Hope for our world. Always half full.

Our society has a paradigm of conspicuous consumption. Once we establish and achieve one goal, we soon make another one and work towards the new goal. We love material things and it really is part of our culture with myself included. While I understand the need for sustainability, my consumer side says that I want companies to make as much to get the least expensive product available. I do have optimism in the fact that our world can be more sustainable but I do have pessimism because we have gone global and I think there is no going back.

When asked about how do I see sustainability in the future, I look through many perspectives. I see the consumer, manufacturer’s and world’s view. Because we live in such a global world, I really do believe that we are never going back to localized in total form. I believe that if we buy and produce local when possible, that will reduce on a lot of transportation. Also, some products will always be made in specific areas: champagne from France, electronics from Asia, and spices from India – those are products I think that will always be imported and exported. What I see consumers buying locally and companies producing smaller quantities so their merchandise – and our precious resources -  do not go to waste.

Visoneering: An Essential Framework for Sustainability Science discusses that in order to have success there needs to be three crucial compontents: 1) Management 2) Governance 3) Monitoring. My idea for the world includes those three aspects, I envision that the UN creates a worldwide organization to regulate pesticides and water use. Through an organization, countries can provide subsidies and make changes accordingly to usage. Education to consumers on why costs may initially go up as well should be provided as well as how to properly use sustainable systems to farmers, manufacturers and companies. I feel that although there are a lot of positive technological advances unless they become more widely used as well as less expensive to replace with older technology, they really cannot make a large impact on the environment.

I see company’s that are making the switch to using less energy, less packaging, renovating to become more sustainable and reduce spending. In the article Limiting Consumption Toward A Sustainable Culture, Durning cites using the Golden Rule. Every generation uses what they need and nothing more because excess could cause trouble for the upcoming generation.

I realize that the modern society is materialistic and honestly I am okay with that but if we, as designers, merchandisers and fellow consumers, could put into their minds that they do not ever have to stop buying but rather buy items that can be upcycled, then there are endless possibilities for our future. In order to become sustainable we need to be able to have imagination, foresight, goal setting, possibility thinking, scenario thinking, critical thinking, open-mindedness and creativity as cited by Lombardo. Without these skills there is not true way to see how our world is. I really do have hope for our future. Maybe it’s my in my religion to be optimistic but I know there is hope for our planet. I know we are capable for a more sustainable, rich future. 

There is hope!

Cotton is the most widely known and worn fiber in the world. Cotton is hypoallergenic, dust-mite resistant, is easy to care for and wicks away moisture. It really is a great fabric to have in your closet. But very few consumers know how exactly cotton is grown. While in the past of the production of cotton has been extremely destructive and has forced new technologies and practices to make cotton sustainable.

The largest producers of cotton in the world are China, USA, India, Pakistan and Brazil. A reason that cotton is so popular to grow is because it is a cash crop. Cotton is selling for 94 to 104 cents per pound. Cotton is originally thought to require a huge amount of water but actually continues to grow with little use of water. To grow so there are various irrigation practices used to produce. The most popular way is flood-and-furrow. This method creates small trenches so water can move from a water source (such as a lake) to the plants. This method of irrigation is also the least expensive form of irrigation. The problem with this water system, cited by The Sustainability of Cotton: Consequences For Man and Environment, is that only about 40% of the water makes it to the crops. That leaves 60% of the water used as runoff. The inadequate management of water leads to soil salinization – is excessive buildup of salt on the topsoil. This leads to lands being abandoned and this destructive cycle begins again. Another problem for cotton growers is soil erosion.

Another serious area of concern is the continuous use of the same soil that causes a loss of nutrients. This problem can be resolved by the use of planting crops that help replace nutrients to the soil. These crops include peanuts, legumes, and grasses. While this can be solution, very few producers want to switch their production to some other crop because some are not as profitable as cotton.

The excessive use of pesticides has become a serious problem for cotton producers. The excess use not only makes pests resistant to the pesticides but also gets carried off through runoff water. In developing countries this runoff can be used as drinking water and cause health problems. Developing countries, such as India, use very strong and dangerous chemicals to worker’s health. I have attached a video link that I hope you will take a few minutes to watch. While pesticides are showing a promising future in technological advances, many of these advances are often too costly for family-ran cotton farms to use in developing countries.

In closing, while cotton is making great strides in more efficient and sustainable ways for growing and manufacturing cotton. I do beleive that these ways are making cotton a great sustainable option to other fibers. The down side that these advances can be costly to the poor farmer. I feel that there should be susidiaries and free workshops available, by the government, for these farmers. It will not only help the farmers become more productive and knowledgable but help the environment. 

Is inherently good possible in the apparel industry?

Natural vs. synthetic fibers are both being used in the textile industry today. Which one is better for the environment though? Although many people think that natural fibers are the inherently ‘good’ choice, they might be surprised to find that natural fibers, such as cotton, use vast more amounts of water then synthetics that in turns affects the globes fresh water supply. The chapter “Materials Diversity” in the book Sustainable Fashion and Textiles cites that 1 kg of cotton (2.20 pounds) can use up to 8,000 liters (2113.4 gallons) of water. Common synthetic fibers are acetate, acrylic, spandex, lyocell, rayon and polyester. These synthetics require significantly more energy to produce.

Aesthetics in textiles refer to the characteristics of a fiber: abrasion resistance, absorbency, chemical, mildew and moth resistance, elasticity, flammability, heat sensitivity, piling, strength, sunlight resistance, warmth, weight, and wrinkle recovery. Many people do not realize that all fibers have so many specific characteristics! From a aesthetics standpoint synthetics fibers are tend to be resistant to chemical and rot, have a low moisture absorbency, flame resistant and do pill. Natural fibers tend to possess high moisture absorbency, have low pilling, and are not as flame resistant as synthetics. Furthermore, natural fibers tend to be more comfortable than synthetics. With advance being made in the textile industry, the playing field for synthetic versus natural is becoming increasingly leveled.

Beyond Green 2011: Sustainable Innovations in Fibers and Processes highlights six ways to become more sustainable: 1) Re-using, recycling, and upcycling 2) renewables 3) re-exploring naturals 4) doing more from less 5) water-less and 6) new ways. In the apparel industry, it is difficult to decide on which fiber is better all around. I believe that this decision needs to be based on a case-by-case basis. Neither synthetic nor natural fibers provide a all around good answer for water-use, energy-use and disposal, both have positives and negatives. What I believe is that we should concentrate on reducing our over-production of both fibers. The obvious benefit of over-production in textiles and fibers is a cutting in cost. The drawback of over-production is that there is no proven method for synthetics and naturals to be created, used, up-cycled and disposal, in a closed-circuit manner. With a closed-circuit method, companies would not have to worry about over-production because they (the companies) could use re-create and re-use the fabric for next season’s line. In addition to creating a closed-circuit method, companies need to use production means that better the environment which can lead back changing the design.

In closing, no fiber, synthetic or natural, is inherently good. Decisions have to be made on what fits the needs of the company, customer and environment in different cases. The current way for leaders in the industry to provide sustainable ways is to stay informed on new technologies and support research and development in sustainability. 

We've got the power

In many developed countries the standard economy is a capitalistic economy. With an unlimited buying power, compared to undeveloped countries, our possibilities of shopping are endless. With great power comes great responsibility. As a whole, people have ignored the growing environmental crisis but we are now are being forced to address the problem. Our capitalistic ways of getting what we want when we want have added to landfills without any true thought about what to do to lessen our impact on earth. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) only has two executive orders in place for the United States. With little regulation, or framework, to address sustainability, we consumers need to call attention to the government as well as be productive while waiting for more legislation to pass. Fashioning Sustainability suggests that companies become more transparent with how they produce their merchandise; consumers should not expect companies to plainly place their practices on their website but should investigate for themselves. By doing so consumers are getting a full scope. One of EMSA promising interventions is for government to provide a framework for companies to build on. Consumers should demand this change. We as consumers have more power because we are the government and we can make changes.

In Pricing Environmental Impacts: The Tale of Two T-shirts, the authors introduce a new form of costing to include externalities. Externalities can be human health or ecological damage. Walsh and Brown suggest that producers should include these externalities. While this seems like a great idea, the question that I immediately thought of was, “What happens to these past externalities?” Companies just do not go back and cost externalities later. While the intention is thoughtful and could work for companies that are just starting, well-established companies might have a hard time going back and add these to their ledgers later. I believe companies should not real costing but rather devise a different way to see their impact so they can work towards reducing their ecological footprint. Even if local governments created a system for companies to see each other’s footprint and provide tax benefits or some sort of token economy, our communities could see and improve on the progress being made. 

Changing the world for the better

The definition of an environment is the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates. We as humans have learned to live in any environment and in a general sense have thrived. With our technological advances, our species has become more sophisticated with agriculture, communication, and science. With more knowledge comes more danger. The dangers of our advances are overconsumption. Some environmental issues that are affecting the world are vast amounts of waste, air pollution, overpopulation, global warming and deforestation. Any child born after the 1990s has grown up with these terms and problems, among other problems. While our global environment is deteriorating, there is hope for our world to become more sustainable. Sustainability is the answer to our global environmental problems. While this term is thrown out, very people can actually describe sustainability. A way that I understand sustainability is through a cradle-to-cradle model. The cradle-to-cradle model is to design an item that once its use is fulfilled can be up-cycled and not lose any material or use. Our society is running on a cradle-to-grave system. Once a specific item has become obsolete to us, the item is discarded and a new one is bought. An example of cradle-to-grave would be the using plastic bottles to create carpet. While plastic bottles are being used in something else, as well as downgraded, what will happen to the carpet once its use has become dirty and damaged? The carpet most likely cannot be changed into something else and will eventually end up in a landfill. While the intention to better the plastic bottle was there, the changing of the bottles to carpet only prolonged the bottles to being put into a landfill. With the proper design, almost anything can be sustainable and the design needs to be well though out. This I believe is our answer to reversing our environmental problems.This cradle-to-cradle model was not my idea but I learned of it through Cradle-to-Cradle by William McDonough and Michael Braungart.

A New Green History of the World: The Environment and the Collapse of Great Civilizations told a dismal story of Easter Island. Easter Island is a remote island off the coast of South America. The island was created through volcanic activity. Polynesians traveled to this island and started an advanced civilization but through their careless use to create stone statues, the society deforested the entire island and soon destruction encroached. Easter Island is an example of what would happen if humans ignored the environment and continued to live the way we do, destructive and non-relenting. While we believe the Earth has unlimited resources, the truth is the Earth’s resources are finite. By the use of changing design for many of our products we can reverse and better the Earth and humankind.

How do we go about designing our products for a better purpose? Do not approach problems as a one-size-fits-all. As humans we want homogeneity in everything we do, it builds on our capitalist economy but it also destroys our environment. Instead of a company building a homogeneous headquarters, the company should embrace the environment. Build a building that seems to fit into the environment, use trees and flowers that are natural to area not a Bermuda grass. Is there a lot of sunlight in the area you are building? Use windows to make workers feel outdoors and solar panels to power the building.

Although changing the intention of design is important there is also a need of regulation, along with the mantra of reduce, reuse and recycle. Regulation can be difficult but we must limit our use of resource in order to reverse damage. Without implementing regulation quickly and sufficiently, our world with end up as a global version of Easter Island. Regulation is beginning on a positive note with guidelines being set on fisheries, forestry and water being stated in Eco-Systems and Human Well-Being. A regulation given in the Eco-Systems is reducing marine fishing capacity in fisheries or providing transparency in water management and increased representation of stakeholders for water. While regulation will not solve problems overnight or even in ten years, over time the regulation of valuable resources will begin to reverse damage, and hopefully better the environment.

With the use of regulation and a change in the intention of design, we, I believe, as humans can reverse the damage that we have caused. If we do not change how we are using our resources, our world will end up as Easter Island.