Pinning the repsonsbility of our tasks on ourselves

Design Activism is about so much more than designing with sustainability in mind; it “can be considered something that can be an outcome of practice or explorations in real-life situations and/or academia” (85). Design Activism includes changing the way you work, produce, and live. We, as designers, must look deeper in; “Understanding what motivates us to consume differently seems to be important” (113) because this will tell us why we are consuming like we are and how we can work to change it.

When thinking about the “in” fads today, my first thought was the website Pinterest. I thought about why people are so in to Pinterest, and I realized – it is because we, as consumers love the satisfaction of doing something ourselves. We also love uniqueness; I think we enjoy unique items so much because we like fitting in and standing out at the same time; we like fashionable, “in-style” products but we like to put our own spin on it. Fuad-Luke describes this effortlessly stating, “Demands for products that are more easily personalized or customizable, tend to offer the promise of more durable emotional relationships. The inextricable rise of the internet in everyday life is leading to much experimentation in ways of making and the emergence of co-created, co-designed and replicable designs is a plausible reality” (95). With the originality-lovers target market in mind - I have put together an idea I think will catch on. My idea is to have a furniture store that offers reupholster classes and tools and fabrics that would assist in this. I think people will like this because they can buy their furniture new and have the resources to change the fabrics, finishes, etc. on them so they never get old! Consumers like the feeling of originality in their own homes and being able to say “I made that!” to their friends and family members. This idea targets mainly the over-consumer – or the people that love to buy. My idea for the under-consumers – those who live off of nearly $2 per day – is to have a Return-Some-Love program. This program would allow consumers to bring in furniture they no longer want, nor want to renew and offer them a generous coupon. The returned items would be renewed and cleaned up and donated to a family in need. I see so many old desks, mattresses, and other furniture in and around dumpsters and no one wants them because they do not know where they have been; but a lot of the under-consumers need them.

            In conclusion, we, as over-consumers have the responsibility to use our unwanted products for the better and keep our under-consumer friends in mind. “Ezio Manzini has long declared that sustainability is a societal journey, brought about by acquiring new awareness and perceptions, by generating new solutions, activating new behavioral patterns and, hence cultural change”. Therefore, in order to promote my furniture store I would go to sites like Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest, etc. and tell about the store and what the store proposes to change about our culture. Doing this, I would be communicating our brand and the need for behavioral change in consumers.

From birth - to what should be - rebirth

As I read more about the harmful chemicals used in the clothing that I wear every day, I grow more and more concerned about this particular issue. In this weeks’ video, Detoxing Fashion, Greenpeace sets a frightening example, “70% of China’s rivers, reservoirs, and lakes were polluted and half of China’s water is deemed unsafe for human contact”. Half! That is unreasonable and frankly, unacceptable. China may not be the largest country in physical size, but they do account for the most people and if half of their water supply is undrinkable, this makes for a massive amount of wasted water. However, this can be put to a stop. More often than not, the reason companies have hazardous chemicals is because they are either easier to use, cheaper, or make for faster production. Most brands do not even know harmful chemicals are used in their products and some even go on to promote how environmentally-friendly their products are. So, in this, we must all take responsibility to finding out exactly what is in each product. My idea is based off the technical value in Cradle-to-Cradle.

As one of our videos showed – it is possible to make apparel products and send out runoff liquids cleaner than when they came in to the factory. Because this is possibly, we must all work towards this goal. I believe each and every factory should have a regulation of doing this and should be held liable. Greenpeace takes about major brands such as Nike, Adidas, and  H&M all using harmful chemicals in their products from China and most do not know about it or chose to ignore it. I believe consumers should also hold their brands and brand suppliers liable. Quinn puts it effortlessly, “In an industry characterized by style over content and image over substance, the movement to infuse fashion with social responsibility is one of the most radical changes in fashion’s history”. This is so spot on; each of us need to take the obligations upon ourselves because this is our Earth that we live on and it will be our grandchildren and their grandchildren’s Earth.

As future businessmen and women in the apparel industry, we must take accountability for our products from birth to – what should be rebirth.

Waste = food

While reading this chapter in Cradle-to-Cradle, I found several points interesting. One that specifically caught my attention was the idea that “products containing valuable technical nutrients could be reconceived as services people want to enjoy”. I liked this because it is a new way of thinking about products. However, we, as consumers must first overcome the mind-set of having a ‘virgin product. McDonough and Braungart say it best when describing this thought - “This virgin product is mine, for the very first time. When I am finished with it, everyone is. It’s history. Industries design and plan according to this mind-set”. If we went away from this and leaned more towards the philosophy that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. Our environment would improve drastically. Or if we renewed products in such a way that they are perceived as a ‘virgin product’, we could diminish this thought.

My notion is to have an apparel store that reuses old clothes. The customer must bring in an old article of clothing in order to purchase something “new” or recycled clothing from our store. The old clothes do not “necessarily” need to be from our brand; however the clothes must not contain harmful dyes and chemicals. And we would give a free eco-friendly bottle of detergent in with each purchase – because of this the clothing line would be a little more expensive. Also, if the consumer brought in the old empty bottle of our detergent for recycled purposes, we would give them a generous discount for another bottle of detergent. This goes along with the all of values “reduce, reuse, and recycle”. I decided on giving an environmentally-safe detergent because each part of the products life-cycle is important in working towards a greener earth. McDonough and Braungart describe this idea flawlessly, stating, “If our systems contaminate Earth’s biological mass and continue to throw away technical materials or render them useless, we will indeed live in a world of limits, where production and consumption are restrained, and the Earth will literally become a grave”. This is exactly why we make recycling an item mandatory to purchase an item. Some make think this is too harsh, but people go through wardrobes nearly monthly, and our minimum requirement would be only one article of clothing – no matter how big or small it is. As a frequent consumer in the apparel industry, I would undoubtedly participate in a shopping environment like this – I have hope that others would too!

Locally owned, locally grown - not as hard as it sounds

When I was first stopped and asked what ideas I had to make the apparel industry more sustainable, I was caught off guard. My initial thought was, ‘I am not a designer or a scientist. How am I supposed to come up with new environmentally sustainable production systems?’ But then I realized, it is my job to do this. I, as a future fashion industry worker, a buyer, and a customer, have a duty. My first idea works on the principle of producing entirely locally. Fletcher (2008) shows us the harsh reality, “The average t-shirt travels the equivalent distance of once around the globe during its production” (p. 139-140). This is unacceptable. And we must keep in mind how many t-shirts each one of us own in our possession, alone. I think this is wild, considering all of the cotton farms in Oklahoma and Texas alone. So, my idea is to put government regulations on this. I believe there should be a limit of how far a product – fiber, machine, tool, etc. – can be shipped for use during production. I know a government regulation seems extreme, however, I feel that this is the only way for this to work. I realize that production owners may feel local products are more expensive or not up to their standards, however if they used these products like they use the ones in China, for example, the price and durability would increase as profits increased. Fletcher (2008) explains, “Local products inspire and challenge the community while at the same time creating jobs and making use of local resources” (p. 140). China was not born the biggest producer of the apparel industry; they made it through hard work, locally-owned production, and starting with nearly nothing. We must start somewhere! I know in my small hometown they promote local buying through “Fairview bucks” or money that can only be used in Fairview, Oklahoma stores. I thought this was brilliant! I think that campaigning is a subtle way is so much more effective than commercial jingles or harsh reality commercials.

                       (this photo is taken from a cotton farm in southwest Oklahoma)

            The second IE principle that I found interesting was working together. If textile producers would join with brands and work in one location that would decrease distributing immensely. Also, if these companies expanded and built more economically friendly buildings near or even in their main target distributions cities, the gas usage would shrink dramatically. Of course, pessimists may consider the cost of building a new factory and making that industrial unit very eco-friendly and efficient, but I believe if the company markets their ideas to their customers, they will be more likely to pay a little more for that product. For example, Toms shoes are not necessarily chic shoes, but millions of people will pay $40-$60 for them because Toms shoes gives a pair to an underprivileged child for each pair purchased. If we work off of this principle, we can change the ecosystem together. It is not something that can be changed alone or overnight, but each person matters for the advancement to work.

Targeting a greener earth

New design concepts are coming plentiful; however they are not life-changing, yet. In order to come up with a new idea that will change our future for the better, we, as designers, must put our heads together. In order to come up with an idea that makes the entire industry sustainable and the environment pollution-free, Benyus (1997) looks at the ecosystem for inspiration - “the natural world is full of models for a more sustainable economic system – prairies, coral reefs, oak-hickory forests, and more. These nature ecosystems do everything we want to do. They self-organize into a diverse and integrated community of organisms with a common purpose – to maintain their presence in one place, make the most of what is available, and endure over the long haul” (p. 248). This is a great place to look for inspiration! If we can recognize what limited resources we have and learn to work with them in an incredibly substantial fashion then we will be able to work towards a greener earth. First, we must come up with new concepts. I, personally, like to look at how we are marketing for a more sustainable environment.

This video clip about organic cotton is great – it is direct and simple, and it shows the consumer that is it their responsibility, while not being too over-aggressive. But why is this not working? I think it is not an efficient way to market sustainable products because it is not taking its’ target market into account. The majority of recurring clothes’ buyers’ is young to middle-aged women and some men. So the correct questions is – is what are these people most influenced by? I think it is television shows, movies, and social media. Therefore we must market a greener world there. Working off of a blog buddies idea to put recycling actions in shows such a Jersey Shore – I think we should have TV shows like The Voice, The Ellen Show, and others like this advertise more green-earth responsibilities.  I think it is SO important to focus on the target market – and/or the biggest users of unsustainable products and practices.

Benyus, J. (1997). Biomimicry: Innovation inspired by nature. New

York, NY: Perrenial.

Future consciousness

I have always thought of myself as an optimistic person; alike, I have been told by family members and friends that I am, indeed a positive person. When I envision the future, I think about what kind of career I will have and where I will raise a family. Within these visions, I picture a green earth and a continuous upraise in technology. However, there are improvements in my daily life I could make in order for my vision of the future to come true; such as recycling, using sustainable products, cutting down on water, electrical, heat usage, etc. My beliefs that guide me to have a positive future is my faith, my ability to know that even as one, small person, I can make a difference, and that by my word-of-mouth and way of living I can help change the world.

A barrier that I face when envisioning a great future is my over-consumption. I love to purchase new clothes and new technology, even when I do not need these items. As Limited Consumption: Toward a Sustainable Culture explains, “we are encouraged to consume at every turn by the advertising industry” (Durning, 12). This is SO true; we are constantly being told we need the ‘next big thing’ and if we do not have it, we are not good enough. Another great note that Durning makes is, “Consumption becomes a treadmill with people judging their status by who’s ahead of them and who’s behind.” I love this because it is so true for me. I tell myself that the new clothes are for me and my own benefits, but I never mind ‘fitting in’ with the fashionistas. However, buying new clothes is not the problem; it is buying unsustainable fibers and purchasing from companies that practice un-environmentally friendly production.

As an optimistic, I do believe I have a future consciousness. I have love for our future generations, especially those family members I leave behind. I want them to grow up in a prospering world, not a deteriorating one. I have great hope for our future and I look forward to spreading that anticipation with others, especially those that tend to think more negatively. As Seligman explains in Thinking Ahead, “the emotional state of depression is primarily due to pessimistic thinking. Each mode of thinking tends to reinforce the behavior that leads to the very results that are anticipated.  If you expect to fail, you probably will. And those pessimistic habits of thought can be changed through relearning, education, and training.” So, there is hope! I plan to engage my fellow generation through excitement and enthusiasm at about the future, and also realistic views of what the future could be if we all do our part. Recycling is not difficult; it simply takes a little extra effort each day. Aside from the people doing their part, the community can also chip in by making recycling bins easier to access. However, recycling is only a small sector in the part to make our world a better place. There is so much more!

Durning, Alan (1991). Limiting Consumption: Toward a Sustainable Culture. The Futurist. 10-15

Lombardo, Tom (2006). Thinking Ahead: The Value of Future Consciousness. The Futurist. 45-50

"Cotton, the fabric of our lives"

Cotton is the most widely produced and used fiber in the world, alongside polyester. Because of this known fact, studying the harsh impacts of cotton cultivation and production is of tremendous importance. Cotton cultivation has two main environmental impacts: water usage and high pesticide use.

In order to farm cotton, a massive amount of water is used; rainfall is ideal for watering the crops, however more often than not, rainfall does not give enough water for cotton to grow. Due to this, “irrigation is used by 53% of the world cotton fields,” as the Sustainability of Cotton explains.  To put it in the perspective, the cultivation of cotton uses “10,000 -17,000 liters of water just to produce 1 kg of cotton lint.” Sustainability of Cotton goes on to explain that “cotton cultivation accounts for 1-6% of the world’s total freshwater withdrawal,” which is substantial. Although, there are alternatives like drip irrigation which reduces the amount of water used immensely.

Fertilizer is another aspect of cotton cultivation that impacts the environment. Manure is usually used in order to reduce the use of harmful chemicals, although there are negatives about the use of animal manure too. Along with this is pesticide use, which is extremely damaging to not only the ozone, but humans. The Sustainability of Cotton tells, “it has been estimated that at the global level annually 40,000 lives are lost due to pesticide application.” One of the most surprising and frightening implications of cotton cultivation is genetic modification. The Sustainability of Cotton notifies that “60-100% higher incidence of various disease symptoms (fatigue, eye irritation, throat irritation, and diarrhea) for humans living or working near sprayed cotton fields relative to the comparison group.” It goes on to tell, “In the USA, a 1987 National Cancer Institute Study found a nearly 7-fold higher risk of leukemia for children whose parents used pesticides in their homes or gardens” (Lotus, 2004). Pesticides used in cotton cultivation can also kill birds and fish. An upside to this, is that organic cotton does not use these pesticides, therefore the problem can be completely eliminated.

Cotton cultivation also causes deforestation. The Sustainability of Cotton states, “the major consequences of deforestation are loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, and contributions to the greenhouse effect.” Therefore, land clearing is not directly related to cotton farming.

The three types of cotton cultivation include: conventional, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), and organic. The question is, are any completely sustainable for producing cotton? Conventional cotton farming accounts for 80% of the world’s cotton farming. Of this, China, United States, and India are the main cotton farming countries. IPM accounts for a much less amount – 20%. To better explain IPM the Food and Agriculture Organization define it as: ‘A site-specific strategy for managing insect, weed, disease and other pests in the most cost effective, environmentally sound and socially acceptable way’. And organic farming accounts for a ungenerous 4% of the world’s cotton farming. However, the organic cultivation covers only agriculture land. Turkey and the United States account for the majority of organic cotton cultivation.

The primary indicators of cotton cultivation include: salinistaion and erosion, water depletion, deforestation, eutrophication, wildlife contamination, human health defects, and inhabitants through contamination.  When comparing a type of cotton cultivation one should look at the amount and type of pesticide use – which makes organic look ideal. Because organic still causes environmental issues, no form of cotton cultivation is sustainable. However, there are ways to decrease these impacts. Focusing on the management system helps us identify the ideal cultivation process.