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.