apparent that current fashion designers are those who are focused on one thing: providing the public with the most “cutting-edge” looks and outfit concepts for the future. Modern-day “fashionistas” pry themselves on adopting these runway styles, as well as religiously keeping up with the most recent fashion magazine articles to learn what the color of next season will be, or which skirt length is going to be the up-and-coming statement piece according to what celebrities have been seen sporting on Madison Avenue. If trends straight off of a runway or street corner can be so quickly adopted by the public, then how come the concept of sustainable fashions has become one that seems to be so difficult to enforce upon consumers? Is it laziness or lack of interest? Due to the current uneasy economy, I am sure that consumers’ interests on this concept would be sparked if they knew just how much money they could save on apparel products if the appropriate sustainable measures were taken to produce them. The reports of this week titled, Fashioning Sustainability and Pricing Environmental Impacts: A Tale of Two T-shirts, each pointed out recommendations for improving garment production which I believe would bring about great change in the apparel industry if adopted.

Fashioning Sustainability suggested numerous solutions to some of the problems found in garment production that seem to have extreme impacts on the environment. These issues include fashion consumption, cotton production, working conditions, energy consumption, chemical exposure, unsustainable fibers affecting degradation, fashion miles, and animal cruelty. In addition to highlighting these problems, the report gave multiple actions that can be taken to reduce the harmful effects of production on the environment. They include options such as raising awareness amongst key industry players, promoting transparent supply chains, developing international trade standards, offering supply chains with the necessary training and support, empowering consumers to practice better care methods, and convincing designers to incorporate sustainability into their projects. As I read the report’s thoughts on action steps to take, I noticed the simplicity of them all. Is it really as simple as raising awareness of the impact that recycling has on clothing disposal? We all know the positive effects of recycling, but the number of those who actually participate is way lower than it should be. That being said, would consumers really take the increased awareness to heart and actually adopt a new lifestyle that included going out of the way to protect the environment? While it seems easy, I believe that most consumers ultimately will not have the desire to take the time out of their already demanding schedules to follow some of the action steps mentioned, unless a law required it. However if garment producers more openly became aware of the importance of conserving resources, I believe that significant change could be made. If production sustainability were taken more seriously, consumption sustainability would be equally as important in the apparel industry.

Last week’s Ecosystem Millennium Assessment touched on some “promising interventions” that I noticed related to the action steps mentioned in Fashioning Sustainability. One of the first interventions listed in the ESMA was the elimination of harmful subsidies where excessive use of harmful fertilizers and pesticides occurs. This relates directly to the concept in FS of improving fiber quality, which will in turn decrease the harms of degradation on the environment. ESMA went on to mention possible taxes or user fees being placed on activities of production that included “external” costs, such as the excessive use of nutrients that may harm the ecosystem. This partnered with the action FS promoted, which was developing international trade standards. By ensuring fair prices policies among garment producers worldwide, there would be more of a desire to save money which would in turn, promote less environmental harm. Another intervention proposed by the ESMA was to educate resource managers on the characteristics and history of a product being used in the line of production. The same action steps were also discussed in FS as the idea of transparency and empowerment of consumers. Through tracing the origins of the stock being used, garment producers would be better able to inform consumers of what exactly they are buying and the amount of harm that was imposed on the environment during the production process. Another important intervention that the ESMA discussed were the endless methods that garment producers as well as designers could utilize in order to make better sustainability decisions. As pointed out in FS, these people play the key roles in actually promoting sustainable solutions for clothing and creating fashions that appeal to the ultimate consumer in a stylish and fashionable way. Through helping the production team make better decisions as far as what methods to take in creating a garment that will not do as much harm to the environment, the end consumer can be equally as inspired to do the same, starting a cycle of sustainability.

Another efficient method to measure environmental impact from garment production was researched in Pricing Environmental Impacts: A Tale of Two T-Shirts. In the reading, the techniques of life-cycle analysis have been translated into monetary costs to be more easily understood by decision makers. Because some environmental impacts cannot be given an exact price and therefore are not measurable, they are deemed “externalities” within this report. The externalities, along with other production cost “drivers”, were paired with an estimated cost per stage through activity-based costing. The report concluded that for both conventional and organic cotton t-shirts, that the stage with the greatest environmental impact is consumer care, followed by the actual growing of cotton fiber, and then the transportation of materials and garments. Overall, I enjoyed reading this report because it was easier to picture the harmful effects on the environment in number form. Since I am more of a visual person, I appreciated the opportunity to compare and contrast the different methods of producing a basic t-shirt while clearly taking note of the “price” difference in production on the environment. I believe that this method to enhance the impacts of garment production has a chance of being an extremely successful addition to the solutions mentioned in both Fashioning Sustainability and the ESMA.

To conclude my fashion intervention, I can’t help but wonder what future steps will be taken in the effort to increase apparel sustainability awareness among designers as well as consumers. There is already so much information out there just waiting to be adopted and put into action, and I’m sure that as the world becomes accustomed to more “green” lifestyles there will be an increase in the research of the subject matter. After the readings this week, I actually found myself more interested in the subject of garment sustainability than I ever have been before. I had no idea that simply by switching from conventional to organic cotton t-shirts, I could save my environment billions of dollars. What other ways are there besides reading these lengthy reports that we can illicit this same realization onto consumers? Do you think that by the time we peak within the industry, sustainability will be an even bigger issue being addressed? And are these “environmental impacts” really a threat to the future of the ecosystem? I suppose that only time will tell.  

Save the Trees, Please!

We all know that trees are a HUGE source of supplying many of the items that we use on a daily basis, making them very critical links to the life chain of our planet. However, the growing population each year is adding more and more pressure to the thousands of acres of rainforests being violently harvested and depleted every single day. Raising awareness on the severity of this situation is crucial if we plan to replenish our earth with the nutrients necessary for its ultimate survival. I chose to answer the topic question, “Are the environmental problems we face today new?”, because after going through the readings and researching online articles, I realized that the deforestation issue has been one that seems to be repeatedly pushed aside. I believe that NOW is the time to give this topic the attention it deserves so we can do everything in our power to save the trees!

According to the online source, FAO NEWSROOM, deforestation is actually the cause of the 25-30% of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year, not the common assumption of oil and gas emissions. The article went on to explain that trees are 50% carbon, which is released back into the air when they are felled or burned. It is estimated by the organization that some 13 million forests worldwide are lost every year, with Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia prime target areas. This is where the reading “Lessons of Easter Island” came in for me. Since Easter Island is located off of the coast of Latin America, it made sense as to why deforestation was and is such an issue, especially in the context of the story of the islanders.

With settlement starting to begin in the fifth century, the Polynesians began to develop methods of survival on the island. This also included making adjustments based off of what the island did and didn’t offer, such as fewer species of plants and animals, which the Polynesian culture had previously been used to. Deforestation of the island began as the population hit its peak in 1550, resulting in trees needing to cut down to provide clearings for agriculture, fuel for heating and cooking, construction material for household goods, pole and thatch houses and canoes for fishing. The trees then proceeded to be the only possible way to transport the culture’s “ahu” statues to ceremonial sites, which was a huge part of the Polynesians’ social beliefs. Throughout both processes of consistently needing to use the trees for one reason or another, the island was almost completely deforested by 1600. This proves that deforestation has been a problem for a much longer period of time than we all thought!

The “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being” readings confirmed my thoughts by bringing up information pertinent to present day. On page 4, it discusses that there has more recently been dramatic growth in the demand for food, water, timber, fiber, and fuel, which made me think back to the Easter Islanders. Once again, world population doubled between 1960 and 2000, causing the increase in the importance of these resources for human survival. While deforestation is still a direct result of this process, today we have developed a better use of new technologies and service management that are lowering the amount of harmful effects associated with the clearing of trees.

After reading about the many consequences of deforestation through the readings, I was interested in finding out if there were actual benefits of deforestation. There were more than I thought there would be, but the cons definitely outweighed the pros. On an online source titled Benefits of Deforestation written by Ezine Articles, it states that the economic gains are easy to spot. These include the number of jobs associated with cutting down lumber, the usefulness we get out of using lumber, the amount of land that becomes available for farmers, as well as the potential growth our society has by making cleared areas available. Houses, buildings, offices, and any type of urbanization would be impossible without deforestation!

So my question to you all is this: what do YOU think about the pros and cons of deforestation? Can we ever have a true balance between the good for society and the good for the environment? It is a huge environmental problem that we face today and have faced for hundreds of years, but is it ever really going to stop if our society continues to revolutionize and expand? While there are many more environmental problems to focus on, deforestation is something that affects multiple aspects of society in ways that many don’t ever even realize. Therefore, I am proposing that we do anything and everything that we can to more efficiently make use of our environment WITHOUT harming it.

 So…Save the Trees, Please!