OEcotextiles

New LEED Pilot Credits for chemical avoidance

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

March 16, 2011

I can’t begin to tell you how many times I’ve been told: “I’ve been an interior designer for (insert number of years here) and in all that time, not one person has ever asked for a “green” fabric!” Or the popular variation: “my clients don’t care about “green”. The implication, of course, is that I’m barking up the wrong tree in thinking anybody would ever consider “green” as a valid criteria when buying fabric. Color – check. Price – check. Abrasion rating – check. But “green”?

Well, if you can’t be altruistic about your purchase, then let’s simply look at what your fabric choices are doing to you and your family. “Green” should really read as “safe”, because conventional fabrics are filled with process chemicals, many of which are outlawed in other products. Right now the chemicals in your fabrics are contributing to changes that are taking place in your body. You can’t see those changes, because they are subtle and insidious: maybe headaches (especially when you draw the drapes at night); maybe sensitization to some new chemicals is giving you a runny nose. Or maybe a cascading series of changes is taking place in your body and putting a more dire outcome into play – cancerous tumors, or Parkinsons disease. And studies are proving that these chemicals affect unborn babies and infants in much more egregious ways.

China exports fabric to the United States that would be outlawed in China – or in Japan or the European Union [1] – because of the chemicals contained in that fabric. Americans don’t have a safety net protecting them from these chemical incursions. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found toxic chemicals in the bodies of virtually all Americans: the most recent report on Americans exposure to environmental chemicals, July 2010 [2], listed 212 chemicals in people’s blood or urine – 75 of which have never before been been measured. Some of these are linked to increases in prostate and breast cancers, diabetes, heart disease, lowered sperm counts, early puberty and other diseases and disorders – but the really scary thing is that we have no idea what most of the chemicals are doing to us because they’ve never been tested.

In the interest of fairness and letting you make up your own mind, I have seen some articles which refer to this concern about the many industrial chemicals which are seeping into our bodies as “chemophobia”. “They” say that this so called “chemophobia” is both wrong and counterproductive (see http://www.american.com/archive/2010/february/our-chemophobia-conundrum/) but I think their arguments are the same old saw: “the amount of what is considered toxic is found in such minute quantities that it’s not doing anybody any harm”. I challenge you to check the rates of increase of certain health issues – even the development of new ones, such as multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) – and feel confident that we are entirely safe. Or better yet, take a look at what happened in Toms River, N.J. where the Ciba Geigy corporation dumped over 4,500 drums of contaminated waste into one farm (now a Superfund site) and, beginning in 1952, dumped effluent directly into the Toms River. The children of Toms River developed statistically higher averages for cancers – particularly female children – than the rest of the nation. The Dover Township landfill was declared a public health hazard. But do the research yourself and see where you stand on the divide. And if you’re REALLY interested, check out The Body Toxic: An Environmental Memoir by Susanne Antonetta, who happened to grow up in this area (read a review here.)

But before I go entirely off subject onto a diatribe about our toxic ignorance, what I really want to write about are the new LEED pilot credits which reward precautionary action for chemical avoidance:

Pilot Credit 2 tries to reduce the use (and hence release) of persistent bioacumulative toxic chemicals, including the use of PVC, Neoprene, and all brominated or halogenated flame retardants, such as PBDEs.
Pilot Credit 11 tries to reduce the quantity of indoor contaminants that are “harmful to the comfort and well-being of installers and occupants”, including halogenated flame retardants and phthalates.

Bill Walsh, Executive Director of the Healthy Building Network, wrote a review of these new pilot credits in January 2011. His article, quoted below, might give some of the people, who don’t consider “green” and “safe” when buying fabric, something to think about:

Last year the USGBC introduced two new Pilot Credits that reward precautionary action, the avoidance of certain classes of chemicals in the face of mounting evidence that they present significant threats to human health.[3] Industry trade groups fought these measures as they fight all chemical regulation, with the argument that restrictions or disincentives against chemical use must be based upon “sound science” that proves the connection between a specific chemical and a specific health problem beyond a shadow of a doubt. But due to a catch-22 in current US law, the EPA must prove potential risk or widespread exposure before it can get the data it needs to determine the extent of hazard, exposure or risk.[4] If we want to make green buildings healthy buildings, merely following the law will lead us in circles.

To fully appreciate the importance of precautionary measures such as the LEED Pilot Credits, consider the failure of the chemical industry’s voluntary effort to provide EPA with information about High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals – chemicals produced or imported into the US at volumes in excess of 1 million pounds per year. In the early 1980s, the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council found that 78% of the chemicals in highest-volume commercial use had not had even “minimal” toxicity testing.[5] Thirteen years later, a comprehensive report by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) found no significant improvement: “even the most basic toxicity testing results cannot be found in the public record for nearly 75% of the top-volume chemicals in commercial use.”[6]

In 1998, multiple studies by federal government agencies confirmed that the government lacked basic data needed to understand and characterize the potential hazards associated with HPV chemicals.[7] There are roughly 3,000 such chemicals. “Most Americans would assume that basic toxicity testing is available and that all chemicals in commerce today are safe… This is not a prudent assumption,” said one review. [8] An EPA review could find no safety information for more than half of them, and complete data for only 7 percent. Additionally, EDF reported, there are tens of thousands of non-HPV chemicals that remain to be addressed, which likely have even larger data gaps than were found for HPV chemicals.[9]

These findings prompted the EPA to swing into action – voluntary action. The High Production Volume Chemical Challenge of 1998 invited American industries to “sponsor” HPV chemicals and voluntarily provide health and safety data in lieu of regulatory action. More than 2,200 chemicals were eventually “sponsored,” but ten years later, in 2008, the EPA still had no data on more than half of them. Of the data sets it had received from industry, fewer than half were complete, according to EDF, an original sponsor of the program.

On January 5, 2011, the EPA finally took regulatory action. It will require testing of just “19 of the many hundreds of HPV chemicals on the market today for which even the most basic, ‘screening level’ hazard data are not publicly available.”[10]

The Dow Chemical Company calls the program “a tremendous success.”[11] An investigative report by the Milwaukee Journal deemed it “a failure.”[12] Richard Denison, Senior Scientist at EDF and one of the most knowledgeable independent experts on the program calls it “a perfect poster child for what’s wrong” with federal chemical regulations.[13]

Efforts to reform the major US law regulating chemical production, the Toxic Substances Control Act, are underway but are unlikely to make it through the Republican controlled House of Representatives. In the meantime, despite the data gaps, it is possible to make responsible, healthier choices based upon the best available evidence. The new LEED Pilot Credits help you make those choices and remove tons of toxic chemicals from our buildings, our bodies and our environment. Take your first step toward earning these credits with LEEDuser, and easily find products that qualify for the credits using the Pharos online system.

That will protect us at work – but there is still nothing to protect you at home.

[1] http://greenanswers.com/q/52323/policy-government/policies/are-epa-chemical-laws-strong-enough-protect-u#ixzz1CIWfV3VL

[2] http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/

[3] The 1998 Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle summarizes the principle this way: “When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.” The US Green Building Council Guiding Principle #4 states: The USGBC will be guided by the precautionary principle in utilizing technical and scientific data to protect, preserve and restore the health of the global environment, ecosystems.

[4] Richard Denison, Environmental Defense Fund. “A Near Sisyphusian Task; EPA Soldiers On to Require More Testing Under TSCA.” 1/5/11. http://blogs.edf.org/nanotechnology/2011/01/05/a-near- sisyphusian-task-epa-soldiers-on-to-require-more-testing-under-tsca/

[5] Environmental Defense Fund. “Toxic Ignorance: The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States.” 1997, p.11. http://www.edf.org/documents/243_toxicignorance.pdf

[6]Environmental Defense Fund. “Toxic Ignorance: The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States.” 1997, p.11. http://www.edf.org/documents/243_toxicignorance.pdf

[7] Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust. “EPA fails to collect chemical safety data.” JS Online. 8/4/08. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32597744.html.

[8] Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust. “EPA fails to collect chemical safety data.” JS Online. 8/4/08. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32597744.html

[9] Environmental Defense Fund. “High Hopes, Low Marks: A Final Report Card on the High Production Volume Chemical Challenge.” p.30. 2007. http://www.edf.org/documents/6653_HighHopesLowMarks.pdf

[10] Denison, op. cit. Note that EPA has initiated another rulemaking targeting another 29 chemicals.

[11] Dow. “Product Safety.” http://www.dow.com/productsafety/chemical/epa_hpv.htm

[12] Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust. “EPA fails to collect chemical safety data.” JS Online. 8/4/08. http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/32597744.html

[13] Denison, op. cit.

What effects do fabric choices have on you?

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

3 comments

March 9, 2011

Let’s look at just three areas in which your fabric choice impacts you directly:

1. What are residual chemicals in the fabrics doing to you and the planet?

2. What are the process chemicals expelled in treatment water doing to us?

3. Why do certain fiber choices accelerate climate change?

RESIDUAL CHEMICALS IN THE FABRICS:

It takes between 10% and 100% of the weight of the fabric in chemicals to produce that fabric.[1] Producing enough fabric to cover ONE sofa uses 4 to 20 lbs. of chemicals – and the final fabric is about 27% synthetic chemicals by weight.[2]
In the mills, textile clippings must be handled like toxic waste, according to OSHA regulations (see Note below). The fabrics we bring into our homes contain chemicals which are outlawed in other products. Many fabrics sold in the USA are outlawed in China, Japan and the EU – because of the chemicals found in the fabrics.
Chemicals which remain in the fabric are absorbed by our bodies: some chemicals outgas into the air; some are absorbed through our skin. Another way our bodies absorb these chemicals: over time, microscopic particles are abraded and fall into the dust in our homes where pets and crawling children breathe them in.
Chemicals used routinely in textile processing – and found in the fabrics we live with – include those that bioaccumulate, persist in our environment and contribute to a host of human diseases. They include, but are not limited to, formaldehyde, benzene, lead, cadmium, mercury and chlorine, which are all used a lot.[3]
Why do we continue to allow fabrics into our lives that contain chemicals which have been demonstrated to affect us in many ways, from subtle to profound? Chemicals used in textile processing are contributing to the chemical onslaught which many feel has led to increases in a host of health issues: infertility, asthma, nervous disorders from depression and anxiety to brain tumors, immune system suppression and genetic alterations. Why are we taking a chance?

PROCESS CHEMICALS EXPELLED IN TREATMENT WATER:

The textile industry is the #1 industrial polluter of water in the world.[4]
Vast quantities of water are returned to our ecosystem, untreated, filled with process chemicals – chemicals which circulate in the groundwater of our planet.
Because these chemicals are released into the environment, they become available to living organisms (like us). That’s why PBDE’s (a fire retardant chemical widely used in the textile and electronics industries) are found in the blood of every animal in the world, from the Artic to the Amazon – in the most remote parts of the world, far from any industry.[5] And the rate of increase for PBDE’s is rising exponentially.
Disease rates correlated with chemical exposure are on the rise – You can send your children to private schools and provide the best medical care in the world, but you can’t protect them from chemical pollution.

CLIMATE CHANGE:

The U.S. textile industry is the 5^th largest contributor to CO2 emissions, by industry, in the United States.[6] (The production of the U.S. textile industry is mostly synthetics, and these egregious GHG emissions are largely from the production of synthetics.) Given the size of the U.S. textile industry, it seems a disproportionatly high percentage. Image what the textile industry contributes globally.

Not only is the quantity of greenhouse gas emissions of concern regarding synthetics, but so is the quality: Nylon, for example, creates emissions of NO2, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2 [7] and which, because of its long life (120 years) can reach the upper atmosphere and deplete the layer of stratospheric ozone, which is an important filter of UV radiation. Polyester production generates particulates, CO2, N2O, hydrocarbons, sulphur oxides and carbon monoxide,[8] acetaldehyde and 1,4-dioxane (also potentially carcinogenic).[9]
The production of synthetics is heavily dependent on oil – it’s made from oil and it takes a lot to produce the fibers. The embodied energy in 1 KG of polyester is much greater than the embodied energy in 1 KG of many common building products, including steel, as shown in the chart here:

Data compiled from "LCA: New Zealand Merino Wool Total Energy Use" by Barber and Pellow; EMBODIED ENERGY AND CO2 COEFFICIENTS FOR NZ BUILDING MATERIALS by A Alcorn, 2003

You, as a consumer, are very powerful. You have the power to change harmful production practices. Eco textiles exist and they give you a greener, healthier, fairtrade alternative. What will an eco textile do for you? You and the frogs and the world’s flora and fauna could live longer, and be healthier – and in a more just, sufficiently diversified, more beautiful world.

[1] Working Report No. 10,2002 from the Danish EPA. Danish experience: Best Available Techniques (BAT) in the clothing and textile industry, document prepared for the European IPPC Bureau and the TWG Textile. See also Voncina, B and Pintar, M, “Textile Waste Recycling”, University of Maribor, Slovenia, from the proceedings of the 10^th International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology, September 2007

[2] Lacasse and Baumann, Textile Chemicals:, Environmental Data and Facts, Springer, New York, 2004, page 609.

NOTE: From: http://www.fibre2fashion.com/industry-article/3/297/safety-and-health-issues-in-the-textile-industry2.asp: OSHA requirements based on such studies as these:

A study conducted in USA revealed a correlation between the presence of cancer of the buccal cavity and pharynx and occupation in the textile industry. Another study revealed that textile workers were at high risk for developing cancer of the stomach while another study indicated a low degree of correlation between oesophageal cancer and working in the textile industry. Moreover, a high degree of colorectal cancer, thyroid cancer, testicular cancer and nasal cancer was observed among textile workers. Also, a relationship between the presence of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and working in the textile industry was observed.

[3] See, for example:

“Killer Couches”, Sara Schedler, Friends of the Earth, www.foe.org
“Dioxins and Dioxin-like Persistent Organic Pollutants in Textiles and Chemicals in the Textile Sector”, Bostjan Krizanec and Alenka Majcen Le Marechal, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Smetanova 17, SI-2000 Maribor, Slovenia; January 24, 2006
“Potentials for exposure to industrial chemicals suspected of causing developmental neurotoxicity”, Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Adjunct Professor and Marian Perez, MPH, Project Coordinator,
“The Chemicals Within” , Anne Underwood, Newsweek, January 26, 2008
Williams, Florence, “Toxic Breast Milk”, New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2005

[4] Cooper, Peter, “Clearer Communication”, Ecotextile News, May 2007

[5] http://depts.washington.edu/sfund/forthepublic/pdf/D_Rice_Agency_Seminar_SBRP_3-08.pdf

[6] Energy Information Administration, Form EIA:848, “2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey,” Form EIA-810, “Monthly Refinery Report” (for 2002) and Documentatioin for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003 (May 2005). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1204.html

[7] “Tesco carbon footprint study confirms organic farming is energy efficient, but excludes key climate benefit of organic farming, soil carbon”, Prism Webcast News, April 30, 2008, http://prismwebcastnews.com/2008/04/30/tesco-carbon-footprint-study-confirms-organic-farming%E2%80%99s-energy-efficiency-but-excludes-key-climate-benefit-of-organic-farming-%E2%80%93-soil-carbon/

[8] “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”, by Cherrett et al, Stockholm Environment Institute

[9] Gruttner, Henrik, Handbook of Sustainable Textile Purchasing, EcoForum, Denmark, August 2006.

Food vs. Fiber

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

3 comments

March 2, 2011

We’ve often been asked where we stand on the question of growing fiber crops on agricultural land when so many people go to bed hungry each night. In today’s world, you must add another “F” to the equation: fuel, because there is such a growing interest in biomass as energy. In fact, the picture is even more complicated than the phrase “food, fuel or fiber” suggests, because of the increasingly complex interactions between agriculture and industry.

One facet of the complexity of the situation is that most of these crops have multiple uses. Sixty-five percent of the cotton crop, the world’s most popular natural fiber, is used for products other than fiber. Or, put another way, we eat more of the cotton crop than we wear. Other natural fibers also have multiple uses:

Cottonseed, flaxseed and hempseed are all used in food products
Biomass from hemp is much greater than that of any other natural fiber crop, and made hemp a darling of the biofuel industry. All fiber crops can be used for biofuels
Many crops are used in livestock feed, pet food, and animal bedding and litter
They are all components of biobased polymers and other biocomposits

There was a wonderful explanation of the Food v. Fuel and Fiber argument made on Wordchanging.com, in December 2008, “Food, Fuel and Fiber? The Challenge of Using the Earth to Grow Energy” by Alan Atkisson. We have summarized the major points below:

The question is, do we have enough land to grow all the food, fuel and fiber that we’re likely to need? The answer to that question appears to be yes — but only in theory. The International Energy Agency notes that estimates on the potential for growth in biofuel production “vary considerably,” and that the most optimistic numbers “are based on the assumption of no water shortage and increased food agriculture yields in the coming decades, partly due to genetically modified crops.” This is a controversial assumption, to say the least.

Surveys from space show that there is still quite a lot of natural-plant-covered Earth remaining, which could be used for producing food, fuel, and fiber for human use. NASA recently studied how much of the Earth’s total land-based “Net Primary Productivity” — that is, the amount of solar energy captured by plants — is being used by humans, and it amounts to only 20% at the global scale. In other words, we could theoretically grow a lot more of everything on the productive land that remains. Theoretically.

But of course, “growing more of everything” means converting more natural ecosystems into human agricultural and industrial systems. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, humans have already used up about half of the earth’s ecosystems, by converting them not just into agricultural land, but into houses, roads, cities, industrial installations, and even (unfortunately) deserts. To make matters still more complicated, draw-downs in things like ecosystems and other forms of “natural capital” are not a predictable, linear processes. There are “tipping points” in those systems, points of no return beyond which gradual change switches to sudden, irreversible change. As an example, while the IUCN, the world’s largest conservation organization, was preparing its report that a quarter of the world’s mammals face extinction, a scientist for energy giant BP was being quoted as saying that his company was interested in “the green parts” of the entire globe for possible development into biofuel production.

In systems-thinking terms, this change in energy technology, policy, and markets has greatly expanded and complexified a system that was not exactly simple to start with. The growth of biofuel and fiber demand has created new couplings, new feedback loops, and new, unpredictable complexities in the global agro-economic system. The global energy/food/fiber market has become the very definition of a “wicked problem,” which is a term invented by design theorist Horst Rittel. Wicked problems are “messy, circular, and aggresive” — a very apt summary of how the food-fuel-fiber system is behaving.

Wicked problems, said Rittel and his co-theorist Webber, are a special breed of problem. There is no way to get complete information about them. There is no “best” solution to them. Trial-and-error is the only strategy; better or worse is the only way to characterize the results. In the coming years, the world economy will be involved in a vast trial-and-error effort to “balance the books” between fuel, food, and fiber, while also trying to solve the other wicked problem that triggered the increase in biofuel production in the first place: climate change.

So is it possible to find evidence of the possibility of success now? Fortunately, yes. Worldchanging pointed to a small farm in Italy which aims to be the world’s first carbon neutral farm – in just one year. This optimism makes it possible to imagine the entire global farming sector following a similar stragety, guided by sustainability principles. And new research is constantly being done which changes the expected parameters. For example, it’s possible, through biotechnology and other agricultural improvements, to increase yields of fiber and fuel crops using marginal lands. For example:

We can grow fiber/fuel crops on barren land, brownfields, and salt marshes. A recent study has found that we can even grow fiber crops on radioactively contaminated arable land.
We can irrigate and fertilize with wastewater

As a result, we can have schemes for biomass energy plants, sugar plantations growing both sugar and ethanol, and wastewater-treating algae harvested for fuel.

Flat statements about fuel and fiber competing with food are ultimately products of limited imaginations.

Our oceans and your textile choices

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

4 comments

February 23, 2011

I just don’t know what it takes to change people’s habits. We need a huge wake up call about the disastrous state of our oceans! Our oceans are our life support system. And they’re in trouble.

Because this is a blog about textile issues, I wanted to remind you that the textile industry is the world’s #1 industrial polluter of fresh water. So remember that each time you choose a fabric that has been processed conventionally, in a mill which does not treat its wastewater, you’re adding to the problem. We’re all downstream. And please also remember that a fabric marked “organic cotton” – though decidedly better than conventional cotton – is still a fabric which is 27% synthetic chemicals by weight, processed at a mill which returned the untreated, chemically infused effluent to our oceans.

Sorce: NOLA.com

People once assumed that the ocean was so large that all pollutants would be diluted and dispersed to safe levels. But in reality, they have not disappeared – and some toxic man-made chemicals have even become more concentrated as they have entered the food chain.

Tiny animals at the bottom of the food chain, such as plankton in the oceans, absorb the chemicals as they feed. Because they do not break down easily, the chemicals accumulate in these organisms, becoming much more concentrated in their bodies than in the surrounding water or soil. These organisms are eaten by small animals, and the concentration rises again. These animals are in turn eaten by larger animals, which can travel large distances with their even further increased chemical load.

Animals higher up the food chain, such as seals, can have contamination levels millions of times higher than the water in which they live. And polar bears, which feed on seals, can have contamination levels up to 3 billion times higher than their environment.

Some scientists describe the chemical change in the ocean as throwing evolution into reverse: the chemical composition is going back toward the “primordial soup,” favoring the simplest organisms – indeed, algae, bacteria and jellyfish are growing unchecked – and threatening or eliminating the more complex. There are so many jellyfish in the ocean that many fisheries have given up their normal catch and are just harvesting jellyfish.[1] Clickhere to view Jellyfish Gone Wild by the National Science Foundation. In fact, according to a report published in the Los Angeles Times, these most primitive organisms are exploding: it’s a ‘rise of slime’ as one scientist calls it. It’s killing larger species and sickening people.

A Los Angeles Times report in 2006 (click here to read the entire article) sounds like something from a horror movie: A spongy weed, reported to grow at 100 square meters per minute – literally fast enough to cover a football field sized area in an hour – has been plaguing fishermen in Australia. The culprit, it was found, is a strain of cyanobacteria known as Lyngbya majuscula, an ancestor of modern-day bacteria and algae that flourished 2.7 billion years ago. It has since shown up in at least a dozen places around the globe. It thrives in oxygen depleted water. Once established, Lyngbya creates its own nitrogen fertilizer from decaying parts of the plant.

Many fishermen in Moreton Bay avoid working in the four months every year that Lyngbya clogs their waters because it is highly toxic to them. When fishermen touch it, their skin breaks out in searing welts. Their lips blister and peel. As the weed blanketed miles of Moreton Bay over the last decade, it stained fishing nets a dark purple and left them coated with a powdery residue. When fishermen tried to shake it off the webbing, their throats constricted and they gasped for air.

After one man bit a fishing line in two, his mouth and tongue swelled so badly that he couldn’t eat solid food for a week.

Scientists in labs studying the bacteria couldn’t even be in the same room with it, the smell was so pungent. It’s like “The Blob” come to life.

Scientist Jeremy Jackson says that we have forgotten the basic rule of thumb: “Be careful what you dump in the swimming pool, and make sure the filter is working.”

And to add insult to our ocean’s injury, the number of dead zones – where there is so little oxygen only microbes can survive – has doubled every 10 years since the 1960s [2]. In 2008, there were 400 dead zones [3]. So does that make you worry? It should. This is an example of what mathematicians call “exponential growth”, and it’s the kind of thing that doesn’t really impact us until we’re about to be kicked in the teeth.

To demonstrate the concept, there is an old story about a king who was presented with a gorgeous handmade chessboard by one of his subjects. The king was delighted, and asked what the man wanted in return. The courtier surprised the king by asking for one grain of rice on the first square, two grains on the second, four grains on the third etc. The king readily agreed and asked for the rice to be brought. But there was not enough rice in the world to fill the courtier’s request (see note below) – the total amount of rice required would be 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains of rice. This is about 460 billion tons, or 6 times the entire weight of the Earth’s biomass.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

And to see how the problem can become critical overnight (because according to the laws of exponential growth, the larger the quantity becomes, the faster it grows): Imagine having a pond with water lily leaves floating on the surface. The lily population doubles in size every day and if left unchecked will smother the pond in 30 days, killing all the other living things in the water. We want to save the pond, so we check the lilies every day. Yet day after day the plant seems small and so it is decided to leave it to grow until it half-covers the pond, before cutting it back. But the pond doesn’t becomes half covered until day 29 – leaving just one day to save the pond. (4)

This concept has even led to the phrase “second half of the chessboard”, which refers to a point where an exponentially growing factor begins to have a significant impact.

So this news about the ocean dead zones – you might think that a dead zone the size of the state of Oregon is no big deal, but the area is growing exponentially. How many years do we have until we reach the second half of the chessboard?

We must stop messing up our oceans. If not for yourself, do it for your children. “You wouldn’t let a child open up a cabinet under the sink and start tasting the chemicals down there,” Fabien Cousteau says. “So why would you dump those chemicals down the drain and have them end up on your plate, which you then feed to your child?” (5)

NOTE regarding rice on the chessboard:

The total number of grains of rice on the first half of the chessboard is 1 + 2 + 4 + 8 + 16 + 32 + 64 + 128 + 256 + 512 + 1024 … + 2,147,483,648, for a total of exactly 2³² − 1 = 4,294,967,295 grains of rice, or about 100,000 kg of rice, with the mass of one grain of rice being roughly 25 mg.

The total number of grains of rice on the second half of the chessboard is 2³² + 2³³ + 2³⁴ … + 2⁶³, for a total of 2⁶⁴ − 2³² grains of rice. This is about 460 billion tonnes, or 6 times the entire weight of the Earth biomass.

On the 64th square of the chessboard there would be exactly 2⁶³ = 9,223,372,036,854,775,808 grains of rice. In total, on the entire chessboard there would be exactly 2⁶⁴ − 1 = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 grains of rice.

[1] http://www.thefishsite.com/articles/582/invasion-from-the-deep-jellyfish-swarms. To view Jellyfish Gone Wild by the National Science Foundation go to http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/jellyfish/index.jsp

[2] Diaz, Robert J., and Rosenberg, Rutger, “Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems”, Science, August 2008.

[3] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/08/ocean-dead-zones-increasing-400-now-exist.php

(4) Meadows, Donella H., Dennis L. Meadows, Jørgen Randers, and William W. Behrens III. (1972) The Limits to Growth. New York: University Books. ISBN 0-87663-165-0

(5) http://www.oprah.com/world/Ocean-Pollution-Fabien-Cousteaus-Warning-to-the-World/4

What to do about salt?

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

no comments

February 16, 2011

Last week we talked about the use of salt in textile dyeing. We always say the textile industry uses a LOT of three resources: water, chemicals and energy. The use of salt (a chemical – benign, essential for life, but a chemical nevertheless) bumps up the other two considerably. And though the salt itself is not expensive, using less salt delivers substantial benefits to the mill because the fabric requires less rinsing in hot water (and hence reductions in energy and water) as well as cost savings of up to 10% of the total process costs.[1] So we promised to look at options available to avoid salt.

To recap:

When fabrics made of cotton, linen, hemp or viscose are dyed, they’re immersed in water which contains dyes which have been dissolved in the water. These dye chemicals are usually reactive dyes which require the addition of salt to “push” the dyes out of solution and into the cloth. The salt acts like a glue to hold the dye molecules in place. But the percentage of dye that moves from the dye bath into the fiber, and permanently bonds with the fiber (called the fixation rate) is very low. For conventional reactive dyes, the fixation rate is often less than 80%, resulting in waste of dyestuff, and also the need to remove that 20% from the fabric.[2] But this is incredibly difficult when the “unreacted” dyes are still “glued” onto the fabric by salt. So vast amounts of water are required to simply dilute the salt concentrations to a point where it no longer acts as glue.

There are a few things that mill owners can do: simple process optimization can easily reduce salt concentrations in dyebaths by 10 to 15%. Another simple method is to reduce liquor ratios (which is simply the ratio of water to fabric in a dyeing process). It’s easy to see that using 10 gallons of 100 oz/gal of salt uses less salt than using 5 gallons of 100 oz/gal of salt.

There are also some “low salt” dyes that have appeared on the market. These dyestuffs require less “glue” to fix to the fibers. Ciba Specialty Chemicals, a Swiss manufacturer of textile dyes (now part of BASF) produces a dyestuff which requires less salt. As the company brochure puts it: “ Textile companies using the new dyes are able toreduce their costs for salt by up to 2 percent of revenues, a significant drop in an industry withrazor-thin profit margins.” However, we’re told they’re not used because of uncompetetitive pricing. (Remember, it’s all about the cost!).

Another alternative is to recycle the salt. The effluent can be cleaned and the salt recovered through an energy intensive process to evaporate the water. But the carbon footprint takes a beating.

We’re back to square one: to use less salt.

And that usually means we have to look to the dyeing machines. There are low-liquor-ratio (LLR) jet dyeing mcahines that are based on the principle of accelerating water through a nozzle to transport fabrics through the machine. They are designed to operate efficiently and at high quality with a very low ratio of water to material. Although these types of machines have been used for over 40 years, recent technological advances have reduced water requirements so that liquor ratios of 8:1 and even 4:1 are possible, with average water consumption of less than 50 liters per kilogram of knit fabric. Yet there is still salt infused effluent which must be treated. And these new ultra low liquor ratio machines are very expensive.

What about using no salt at all?

There are two ways to dye fabrics without salt: “continuous dyeing” and “cold pad batch dyeing”. Continuous dyeing means that the dye is applied with alkali to activate the dye fixation; the fabric is then steamed for a few minutes to completely fix the dyestuff. Cold pad batch dyeing applies the dyestuff with alkali and the fabric is simply left at room temperature for 24 hours to fix the dye.

Both of these methods don’t use salt, so the unfixed dye chemicals are easier to remove because there is no salt acting as the “glue” – and therefore less water is used. And an additional benefit is having a lower salt content in the effluent.

So why don’t companies use this method? Continuous dyeing requires investment in big, expensive machines that only make environmental sense if they can be filled with large orders – because they use lots of energy even during downtime.

Cold pad batch machines are relatively inexpensive to buy and run, they are highly productive and can be used for a wide range of fabrics. Yet only 3% of knitted cotton fabric is dyed in Asia using cold pad batch machines.

Why on earth don’t these mills use cold pad batch dyeing? I would love to hear from any mill owners who might let us know more about the economics of dyeing operations.

[1] “A Practical Guide For Responsible Sourcing”, The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), February 2010.

[2] http://lifestylemonitor.cottoninc.com/Supply-Chain-Insights/Sustainable-Dyeing-Solutions-02-10/

What can be considered the “good” chemicals in textile processing?

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

no comments

February 9, 2011

We’re often asked if ALL the chemicals used in textile processing are harmful. And the answer is (surprisingly maybe) no! Many chemicals are used, many benign, but as with everything these days there are caveats.

Let’s look at the chemical that is used most often in the textile industry: salt. That’s right. Common table salt. Safe, natural salt is used in textile dyeing.

Salt shaker painting by Jeff Hayes

The way the dyestuff bonds to the fibers is very important – and the most permanent, wash fast dyes are the most tightly attached to the fiber molecules (called reactive dyes). Here’s how salt comes into the picture:

To dye a fabric made of a cellulosic fiber (i.e., cotton, hemp, linen) or its close cousin (viscose), the fabric is put into water, where its surface gets covered in negative ionic charges. The reactive dyes used most often to dye cellulosic fabrics also develops a negative charge, so the fibers actually repel the dye – like two magnets repelling each other. If we try to dye a cellulosic fabric without using salt, the dye molecules just roll off the surface of the fibers and the fabric does not show much color change.

But when salt is added to the water, the solution splits into positive sodium ions (Na+) and negative chlorine ions (Cl-). The positive Na+ ions then dive into the surface of the fabric to neutralize the negative charge.

The dye molecules are then attracted to the fiber by weak Van der Waals forces and as the dyes get close to the fiber molecules, the salt acts like a glue to hold the dyes in place. If we add alkali, the dyestuff will permanently grab hold of the fiber and become a part of the fiber molecule rather than remaining as an independent chemical entity.

The color fastness of reactive dyes is so good that it’s no wonder that they have become so widely used. And natural salt has been crucial to their success.

We sprinkle salt on our foods – indeed salt is essential for life itself. But (there is always a “but”) the “dose makes the poison” – and the textile industry uses a LOT of salt!

The concentrations to suppress those negative ions can be as high as 100 gm per liter. In the worst cases, 1 kg of salt is used to apply reactive dye to 1 kg of fabric. Think of the billions of yards of fabric that’s produced each year: In Europe alone, 1 million tons of salt is discharged into our waterways each year.[1] In areas where salt is discharged into the ecosystem, it takes a long, long time for affected areas to recover, especially in areas of sparse rainfall – such as Tirupur, India.

Tirupur is one of the world’s centers for clothing production , home of 765 dyeing and bleaching industries. These dyehouses had been dumping untreated effluent into the Noyyal River for years, rendering the water unsuitable or irrigation – or drinking. In 2005, the government shut down 571 dyehouses because of the effluent being discharged into the Noyyal. The mill owners said they simply couldn’t afford to put pollution measures into place. The industry is too important to India to keep the mills closed for long, so the government banned the discharge of salt and asked for an advance from the mills before allowing them to re-open. But … on February 4, 2011, the Madras high court ordered 700 dye plants to be shut down because of the damage the effluent was doing to the local environment. Sigh. (Read more about Tirupur here.)

Unfortunately, the salt in textile effluent is not made harmless by treatment plants and can pass straight through to our rivers even if treated. This salt filled effluent can wreak havoc with living organisms.

There are some new “low salt” dyes that require only half the amount of “glue”, but these dyes are not widely used because they’re expensive – and manufacturers are following our lead in demanding ever cheaper fabrics.

Recycling the salt is possible, and this has been used by many of the dyers in Tirupur, and elsewhere, who operate zero discharge facilities. The effluent is cleaned and then the salt is recovered using an energy intensive process to evaporate the water and leave the solid, re-useable salt.

This sounds like a good idea – it reduces the pollution levels – but the carbon footprint goes through the roof, so salt recovery isn’t necessarily the best option. In fact, in some areas of the world where water is plentiful and the salt can be diluted in the rivers adequately, it may be better to simply discharge salt than to recover it.

But the best option is to avoid salt altogether.

Next week we’ll look at how to do that.

[1] Dyeing for a change: Current Conventions and New Futures in the Textile Color Industry (2006, July) www.betterthinking.co.uk

How to define a “luxury” fabric

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

1 comment

February 3, 2011

from red-luxury.com

For hundreds of years, a “luxury” item was something that was so well produced, so exclusive, and thus so expensive, that only the few – the elite – had access and the financial means to buy it. Luxury was marketed to the rich as being a part of their social fabric, and to everyone else as being nothing more than an aspirational ideal. In terms of fabrics, traditional luxury fibers (such as silk, cashmere, or Sea Island cotton) are today being given a run for the money by high tech fibers.

The most intriguing shift underway in our definition of luxury may well be the changing nature of individual expectations. Luxury in the past was most often defined by things, and the value people place on those things. But increasingly, possession or association with “things” seems less important as an end than as a means to something else—how those things combine to help create a sense of self.

Luxury has become more about your state of mind than the size of your wallet, as people define luxury by such things as a long lunch, or the good health to run a 5K, or escaping into a book. It means different things to different people (think “luxury camping” – some people can’t see the vaguest relationship between the two words) – but any discussion about luxury is inevitably about time, one of the only things money can’t buy. Dolce far niente. Waking up in the morning and doing exactly what you want all day. Enjoying the pleasures of the moment.

Luxury today is also about responsibility: it just doesn’t feel o.k. to buy things when people are starving and the world is becoming overheated. And maybe, as we evolved to the point where a robust middle class means that we no longer have to work just to put food in our mouths, we have found that acquiring things doesn’t provide the transcendent experience we hoped it would. We’re seeing a shift from mindless indulgence to, perhaps, justified indulgence. It’s about products being defined by how they make you feel – which is why we’re hearing about “conscious consumption”.

How can we go to bed at night and sleep the dreamless sleep of the just when the sheets we’re sleeping on have been produced by slave labor, using a slew of toxic chemicals that affect both your own health and the ecosystem. The same is true in the fashion industry – where sweatshops are still, unbelievably, common. War on Want has a campaign to fight the sweatshops that still employ millions.

We think a “luxury” fabric is one with impeccable provenance: the best quality fibers were grown organically (or if a high tech synthetic, were produced using GOTS accepted chemicals in the dyeing and weaving); the manufacture was according to GOTS standards and the workers were paid a fair wage while working in safe conditions.

Luxury is still about buying the best quality – but today you must know why it’s the best – and being knowledgeable that what you’re buying is good for the world – or at least that it doesn’t compromise my life (or yours) in the process.

Toxic textiles by Walt Disney

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

2 comments

January 27, 2011

The Walt Disney Corporation, in a letter to Greenpeace in 2003, said that “the Walt Disney Company is always concerned with quality and safety”.

Greenpeace decided to test that statement, so – as part of their campaign to show how dangerous chemicals are out of control, turning up in house dust, in household products, food, rain water, in our clothes……and ultimately in our bodies – they decided to test Disney’s childrenswear for the presence of toxic chemicals.

Disney garments, including T-shirts, pajamas and underwear, were bought in retail outlets in 19 different countries around the world and analyzed by the independent laboratory Eurofins, an international group of companies which provides testing, certification and consulting on the quality and safety of products and one of the largest scientific testing laboratories in the world.

Greenpeace asked Eurofins to test the Disney childrenswear for:

1. Phthalates

2. Alkylphenol ethoxylates

3. Organotins

4. Lead

5. Cadmium

6. Formaldehyde

We don’t have the space to fill you in on why each of these six chemicals is of grave concern, but please believe us – they’re not good. Any one of these chemicals can interfere with a child’s neurological development, for example, or can set the path for a cascade of health problems as they age.

This is what they found:

1. Phthalates: Found in all the garments tested, from 1.4 mg/kg to 200,000 mg/kg – or more than 20% of the weight of the sample.

2. Alkylphenol ethoxylates: Found in all the garments tested, in levels ranging from 34.1 mg/kg to 1,700 mg/kg

3. Organotins: found in 9 of the 16 products tested; the Donald Duck T shirt from The Netherlands had 474 micrograms/kg

4. Lead: Found in all the products tested, ranging from 0.14 mg/kg to 2,600 mg/kg for a Princess T shirt from Canada. With Denmark’s new laws on the use, marketing and manufacture of lead and products containing lead, the Princess T shirt from Canada would be illegal on the Danish market. Canada has set a limit of 600 mg/kg for children’s jewelry containing lead – why not Disney T shirts?

5. Cadmiun: Identified in 14 of the 18 products tested, ranging from 0.0069 mg/kg in the Finding Nemo T shirt bought in the UK to 38 mg/kg in the Belgian Mickey Mouse T shirt.

6. Formaldehyde: Found in 8 of the 15 products tested for this chemical in levels ranging from 23 mg/kg to 1,100 mg/kg.

One sample stands out: a German Winnie the Pooh PVC raincoat. This contained an astounding 320,000 mg/kg of total phthalates, or 32% by weight of the raincoat! This raincoat also contained 1,129 micrograms/kg organotins.

Greenpeace urged Disney to take responsibility for avoiding or substituting harmful chemicals in their products and to demand that their licensees implement a chemical policy that protects children’s heath. Disney reacted by stating that their products are in line with the law. The only action taken was to put labels on some products with a warning that those clothes contain toxic chemicals – but only in the UK (which has more stringent laws regarding chemical use than does the US), and only on a few items. Greenpeace Toxics Campaigner Oliver Knowles said, “”Their complete disregard for children’s health smacks of a Mickey Mouse company, and it’s now down to us to let the public know that these pyjamas contain dangerous chemicals.

“Perhaps it would be more apt if Buzz Lightyear’s catchphrase became “To infertility and beyond!”

SAFbaby.com has asked a variety of children’s clothing companies whether their clothing contained formaldehyde. Disney responded that they comply with all Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations. But (as SAFbaby commented): CPSC has NO regulations set for formaldehyde levels, so that reply was not helpful to us in the slightest. We are not impressed with their follow up response to us.

Disney’s refusal to be pro active in insisting their suppliers phase out hazardous substances demonstrates why voluntary initiatives don’t work. We support Greenpeace in asking that legislation to require mandatory substitution of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives be put in place.

Read the Greenpeace report on Disney’s childrenswear here.

Estimating the carbon footprint of a fabric

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

10 comments

January 19, 2011

We published this blog almost two years ago, but the concepts haven’t changed and we think it’s very important. So here it is again:

Although most of the current focus on lightening our carbon footprint revolves around transportation and heating issues, the modest little fabric all around you turns out to be from an industry with a gigantic carbon footprint. The textile industry, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is the 5^th largest contributor to CO2 emissions in the United States, after primary metals, nonmetallic mineral products, petroleum and chemicals.[1]

The textile industry is huge, and it is a huge producer of greenhouse gasses. Today’s textile industry is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gasses (GHG’s) on Earth, due to its huge size.[2] In 2008, annual global textile production was estimated at 60 billion kilograms (KG) of fabric. The estimated energy and water needed to produce that amount of fabric boggles the mind:

1,074 billion kWh of electricity or 132 million metric tons of coal and
between 6 – 9 trillion liters of water[3]

Fabrics are the elephant in the room. They’re all around us but no one is thinking about them. We simply overlook fabrics, maybe because they are almost always used as a component in a final product that seems rather innocuous: sheets, blankets, sofas, curtains, and of course clothing. Textiles, including clothing, accounted for about one ton of the 19.8 tons of total CO2 emissions produced by each person in the U.S. in 2006. [4] By contrast, a person in Haiti produced a total of only 0.21 tons of total carbon emissions in 2006.[5]

Your textile choices do make a difference, so it’s vitally important to look beyond thread counts, color and abrasion results.

How do you evaluate the carbon footprint in any fabric? Look at the “embodied energy’ in the fabric – that is, all of the energy used at each step of the process needed to create that fabric. To estimate the embodied energy in any fabric it’s necessary to add the energy required in two separate fabric production steps:

(1) Find out what the fabric is made from, because the type of fiber tells you a lot about the energy needed to make the fibers used in the yarn. The carbon footprint of various fibers varies a lot, so start with the energy required to produce the fiber.

(2) Next, add the energy used to weave those yarns into fabric. Once any material becomes a “yarn” or “filament”, the amount of energy and conversion process to weave that yarn into a textile is pretty consistent, whether the yarn is wool, cotton, nylon or polyester.[6]

Let’s look at #1 first: the energy needed to make the fibers and create the yarn. For ease of comparison we’ll divide the fiber types into “natural” (from plants, animals and less commonly, minerals) and “synthetic” (man made).

For natural fibers you must look at field preparation, planting and field operations (mechanized irrigation, weed control, pest control and fertilizers (manure vs. synthetic chemicals)), harvesting and yields. Synthetic fertilizer use is a major component of the high cost of conventional agriculture: making just one ton of nitrogen fertilizer emits nearly 7 tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases.

For synthetics, a crucial fact is that the fibers are made from fossil fuels. Very high amounts of energy are used in extracting the oil from the ground as well as in the production of the polymers.

A study done by the Stockholm Environment Institute on behalf of the BioRegional Development Group concludes that the energy used (and therefore the CO2 emitted) to create 1 ton of spun fiber is much higher for synthetics than for hemp or cotton:

KG of CO2 emissions per ton of spun fiber:
	crop cultivation	fiber production	TOTAL
polyester USA	0.00	9.52	9.52
cotton, conventional, USA	4.20	1.70	5.90
hemp, conventional	1.90	2.15	4.05
cotton, organic, India	2.00	1.80	3.80
cotton, organic, USA	0.90	1.45	2.35

The table above only gives results for polyester; other synthetics have more of an impact: acrylic is 30% more energy intensive in its production than polyester [7] and nylon is even higher than that.

Not only is the quantity of GHG emissions of concern regarding synthetics, so too are the kinds of gasses produced during production of synthetic fibers. Nylon, for example, creates emissions of N2O, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2 [8] and which, because of its long life (120 years) can reach the upper atmosphere and deplete the layer of stratospheric ozone, which is an important filter of UV radiation. In fact, during the 1990s, N2O emissions from a single nylon plant in the UK were thought to have a global warming impact equivalent to more than 3% of the UK’s entire CO2 emissions.[9] A study done for the New Zealand Merino Wool Association shows how much less total energy is required for the production of natural fibers than synthetics:

Embodied Energy used in production of various fibers:
	energy use in MJ per KG of fiber:
flax fibre (MAT)	10
cotton	55
wool	63
Viscose	100
Polypropylene	115
Polyester	125
acrylic	175
Nylon	250

SOURCE: “LCA: New Zealand Merino Wool Total Energy Use”, Barber and Pellow, http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/mats324/mats324A9%20NFETE.htm

Natural fibers, in addition to having a smaller carbon footprint in the production of the spun fiber, have many additional benefits:

being able to be degraded by micro-organisms and composted (improving soil structure); in this way the fixed CO2 in the fiber will be released and the cycle closed. Synthetics do not decompose: in landfills they release heavy metals and other additives into soil and groundwater. Recycling requires costly separation, while incineration produces pollutants – in the case of high density polyethylene, 3 tons of CO2 emissions are produced for ever 1 ton of material burnt.[10] Left in the environment, synthetic fibers contribute, for example, to the estimated 640,000 tons of abandoned fishing nets in the world’s oceans.
sequestering carbon. Sequestering carbon is the process through which CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed by plants through photosynthesis and stored as carbon in biomass (leaves, stems, branches, roots, etc.) and soils. Jute, for example, absorbs 2.4 tons of carbon per ton of dry fiber.[11]

Substituting organic fibers for conventionally grown fibers is not just a little better – but lots better in all respects: uses less energy for production, emits fewer greenhouse gases and supports organic farming (which has myriad environmental, social and health benefits). A study published by Innovations Agronomiques (2009) found that 43% less GHG are emitted per unit area under organic agriculture than under conventional agriculture.[12] A study done by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems used just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy requirements needed to synthesize nitrogen fertilizers. Further it was found in controlled long term trials that organic farming adds between 100-400kg of carbon per hectare to the soil each year, compared to non-organic farming. When this stored carbon is included in the carbon footprint, it reduces the total GHG even further.[13] The key lies in the handling of organic matter (OM): because soil organic matter is primarily carbon, increases in soil OM levels will be directly correlated with carbon sequestration. While conventional farming typically depletes soil OM, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops.

Taking it one step further beyond the energy inputs we’re looking at, which help to mitigate climate change, organic farming helps to ensure other environmental and social goals:

eliminates the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisims (GMOs) which is an improvement in human health and agrobiodiversity
conserves water (making the soil more friable so rainwater is absorbed better – lessening irrigation requirements and erosion)
ensures sustained biodiversity
and compared to forests, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire.

Organic agriculture is an undervalued and underestimated climate change tool that could be one of the most powerful strategies in the fight against global warming, according to Paul Hepperly, Rodale Institute Research Manager. The Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial (FST) soil carbon data (which covers 30 years) provides convincing evidence that improved global terrestrial stewardship–specifically including regenerative organic agricultural practices–can be the most effective currently available strategy for mitigating CO2 emissions.

At the fiber level it is clear that synthetics have a much bigger footprint than does any natural fiber, including wool or conventionally produced cotton. So in terms of the carbon footprint at the fiber level, any natural fiber beats any synthetic – at this point in time. Best of all is an organic natural fiber.

And next let’s look at #2, the energy needed to weave those yarns into fabric.

There is no dramatic difference in the amount of energy needed to weave fibers into fabric depending on fiber type.[14] The processing is generally the same whether the fiber is nylon, cotton, hemp, wool or polyester: thermal energy required per meter of cloth is 4,500-5,500 Kcal and electrical energy required per meter of cloth is 0.45-0.55 kwh. [15] This translates into huge quantities of fossil fuels – both to create energy directly needed to power the mills, produce heat and steam, and power air conditioners, as well as indirectly to create the many chemicals used in production. In addition, the textile industry has one of the lowest efficiencies in energy utilization because it is largely antiquated.

But there is an additional dimension to consider during processing: environmental pollution. Conventional textile processing is highly polluting:

Up to 2000 chemicals are used in textile processing, many of them known to be harmful to human (and animal) health. Some of these chemicals evaporate, some are dissolved in treatment water which is discharged to our environment, and some are residual in the fabric, to be brought into our homes (where, with use, tiny bits abrade and you ingest or otherwise breathe them in). A whole list of the most commonly used chemicals in fabric production are linked to human health problems that vary from annoying to profound.
The application of these chemicals uses copious amounts of water. In fact, the textile industry is the #1 industrial polluter of fresh water on the planet.[16] These wastewaters are discharged (largely untreated) into our groundwater with a high pH and temperature as well as chemical load.

Concerns in the United States continue to mount about the safety of textiles and apparel products used by U.S. consumers. Philadelphia University has formed a new Institute for Textile and Apparel Product Safety, where they are busy analyzing clothing and textiles for a variety of toxins. Currently, there are few regulatory standards for clothing and textiles in the United States. Many European countries, as well as Japan and Australia, have much stricter restrictions on the use of chemicals in textiles and apparel than does the United States, and these world regulations will certainly impact world production.

There is a bright spot in all of this: an alternative to conventional textile processing does exist. The new Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) is a tool for an international common understanding of environmentally friendly production systems and social accountability in the textile sector; it covers the production, processing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, exportation, importation and distribution of all natural fibers; that means, specifically, for example: use of certified organic fibers, prohibition of all GMOs and their derivatives; and prohibition of a long list of synthetic chemicals (for example: formaldehyde and aromatic solvents are prohibited; dyestuffs must meet strict requirements (such as threshold limits for heavy metals, no AZO colorants or aromatic amines) and PVC cannot be used for packaging).

A fabric which is produced to the GOTS standards is more than just the fabric:

It’s a promise to keep our air and water pure and our soils renewed; it’s a fabric which will not cause harm to you or your descendants. Even though a synthetic fiber cannot be certified to GOTS, the synthetic mill could adopt the same production standards and apply them. So for step #2, the weaving of the fiber into a fabric, the best choice is to buy a GOTS certified fabric or to apply as nearly as possible the GOTS parameters.

At this point in time, given the technology we have now, an organic fiber fabric, processed to GOTS standards, is (without a doubt) the safest, most responsible choice possible in terms of both stewardship of the earth, preserving health and limiting toxicity load to humans and animals, and reducing carbon footprint – and emphasizing rudimentary social justice issues such as no child labor.

And that would be the end of our argument, if it were not for this sad fact: there are no natural fiber fabrics made in the United States which are certified to the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS). The industry has, we feel, been flat footed in applying these new GOTS standards. With the specter of the collapse of the U.S. auto industry looming large, it seems that the U.S. textile industry would do well to heed what seems to be the global tide of public opinion that better production methods, certified by third parties, are the way to market fabrics in the 21^st Century.

[1] Source: Energy Information Administration, Form EIA:848, “2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey,” Form EIA-810, “Monthly Refinery Report” (for 2002) and Documentatioin for Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2003 (May 2005). http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb1204.html

[2] Dev, Vivek, “Carbon Footprint of Textiles”, April 3, 2009, http://www.domain-b.com/environment/20090403_carbon_footprint.html

[3] Rupp, Jurg, “Ecology and Economy in Textile Finishing”, Textile World, Nov/Dec 2008

[4] Rose, Coral, “CO2 Comes Out of the Closet”, GreenBiz.com, September 24, 2007

[5] U.S. Energy Information Administration, “International Energy Annual 2006”, posted Dec 8, 2008.

[6] Many discussions of energy used to produce fabrics or final products made from fabrics (such as clothing) take the “use” phase of the article into consideration when evaluating the carbon footprint. The argument goes that laundering the blouse (or whatever) adds considerably to the final energy tally for natural fibers, while synthetics don’t need as much water to wash nor as many launderings. We do not take this component into consideration because

it applies only to clothing; even sheets aren’t washed as often as clothing while upholstery is seldom cleaned.
is biodegradeable detergent used?
Is the washing machine used a new low water machine? Is the water treated by a municipal facility?
Synthetics begin to smell if not treated with antimicrobials, raising the energy score.

Indeed, it’s important to evaluate the sponsors of any published studies, because the studies done which evaluate the energy used to manufacture fabrics are often sponsored by organizations which might have an interest in the outcome. Additionally, the data varies quite a bit so we have adopted the values which seem to be agreed upon by most studies.

[7] Ibid.

[8] “Tesco carbon footprint study confirms organic farming is energy efficient, but excludes key climate benefit of organic farming, soil carbon”, Prism Webcast News, April 30, 2008, http://prismwebcastnews.com/2008/04/30/tesco-carbon-footprint-study-confirms-organic-farming%E2%80%99s-energy-efficiency-but-excludes-key-climate-benefit-of-organic-farming-%E2%80%93-soil-carbon/

[9] Fletcher, Kate, Sustainable Fashion and Textiles, Earthscan, 2008, Page 13

[10] “Why Natural Fibers”, FAO, 2009: http://www.naturalfibres2009.org/en/iynf/sustainable.html

[11] Ibid.

[12] Aubert, C. et al., (2009) Organic farming and climate change: major conclusions of the Clermont-Ferrand seminar (2008) [Agriculture biologique et changement climatique : principales conclusions du colloque de Clermont-Ferrand (2008)]. Carrefours de l’Innovation Agronomique 4. Online at <http://www.inra.fr/ciag/revue_innovations_agronomiques/volume_4_janvier_2009>

[13] International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO and Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL); Organic Farming and Climate Change; Geneva: ITC, 2007.

[14] 24^th session of the FAO Committee on Commodity Problems IGG on Hard Fibers of the United Nations

[15] “Improving profits with energy-efficiency enhancements”, December 2008, Journal for Asia on Textile and Apparel, http://textile.2456.com/eng/epub/n_details.asp?epubiid=4&id=3296

[16] Cooper, Peter, “Clearer Communication,” Ecotextile News, May 2007.

Polyester – to recycle or not to recycle?

O Ecotextiles (and Two Sisters Ecotextiles)

4 comments

January 12, 2011

I know it’s hard to imagine that the lovely fabric you’re eyeing for that chair – so soft and supple and luxurious – is just another plastic.

But because 60% of all polyethylene terephalate (PET – commonly called polyester) manufactured globally is destined to be made into fibers to be woven into cloth, and because polyester absolutely dominates the market, and because the textile industry has adopted using recycled polyester as their contribution to help us fight climate change, I think it’s important that we keep up with topics in recycling plastic.

”A Tribute to PET Bottles“ by Czech Sculptor Veronika Richterová

If using recycled polyester is good, then using “post consumer” PET bottles is deemed the highest good. But an interesting thing is happening with PET bottles and recycling, according to a study published in August, 2010, by SRI Consulting, which is, according to their web site, the world’s leading business research service for the global chemical industry (www.sriconsulting.com). The study, PET’s Carbon Footprint: To Recycle or Not to Recycle, caused more than a few ripples because it concluded that in many cases recycling bottles is no better — and could be worse — than landfilling.
The study’s key finding — widely reported — is that a recycling facility needs to recover at least 50 percent of the material it takes in if it is to achieve a more environmentally favorable carbon footprint than simply disposing directly to landfill. The key is to improve yields , especially in sorting and to a lesser extent, in reprocessing.

This study addresses two key questions:

should we recycle plastics?
what are the carbon footprints of virgin (vPET) and recycled PET (rPET)

In order to calculate the carbon footprint of various PET products, the study calculated the carbon footprint for PET bottles used to package drinks from “cradle to grave,” i.e., extending from production of raw materials (primarily oil and gas) through to disposal of all wastes. The study considers a base case—bottles are used by consumers in northwest Europe, collected in a curbside system and sent on for sorting and recycling—and variations on that theme, including PET-only take-back (as currently practiced in Switzerland) as well as no recycling (with scenarios of “all landfill” and “all incineration”). Sensitivities of all major variables were assessed.

The study concludes that the curbside take-back systems are no better than landfill, in terms of carbon footprint. From a carbon-emissions standpoint, it would be just as well to bury used bottles as to recycle them, and either would be a better option than burning them. The study found that landfilling PET bottles from certain systems rather than incinerating them could reduce carbon footprint by 30%. Call it “carbon capture and storage” on an economy budget. The key is to have the room – and if you read Thomas Friedman’s Hot, Flat and Crowded you may be hard pressed to agree that there could ever be anyplace on the planet with room!

SRI report author Eric Johnson told FoodProductionDaily.com that transportation and processing costs, as well as low yields of pure PET (of below 50 per cent) from curbside recycling collections such as Germany’s DSD ‘Green Dot’ programme, warranted SRI’s conclusion. (read article here)

Johnson said: “In terms of resource squandering [of oil in particular], if it takes more resources to recycle bottles … than to produce units from virgin PET then this is irresponsible. If you’re going to recycle…do it properly.”

Jane Bickerstaffe, director of the UK Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, concurred with Johnson’s point that rPET purity was a significant hindrance to worthwhile recycling, given that it affected recoverable PET levels: “Quality of recyclate is a big issue because the energy costs to separate out contaminants and clean the polymer are significant,” she said. (1)

As you might expect, there was a bit of an uproar over the study.

Casper van den Dungen, EuPR PET working group chairman, condemned SRI Consulting’s report: “By applying SRI Consulting’s results we would … lose valuable [rPET] material in landfills. The model used is intrinsically wrong, as in reality landfill should be avoided as a starting principle.” (2)

Antonio Furfari from EuPR added: “The wrong signal is that landfill is good for environment. Landfilling is not acceptable for environmental and resources efficiency reasons, and CO2 is not the only environmental variable.” (3)

And yet, Jane Bickerstaffe had this comment: “It’s worth noting that landfilling inert materials like PET is just like putting back the sand, granite etc. that was dug out of a hole in the ground in the first place. Inert materials are benign, whereas biodegradable materials such as cabbage leaves and potato peelings generate methane in landfill and have a negative impact on climate change.” (4)

The findings of this study hinge on how the plastics are collected. Recycling programs using curbside collection typically displace less than 50% of new PET (polyethylene terephthalate). Community programs with plastic bottle take-back, mandated separate collection, or deposits on bottles tend to report much higher displacement rates. For regions that already have a recycling infrastructure, the aim should be to boost recycled PET (rPET) displacement of virgin PET (vPET) significantly above 50%. The key seems to be in increasing yields rather than improving collection rates. In countries where there is no recycling infrastructure, the best choice may well be to landfill bottles.”

It seems to me that, in consideration of “should we recycle plastics” – the answer is (as it almost always is): “it depends”. Should we use only carbon footprint as a yardstick? Sometimes you have to pull back and take in the big picture; as one blogger put it, “It’s unconscionable to pay out the nose for foreign oil so that we can produce more soda bottles to package up products that make our population fat and unhealthy.”

And how does all that trash get into the oceans? How does that figure into this equation?

Hey, I never promised answers.

(1) Bouckley, Ben; “Plastic recycling body slams report advising countries to landfill PET bottles”, FoodProductiondaily.com, September 2, 2010

(2) Ibid.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.