Redirecting Our Practices

If there is a mass population that can minimize over consumption than why not solve the problem? In Contemporary Expression, it states different projects and approaches for design activism. Fuad-Luke thinks that the change needs to start with the designers, he has a point, but I believe that our country’s population can be redirected into a new sustainable path. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s end-of-2011 estimate the United States will enter 2012 with a population of roughly 312.8 million people. It is critical to have a large scale of impact and positive change. Design activism can either be something that has a positive outcome of practice in your life or academia.

After brainstorming different ways to make the US more sustainable, I began to compare other countries practices versus ours. Germany is considered one of the “greenest” countries in the world because of their environmental laws to reuse and recycle packaging. Italy has instated laws that require the recycling of any items that can be re-used. These laws are now so strict in Italian society that it is just as serious as any other harmful crime, and will be punished as so.  From recycling products to conserving electricity and air conditioning, Italy’s attempt to redirect their practice is transforming perceptions of sustainability worldwide.  My design concept would be directed toward consumers in the United States. Forcing over consumers to reuse and recycle by implementing environmental laws will urgently change their behavior. The law will have to start state by state and then eventually a federal law. This concept is a way to make the United States make positive changes and transform their perceptions of living a sustainable life.

The most important thing that I learned from this course was how consumers and the apparel industry impact our environment. I really enjoyed reading and watching videos to see some of the sustainable ideas that designers are implementing and using today. Now that I know more about what I can do to help just as a consumer and being in this industry. When I do get a job, I can shoot out ideas to maybe help that company be more sustainable in whatever they do. Also, as a consumer stop wasting and reuse things that don’t need to be wasted. I would like to learn more about what other designers are doing to be more sustainable in the apparel industry through their designs or production process.  

Designing for the Future

Imagine the world in which all the things that we consumed gave back to the earth. 

The Cradle-to-Cradle design by McDonough & Braungart is evolving quickly in the apparel industry. Biological metabolism is a design that a persons' "waste" cycles through the ecosystem and in return gives back nutrients for other things. On a large scale, this could produce great things. 

In the article C2CAD, they implemented this approach in knitwear design and production after testing several samples using different techniques. In ­­Textile Futures it states that designers are now using different practices and using digital technology to reprocess textiles, which will ‘resurface’ with a new purpose. These articles inspired me for this weeks design concept.

Staying with the children’s clothing idea from last week, they could add that the fabric be sustainable. No toxins, no nothing. However, children’s clothing is usually bright and dyed several times with printed graphics etc. so I don’t know if that idea would be very successful, but always worth a try. With the children’s wear idea, clothing would be alterable instead of just wasted. When children cannot fit into the “changeable” clothing than it will be easily dissembled and used to create a new product such as stuffed animals for the children. The fabric would be already pure and safe=toxin free and could use the buttons for different features on the animal.  They could also focus on renewable energy in the manufacturing process. Businesses would then be saving recourses, energy and money. 

Innovate and Re-Create.

After brainstorming about a new design concept I began researching different problems we have in our everyday lives. Going off of the video Rhoener Textiles he first discusses “growing”. This sparked several ideas for apparel. One thought: Children grow very fast, and another is obesity. Often people are losing and gaining weight or getting taller and all of their old clothing goes to waste. Waste=Food, discusses biological metabolism and technical metabolism. Technical metabolism stood out to me. It is basically a concept of turning a material into something bigger and better. Upcycling.

My concept would solve this problem. Making pants for children with several buttons so that the waist and length could be lengthened and taken in.  The same concept for the obesity issue; more buttons or closures that are able to lengthen and enlarge or shrink waistline or length. Therefore, they would be using the same garment for longer, rather than buying new clothes when they grow out of them. I think that people would like this idea, however, I think that garment manufactures and designers would take this idea and run with it. I think they could implement many more innovative ideas to this concept. We would be using more product but in the end would be creating less waste. Thus the cradle to cradle alternative. 

Looking into the future

Optimism or pessimism? I would like to believe I'm a very optimistic person, however, I'm not. I don't really put effort into saving the environment or even think about what I could do to help. I recycle and I have my own grocery bags, but I wouldn't be considered a "tree hugger". After being in Dr. Peek's class last semester, and now reading in this class, it is clear I can make a change. In the reading Thinking Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness, Tom Lombardo discusses that human behavior can change by relearning and training. I agree, just a couple changes of behavior and you can make a difference. 

What would I do to change my behavior? 

I think that my attitude towards the whole green movement is pretty much "over it". It is so over used and like I discussed last week, what are we to believe is true or just a fib? Changing my attitude would be a great start to changing the way that I live. After reading in Tom Lombardos article I believe I should be more open-minded about the future and would I could do to positively affect it. He also talks about decision making, which I think is a big one. You can either make a positive decision or not, its up to you to change. 

The key characteristics:

-recycle

-conserve energy

-help with awareness

My beliefs:

I think that recycling is really going to make a difference in the long run. I am a huge fan of bottled water, and I think that I could change my consumption. 

Anytime I leave my house the lights are always on, without fail. I need to be more conscious about turning things off when I'm not using them, and use less water. 

I talked about changing my attitude toward the whole green movement and I think that I could help give positive awareness throughout the campus. 

I think that we are very selfish people and don't think about conserving anything. What is going to happen years from now when there is landfills everywhere and sparse water? 

What holds me back? 

Laziness. Its so much easier to just throw it away than to drive somewhere in Stillwater to recycle my things. I think that is such a bad excuse. In the article Visioneering: an essential framework in sustainability science, they discuss how we are responsible for the future. We need to stop being selfish and teach others what they can do to help. After I have changed my behavior I can teach and educate others and then they can do the same. After awhile most everyone should be "followers" of the green movement. 

Communication is key:

I think that with all of the lies that advertising shows us it is hard for the consumer to believe anyone. Being real and giving facts about how crucial it is to recycle or help or even just be aware would open some peoples eyes. Giving solutions to the problem rather than just selling something would help consumers ease into this movement. 

I would hope that in 2050 there will be a change. The United States isn't the only country supporting this. I studied abroad in Italy and they are the most low key consumers and buy only necessary things. They live within their means and they recycle. I think its actually against the law to not recycle there. After living in Milan, I got into the habit of recycling. It really is just about changing your attitude and your behavior. Soon others will catch onto this trend and help us spread the positives to living a sustainable lifestyle.

 

Out with the old.

Green washing, an old concept now modernized. The idea of green washing is claiming that a product is sustainable. Sadly, this problem is growing throughout the world. In the UK they are reviewing their advertising "green claims" and France has announced new guidelines. In the united states, is trying to regulate current guidelines. When the typical consumer hears about the falsity of the green information they no longer know what to believe and won't purchase green products over others. In the article called the Greenwash Guide, they explain the difference between greenwash and "claims" so you too can spot the real thing. 


1. Using fancy language that lacks a clear meaning.
2. Look at green products and look where they are made or how. 
3. Pretty green images that suggest green. 
4. Irrelevant claims
5. Saying that they are greener than the rest
6. Not credible: Eco friendly cigarettes 
7. Jargon only a scientist could understand.
8. A label that looks like a third party enforcer that doesn't exist
9. No proof
10. Fake claims and lying about data.


Quail by Mail claims to be ethic chic, I feel like this company is legitimate. They claim that they use organic cotton, peace silk and other natural materials. They are environmentally friendly and recycle and they work in a green office and studio. 

However, Green Active Apple claims to be "ethically produced", "organic", and "Fair Trade Certified". After reading over the company profile I question their "unique" approach to providing a healthier alternative in the apparel market. 

It doesn't matter the product or how it is presents, but all company's have the same goal: to attract consumers to buy their product, and not another. I think that the US Federal Trade Commission needs to come up with a more specific regulations and make consumers aware. Promoting the idea of green washing to consumers would help consumers understand and trust the company, especially if they are transparent and communicate their efforts and use a credible approach. Consumers tend to enjoy reward programs, in the article called Eco-Promising, it suggests that companies increase availability of environmentally friendly products and remove poor performing products and come up with new reward programs to give customers the incentive to buy your product. I think that green washing is inevitable because people always manipulate claims just to get money. Hopefully the government and other regulations can make the popularity of green washing decrease. 

Cotton: the fabric of our lives

The touch, the feel of cotton, the fabric of our lives. 

The people who came up with the logo "The Fabric of our Lives" could not have known how accurate and foretelling this statement is. The Sustainability of Cotton talks about the water used for cultivation and processing. Cotton production is taking up the majority of our water sources because rivers are being dammed off. This is having a huge effect on the environment, more importantly it is even effecting the availability of water for humans. Different irrigation techniques would be one way to reduce this salinisation.  Salinisation is a term used for when evapo-transpiration is a threat for irrigated areas. Farmers should consider different regions that would accumulate more rainfall than others. If farmers do this than they will be able to reuse the land that they have already farmed fresh chemical free soil and not have to use dam water. 

One day I was watching a documentary about global warming and it talked about how farmers could simply use different livestock manure to fertilize the crops, rather than using synthetic fertilizers. Doing this would help farmers keep up to date  with farming techniques and they would not have to wait until the soil is ready to be used again. This process could sometimes could take up to about two years. Using natural fertilizer would bring nutrients to the soil and, simultaneously help with water retention.

 The Web Site Cotton, Inc. talks about how cotton helps the earth by preventing erosion with using cotton mulch. After going through the processing it because a natural mulch for grass. Cotton is beneficial for the earth, therefore, it is imperative that people remain advanced in this process.

 As I stated earlier, by using natural fertilizers for soil and crops we can help reduce toxic chemicals and pesticides that accumulate in the air, water and in food. Simply stated, organic means that no toxic pesticides were used, therefore, I believe that organic products would be a better way to protect this crop. 

Imagine this.

Imagine this. You are just hanging out around the water cooler at work and are approached by a co-worker to choose whether natural materials or synthetic materials are better for sustainability reasons. Which makes me think... How do these compare? Which is better for the environment? Over the year the fashion industry has become so competitive with the use of different materials. The amount of water used to produce cotton is incredible, it is a lot more than the amount it takes to produce polyester. The article Sustainable Fashion and Textiles: Design Journeys said that these two combined are used for over 80% of textiles and this is where the focus should be.

The large amounts of pesticides and fertilizers used in order to speed up the growing process of cotton has made the output of cotton triple. Using these product to help speed the process is very harmful to the environment. So much water is used to help produce cotton, as much as 8,000 liters of water.

A lot of people are hesitant to switch to the alternative because of the demand for manual labor. Because so much water is used to producing cotton, I think that the solution to this problem should be to use low water use cotton. Polyester is the most popular synthetic fiber and uses hardly any water compared to cotton. This is such a huge positive compared to the alternative, cotton.  Personally, I think that I will continue to use synthetics, but I will think about which natural fibers could be used instead of a environmentally harmful synthetic. 

Do you want to make a change?

 Everyday the fashion industry is changing the ways it becomes more sustainable and eco-friendly. However, a lot of designers are not following this trend. There is a group of designers that support the use of leather and fur, which is very controversial. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) consists of several internationally famous designers such as Giorgio Armani, Stella McCartney, Donna Karan, and Calvin Klein. These designers are not alone in their decision to refuse to include fur in their collections. In the report Fashion Sustainability it discusses different several issues in the fashion industry. What I found most interesting about this report was that it states the problems while at the same time offering several solutions.

Many issues included in this report discussed the pesticide use in the cotton farming industry, water use and working conditions for workers. One fact included in the article that was of particular interest to me was that it takes over 10 tonnes of water to grow enough cotton in order to produce one pair of jeans. Therefore, with the climate change continuing in its current state, the water stress will increase. The article also discussed how workers in poor conditions were exposed to toxic chemicals that cause bladder and breast cancer. Due to the high stress farmers were committing suicide. Isn't there a way to prevent this? 

Other issues discussed were animal welfare and human rights that are jeopardized everyday. When you go to a store and purchase a fur vest do you really think about all the work that went into it? Not to mention, the animal and how it was treated?

In the article Pricing Environmental Impacts, there was a study done to compare two farming techniques; conventional and organic. They studied the life cycle of a t-shirt and discussed how manufacturing an organic piece is less expensive and better for the environment and not as much water or pesticides are used. 
The article talks about pesticides, water consumption and soil erosion. Water consumption is something that people need to start becoming more aware of and limiting. In the article it states how many times a person washes one t-shirt and how much water that uses. That particular study and evidence really stuck out to me. I was excited to hear that Patagonia is now finding ways to change their techniques and use alternative production methods. I think that identifying the environmental costs leads to more informed decisions for companies and consumers.  

I think that with these suggested issues people have the opportunity come together and actually make a difference. In ESMA, they had even more descriptive and researched solutions that were recommended. I believe that it starts with the designer and then follows with the consumer. Ultimately, everyone needs to make a decision whether or not they want to make a change in the fashion industry. Do you?

Are the worlds environmental problems reversible?

"If people want to change, they will. If they don't want to, it's hard to make them do so. The current interest in the environment is a good thing. The best way to make a contribution in fashion is to promote the idea that a fundamental interest in preserving the environment is itself fashionable." 

-Giorgio Armani

This quote shows that not only scientists and researchers take special interest in the world around them, even fashion designers understand the growing dire need for conservation. Armani is showing that the best way to create a better, more sustainable, world is to make it "fashionable," and use the idea of a trend to create a way of life. I agree with this philosophy because until society is presented with the realization about the state of the environment, no good change can be made. By promoting a new of living, a "green" way, we can come one step closer to solving the problem.  

There are many individuals and groups who spread the message of conservation and the ability to reverse the damage that has already been done to the environment. The question remains, are these wasted ambitions? I agree with the statement made in Ecosystems and Human Well-being:

      "The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services." 

 The possibility of changing the damage on Earth can be a reality, however the amount of change and compromises that need to be made in order to achieve this seems unlikely. I think part of the problem lies in the fact that there are too many opinions and experts that seem to want to make their position the "right" one and therefore nothing gets accomplished. I also think that most people will agree that they want a better environment for themselves and future generations, however that aren't willing to do something as simple as recycle or turn off the lights when not being used. 

   In the passage about the Easter Island, I learned that in some instances, even when conscientiously "living of the land" and working to preserve the natural habitat, it isn't enough. In society today, there needs to be a balance that is achieved between conservation and progression, this is not something that the people of Easter Island could accomplish, and therefore, they self-destructed. In modern times, we are at an advantage in that we have more technology and abilities to create a world of innovation, however  this often comes at the price of destroying our environment and ignoring natural resources. I believe that balance between these two ideas will create new opportunities for conservationism.