I Have a Vision

I Have a Vision

As a young adult about to be entering the “real world”, I have thought a lot about what the future holds. Admittedly, most of my thoughts about the future have pertained mostly to me and my personal future. After reading the assignments this week regarding the future of sustainability and the lack of future consciousness today, I’ve realized that I may need to adjust the way that I perceive the future. I have always been optimistic about my future, but rather pessimistic about the future of sustainability. I have found myself guilty of the habitual beliefs discussed in the lecture, falling for assumptions such as “I’m only one person, what does it matter what I do if nobody else is doing anything?”, and “We’ve been doing things the same way for hundreds of years, and we’re all still here, so it must not be that bad”. I need to adopt new mental modes to change my outlook on the future of sustainability. I know that I am not the only person out there in need of a new perspective, and hopefully I can inspire others to adopt new ways of thinking about sustainability as well.

My vision for a sustainable future involves a unified movement of individuals, industries and governments working together to make sustainability a priority. A lot can be accomplished by individuals working at a grass-roots level. In fact, that is how many sustainability efforts are being spread and where a lot of the motivation for sustainability is coming from. Individuals, as consumers, need to be aware of the impact of the choices they make. Many people fall into the same category as me, thinking just one person’s efforts won’t amount to anything. According to Lombardo, this belief that we, as individuals, have the ability to positively affect the future can lead to more optimistic thinking about the future. Our ever increasing population has significantly altered the magnitude of our environmental impact, as according to Durning, United States energy consumption has risen 60% since 1950. However, if everyone were to make even the smallest change in behavior, such as recycling, limiting the amount of packaged products they buy, purchasing goods locally, or growing their own produce, the impact would be significant.

People often require some sort of incentive to make behavioral changes. As true as this is for individuals, it is even greater for businesses and industry. Businesses typically have one major priority: money. Most decisions that a company makes are based on fiscal outcomes. The habitual belief that sustainable practices are more expensive is a hindrance to environmental responsibility in the business world. However, the consumer demand for more sustainable products has made an impact on the way companies perceive environmental responsibility. Ultimately, this makes the consumer the driving force behind sustainable industry practices. Businesses are being more sustainable in order to sell their products. Businesses have the mental mode that they must adapt to the consumer demands in order to stay relevant in the market and gain business from the consumers. The problem with this mental mode is that businesses can deceptively market products in order to gain business without actually altering business practices to be more sustainable. According to Kim and Oki, the rise of global capitalism will play a big role in the future of sustainability. Businesses need to adopt the mental mode of intergenerational responsibility and realize that since they are a big part of the problem, they need to be a big part of the solution as well.

Government does not have the same mental mode as business, because they are not responsible for selling and marketing products to consumers. They do have a responsibility to the people to protect their liberties and safety. As a whole, I believe that governments should be able to implement programs that protect the environment, as long as they don’t interfere with personal liberties. Incentive programs would entice people to practice environmental sustainability without making them feel as if they are being forced to do something against their free will. An example of this would be tax credits for energy saving purchases. Businesses could also be given incentives to practice sustainable. Alternatively, the government could remove counterproductive programs such as subsidies for practices that contribute to problems. By subsidizing certain crops and altering tax laws, the government can control which products are expensive and which are affordable. Sugar, for example, is very affordable and readily available in many countries, but because the Unites States has high tariffs on sugar and subsidizes corn crops, high fructose corn syrup is much more affordable here, and therefore used in many products that are available to consumers. According to Durning, altering tax laws and subsidies in favor of sustainable practices can guide businesses and individuals to be more responsible with our resources.

I have a vision of these three major bodies working together to achieve a sustainable future. Individuals practicing sustainability at a grass-roots level will spark changes in industry practices. These changes in industry practices will play a major role in reducing the negative effects of manufacturing and agriculture. Incentives from the government will help to get people on board who maybe aren’t quite convinced that they need to change their mental mode and are making decisions based on monetary and fiscal gain. I think that some of these things are beginning to take shape in our society now, and we are headed in the right direction. If we can continue to forge ahead in the efforts to change the way our society perceives sustainability then I am optimistic about the future of our planet.

To Green, or not to Green?

To Green, or not to Green?

Green-washing is when a company uses the appearance of being eco-friendly to promote a product even if it isn’t necessarily an environmentally friendly product. This problem is increasing in our society because consumers are attempting to become more conscious of the environment when buying products. This has made eco-friendliness a marketing point for companies, and they exaggerate “green” qualities and make up vague claims or self-certification programs to promote sales. Consumers must now be even more conscious when selecting products to determine whether companies are being truthful in their advertisements.

One company that is successfully advertising its sustainability is Steelcase. They have several products that meet cradle-to-cradle certification. They also describe all of their sustainable processes on their website, without using obscure or made-up terms. This ad does not use any flashy images or self-certification programs. It simply states the facts about the product. More information can also be found on the Steelcase website regarding their environmental processes.

A company that has obviously green-washed its advertisement is “sofa classics”. Their advertisement just says “Eco Friendly Ideas”, and does not explain how they practice environmentally sustainable processes or what third party certifications they qualify for. They used a background of green leaves to further imply their sustainable claims without having any significant information. They also lack additional information on their website to back up their eco-friendly claims.

According to the greenwash guide, advertisers should not use environmental images, give the impression that the products have qualities that they in fact do not, and they should not be vague. Sofa Classics is guilty of using all of those advertising techniques which add up to greenwashing. Steelcase on the other hand, specifically states their green qualities, have third-party certifications, and they avoid using misleading images to trick people into believing they are something they are not. Steelcase also focuses on the exact issue when it comes to their Bo Peep product. It is 100% wool, and that is what makes it sustainable. No gimmicks, just facts. That is what consumers should be provided with so that they can make educated and well-informed decisions when purchasing products.

Sofa classics: http://www.prlog.org/10745526-eco-friendly-upholstery-materials-from-sofaclassicscouk.html

Steelcase: http://www.steelcase.com/en/products/surfaces/pages/sustainability.aspx

The Fabric of our Lives?

The Fabric of our Lives?

Sustainable Hydration

There are many different methods used in growing cotton. Some of these methods are more sustainable than others. Although organic farming has been often thought of as the most sustainable method, there are certain aspects that must be taken into consideration as well. According to the Sustainability of Cotton report, organic production does not necessarily consider water usage. This means that a farmer can be using organic productions methods but still use unsustainable amounts of water. If a traditional system is converted into an organic system but maintains the same unsustainable water usage then the advantages to farming organically are mostly negated.

Within the scope of organic farming, if rain-watered crops are not possible, then drip irrigation can be used to reduce water usage by 16-30% or more compared to standard irrigation methods. The problem with this system is that it can be expensive to set up, because an irrigation line must be run throughout the crop. The benefit of this system is that it delivers only the amount of water required for the plant and it does so directly to the plant’s root system.

The video clip, the flexible needs of cotton, cotton is fairly drought resistant and does not require much water. This does not exactly line up with the Sustainability of Cotton report, or any other reports that I have read regarding the cotton industry. This makes me curious where this information is coming from. Perhaps cotton requires less water than some other crops, but when considering the large scale that cotton is produced, the water consumption factor is immense.

China is the world’s largest cotton producer, with 24% of cotton being produced there. However, there is a very negligible amount of China’s cotton being produced organically. The United States, in comparison, produces 19% of the world’s cotton supply and is second in the world in organic cotton production, with 27%. Unfortunately, only 1% of the United States’ cotton production is currently organic, and of that 1%, how many of those farmers are actually using sustainable irrigation methods?

While the United States is doing significantly better than some other major cotton producers in terms of growing organically, there is still much room for improvement. In addition to the benefits in terms of water usage, organic farming can reduce toxins by using natural fertilizers and pesticides that do not contain harmful chemicals.

All in all, the Sustainability of Cotton report confirmed that there is not one singular way to successfully save the environment. There are many factors to be taken into consideration, and just because something says “organic” it does not necessarily mean that all of the processes used in its production were sustainable. It is important that we consider all the aspects of sustainability and promote the healthy use of resources. It would also be beneficial to incorporate some sort of standard in water usage and allow the consumers to become aware of what types of practices certain manufacturers are using in their cotton production so that we can make educated decisions when purchasing cotton products.

Natural vs. Synthetic

Natural vs. Synthetic

Does natural = sustainable?

People have been using natural materials to make textile products since time began. As technology began to rapidly develop, people have found new ways to make textile products. According to Sustainable Commercial Interiors, over 70,000 synthetic chemicals and materials have been developed in the twentieth century. Synthetic products are being produced so rapidly however, that very few of them are actually tested for their effects on human health. Although, a benefit to rapidly developing technology is that it has also contributed to the development of cleaner production processes. This type of duality is referred to as a trade-off. When considering natural materials versus synthetic, it is important to consider all of the possible trade-offs associated with that decision.

Natural fibers are typically thought to be more sustainable than synthetic fibers. Consider all of the factors that go into producing a crop of natural cotton, such as extensive labor, constant weeding, composting and defoliation, high water usage, and soil depletion. Even though there are no chemicals being used in this process, there are still detrimental impacts to the environment.

Another argument for natural materials is the end-of-life issue. Natural materials can bio-degrade, since they came from the ground. There has been some development of plant-based synthetic fibers derived from agricultural products, but they require the consumption of a food source, such as corn, rice or beets. Instead of focusing on just biodegradability in end-of-life assessment, we can also look to recyclability. Synthetic products, if designed properly, can be recycled endlessly, without quality loss. This means that a synthetic t-shirt can be deconstructed and recycled into a different product, which could also be recycled into a different product, and maybe eventually back into a t-shirt.

Durability can play a large role in the sustainability of a product. For example, when selecting a carpet in a commercial space, a natural fiber such as cotton would not be able to withstand the greater traffic demands of a commercial space. The carpet would have to be replaced more frequently, resulting in greater usage of resources. However, a synthetic material could be engineered to withstand the greater traffic and require replacing less frequently. In addition, the synthetic fibers could be recycled afterwards so that it does not end up sitting in a landfill.

The bottom line is that product application plays a huge role in determining the most sustainable product. The “most sustainable” decision may vary from project to project. You should not specify the same product everywhere just because it is assumed to be sustainable. Consider all of the factors going into that project and use life-cycle analysis to determine the most sustainable options for each different project. Natural materials, especially in commercial interiors, are rarely durable enough (without some sort of chemical treatment) to be a sustainable option. When selecting synthetic materials, there are ways to tell if that particular product is manufactured sustainably, and if it can be recycled easily.