NY Times on Eco friendly fashion

[Servo2000]

Re: NY Times on Eco friendly fashion



Hopefully they'll come up with something better than corn (sweetgrass is looking decent) - converting every available bit of corn to fuel right now wouldn't even begin to compensate for what we use in gasoline and its use of corn has caused priced to skyrocket. The cost has nearly quadrupled, and as a result families who rely on our exports in other nations literally cannot afford to continue buying it (their were riots in Mexico a bit ago over the rising cost of tortillas).

As it is, "Green" subsidies to corn and ethanol is just causing starvation elsewhere and making people tons of money here. It doesn't really do any true good for anyone.

[theetruscan]

Re: NY Times on Eco friendly fashion



I think it's great. Sure, it's just a cynical play for cash on the part of the companies, but the fact that companies see being economically better (let's not fuck about with good, because that's a whole other world) as valuable marketing is fantastic. Is it adequate? Is it going to solve world problems? Fuck no. Nor does anyone think it will. But, having environmental responsibility be something that corporations see as financially rewarding is fantastic.

The larger issues (oil consumption, emission control, etc etc) aren't really things that the fashion industry has any industry dictating anyway. I mean, if corporations en masse start acting more responsibly, it's progress.

I get in this argument with one of my friends all the time. He thinks anything short of total overhaul is complete shit. But, we're not going to get total overhaul until it's too late. So, anything that slows the curve of change as we approach the "oh shit motherfuckers, it's the apocalypse" point is useful, because at least the overshoot will be (probably, modeling this shit is pretty complex) less severe.

I dunno, I'm putting off reviewing some godawful papers.

[soultek]

Re: NY Times on Eco friendly fashion



IMO the environmental impact of the fashion industry is secondary to others. More crucial are industries that directly deplete oil reserves (not that the fashion industry doesn't through transportation, farming of cotton, and manufacturing of poly fabrics) as well as industries that involve (either as inputs or outputs) toxic chemicals. I am encouraged by regional initiatives by forward thinking countries, the EU, and even California. Unfortunately the US is far behind the EU and Japan, but is nonetheless coming around slowing.

I believe it will take enforced regulations. US corporations won't do much unless their bottom line is affected. Corporations are not people. Any released statement from a corporation that reveals it's good environmental practices will be scorned by critics as being non-altruistic in intention.

I'm all for gross commercialism of the green movement. To reverse the tide we need a sea change of attitude, this includes commerce and fashion (however small the impact). Many times the point is not to actually reduce the paper receipts but to set a tone (or generate PR) for the company's credo.

When I visited Apple last year, the cafeteria had silverware made of corn products (felt like plastic though). This isn't something that they advertise outside the company--and I don't think it's proof that the corporation actually does care. Rather, it's a credo generated by the companies management that permeates aspects of the company (granted there are probably plenty of areas they are not-green as well). IMO it's this type of top down vision that needs to permeate society (for better or for worse, tongue in cheek or genuine, altruistic or capitalistic). Doesn't really matter how, shit has to change.