2050

“’Winners’ acknowledge the negative as well as the positive possibilities of tomorrow, but believe that we have considerable power to determine which possibilities are realized,” defines Tom Lomardo in The Futurist: Thinking Ahead. Pessimism and optimism are key in determining the outcome of our futures and determining our stories, according to the psychologist. The current chapter in the story of mankind’s reign over Mother Nature is a dim one. We are now called to visioneer the future of a sustainable world, and it calls each of us to realize we are “winners” with the ability to do so.

By the year 2050, I expect to the people of the world to have taken hold of their story so that it may continue. We have created a highly interconnected world that is highly dependent on natural resources to sustain it. The ever-increasing consumerism is driven by industry’s desire to sell more and they consequently feed off each other; thus both the consumer and the producer at a fault for this pattern. I believe by 2050 there will be a different kind of connection between consumer and producer, one of consciousness for the triple bottom line – people, profit, planet. This will require a sense of efficiency of resources, appreciation of community, and working with the planet instead of against it. One must come to believe in a finite physical planet to understand efficiency need. Poverty and environmental degradation of people’s homelands must be connected to instill a sense of community. We must begin to model our operations similar to nature by using renewable resources and only producing waste that can be reused.

According to Durning in Limiting Consumption, what is lacking is the practical knowledge and what it means to “meet current needs without jeopardizing the prospects of future generations.” Main factors holding society back from sustainability is the lack of widespread knowledge on the concerning issues and a world marked by indifference, indecision, status quo, and a lack of vision, according to Kim and Oki in Visioneering. Conveying a new vision for the future, contrary to the consumption based one at present, can be communicated through the existing power of the advertising industry Duning references We must reorient the message to condone one of permanence and remember “We do not inherent the Earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.” (Kim and Oki)

Shades of Green

Today’s consumer faces an ever-increasing variety of products, accompanied by product information. According to “Eco-promising: communicating the environmental impacts of your products and services,” nearly half of consumers are confused about the differences between Fairtrade, ethical and organic products. This confusion is driven by a lack of standardization amongst environmental production platforms as well as a level of dishonesty in marketing schemes.

Eco-promising, according to the article, is the practice of making claims about the environmental attributes of products. There has been a surge in environmental reporting and due-diligence amongst businesses in recent years and often times these claims are third-party certified. However these certifications, in addition to new company specific standards, have ultimately muddied the waters for consumers. There is currently debate over the forward direction on labeling schemes. The Eco-promising report states that some advocate for a single unifying logo/label that could merge or overlap on existing labels, while others believe more separation and detail is called for.

Companies are making eco-promises in order to begin the development of a regulatory framework, but also to enhance their reputation and grow sales. Eco-promising often gives way to greenwashing which is the process of “misleading the public by stressing the environmental credentials of a person, company, or product when they are unfounded or irrelevant,” simply states the Greenwash Guide. Companies often make an eco-promise on one aspect of a product, misleading consumers to believe the entire product is environmentally conscious. Clorox’s Green Works cleaning supplies line is an example of greenwashing. While their product has 99% all-natural ingredients, the packaging and processing is the same as their other lines. The name and the label misrepresent the scope of its “green impact.” Seventh Generation is a strong example of eco-promising done right. Their product’s ingredients are non-toxic and their packaging is fully compostable and made from recycled fiber. The entire company is dedicated to environmental sustainability, which yields to higher transparency.

“In a market economy the consumer is king, and consumers have started sending strong environmental signals through their purchasing” claims the Greenwash Guide. As the green marketing rises, consumers must be overly aware of company claims to environmental stewardship. The Greenwash Guide tips that if a claim seems off – it probably is. Become familiar with the main third-party labels and be sure to look past the green leaves and flowers on packaging.

The Fabric Of Our Lives

Cotton has been coined “the fabric of our lives” by catchy PR schemes. But is it conducive to life? It is widely known that cotton is the most widely used fiber on the planet, which in turn means it has a large global impact.

Cotton, as a product of global agriculture, has many large scale environmental and social factors contributed to its cultivation. The process of growing cotton is environmentally intense and has a list of negative by-products.  According to The sustainability of cotton report, cotton is considered to be a difficult crop to grow because of its sensitivity to drought, low temperatures and attacks by various insects. These constraints of cotton production require extreme means of irrigation and fertilizer use to ensure its success. It has been estimated that cotton cultivation accounts for 1-6% of the world’s total freshwater withdrawal, according to the report. The most common type of irrigation, because of its low cost, is flood-or-furrow irrigation where water is directed from a river or deeper soil layers to the field. The report claims that due to this inefficient system, the average efficiency of irrigation systems is estimated to be a mere 40%, meaning the remaining 60% never reaches the plant. Inefficient irrigation and over-cultivation leads to salinization of fields which ultimately leads to abandonment of the once arable land. Damns and rivers also are affected by cotton water needs, and in turn ecosystems and fisheries are negatively affected.

The second largest environmental by-product of cotton cultivation is the impact of fertilization and pesticides– it is estimated to consume 11% of the world’s pesticides while it is grown on just 2.4% of the world’s arable land. Poor management of the chemicals is mainly to blame. Genetically modified cotton however, reduces the need for pesticide use, but debate about its non-natural production are basis for exclusion from the organic cotton agriculture producers.

The Cotton, Inc. website remarks fiber production on existing farmlands must triple in order to clothe the projected 9 billion world population by 2050. The website paints a sustainable picture of cotton production and touts its decreased water usage and non expansion of lands, however the report clearly states that 80% of the world’s cotton production is produced under conventional management. The emphasis on more efficiency in cotton production is a step in the right direction, but as a natural resource intensive industry, contributing to an exhaustive by-product of clothing, I cannot say cotton is sustainable. Research on efficiency of cultivation and rights for workers need to aggressively sought after.

Trade-offs

“In sustainability, there is no such thing as a single-frame approach” states the Kate Fletcher in The Design Journeys. As with all things, every action has an equal and opposite reaction - sustainability must be treated with this law in mind. The fashion industry is beginning to understand the ripple effect of casting their stone.

A fellow designer in my firm recently urged me to begin choosing natural materials over synthetics in my design decisions because they are “naturally” sustainable. She is correct in that synthetics do contribute to the burning of fossil fuels, yet she hadn’t grasped the bigger picture. Essentially all textiles we choose have some large scale impact the planet. According to Fletcher “while there is no dispute that producing synthetic fibers impacts people and the environment, natural fiber cultivation and processing is also high impact.”

Synthetics are often seen as “bad” while natural fibers are seen as a more environmental choice. This generality is based on the understanding that synthetic materials are chemical and fossil fuel intensive. Polyester is the largest produced synthetic in the industry, second only to the natural fiber cotton. Cotton is termed natural, but 99% cotton produced is inorganic according to Charline Ducas. Cotton and other natural fibers require intensive agricultural processing such as high amounts of water and pesticides. In terms of a systematic sustainability approach, the harmful effects of growing and processing natural fibers is simply a trade-off that must be made against synthetic fibers.

But sustainability for the apparel industry goes well beyond fiber production.  Ducas challenges the industry in asking “Can we not be more clever in the way we do things?” She calls on increased innovation in textile manufacturing and higher demand for sustainable design integration. Transparency in the supply chain is of high importance to increasing the sustainability of our industry. I encouraged my colleague to speak with our firm’s president to encourage a more sustainable supply chain if she wants to make a larger impact, but to continue making smart trade off design decisions.