The current state of supply and demand makes us all culprits
of damaging/depleting our environment.
The fashion industry is no exception to this rule. New fashion trends
constantly emerge and the competition is fiercer than ever. This perpetual state can seem appealing
to consumers through a laundry list of sales (Black Friday sales, Labor Day,
etc.), but we need to consider the vast consequences of our actions. This constant need for the latest
fashions leads to depletion of our resources, and according to the Ecosystem
Millennium Assessment (ESMA) an irreversible degradation of our ecosystems.
According to Fashioning
Sustainability (FS) different
stages of production occur worldwide and often in collaboration. For example, cotton is the largest
single fiber in production. Cotton
is a resource “cheaply” produced, but that doesn’t mean our environmental
resources aren’t being depleted. Without regulation of cotton production there
is a series of unfortunate events that can take place. These events include, but are not
limited to, water shortage and health issues from pesticides.
Unless proper water irrigation is maintained for crops there
could be over 10 tons of water used in order to produce one pair of jeans! A prime example of what consequences
can come from inefficient water irrigation is Asia’s Aral Sea. Once the earths 4th largest
body of water, the Aral Sea is now 15% smaller in volume. According to an
article on glamour.com, Cotton Incorporated concluded that the average woman
owns eight pairs of jeans at any given time. Now consider the various changes
in jean trends (skinny, destroyed, etc.).
If we rotate four of the eight out of our wardrobe we could be
potentially using 40 tons of water! However, there is hope. In Walsh &
Brown’s article, water conservation is also possible through the implementation
of organically grown cotton since it consumes considerably less water than
conventionally grown cotton.
Organically grown cotton sounds even more alluring as FS describes the
current use of chemicals in cotton production as, “some of the most toxic
agrochemicals”. These chemicals
are hazardous, and most workers (especially in economically deprived countries)
do not have the proper equipment to distribute them. A study on Indian cotton farmers showed that most farmers
suffer three instances of poisoning over a single season. In the ESMA, it was pointed out that often when one ecosystem flourishes
through the use of water and fertilizers, it could cause a parallel degradation
of another ecosystem.
With codes of conduct in place we can make a
difference. A decrease in
hazardous pesticides could lead to the emergence organic cotton production, and
healthier farmers. In the
worst-case scenario, we need to educate farmers of proper irrigation and proper
chemical application. But... let's think bigger!!!
Kimberly,
ReplyDeleteAll of your points made within your blog this week were great! You touched on all of the readings, and added in a source from glamour.com. (Which I thought was very interesting)! As I read it, I was thinking about how many pairs of jeans I own...and I believe I am guilty of owning slightly MORE than eight! You mentioned the appeal of growing organic cotton over conventional cotton by using the positive praise mentioned in the readings. If it is so easy and more environmental-friendly to produce cotton organically, then how come it isn't more common? I agree that this could be due to the lack of education among farmers. How do you think we can go about educating these farmers on proper irrigation and chemical application? I think that some sort of incentive system would have to be put in place. I believe that once farmers are more aware of the positive impacts organic cotton can make, a significant change in garment production can begin! Great job this week.
Mallory,
DeleteI have the same question! I did some digging and this is what I came up with as my humble answer. Organic cotton farmers use a cultivation rotation of their land, which can be fertilized by cattle during certain times of the year. Where conventional farms can take a easier approach and nuke mismanaged soils with fertilizers. One would think that since these fertilizers have proven detrimental to their health AND that 60% of conventional farming’s production costs are associated with agrochemicals that they would seek organic methods. However, since farmers are required to meet rigorous organic standards then perhaps it is off-putting in the terms of production. Organic farming does not allow for the use of genetically modified or engineered usage, which can ward off pests. Organic farming also requires more time and energy from the farmer through observation and weed intervention. The organic farmer also has to have more skill and know how to tweak their crops. It also seems that the current market for organic farming isn’t high enough for them to take steps (“organic in conversion”) in becoming certified organic. I feel as though your idea of incentives for these farmers is a great idea. Perhaps tax incentives on land?
I can't believe that conventional farmers would continue to want to use fertilizers that have proven detrimental to their health! Blows my mind. I agree with you in that it could have something to do with the rigorous organic production standards. I do believe that some sort of incentive must be put into place for these farmers to get motivated to switch to organic production practices. The tax incentives on land is also a great thought! Maybe by growing organically the state can offer some sort of tax compensation to the farmer. The realities of that though I feel is slim, but something along those lines for sure!
DeleteWow, Kimberly, you have offered a great explanation! We will read more about cotton in a couple weeks. It is important to remember, as Kimberly outlines, that organic is simply one choice of many and is not necessarily a panacea for sustainability -- it comes with many trade-offs, primarily economic ones. Most of this comes down to yield, the economic component -- the use of fertilizer guarantees a consistent and high yield.
DeleteKimberly,
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with everything you said in this article. I think that the fashion trends of today as well as the different media's that support the trends are guilty of pressuring people to hurt our environment in one way or another. They definitely do not encourage consumers to buy products that are less harming to the environment. Like Mallory said in her comment, I as well own a large number of jeans. I had no idea before reading these articles that one pair of jeans could potentially do so much damage to our world. If I had I may have not bought so many. I also agree that we need to better educate our consumers on issues such as this and sustainability in general. What are some ideas that you have to educate our society. I feel that it is very important that we come up with a way to educate them that will be interesting to them and let them know that these things really do effect them and could eventually effect them ever more. As of right now I think so people in our society really do not care. How do you think we could make them realize and care more? I loved reading your blog and think that you did an awesome job!
Kellee,
DeleteThank you for the positive feedback! I own a lot of jeans myself and have been frivolous in their purchases. I too, would have been more conservative had I known their impact. Not to say you cant teach old dogs new tricks, but I am a big proponent of starting at a young age when it comes to education. Thus, I think sustainable education is one that needs to start not only with parents, but also with our kids. I've had the benefit of advocating for platforms important to me in the past and I know that this is one subject we CAN give a voice. If we can change our youths outlook on sustainability as they are developing thoughts and opinions then these concepts (we are just now learning in our 20's) will come second nature to our future leaders. Thus, I feel we should campaign their importance and benefits.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete