Category: Consumption & Corporations

Tailor Your Wardrobe

My tailor and I have philosophical differences about two-way zippers. I don’t even know if that’s their technical name but you know what I’m talking about, right? Zippers with two thing-a-ma-bobbies on ‘em so you can zip the coat closed with the top ’ma-bobbie and then open it from the bottom with the bottom ‘ma-bobbie. Great for sitting.

Why would a tailor, a veritable master of the use of fabrics, not like two-way zippers? Perhaps he’s a purist, or even a Luddite, and thinks even a single zipper is an abomination. The zipper led to the gear and the gear led to the automobile! Clothes should be tied on god damn it!

For the record, my tailor is a soft-spoken gentlemen who owns a shop in the Benton Park West neighborhood of St. Louis. I’ve only used him twice, so please don’t think he stitches custom-made clothing for me. I had the aforementioned two-way zipper put onto a fleece whose original zipper had bit it and had a pair of way-too-long jeans hemmed that I got for five freakin’ dollars from Old Navy. He did a great job on both.

I own too many clothes and tend to replace things more frequently than I should. I’m also fairly certain these clothes reproduce on their own but no one will buy that theory. I wonder if I covered each item in a dry cleaner style plastic wrap these would act as clothing condoms. So . . . when I decided to repair my fleece instead of just buying a new one, I felt a small bit of pride. The tailor charged almost what a new fleece would have cost – this one was of the Target variety – but there was nothing wrong with it besides the zipper issue.

What’s the point of this rambling? As I’ve mentioned before, I receive The Green Life newsletter from Sierra Club. In a recent series of posts the newsletter has focused on greening one’s wardrobe. The manufacture and distribution of clothing not a very green process. First of all, most of it is made overseas and needs to be shipped to the U.S. Second, the materials used are generally not very sustainable. The implications of putting people in developing nations out of work is a topic for another post. Admittedly, in the most simplistic way, I’m prioritizing environmental sustainability over social sustainability.

So, what should you do to green your wardrobe? Two things: buy vintage and take note of materials. The first idea is not a new one. Resale shops are becoming more common every day and they offer all styles and qualities of clothing. Frequent them and you’ll be surprised. I’m going to make a more concerted effort to preserve the clothing I have and buy “new” clothing in a more sustainable way. The second idea requires a little education, the bulk of which I’ll leave to the Sierra Club:

Buying used is greener, but if you do buy new clothes, at least make sure they’re made of sustainable material. Bamboo and hemp (much more comfy than they sound) are planet-friendly because both plants quickly regenerate and are easily grown without pesticides (hemp’s downside is that it must be imported since it’s illegal to grow in the U.S.). Organic cotton is another decent option; though cotton is a water-intensive crop, the organic variety at least forgoes the polluting chemicals. There have been developments in fabrics made of recycled stuff, including plastic bottles (Revenge Is is super soft) and other fibers (try Gramicci). Buying clothes from companies that donate to environmental charities and manufacturers that offset are other ways to vote green with your wallet. What to avoid? Synthetic fibers (polyester, vinyl, nylon), animal products (leather, suede), and cellulose materials (rayon). For more, check out Lucky‘s April issue.

Make note of the what to avoid list. Each material on this list is terrible in a different way; some require oil and some are produced through very violent and terribly resource-heavy processes. I would add wool to this list as well. Most of it is sourced in a way that’s worse than leather and suede, as sheep are filled with drugs to over produce wool and are repeatedly subject to misery and torture as opposed to just dying once for the sake of a pair of shoes or a purse. I’m guilty of owning some of these synthetic fabrics but am doing my best to replace them – when necessary – with more sustainably made clothing. I hope you do the same.

Up In The Air

Katie and I spent Tuesday on set as extras in the upcoming George Clooney movie, Up In The Air. I can’t say much about the movie itself given we signed confidentiality agreements but I will say the scene we were in takes place at a conference where Clooney’s character, Ryan Bingham, is giving a speech. That’s all I can offer regarding the film’s content. Sorry.

Movie making is tedious, terribly tedious. We arrived a little after 8am to check in, dressed as conference-goers. We were among 400 others, all playing the same part. The check-in process was well organized but still took hours. Our hair, faces and clothes were checked, and if something didn’t fit the bill, crew were available to help us become camera-ready. We were herded into a conference room packed with tables and chairs, a room we shared with the cast and crew. This is where everyone took breaks and ate. Production assistants periodically came in giving us updates on when we’d be needed and called on a few people who’d been selected for additional scenes. We were given instructions on what to do and how to do it in pieces, but our jobs were pretty easy – sit in a room while Clooney/Bingham delivered his lines.

Two dozen. That’s at least how many takes there were for a scene maybe two minutes long. Different camera angles were tried. Some of the takes included the entire scene while others just focused on Clooney’s character or just on the audience – us. The entire ordeal was impressive. A hundred crew, all focusing on different nuances of the production. Some were involved directly with the shooting while others took care of things behind the scenes. It took hours. We even broke for lunch in the middle, around 2pm.

Most of our time was spent waiting. I almost finished The White Tiger and answered emails for work and pleasure during our down time. We met a bunch of interesting people. Some were nice, some were annoying.

Clooney seemed nice enough. He’s a much smaller man than I thought. He walked right by me when we were lined up for lunch and he’s probably one to two inches shorter than me, so 5′ 10” tops. Can’t weigh more than a buck seventy either. Of course he was impeccably put together and very unassuming. In between takes he joked with the audience but was on his game whenever Jason Reitman yelled, “Action!” He “ate” with the crew, who ate with us. While the extras and the cast and crew were separated by sections, we were in the same conference room for lunch and everyone was fully visible to each other. I put ate in quotes because I’m not sure I ever saw him actually eat anything.

I’m not sure if we’ll make it into the final cut but I’m glad we went.  That being said, I’m not sure I’d do the whole extra thing again. Learning about the production of the film, and being a part of it was very interesting. But, I’m not a hurry up and wait kind of guy and I despise waiting and standing in lines. Maybe I’d try it again if the scene were smaller. There’s a lot of repetition, a lot of waiting, a lot of repetition . . . Our scene being easy also made it a bit boring, from the extras’ perspective at least.

I’m very happy St. Louis is attracting big budget film production. Thank you Missouri Film Production Tax Credit. This movie is the first by a major studio in decades to film the majority of its scenes in STL. But, I wrote some 15 months ago in a piece called Acting A Fool that movie production is horribly unsustainable and abusive to the environment. Clooney even got some props in that piece. Of course it was in reference to him mating with Al Gore but props is props. Here’s to more movies being filmed in my hometown, I just hope the productions become more sustainable.

Stimulated by Stuff

Stuff. Things. Trinkets. Widgets. Doohickeys. Our economy is based on the consumption of the aforementioned. That’s not a good thing, but that’s reality. I would love to live in a world where “things” lasted longer than they do now and money was spent on, and people were employed providing, services to enhance our overall quality of life. A new enlightenment if you will, but structured around experience, health, awareness, etc . . . Dream over. The issue at hand is how can the economy be “righted” by spending money on stuff. Infrastructure aside, the debate revolves around whether people should be put to work directly through government spending or by giving taxpayers money back to spend how they see fit . . . in theory at least. This is where the problem in logic arises.

How can conservatives think increasing tax cuts will more quickly recover the economy? Seriously. I’m all for more money in my pocket but that’s exactly where it will stay. In this conservative La La Land of economic thinking, those who need money the most will get the least. Further, some conservatives don’t want to give any relief to those who don’t pay taxes. Ignoring for a moment that these are the people who have been most marginalized by society and need the most help, isn’t the idea here to help those who need help, not give a pro rata share of money back to those who paid it in? It’s one thing to hold this thinking as a philosophy, it’s entirely another to think it will stimulate the economy.

There are items in the latest stimulus bill which give me pause but spending money on infrastructure and creating a domino effect of spending through job creation seem like the most effective and speedy ways of invigorating the economy. Tax cuts and/or rebates will go into consumer spending or savings. The former doesn’t create jobs in the short term because everything being bought has already been made, and once the stimulus money is exhausted, spending will stop. Companies will not hire more people or ramp up production in anticipation of this and because they all the need extra money to shore up losses or pay people who are owed money. The latter may catalyze markets but most of this money will just sit in cash accounts until something worth investing in comes along, which will be a while if we’re not investing in anything substantial.

The vote along party lines for the stimulus bill doesn’t bode well for Obama’s dream of putting partisan politics aside and working together to help “one America”. Fortunately my team has the majority of votes. Unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily mean wise decisions. Hopefully the new transparency professed by Obama’s adminstration will shed light on waste and eliminate it. I’m happy to see the philosophical basis of majority of our elected officials in Washington move toward compassion and selflessness but we must all remain aware that wasting money is arguably worse than being efficient but selfish with it.

Green Garbs

The idea that most of the designs presented at a fashion show are junk just got truer.

The Ethical Fashion Show, to be held in Paris in 2007, will showcase the creation of the winner of the Scrap Fashion Eco Competition. To enter the competition: “Create a fashion item using old denim. Either customise the denim or make something else. Your creation should be made ecologically; the denim you used is to be thrown away or you used sustainable material to customise it.” Those are quite possibly the worst instructions I’ve ever read for anything ever. And to spell customize that way to boot!

Regardless, both events make me randy because perishable consumer goods, of which clothing is a large component, contribute huge amounts of waste to the environment. Not only that, the clothing industry encourages unfair and unsustainable labor standards. Hopefully shows and competitions like the two mentioned above will change that. Add the mercurial ideas of what’s “in” and what’s “out” to seasonality and you get the foundation of a supremely disposable society. Let us thank our various gods and society there are enough poor people out there to accept our hand-me-downs. Maybe poverty is a fashion conspiracy! Gotta move product folks.

Anywho, the winner of the Scrap Fashion Eco Competition will be selected based on “design concept, innovation and environmental awareness”. I like what I hear so far. The site also covers the topics:

  • What is Ethical Fashion?
  • Fair Trade and Fashion
  • Organic and Eco Fashion
  • Recycling and Customization
  • Cheap Fashion, Fast Fashion
  • Culture and Artisanal Skills

The Ethical Fashion section provides a great anecdotal piece called, “The journey of a pair of jeans from cotton plant to rubbish tip“. Keep in mind the site’s British. I think rubbish tip might mean top of the garabe pile. It could also mean, quite literally, the tip of a rubbish, which could be an eraser, a lie, or perhaps even a giant conspiracy by the fashion industry to keep lots of people poor!

p.s. Thanks to Become’s Pocket Change, which published an article of mine in its latest Carnival of Shopping.

Advertising Age

I’d like to give a shout out to Martin Calle. He runs a blog called “Advertising Age” and will be featuring one of my articles in a carnival he hosts. According to his website, he “is to marketing, advertising and sales what Cirque du Soleil is to the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus.” That’s a bold statement but he’s the brain behind some killer products like Tylenol Gelcaps and Chunky Soup. The theme of his site is “Critical and analytical consumer packaged goods thought leadership”. I’m glad he shares some of my views about sustainability and was happy to reciprocate a post about him.

Doing Good? Not So Fast.

Oh the irony. I don’t want any Alanis Morissette haters analyzing my use of the word irony because this situation is close enough. A division of Cargill called NatureWorks that produces a renewable and compostable plastic packaging material is getting heat because its environmentally-friendly plastic is hard to recycle. What the f*ck? I’m serious. Recyclers are up in arms because the product doesn’t contain an oil base, which apparently is required for current recycling methods. I’m not making this up.

Recycling groups have even threatened negative advertising of the plastic, known as PLA, if the company continues to introduce its use in mainstream consumer products. According to this article:

” . . . bottles made of PLA cause problems for recyclers for a couple of reasons. First, they can’t be easily separated from bottles made of oil-based PET, the most commonly used material in clear, plastic bottles. (Costly infrared sorting equipment will separate the two, but many small-scale recyclers separate different plastics by mechanical methods or even by hand.) Too many PLA bottles will contaminate the PET waste. Second, PET is a valuable commodity – it can be sold for 15 or 20 cents a pound, and makes up 10 percent of the revenues of some recycling centers. The sale of recycled commodities helps finance the curbside pickup of bottles, cans and paper.”

So basically there are systemic problems with introducing an environmentally friendly product into the chain of production and recycling of environmentally harmful products. Woe is me!

‘Gary Liss, a recycling industry consultant and an advocate of “Zero Waste” – meaning that everything we throw away gets recycled or reused – warns that PLA, especially in bottles, could end up creating as many problems as it solves. “Don’t introduce these into the system,” Liss says “until you can figure out a way to identify them and keep them out of a whole elaborate system that has been developed.” Such questions reflect a fuller understanding of sustainability, which encompasses how products are made and consumed and where they end up.‘

The bolding of text in the above paragraph is mine. That’s the end goal people! Hopefully NatureWorks and the recycling community can figure out a way to incorporate PLA into the traditional recycling process or adapt the recycling process in a cost-effective way to handle PLA. If not, we’ll have only demonstrated how destructive the path we’re on really is. Being unable to introduce environmentally friendly products because the very system of production and recycling with which we operate can’t handle it is disheartening to say the least.

Conscious Clothing

Clothing manufacturers are growing a conscious. For years it’s been “style” at any cost – economic, social or environmental. Hopefully the tides are turning. I’ve written about sustainable style before and there are some great companies doing some ground breaking work out there. This recent article on CNNMoney.com talks about the latest in eco-fashion.

The article’s author, Jessica Seid, says, “On the heels of thriving demand for organic food, consumers are seeking out designers and manufacturers that make clothes from organic and recycled materials – that look good too.”

Seid discusses a few of the major players in the market, specifically citing American Apparel for its “sweatshop-free message and socially responsible business plan”, as well as EDUN, Loomstate and Charmone. EDUN is an all-organic clothing line started by Bono, his wife Ali Hewson and designer Rogan Gregory. Loomstate is an organic denim company started by Scott Hahn and seemingly the same Rogan Gregory who is involved with EDUN. Loomstate sells high-end jeans and t-shirts to Barneys, Jones Apparel, Urban Outfitters and Anthropology. Charmone’s story is my favorite though:

Charmoné also launched a collection of heels, pumps, and wedges this fall that is animal-safe, eco-friendly and sweatshop-free. Instead of leather and suede, the shoes are made with microfibers. The collection uses water-based glues, nickel-free hardware, and the production process is PVC free. In addition to minimizing the impact of manufacturing, Charmoné, which is a blend of the words charm and harmony, will also donate a portion of its profits to charities that support people, animals and the environment.

Its shoes ain’t cheap – ranging between $295 and $325 a pair – but when its retailing partners are Nordstroms and Neiman Marcus what do you expect?

“Five years ago, there were 30 smaller designers doing eco-fashion. Now there are around 300, and larger retail chains are getting interested,” said model and self-described “eco-style expert” Summer Rayne Oakes.

Kyeann Sayer, and eco-fashion industry expert says, “my hope would be that the necessity to label something eco-fashion is eliminated. Just as we expect a certain amount of corporate responsibility, we would expect a level of eco-responsibility.”

The war in Iraq isn’t over nor has Dubya resigned but this is the little bit of upbeat news I needed heading into the weekend. The tides are turning and I can feel the ground swelling with revolution. There won’t be bloodshed or riots but hopefully a seamless transition to a more responsible and sustainable world.

Recycling Innovation

At what cost do we innovate? This piece by Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace USA’s Toxics campaign, is a real eye-opener to the environmental damage technological innovations can create. Hind sites his organization’s “Environmental Report Card for Technology Companies” in analyzing Apple’s poor environmental record, saying:

We all expect a lot more from Apple, a leader in product design and innovation. However, the company continues to withhold from the public the full list of regulated substances in its products, and has yet to provide timelines for the elimination of hazardous substances from their production lines. The first steps to greener computers are simple. Remove the two most toxic elements: polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs). When these substances are used in a product it poses risks to human health and the environment—from manufacturing to product disposal.

Apple isn’t the only company cited for poor practices in the Report Card but it is the focus of Hind’s attempt to raise awareness among consumers. He says, “Globally we generate between 20 and 50 million tons of e-waste every year.” This is very disturbing on many levels. The companies that produce electronics and are on the forefront of technology create more efficient and more powerful machines daily, but they do nothing to decrease the environmental impact of their products. Putting more transistors on a chip may increase computing power but it also increases the density of waste. Creating proper methods of disposal or recycling of e-waste is vital because what expounds the effect of e-waste on the environment even more is the fact that electronics are very disposable consumer products. Hind adds:

Of course, Apple isn’t alone in failing to address this problem. No company scored a 10 in our green guide. Nokia and Dell were at the top of the list with only a 7, hardly enough to make the honor roll. All of these companies can improve their score, and we as consumers should insist on it at every opportunity. Every company can and should take responsibility for their products’ entire life-cycle.

He also offers a simple two-step plan to “graduate from our school of environmentally-friendly electronics”. (1) Set a clear timeline to remove all toxic chemicals from electronic production and products and (2) develop a clear take back policy and recycling program. What Hind asks should be par for the course in America. It’s unbelievable frustrating to think that the country that leads the world in almost everything (good, and sometimes bad) is such a bad example of corporate responsibility more often than not. Hind concludes:

As consumers in the richest nations on earth, we cannot allow the people in the poorest regions of the world to be poisoned by the discarded excess of our high-tech gadgets. These products should be designed to be safe, re-usable and long-lasting, not intentionally designed to become obsolete faster than yesterday’s newspaper.

It’s all about sustainability folks, any way you slice it.