Saint of Killers wrote:I think people think like that because they believe they have to make huge changes from the get go, as opposed to making small changes and going from there. One of the small changes I made is that I wash my printed tees less often as I am assuming the print is made using PVC, solvents, etc.
The way I approach it as a garment decorator is while yes using ethical suppliers, and paying attention to policies on for instance water usage or organic production (although organic farming can in some cases actually be worse) is important, things like fabric weight and customising the garment as a one-off make it inherently more valuable and unique to the customer meaning they are more likely to keep it and wear it for 5-10yr+ than really any other kind of garment. It also means they're doing that instead of supporting a supply chain of print runs going into the thousands 10k or even hundreds of thousands of units, a large portion of which may potentially never be sold and destroyed because they can't be stored.
And of course the answer is to stop buying or even wearing clothes. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place because I've identified a tiny market and I can only make a living by creating things which inevitably means using resources and in some cases virgin resources - nobody is going to buy a print made on a second hand shirt. I can offset that buy recycling and re-using about 90% of stuff and having low carbon footprint.
I would encourage people to by more old stock or second hand prints on sites like Depop though rather than the mass suppliers. If you're conscious and you see an opportunity to refresh your daily attire from 5-10yr+ other shirts (my last few uniclo shirts specifically were from 2011) for a lower price, that's a fairly environmentally conscious act because by waiting for deals you're wearing your existing closet for longer. I'd say different if it was 5, 10 shirts that only get warn once or not at all. I've recycled and donated some clothes but I've never in my life simply thrown them away - some people do do that.
Price does matter for the ecologically conscious because it usually reflects the quality of the supply chain and who is getting paid and where - obviously fair trade garments are more likely to be expensive. You can only make £2-4 for a garment go so far, usually this is to the factory and distribution and barely anything for the resource, which means low cost (chemical) agriculture and exploitation of farmers. I'd class fast fashion as more shops like GAP, Primark, H&M, River Island etc. because they are incredibly cheap or cycle through "seasons" very quickly with enormous stock levels.
Limited run printed tees are a little different because they tend to be done in batches (screen print) and rarely printed on demand (or sewn or made up in other ways for a practically limitless supply). Bear in mind a T-shirt from somewhere like Primark is £1, £7 discounted is more to pay and then I charge something like £20-£25 to compensate myself fairly. My supplies aren't the cheapest but I'll admit they're exceptional value. Cotton is totally unsustainable in its current state and so I'll be switching to organic and bamboo, hemp or recycled plastic based garments in the next 3-5 years I reckon, provided my market can carry the burden of increased cost, as I cannot subsidise it (most small businesses can't). I already subsidise the better quality 200 gram shirts that I think will last longer. I keep an eye on what the industry is saying in this regard because it's aware consumer habits are changing and so there needs to be an answer to that or livelihoods in this sector will suffer as well as the environment.
Also my prints are polyurethane base mostly so no PVC and free from thousands of known carcinogens, they are ecologically inert (similar to silicone which gets put in our own bodies) and so release no harmful chemicals, the organisation that tests for this Oeko-tex and the same standard applies to the garment and dyes used:
https://www.oeko-tex.com/en/business/ce ... tart.xhtmlYou can find out all sorts of stuff about how things are made with ecological and ethical values, most clothing websites have some kind of environmental policy or CSR report but yeah some places there's zero about it or just really bad 1 paragraph policies. Don't buy from those places as there is a knock-on effect of doing so, they should be going out of business as it's right the customer's attitudes to environmental impact are changing for the better. The best printers choose their suppliers, factory partner etc. diligently and are transitioning over to more sustainable threads. But I still think people should buy less overall and make each purchase more meaningful if they're going to buy new clothes at all, that's why I do what I do. I don't think I'll ever mass produce anything because the environmental onus is so strong/bad with apparel it will never really be "good" or zero impact, that's fundamentally impossible. Artists depend a lot of fossil-fuel derived products as well such as paint usually is an oil product. The only relatively friendly practice I can think of in independent artist/makers is woodwork using only recycled or FSC wood and even then you will find them using high emission finishing oils, varnishes, glues agents etc. It's really a very hard problem to solve and the route of it is capitalism which businesses can't really do anything about unless they start only accepting bread or barter for currency etc. which wouldn't go down so well with g'ment etc. because then how are you paying taxes. It's all set up to fail, the entire system is unsustainable.
I think of things like recycled PET fibres but then that is totally dependent on fossil fuel extraction to make the original material, high energy usage to convert it from recycled collection to new usable fibres which uses more carbon - even if you are using non-virgin materials you are depending on the original source. The route of the problem is the existence and proliferation of endless products that are generated need via marketing etc. and that includes clothes. We do not need to wear clothes to survive yet we do and so we want to customise them to suit our tastes. Yet you don't see nudists running around denouncing the apparel industry, some of these problems are so deep they can only be addressed on a surface level by the industries seeking to make a profit/livelihood from their existence. Only consumer attitudes can change commerce and resource/environment problems from that;- you need to change people for the problem to go away, and since that's the hardest thing most businesses simply don't bother, besides why should they encourage individuals to change if they're going to lose money and not be able to make ends meet or pay people's salaries next month? Most businesses would say no they wouldn't change and on some level I think even the most diehard environmentalist can understand that, because at the end of the day it's a human problem not a planetary one. Those things were never really aligned in the past few thousand years of human civilisation and late stage capitalism is just highlighting how strawberry floated this really is.
Jesus christ I need to go to bed now.