By Debbie Bourne
Global warming is the newest trend.
It’s everywhere. On the television, in the papers, on the internet, in our heads, in our clothes.
Yes -- global warming is now influencing fashion and not in the sense that skirts are getting shorter, shorts are becoming more popular and t-shirts are the craze.
Rather, or at least some sectors of the fashion industry are turning green.
“More and more people are becoming aware of the choices they can make to be more environmentally and socially responsible, so there is an ever-growing demand for eco-friendly and fair-trade products,” says Eartha Dupuis, Director of Public Relations at Grace&Cello,
Grace & Cello is a Montreal-based company that designs, makes and sells its clothing to boutiques across Canada and the United States.
Most of the factories that provide cheap clothing for North American and European markets are located in Asia and Africa and the clothing is transported by boat. Clothing and textile represents only 2% of total employment in the US.
That means it barely represents 1% of the 90% of goods being carried around the world by boat, the carbon dioxide emission from boats is double the amount created by planes. Oil superpower BP says that annual CO2 emission from boats range between 600 and 800 million tonnes, which represents 5% of the global total. Even though boat-generated emissions are predicted to rise by as much as 75% over the next 15 years, they are not covered by the Kyoto accord.
To limit the carbon dioxide output coming from ships, eco-fashionistas propose making clothes in the same country as they are sold to avoid more carbon dioxide emission and using more natural products to design clothes.
“The closer to home that our clothes are made, the less pollution we are causing by shipping back and forth overseas,” says Dupuis, adding that by producing Grace & Cello's clothes in Montreal the company can also guarantee that its workers are paid liveable wages and don't work in sweatshops.
Grace & Cello, whose 2006 Fall/Winter season collection was its first, sell their clothes at two stores in Montreal -- Rien a Cacher on St.Denis and Simons on St. Catherine. Dupuis says, “All our clothes are made of eco-fabrics. We focus mainly on organic cotton, bamboo-organic cotton blends, tencel ( a natural, plant-derived fibre), organic wool, recycled wool and linen.”
These materials require fewer pesticides and fertilizers to grow.
The processing of organic cotton began in Turkey in the 1980s. Because less pesticide is used, organic cotton crops yield 14% less then conventional cotton crops yields. Nonetheless, income is 6% higher because production costs less.
So, who's wearing organic cotton? “Our target woman is a 25-40 year old professional who needs clothes to go to work in, but also a wardrobe for going out. But we’ve had women from 15 years to 77 years that like our line very much,” says Dupuis.
Dupuis is hoping that with word of mouth and media coverage her concept will catch on.
“We are constantly hearing from people regarding our clothing because the demand for sustainable and fashionable clothing is growing very fast. I am sure that this concept will continue to expand.”
-----------------
This article was edited by JOUR 428 Teacher. The original can be found here.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
When fashion becomes environmentally friendly
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 blustery comments:
I think in a piece like this you need to address the obvious pro-trade issues. Sweatshop jobs are often prized in poorer countries and global trade can increase the wealth and boost the economic development of poorer countries. Arguments are always more forceful when you acknowledge and address the counter-arguments as opposed to ignore them.
I have to say, I think clothing companies going 'green' is just a marketing strategy.
Think about it: we are way more likely, to satisfy our own moral dilemmas, to buy something that is environmentally friendly, than not. This applies to clothes. So the store that says they are producing their clothes in an environmentally friendly manner already gets a leg-up on the store that doesn't. I can't help but think that there is more to this than massive clothing companies with a conscious.
Besides, what is the cost passed on to the customer? Are we going to see cheap clothing stores raise their prices because they are not producing their clothes in Asia? I'm sure the additional costs won't come out of their profits, but rather will be passed on to the customer.
Would Nike be better of selling their clothes to the people in Asia than in North America? Or would Nike be better off having their clothes made in North American and selling them domestically? The answer is neither. We live in an era of globalization and preventing these kinds of practices by MNCs is very unlikely. The same goes for cars, or anything really. Hardly anything is actually made where we buy it. We live in an era of outsourcing, so unless the World Bank and the IMF come down hard on the entire problem (which is highly unlikely, if we consider the Washington consensus), not much will change.
I'm sure Grace and Cello would die for Nike, the Gap, or any other big clothing line's profits. I would also be surprised if they gave you an honest answer to that kind of proposal.
Also, you mentioned that boats have higher emissions than planes, but boats can also carry WAY more than planes. I don't know what the payload of a cargo plane is, but if you think of the size of an ocean liner, I'm not sure the emissions would add up. Perhaps that would be an interesting point to clarify.
In the end, I agree that buying and selling locally is a great idea. It works well with food, but I'm not sure the global economy will give in to global warming. Otherwise, we probably would have seen some action taken by now.
Debbie,
This is an interesting story.
I was particularly intrigued by your statistics on organic cotton. I looked around for more info and found this article. Maybe it could make a good link at this point in your story?
What I would like to know however is if there are more companies like Grace & Cello today than, say, ten years ago?
Like Adam, clothing companies' sudden interest in the environment makes me suspicious. After all, what the company you reported on has found is a niche market.
I think the ecological behaviour of companies, just like their humanitarian behaviour (how many big companies stopped dealing with sweatshops?) is heavily dependant on the public's degree of tolerance.
So I'd be interested to know if the company in your story is representative of a growing trend, since that would be an indicator that the consumers' degree of tolerance for unecological production processes is actually going down.
I don't know if I agree with Ann that it's necessary to address pro-trade issues in this article.
Environment aside, that's an ethical can of a worms.
While there's no question that sweatshop jobs are valued in developing countries, those jobs are entirely dependant on exporting to richer countries. I think that while globalization has made a lot of people's lives easier, it has created a precarious situation in which societies will be unable to adapt if economic or environmental conditions disrupt global trade, which might one day happen.
I guess my feeling is that, as a first world consumer, I have a bigger responsibility to reduce my ecological impact than I do to buy underwear made in Bangladesh.
I was referring to the earlier non-edited version for which there's a link at the bottom of the story. My point doesn't really apply to the edited version.
Post a Comment