Category: Essays and op-eds

Ingun Grimstad Klepp, Tone Skårdal Tobiasson, Ingrid Haugsrud

The UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, COP26, is in full swing. The event aims to be carbon neutral. The guests will be served local food and are encouraged to walk, cycle or use public transport. The clothes should also be environmentally friendly. A thousand volunteers have been given a small wardrobe to use during the climate conference. Glasgow City Council boasts of the “stylish uniforms” that are supposed to be made of “sustainable and recycled materials”, but without specifying what or how.

Sustainable materials?

Claims about sustainable materials are easily thrown around. Clothing production is a very complex process with many different stages. Most often, and also in the case of these uniforms, it is unclear what makes them sustainable. In our view, clothes that are called sustainable should be produced locally and with dyes, fiber and other inputs from, for example, regenerative agriculture (i.e. agriculture that builds the carbon content and the soil).

Why not develop a uniform based on local Scottish traditions and reuse?

The initial information released about the clothes did not state what they are made of, but by contacting the manufacturer, we got an answer. The hoodies, polo shirts, jackets and backpacks are all made from 100 percent recycled polyester from plastic bottles. The trousers are made from a mixture of 65 percent of the same polyester and 35 percent organic cotton. They provide no information about dyeing and finishing – the most polluting part of clothing production.

After repeated inquiries, we were told that the uniforms are produced in the UK and in Sri Lanka, but we do not know where the main stages of production is, or what clothes are produced where, nor where the raw materials come from or are processed.

Who will wear the clothes after the conference?

How long products are used, makes the biggest difference for both the climate and the environment. Clothes that you have not chosen yourself, but received from someone who does not know you, are typical garments that see little use. If they also have large logos and other things that make them time- and place-specific, the chance of reuse is small.

It is possible that Glasgow City Council and some of the volunteers think the clothes look nice, but we can safely say we aren’t enthusiastic. They would be better suited for the staff at a petrol station, but it is not the sale of fossil fuels that is on the agenda in Glasgow. However, since the “sustainable” material turned out to be from recycled plastic bottles, i.e. fossil origins, one could easily be fooled.

It is also possible that some of the thousands of volunteers have few clothes, and are happy for a gaudy top hat, black and blue shapeless trousers, a bulky outer jacket, a fleece jacket, polo shirt and a hoodie, but the chance that their closets are already full of similar and better garments is much greater.

In short: the clothes should not have been produced at all and of course not been described as “sustainable”.

A gift to the homeless after the summit

Avoiding waste is a stated goal for COP26, and this should be done through reuse, recycling and by taking design and material choices into account. The manufacturer states that there is a plan for what will happen to the clothes after the event.

The volunteers who do not want to keep their clothes can return them, and they will either be donated to the homeless or torn up and used for energy recovery.

The fact that these clothes can be handed in afterwards if the volunteers do not want to use them, does not make the matter any better. There is no shortage of easily used or unusable clothes for both reuse and energy recovery.

Are plastic clothes good for the climate?

In many of the tools available for comparing climate and environmental impacts of different textile materials, polyester, and especially recycled polyester, are highlighted as those with the least climate impact. At the same time, voices are being raised protesting against these truths, for example in this article in Impakter.

The basis for the comparisons are so-called life cycle analyses (LCA). These analyses aim to show a product’s environmental footprint from raw material extraction to disposal. For clothing, these LCAs are both few and incomplete, and much that can be achieved by choosing strategically among LCAs.

The independent analyst Veronica Bates-Kassatly describes how manufacturers have chosen LCAs that favor synthetic materials, and as a consequence are worst for nature. This is difficult to control, partly because privately owned HIGG Co., with its Material Science Index, the most widely used of such comparison tools, keeps its sources secret.

We would argue that no one knows if polyester is better for the climate, but there are some who stand to make a lot of money from claiming this, and that those who earn the most are the same ones behind this “truth”.

Recycled what then?

What is certain, however, is that polyester, and the other plastic materials used in clothing, are a significant source of spreading micro plastics to the sea, water and air. This also applies to recycled polyester.

None of the plastic-specific problems, the lack of degradability and the spread of micro plastics, are included in the calculations we mention above. PET bottles that are “recycled” into polyester fiber are in themselves a bad idea, according to the Changing Markets Foundation’s report on synthetic materials.

The properties embedded in the plastic used for bottles are not utilized in the clothes, and the bottle-to-bottle recycling system actually works better. The textile fibers deteriorate and therefore cannot be recycled, as one is capable to do with the bottles. This is of course why the manufacturers of these clothes will either give them away to the homeless or deliver them for energy recovery.

Local production as a solution

Scotland has a proud textile history, with Shetland wool, fantastic tweed and tartans – the checkered wool fabrics. Why not develop a uniform based on local Scottish traditions and reuse?

Yes, we understand that the volunteers must be recognizable, but to achieve this you only need one clearly visible garment, or bandola, or a fun hat.

Local production utilizes raw materials better, reduces transport, and not least the clothes stand up over time. The volunteers could have been a colorful flock with playful use of Scottish traditions. Using history as a resource for the future has many benefits, as do natural fibers.

Public procurement

The public sector is a major purchaser. Both the environmental and purchasing expertise of the very many who are responsible for buying textiles are in general a sad state. Therefore, we are currently working with a purchasing guide for public procurement of textiles in Norway.

If such initiatives are to contribute to a reduction in climate impact, they must not be hijacked by misguided ideas about «sustainable materials», but on the contrary, systems must be developed that ensure the procurement of good products that are utilized to the maximum through long use and good care.

To achieve this, good routines are needed for cooperation between buyer, user and supplier. The volunteer uniforms are thus a glaring example of how wrong things can go.

Climate vs. the environment

The climate crisis is serious. But so is the environmental crisis. “Saving” the climate by destroying the environment is not a good idea. Of course, this discussion is not just about clothes. The “emission-free” electric cars are, after all, only “emission-free” if you do not create emissions elsewhere and in other forms. The debate about wind turbines has many of the same ingredients.

Numbers and rankings are important tools in the climate and environmental debate. Therefore, we must be careful about who gets to decide what data is seen as robust and reliable. Things go wrong when the fox alone is allowed to guard the chickens, or the wolf the grandma, so to speak.

We must stop up and not let the same global giants who drown the world with bad plastic clothes also be allowed to drown us in the “truth” that their products are good for us and the planet. “Recycled” plastic clothing will never save the climate, and they are a disaster for the environment.

By the way: We never got to know what the knitted hat that tops it all is made of, but our tip is acrylic. Acrylic does not win any prizes for saving either the environment or for clothes that help to keep the wearer warm. It is possible that the conference had taken into account that global warming would make it superfluous for the hat to be knitted in their warm and wonderful Shetland wool.

Published by www.sciencenorway.no, click here to see the op-ed

The interest in looking at the environmental consequences of clothes is growing. This was inevitable for two reasons: The clothing industry has been pointed out at as one of the worst polluting industries in the world. And we need to focus on all sectors to reach the climate and environmental goals.

The industry has therefore been sharpening its greenwashing knives for a long time and is ready to fight. Both authorities and the public lack the tools, however, to understand what actually matters in the new big green competition for “the most sustainable materials”.

The discussion about what is “sustainable” is conducted on false premises

We need to point out that already at the start, the very discussion of what is most “sustainable” is conducted on false premises. The most sustainable action is of course to not buy anything, and use what you already have in your closet. We need to increase the use of the materials and resources that are there already.

Take the example of red meat. Meat production produces more CO2 emissions than other foods, but this does not mean that all red meat has the same CO2 footprint. Nor does it mean that it is wise not to eat the more than 30,000 moose that will be hunted this fall in Norway. It is best to eat up what nature offers, not throw it away; as well as making sure local resources land on our plates.

In the same way, the clothes in our closet should find their way to our bodies, and as little as possible should be thrown away or purchased new, unless we truly need to.

The focus on apparel’s environmental footprint, however, often ends up in a rather fruitless discussion about the corresponding environmental footprint of various fibers. This despite the fact that it is not the production of the fibers themselves, but the production of the clothes with all the finishing-processes, such as dyeing, that have the largest impact. However, if one insists on comparing fibers, this needs to meet verifiable standards – and reflect the true environmental costs of said fibers.

How much clothes are used, is crucial to how sustainable they are

Comparisons of environmental impacts are done through life cycle assessments, or LCAs. The stages in production of clothing are examined and weighted in relation to different types of environmental impacts, such as CO2 emissions, water scarcity, eutrophication of water such as harmful algal blooms, resource depletion and so on.

In traditional life cycle assessments these loads impacts are divided by the number of times the product is assumed to be used, so that “environmental impact per use” is the result.

If plastic bags are compared to textile shopping nets, the number of times they are used will be decisive for the result.

But there are actually few LCAs on clothing that include this crucial division. Without this, the life cycle assessments of clothing have major shortcomings in both method and data. To rectify this, Consumption Research Norway (SIFO) at Oslo Metropolitan University has actively contributed with its unique expertise on how clothes are actually used, the so-called use phase of clothing, together with LCA specialists from other countries. By including how a product is used, we avoid equating disposable products with those that last and are used for a long time.

We do not know enough about how clothes are produced

The second problem in this conundrum, is a lack of transparency and lack of reliable data. Much of our textile production takes place in China, and there is a lot that is hidden from view. It is thus not easy to find out exactly how much water is used in the cultivation of the Mulberry trees where the silkworms live, nor how much water is used in the actual production of the fiber and the textiles and many other important answers needed to conduct a proper life cycle assessment.

With little transparency, there will also be little knowledge. It thereby follows that few will be able to check if the datasets are reasonable when fibers and materials are ranked.

The third problem is a lack of knowledge about methods and perhaps also the willingness to take on the breadth of problems. So far, neither the textiles’ contribution to the spreading of microplastics, whether raw materials or fibers are renewable, nor whether they can be composted and thus are nutrients at the end of life, have been included in the LCAs.

This is how the tool for judging if the clothes are sustainable works

The tool most used by the industry is called the Higg Index. It is currently managed by the commercial company Higg Co, which has been spun off as a separate company from the group of industry players who call themselves the Sustainable Apparel Coalition.

This tool can and will potentially have a huge impact both on what is sold and how apparel is marketed. Under the Higg umbrella, there are several tools for members and others, who must pay to gain access to them. These tools are called MSI (Material Science Index), PM (Product Module) and FEM (Facilities Environmental Module). MSI measures the fibers against each other, FEM measures factories against each other and PM will give the product’s sustainability profile based on the first two. In addition, some impacts will now be entered on the use-phase, including from the on-going work done by SIFO on lifespan and care.

Based on all these scores, the manufacturer can play around with the tools to push the garment up, and preferably not down, on a “sustainability” scale.

This sounds perfect, right; since then the companies will strive to get the best possible score and then everything becomes more and more sustainable? And things are moving fast in this direction, because during the first half of 2021, online retailer Zalando and the Swedish giant H&M will use this scoring-system to tell consumers how sustainable the products they sell are. Already, 7 million customers have tested the system and learned how to purchase goods with a clear conscience.

Based on “ridiculously outdated and irrelevant” studies

There is still a terribly annoying fly in this soup. It is called accountable and verifiable data. “We use the best available data,” said Jason Kibbey, CEO of Higg Co, when he presented the new consumer-facing Higg initiative at the Copenhagen Fashion Summit recently. He added that as they gained access to more up-to-date data, they would of course adjust the scores in the system (wwd.com).

There’s just a small catch here, and that is that many of the studies that may be at the bottom of these scores are more or less impossible to get access to. They are behind a payment wall that neither you nor I can afford, and even then, they may not be made available. Those who have accessed for example the (one) study on silk, say it has so little relevance that is ridiculously outdated and irrelevant.

Considers polyester to be more environmentally friendly than wool

When we see that it is silk, alpaca, cowhides and wool that score the worst in the Higg Index MSI, while polyester scores among the best, there is reason to question the validity. The four materials mentioned are a small share of the world market, wool is only 1 per cent, alpaca and silk even smaller, while polyester represents 60 per cent (and is growing strongly).

Those who produce wool, silk and alpaca can quickly become even smaller when the large global actors, led by Zalando and H&M, are in the process of “improving their environmental profile”. It is a little too striking that polyester, which is the cheapest raw material that is the most profitable and which already makes up most of the textile industry, is considered one of the greener materials. Most of what is sold then automatically becomes “green”.

Chinese silkworms and Norwegian sheep farmers

The study Higg MSI bases its data on claims that far too much water was depleted and eutrophication was too high during production; however, this particular study aimed to show that in a specific and dry valley in India it was a bad idea to produce silk to begin with. This is the main reasons for the poor score just silk gets (veronicabateskassatly.com).

It will be the poor farmers in China, Cambodia and Laos who have never had their water consumption measured and who do not rely on irrigation, who based on this marginal study may have to find something else to live of rather than silk. In China the worms are also part of their protein diet.

In Peru, close to 100,000 poor families and half a million people, who depend on selling their alpaca wool on the world market are now in danger of losing their entire livelihood. Norwegian sheep farmers, who already have problems getting a fair price for their wool, will meet the same challenge. Also, all the wool that is today burned or disposed of all over Europe will remain waste no one wants. In an attempt to meet the criticism, the Sustainable Apparel Coalition decided last week to phase out the Higg Index MSI single-score on fibers in January 2021. The figures on which these single-scores are based will still live on in the Higg Index PM tool, which the apparel industry and consumers will view as the gold standard for the environmental footprint.

And you, dear customer, will encounter even more polyester in the stores in the future, alongside the ridiculous advice that you should use fewer virgin natural materials in order to be a responsible consumer.

Click here to read the op-ed (sciencenorway.no)