Can we really compare meat to fossil fuels?

Many sustainability proponents these days encourage us to become vegetarians. At least once a day there is some article along these lines in my Twitter feed. Unfortunately, there are many arguments circulating in this debate that are quite misleading. The worst error people make, in my opinion, is to equate emissions from cattle with emissions from fossil fuels.

This is simply misleading because these emissions have very different relationships to the carbon cycle. By burning fossil fuels we are adding carbon to the carbon cycle whereas emissions from cattle have a role within the carbon cycle, it naturally belongs there.

Let me explain. We all learnt about the carbon cycle in school and thus we should know that carbon circulates between the atmosphere, to plants, to animals and us humans and is yet again released into the air. Microorganisms such as bacteria and fungi etc. also play a role in this. It is how it should work in nature. Animals have a part to play in this cycle by both storing and releasing carbon in different forms.

Now whereas cattle is part of this normal carbon cycle fossil fuels are not. Fossil fuel is stored away carbon that is suddenly released into the atmosphere through human intervention. Because the natural carbon cycle cannot absorb all this added carbon, a larger portion of it remains in the atmosphere. The natural equivalent is a volcanic eruption. But these days we have constant man-made emissions of such stored away carbon. This way, we add carbon to the atmosphere that was not there before and would not have been released without us. This is indisputable and should really be our focus since we know this for certain.

Now some argue that because we hold cattle as part of our food chain we have affected the carbon cycle by raising more cows than what existed before human intervention, i.e. before animal husbandry. That there are more animals on earth today, and particularly ruminants, is a hypothesis that is difficult to prove. We don’t know exactly how many animals existed before our animal husbandry or how many of these were ruminants, so it is only estimates. Even if there are more ruminants living on earth today, it is not necessarily a problem because cattle also absorbs carbon. Just as us humans, their bodies are partly built of carbon that is released through breathing and when we die etc.

The problem with more ruminants on earth, according to the veggie proponents, is that ruminants release more methane than other animals. Thus we have shifted the carbon cycle towards more methane, they argue. However, the more we learn about methane, it is not really an isolated case of cows as such but methane producing bacteria that we find in all kinds of environments. Moreover, most of these emissions do belong to the natural carbon cycle that was there before us. It is possible that human behavior provide more beneficial environments for these methane bacteria, by raising more ruminants (who release methane) and rice agriculture. But then again, there might have been wild animals and natural swamps before and if so there has not been a significant change. We basically don’t know. There are estimates in both directions.

Acting on very incomplete information on how methane acts is in my opinion risky. Before we start to mess with the methane-producing bacteria in the cow’s stomach (which they are now starting to do), let’s learn more on how it actually operates. And when we do address methane, let’s include all man-made sources such as rice, landfills and wetlands too.

Thus we see that equating fossil fuel emissions to emissions from cattle is misleading. In the case of fossil fuels we know that we have added carbon to the carbon cycle and in these amounts it cannot be absorbed in the cycle (although the oceans have compensated a lot). In the case of cows, we don’t really know whether we have shifted the carbon cycle towards more methane because of animal husbandry. Moreover,  the case is not just about cows but methane producing bacteria that could be affected by many of our activities. We still need to learn much more. So until we do, let’s address the things we know for certain and that are urgent: our red meat habit is pretty stable whereas our flying habits have exploded the last decades.

There’s so much more to say on the subject of climate change and food but I find this to be one of the main points.

On the picture: cow at Lovö Prästgård in the Stockholm area.

Is expensive fashion more sustainable?

You might, as I once did, think that you avoid the sustainability issues in fashion because you don’t shop at H&M, Gina Tricot, Dressman etc.

The short answer is no, expensive fashion is not necessarily more sustainable. Luxury production in Europe should guarantee better working conditions and less chemicals, but only a few luxury brands still produce in Europe. Those who do might only produce certain parts of the collection in Europe. And ‘Made in Italy’ can these days mean made by Chinese in Italy. Even when something is made in Europe, the fabric may be imported. Luxury brands often source their materials from outside of Europe and then we have the issues with conventional cotton and synthetic fibre etc.

There are also environmental issues with the chrome and heavy metals involved in tanning of leather. If you do want a new luxury bag, check where the leather came from, that it can be tracked to sustainable farming, and for vegetable tanning. I found that Swedish brand Palmgrens had a longstanding relationship the Italian farm the leather derived from and used vegetable tanning processes for a certain bag. Thus it’s the last bag I’ve bought, before my current year of no-shopping, and I don’t feel I compromised on design just because I focused on sustainability.

Another issue with luxury brands is that they don’t consider the environmental impact of care. Many put dry cleaning on the care instructions (as on this Ralph Lauren jacket, made in the Philippines) which isn’t environmentally friendly. And, in many cases, the items are better cared for by hand washing. I don’t know how many times the dry cleaner couldn’t remove stains and when I try at home, as a last resort, it works perfectly. Money and chemicals wasted.

The luxury conglomerates seem to lack a thorough understanding of sustainability issues. For example, when LVMH reports on biodiversity, they write about how they finance biodiversity research rather than how they take biodiversity into account in their sourcing of raw materials. Now I am all for funding research, of course, but certain issues we already know a lot about, such as pesticides and biodiversity. We can act on these today.

Similarly, it is admirable that Kering has developed the Environmental Profit and Loss account (which I often teach to students) but more important is how they handle their everyday sustainability challenges. I searched for organic on Kering’s website and only found ‘organic growth’.

Taking the opposite road, many cheap brands are not as diligent about working conditions and where things are made* but are instead rapidly increasing their share of ‘better’ or organic cotton and renewable fibre. They hardly ever prescribe dry cleaning. But then again they don’t make clothes that should last.

Thus while some brands are working on social issues and others focus on some of the environmental, few brands cover all the necessary issues. Those who do are generally those that started their business with a sustainability focus. These brands are generally slightly more expensive than fast fashion but usually much cheaper than luxury brands.

So the answer is no: price is not a good indicator of sustainability.

* The Inditex group (Zara, Massimo Dutti etc. ) is an interesting exception. Around 60% of their suppliers are located in proximity to the headquarters in Spain.

Slow Fashion in memory of Rana Plaza

This week it’s four years since the Rana Plaza disaster in Bangladesh . 2500 workers were injured and 1129 killed when the eight-storey factory collapsed. This event is commemorated with the Fashion Revolution Week each year. Customers and consumers are encouraged to ask their brands ‘who made my clothes?’. Consequently, social media is buzzing with activity and many brands have shared pictures and stories about their production, for example Serendipity Organics and many more (to see the brands and their stories follow @fash_rev on Instagram). Even conventional fashion media, such as British Vogue, report on the activity.

Many of those active during Fashion Revolution Week are also all year round Slow Fashion proponents. Karen Templer of Slow Fashion October did a thoughtful  blog post defining ‘Slow Fashion’ as considering the human, environmental and monetary cost of clothing as well as taking full responsibility for what we own:

By take responsibility, I mean commit to wearing each item (whatever it is, wherever it came from) for as long as it lasts, extending the lives of things through care and mending, and re-homing anything that doesn’t work for you.

Independent pattern maker ‘In the folds‘ organised an Instagram challenge to direct attention to the time and skill it takes to make clothing. Most clothes are still made by hand and it should be valued, whether we do it ourselves or someone does it for us, she argues.

Elisalex of ‘By Hand London‘ made tutorials for Fashion Revolution Week on how to embroider and sew on patches to cover wholes, imperfections or just to make items more fun. The purpose is to make our clothing more useful so that we use what we have instead of buying new or throwing things out. The workers put a lot of effort into making clothing for us, one way to value their work is to give the clothing a long life (find my strategies for doing so here)

It seems to me that the Slow Fashion movement is here to stay. It is starting to have a presence in social media all year round. Fashion Revolution Week keeps the memory of Rana Plaza alive and educates customers and consumers about social responsibility in fashion production. The question is if the brands are changing their ways as fast as their customers are learning about the issues.

The Rana Plaza disaster shouldn’t have happened but it did. Supporting better and safer business practices is one way to commemorate the events.

How businesses handle legal but toxic chemicals

Some might believe that the use of manufactured chemical substances is tightly and safely regulated. Unfortunately it is not necessarily the case. In many cases we do not know yet if something is toxic (for example hormone-disrupting chemicals). In other cases we think it is safe and later find out that it is not. A famous example is the insecticide DDT that not only affected the environment but turned out to be an endocrine disruptor and likely carcinogen. It is prohibited since the 1970s but still found in our bodies and the environment. In certain cases, the company using the substance knows it is dangerous but conceals the information. The latter seems to be the case of Monsanto and glyphosate.

Sometimes businesses are in fact allowed to use substances that are toxic to us and the environment. One current example is PFOS and PFOA. They are water and stain repellent fluorosurfactants, used in all kinds of products. I found it in my water proofing spray for shoes and bags (that I am consequently handing in as toxic waste). They are legal to use. Today, however, we know that they do not degrade and thus accumulate in the environment: in the air, water and our food. They are commonly found in breast milk. In large enough doses it’s toxic and carcinogenic to us. While we are all exposed to it to some degree, the inhabitants of Swedish Kallinge were unknowingly exposed to large doses in their drinking water. Similarly, inhabitants close to DuPont’s factory in West Virginia were exposed to large doses too and developed all kinds of diseases (and successfully sued the company that was aware that it poisoned the water). Dupont has also contaminated the air around a factory in Holland for many years with a similar substance. Swedish environmental radio show Klotet made a very good reportage about these substances this week (in Swedish).

What can we as individuals do? When the substances are out there (and they travel far, for example to the Arctic) we cannot stop them on our own.

However, we can support the companies that voluntarily limit their use of the legal but proven, or potentially, toxic substances.

We can also avoid items that contribute to this pollution, such as teflon, ski wax, stain and water repellent textiles. If we worry about our drinking water, a charcoal filter absorbs PFAS (charcoal filter made a difference in Kallinge ).

Businesses, on the other hand, can learn from the DuPont lawsuits that concealing information about toxicity and contamination is unethical business practice. Even if the substance is legal, they now have to pay for the contamination and health consequences.

Can conscious consumerism change the world?

Last week, I heard from two sources that conscious consumerism, i.e. using your purchases to support good business practices is not enough. In this podcast, Stiv Wilson argues that we need to get political instead. Which is exactly what their organization Story of Stuff is all about. This article by blogger Alden Wicker states it a little more harshly:

“Conscious consumerism is a lie. Small steps taken by thoughtful consumers—to recycle, to eat locally, to buy a blouse made of organic cotton instead of polyester—will not change the world”.

These kinds of arguments are used in two contexts: those that want us to get involved politically instead, as in the above two cases, or those that want to give up, ‘it doesn’t matter anyway’, ‘we can’t change the system’ and so on.

Unsurprisingly, I do believe my purchases matter. I believe in political power too. I also believe I can make a difference with my research and teaching. Basically, let’s use the means that are available to us and with which we are comfortable. Some people are comfortable marching for environmental causes, others are more comfortable changing their purchasing behavior. However, like the politician that argues for public service and then doesn’t pay the tv-licence, it is desirable to try to be consistent.

How could then purchasing behavior make a difference? Will H&M or Varner notice that I am doing a no-shopping year? No, they will not. Most likely we cannot affect H&M and Varner politically either. They are private companies, not states, and they can shop around for the tax and environmental rules that suit them, if they like.

So the impact of purchasing behavior depends on who you are trying to affect and how important your purchases are to them.

My local organic food store in Bergen has only so many customers and I purchase most of my food there. They would notice if I move. The people I purchase food from at the farmers market might notice (Bergen’s farmers market on the picture above) . Based on this fact, I feel quite comfortable telling people to stop buying from the fashion giants (they will not notice) and start buying from small sustainable brands (who will notice). For small businesses, your purchase does make a difference.

At this point, the ‘elitist’ argument usually appears. The small sustainable brands are more expensive. Not everyone can afford to buy all their food at the organic food store. This is absolutely true but it is not an argument against conscious purchasing behavior generally. We who can afford the sustainable brands have a bigger environmental footprint than people with less purchasing power. It is more important that those with the biggest environmental impact and who can afford do change their behavior. Moreover, buying food directly from the farmer is not necessarily more expensive. Second hand stores are terribly cheap.  Most likely, we could all save money by buying less and learning to mend.

But how do we affect the big companies that are larger than states and that we cannot affect by vote or with our individual purchases? I think maybe social movements can play a role here. These companies are at least concerned with trends among customers. How large groups of consumers behave affect their business. Now I might have prided myself in being the only one I know that is on a shopping fast. Getting active on Instagram, however, I soon discovered that there are many more like me. You could even say I am late to the trend. We are not as unique as we might like to believe. If I decide to only buy grass-fed local meat, there are many more like me, acting on similar impulses. Most likely we are already part of some social movement or trend, whether we know it or not. And, as group, how we behave does concern these companies.

So, in my opinion, our consumption does impact the world and if you choose to purchase consciously it will too. This, however, is not an excuse for politicians and companies to not do their job and instead put all responsibility on the consumer’s shoulders (as happens all to often). We have some big challenges, so we all need to do our best.

When pollution comes back to haunt us

You might remember the cadmium in imported rice scandal or lead in imported rice scandal. These are examples of heavy metal contamination of imported foods. ‘We import foods from countries with too low environmental standards’, you might think. And that’s true.

But how did the heavy metals end up in the foods? How did a fifth of China’s farmland become contaminated? Countries like China and India have for quite some time been producing for our consumption. It has been attractive because of price, but it has also been done under lower environmental standards. One example is the dyeing of clothes. Another example is the production of pharmaceuticals. We know that these industries pollute the water and soils (and there are of course further industries in this category). We also know that residuals of the toxic waste may remain in what we import.

So, ironically,  when these countries produce for our consumption, the resulting pollution comes back to haunt us in the foods we import.

Even more ironically, while contamination of soils in India and China is spreading, we are in Scandinavia placing buildings on uncontaminated good soils that used to be farmland. The national strategy is to rely on imports, both of foods and other kinds of manufacturing. When this is the strategy, we have an interest in the countries that we are now dependent on. It is in our interest that their farmland and water supply remains uncontaminated so that they can continue to produce for us. There is only so much farmland in the world. If our strategy is to rely on imports, then we need to be concerned with the pollution in the countries we import from. Because it is not only the local population’s food supply that is contaminated, it’s ours too.

A month without shopping

It’s been a month since my no-shopping commitment. Abstaining from shopping has been easy. Possibly because I had already quit habits such as reading fashion magazines and window shopping.

What’s more challenging is to wear what I own. All of it. They say women only use 20 per cent of our wardrobes (some say 30 and others 44 per cent). Supposedly, men are even worse and only wear 13 per cent of their wardrobe. The minimalist and decluttering initiatives tell us that’s a good reason to get rid of the unused 80/70/56 per cent. What they fail to mention is that throwing things out contributes to more textile waste. The longer we wear something, the better it is for the environment.

Personally, since I’m not shopping, I’m stuck with what I have. So if I want variation, I need to wear everything in my wardrobe. I have to turn the 80 per cent that’s currently collecting dust into things more wearable. Fortunately, there are some easy strategies for doing so.

Mending. Somehow I never learnt to properly mend clothes. I do remember my mom mending my torn pants as a kid but I never really adopted this habit myself. Having things mended for you is, sadly, sometimes as expensive as buying new things. Luckily, there are lots of help to be found on the internet. Wornvalues has a great tutorial for mending knits, for example. Katrina Rodabaugh has a tutorial for elbow patches. Cotton and curls for how to remove pilling and removing stains on shoes.

Second life sewing. Clothes beyond repair can be turned into ‘new’ things. Traditionally, we made rugs out of left over textiles. Aiayu, does so with their textile waste. But you can also make clothes. I removed the torn sleeves from a shirt and thus making it sleeveless. Using the left over fabric and another torn shirt, I made Willow tank, for example. All you need to know is how to operate a sewing machine.

Refashioning. For clothes that are wearable but where you don’t like the style or the size, refashion them. Make the hem a bit shorter or cut off the collar. I’ve been following Wornvalues tutorial for making a cardigan out of a former v-neck sweater that I never wear. This way I get a ‘new’ red cardigan without shopping. Cotton and curls have a tutorial for making jeans slightly bigger, which seems useful.

Dyeing. You can simply dye a garment if you don’t like its color. This natural dyeing book is on my wish list. I’m planning to dye a boringly white dress.

Embellishment. One of my new year’s resolutions is to start embroidering. This is a great way to make some garment a little more fun. There are again lots of inspiration on the internet on how to embroider clothes, for example Elisalex of By Hand LondonTessa Perlow or these collars by Nadya Sheremet.

Styling. If truth be told, there are also items that are absolutely wearable as they are but that I still don’t wear (typically stockings with pattern). In these cases, I have to challenge myself to put on the garments that are not in the comfort zone (but that I at some point thought was a good idea). I find that the key is to figure out new combinations. What I would love is some super inspiring blog for how to wear not-so-easy-to-wear things in ones wardrobe. How to combine items we already own but rarely wear to look really stylish. However, the styling blogs and Instagram accounts I encounter typically try to get us to buy things from different brands. There’s just much more available ‘inspiration’ to buy things and so much less for taking care of what you’ve got. But it does exist and the above are some of my favorites.

Got recommendations for blogs that style what we already own or other take-care-of-your-wardrobe tricks? Please share !

What we pay workers in developing countries

On Wednesday night, I was out talking about my research. Since the fashion industry had been on my mind lately, I decided to use it as an example of how we can measure companies’ sustainability. When I was about to speak I realised the audience was, apart from two women, only men. On average 50+. A crowd that might not be so concerned with fashion.

In hindsight, I’m glad I didn’t adjust my examples to the audience.  I suspect 50+ men do not get preached to about environmental problems and working conditions in the fashion industry so often. They were surprisingly interested. I was asked about child labour, so there is some awareness in this crowd too.

This time, I used working conditions in the supply chain as one indicator of how ambitious a company is in regards to sustainability. These issues are of course not limited to the fashion industry. A recent Swedwatch report shows that the tobacco industry might be worse. Child labour in combination with hazardous argochemicals is a  very bad combination (smokers- choose organic and Fairtrade!). While wine production might not be equally bad, there’s still good reason to consider how certain wine stays so cheap.

There are many components to working conditions but one of the most important ones is wage. There are certain key terms or certifications that we can look for as they indicate what the company is paying the workers.

Many companies simply pay minimum wage. This is the legal minimum in a country and part of what lures companies to start production in a ‘new’ developing country. But these ‘new’ low wage countries come with problems, as HM recently learnt (again!) when it got out that they (again) had child labour in the supply chain earning less than the minimum wage. Getting labour in Myanmar as cheap as a third of the hourly rate in China must have been very tempting.

Paying the minimum wage is, in many cases, not sustainable as it is not necessarily enough for workers to support themselves. Consequently, the companies get trouble over time because workers have to work overtime to support themselves.

Recognising that they have to go beyond minimum wage, some companies then decide to pay a ‘fair wage’. It is sometimes unclear what this exactly entails, but it is should be more than minimum wage. Norwegian Varner (Dressman, Bik Bok, Cubus, Volt, Solo etc.) is in the process doing something in this area but we don’t know what they will eventually decide on.

A little more ambitious and well defined is the concept ‘living wage’. According to most, a living wage should at least be able to support the worker and a child or half a family. If you’ve seen documentaries where female workers send their children away because they cannot take care of them, then living wage sounds pretty good. HM has said that they will pay a living wage for ‘strategic’ suppliers from 2018. It’ll be interesting to see if they achieve this goal.

A decently ambitious standard that requires companies to pay living wage is SA8000, used by for example Aiayu.

Some companies go further and adopt some kind of Fairtrade certification. This generally means that the community of workers get paid a little extra in order to invest in the community. Two examples are  Patagonia (American Fairtrade) and Serendipity Organics (FLOCERT).

Even more ambitious are, from my point of view,  artisan collaborations. Rather than putting people in factories, when working with local artisan groups and communities companies support people in their existing traditional craft skills. This has a cultural value of its own. One fashion example in this category is People Tree. Within furniture there’s American West Elm. IKEA also has occasional collections in this category.

It is always important to check how big part of the production any of these initiatives apply to. Sometimes companies announce these initiatives so boldly that it seems as if it concerns the whole company when in fact it is only a pilot project.

A final note on poverty. Many chains argue that by placing orders in developing countries they help alleviate poverty in that country. It would be worse if they closed production (as if paying minimum wage or closing production are the only two options). However, if companies wanted to alleviate poverty there are many other ways to do so. Putting people in factories for long hours and paying minimum wage (and sometimes failing at that) is arguably not the best way. 

Another thing we often hear is that Western companies pay more than local companies. So Western companies are already doing something good by being slightly better than these companies. But that’s why our companies placed the production there, because its among the lowest wages in the world. How difficult is it to be ‘good’ when you are comparing yourself to producers acting at the bottom?

Antibiotic resistant bacteria found in children

New research findings this week report that one in five of kindergarten kids carry antibiotic resistant bacteria. This was in Sweden, one of the countries with the lowest antiobiotic use in the world (Norway is one of the few better performing countries). Until now, Swedes could feel safe knowing that relatively low national use in humans and animals is enough to keep antiobiotic resistance at bay.

But we live in a globalised world. Our import of food from countries with extensive use of antibiotics keep increasing. We also travel extensively and pick up resistant bacteria when doing so, particularly if we take antiobiotics in countries where resistant bacteria is common.

There are some aspects here we as individuals cannot control. National and International politics have to work on lowering antibiotics use for example in China and the US.

But there are also things we can do. Antibiotic resistance is one of the most important arguments for buying Swedish or, even better, Norwegian food. While some think antibiotic resistance only concerns meat and is avoided by going vegetarian, unfortunately it is not as easy. All vegetables has to be pollinated and bees used for this purpose are also treated with antibiotics, just like animals. Resistant bacteria are found here too.  So to limit the use of antibiotics and hence resistance, we should buy food from low antibiotics countries. The question is not so much which foods we buy as the amount of antibiotics the producing country allows. 

By importing more and more food from countries with high antibiotic use, as we’ve done the last decades, we contribute to the antibiotic resistance problem.

While it is easy to make conscious choices in the supermarket, a lot of the imported foods are consumed when eating out. We can always ask though, which country the food comes from and let it inform our choice.

Norway this year strengthened the requirement to consider social and environmental aspects in public procurement.  I hope schools, hospitals and public work places will take this opportunity to consider antibiotic use when buying foods for schools and hospitals. Because these are the places that will most likely suffer from antibiotic resistance when it increases.

Plastic pollution: what we can do about it

There’s been a lot of talk about plastic in the news lately. There are at least three reasons to be very concerned about the plastic pollution.

Animal welfare. Plastic is filling the oceans and researchers estimate that if this development continues, there’ll soon be more plastic than fish in the ocean.  In fish and shellfish, plastic is found in one out of three. We recently heard about the whale that died because its stomach was filled with plastic. Surprisingly, the animal right movement is not doing much on the issue.

Human health. In our turn, when we consume fish and other seafood  this plastic accumulates in our bodies. Scientists have not yet studied the consequences on us.

Resource use. Plastic is not all bad. There are occasions when plastic is absolutely needed and where we don’t have a good alternative yet, for example in health care. However, most of our plastic use is for one time purposes like packaging, cups and cutlery. Basically, we should save plastic, a non-renewable source, for when it is absolutely needed.

Although we could wish that our policymakers were looking out for us, in the meantime, there are a lot we as consumers can do about plastic pollution:

  • Choose natural fibres and textiles. Plastic fibres are released into our waters when we wash polyester/acrylic/elastane garments at home. Scientists have concluded that such everyday washing is a bigger source of plastic pollution than the microplastics in skincare.
  • Choose plastic free skincare without mineral oil and microbeads. Look out for PE, PET, PP, PVC, PS, PVA, PMMA and PTFE.
  • Avoid plastic bags. Our grandmothers carried shopping nets with them when they we’re out and about because our convenient plastic bags didn’t exist.
  • Avoid plastic bottles. Glass is better but best is of course to refill your own bottle.
  • Avoid one time cutlery, packaging and cups. In Sweden, only 14% of plastic packaging is recycled. The zero waste movement offers a lot of inspiration on how to avoid unnecessary plastic waste.
  • Don’t throw cigarette butts on the ground, the filter contains plastic and is a threat to wildlife that may mistake it for food.
  • Recycle your plastic and turn in old plastic. Regulation of new plastic has improved but a lot of the old and toxic plastic is still in use.

Do you have another favourite trick for reducing plastic pollution? Please share it with us in the comments!