eco fashion
Is the new black. Well, not strictly new, as that phrase has been bandied about for several years now, but it’s getting harder and harder to avoid.
The labels range from totally eco-focussed, low impact, recycled, non pesticide, chemical free etc, to those that promise a commitment fair trade and workers rights, and a variety of permutations in between.
No Sweat focuses on the anti-sweatshop, organised labour angle, but is also doing some organic and recycled stuff, as well as a t-shirt that grapples with securing peace in the Middle East.
Others, like Linda Loudermilk, go for the high fashion look. She’s often cited as a bit of a pioneer in the industry and is certainly riding a small media frenzy.
Frog doesn’t know how much of all of this is greenwash, and whether that necessarily makes it a bad thing, but we sure loved this line of Jane Fonda’s on the David Letterman show.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:50 am
Hybrid cars are a good example of this. Most European car makers sell diesels that are more fuel efficient than the Japanese hybrids. But something powered by truck fuel just isn’t sexy so the media trendoids ignore it.
Designlines hybrid bus technology is a better example of the really big advantage of hybrid technology. These buses run on electric power in the confined shopping precinct on Colombo St and recharge their batteries while travelling on the wide open Moorehouse Ave. Perhaps if rubbish trucks had to meet car noise standards then Designlines hybrid technology might take the world by storm, something that Britain’s electric milk floats failed to do because of their limited range.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:29 pm
On a different topic, are people here aware that you can get 150 minutes a week of free international calls on jajah.com (both ends have to be members, but it is free to join)?
Jajah.com is better than Skype because you aren’t talking with your computer. You just type in the number you are calling and the phones on both ends ring. For people like my family who make a lot of calls to family in the U.S. or Europe, this is a great deal. I hope it works out well for you too.
May 31st, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Was that an ad or a suggestion on how to reduce air-miles?
June 2nd, 2007 at 10:42 am
BTW, best eco-fashion is recycled.
80’s retro, as found in your local Sallies/ Vinnies op shop, today…
Perhaps we should also be looking at how long clothing lasts, instead of the market conning young impressionables to buy Made-in-China that falls-apart-in-the-washing-machine. Cos that stuff ain’t gonna last long enough to be in the opp shops in 20 years’ time!
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:02 pm
The problem with “eco-fashion”, at least as I see it, is that it focuses on consumerism. We are told that we need to buy that environmentally friendly product, or that we should reduce our car’s CO2 emissions by buying a hybrid vehicle. What we are not told is that we can be even more environmentally friendly by simply reducing or going without a lot of stuff.
The good news for people who can’t afford a new car is that you can have an even bigger impact by simply leaving the car at home, and walking, biking or taking the bus. You’ll save money, reduce CO2 emissions, and probably get fitter at the same time. If you don’t need a product, don’t buy it, and most certainly don’t get conned into buying an environmentally friendly product which you could do without.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
One more thing. Eco-fashion really irks me big time. I would love to have solar hot water heating, photo-voltaic cells on my roof, insulation throughout the walls, ceiling and floor, an electric vehicle etc. The problem is that I, and I imagine most other people, simply can’t afford these items, and hell will freeze over (or is boil more appropriate now days?) before my landlord installs insulation in the house.
A couple of months ago I got sent a sample copy of a magazine which had articles on environmentally friendly lifestyles etc. I saw ads for bags of muesli which cost over $20. I mean, who the hell can afford to feed the kids on muesli that costs $20 per bag? I’m going to keep on feeding them porridge, and when they complain, I’ll tell them that $20 muesli is for bourgeois environmentalists … the rest of us have to make do with oats and water.
June 3rd, 2007 at 9:36 pm
timo, if, when you left school, you had put all the money you save by using one compact flourescent light into a jar then used that money to buy a second cfl and continue saving and reinvesting you will find that by the time you retire you will have saved enough money to all buy all the things you mentioned.
Thermal drapes, cylinder wraps and ceiling batts are portable so you are not entirely at the mercy of your landlord as long as you are prepared to make the extra effort on moving day.
I agree with your original comments on eco-fashion consumerism. It’s like buying something just because its on special, and thinking youve saved money, when youve actually spent money you otherwise wouldnt have spent.
P.S. I actually did do what I suggest in the first paragraph, even ended up needing a bank account, but there is a limit to how much you can actually invest if you don’t own the house yourself, ie nothing that needs to be bolted down.
June 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
Kevyn, you are correct that not everything costs money. In fact, I have put CFLs in every light socket in my rental property that can hold them, have installed a low water shower head at my own expense (I’m not leaving it when I next have to move), and have tried to enforce a rigorous policy of switching appliances off when not in use. Thats in addition to to the usual sensible things, like wearing a jersey instead of turning on the heater. The savings I make have enabled me to switch to electricity generated from 100% wind power (I’m currently living in Australia, where you can get “green” electricity). This is despite renewable electricity costing about 1/3 more than electricity generated from brown coal, so presumably I have cut down electricity usage by about 1/3. It wasn’t very difficult.
I still stand by the points I made in both posts. For the majority of people in the first world, living an environmentally sustainable lifestyle is going to mean reducing consumption, not substituting unsustainable consumption with sustainable consumption (and I won’t even get into the argument of whether a hybrid vehicle laden with batteries containing nickel can ever even approach sustainability).
Now reducing consumption is not necessarily painful … just consider that the majority of the world live with a lot less than we do in first world countries, and life isn’t 100% misery for most of these people (I’m not referring to the people living in absolute poverty, war zones etc). And trust me, despite the kids complaining about eating porridge (and weet-bix they’re lucky), its not doing them any harm.
Now, if it is going to be necessary to reduce consumption, there is an important point about human nature which needs to be noted. People become envious when their neighbours have more than them. It isn’t the absolute level of wealth that makes the biggest difference, but the relative level of wealth. It is my firm belief that if we are going to save the planet, then everyone will need to reduce, and we will need to live in a society where the resources are distributed much more equitably than they are now. Otherwise, human nature will take over, and greed, envy etc will just send us back into a catch up with the Jone’s lifestyle (whether we are talking about individuals or countries), and send the planet straight to hell.
Now tell me, where does “eco-fashion” fit into the picture?
ps. Maybe I’m embellishing my argument a bit with emotive language
June 3rd, 2007 at 11:58 pm
timo, I agree with everything you say, especially about human nature.
As far as I can see eco-fashion is for people for whom the meaning of life is to be seen in all the right places and to be seen doing the “right” thing is what life is all. Airheads, basically.
Porridge with a bit of mixed fruit bleded in beats weetbix anyday, in my humble opinion.
June 25th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Don’t forget that consumers are only going to keep on buying. We can’t ask everyone to go back to basics… we now have an addiction to disposability. Great.
I agree that we shouldn’t be buying eco fashion just because it’s “better for the environment” because it’s on special and therefore make the extra purchase, and because we can, and on-top of our usual sprees.
But clothes are a necessity, and if one was on a mission to purchase a T, why not make it a fair trade, organic cotton, locally manufactured one?
It’s not so much a matter of going out and buying every single environmentally friendly product to replace what we have, but when the time comes to replace the necessities, we should consider all options.
Eco fashion is not a bad thing, green wash is. Unfortunately these days the two tend to go hand in hand. Green is in, what more need I say.
But if Cotton-On sells one million t-shirts a week, whether they are needed by the purchaser or not, why not make them fair trade and organic?
Thats gotta be at least one more meal on the table of the third world.