Green Cotton

Most natural textiles – cotton, wool, linen, tencel, bamboo – are naturally cream or pale brown. Almost universally these fabrics are bleached before dyeing.

Natural shades of textiles vary, and starting the dye process with a white fabric enables the factory to anticipate the final color more precisely.

So honestly, how safe and environmentally friendly is it to bleach fabrics?

You know that bottle of bleach in your laundry room? The one with the safety cap, the warnings not to drink it or let children handle it or inhale the fumes or mix it with anything lest it go bang? That’s the exact same product that textiles are bleached with. And, often discharged into rivers.

The most widely used industrial bleaches are chlorine compounds, usually sodium hypochlorite – household bleach - or chlorine dioxide. Both are hazardous to factory workers, who are at risk of burns, lung and eye injuries.

So how do industrial bleaches affect the environment?

Sodium hypochlorite oxidizes organic matter in rivers and oceans to produce chemicals called trihalomethanes,  some of which are carcinogenic.

Chlorine dioxide also produces trihalomethanes in waterways. It also can form dioxins – carcinogens, mutagens, and tetrogenic compounds - which the body stores in fatty tissues almost indefinitely.

Bleaching also consumes large amounts of natural resources; primarily vast quantities of water used to rinse the fabric after bleaching, otherwise any residual bleach would weaken the fibers.

What are the alternatives to bleach ?

Unbleached fabrics clearly have an environmental advantage. Here’s a skater t-shirt for dudes,  and if I was four, I’d have a tantrum for this gorgeous little dress.

For other colors – and particularly for white and pale colors, such as achieving perfectly white jeans, or a pure white wedding dress, require the use of bleach.

Less environmentally damaging solutions to bleaching are the use of either hydrogen peroxide or ozone bleach. Both are chlorine-free, fairly benign chemical processes which produce no dioxins or trihalomethanes, and use less energy and water than chlorine-based bleach.

According to an ozone bleach promotional website, chlorine bleaching requires 8.28MJ of energy, and emits 800g of CO₂ to whiten 1kg of cotton yarn.

To bleach the same amount of cotton with ozone bleach would require 60% less energy and produce half the CO₂ emissions.

Ozone breaks down into pure oxygen as it bleaches, with no other by-products. But it’s hard to use, and factories must invest in new bleaching machinery to use ozone. Some factories are beginning to use ozone bleach in conjunction with chlorine bleach to reduce the quantity of chlorine bleach used – a step in the right direction.

Hydrogen peroxide has a similarly low environmental impact, as it breaks down into water and oxygen as it bleaches. It’s also easier to use, and products bleached with hydrogen peroxide are on our shelves (or our virtual shelves). Loop’s organic cotton towels and bedding are bleached with hydrogen peroxide, and ROMP’s organic white cotton shirts printed with French song lyrics are too.

Could Chlorine Bleaching Be Eliminated From the Textile Industry?

Chlorine bleaching currently dominates the textile industry but existing alternative technologies exist that can be used reasonably easily and cheaply, and have much lower environmental impact. Bleach pollution is a major problem, but it is one with a solution, and it’s possible that one day it will be history.

And for brides to be: yes! you can buy a wedding dress with without bleach. Olivia Luca’s wedding dresses made from unbleached fair trade handwoven silk shantung are elegant and eco-friendly.

Photo source above: Flickr

By Erin Dale

While blatantly stereotypical, it is difficult to deny that many women love shoes. We revel in tales of footwear fantasy: the famed 5,000 pair collection of Imelda Marcos (and Celine Dion’s attempts to match it); custom-made fairytale slippers that could take you anywhere (glass for Cinderella, ruby for Dorothy); Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw spying a pair of Manolo Blahniks and purring, “Hello, lover.” And Alicia Silverstone’s Cher wasn’t Clueless about finding her sole mates: “You know how picky I am about my shoes, and they only go on my feet.”

Of course, some can afford to be pickier than others. But whether we’re shopping for Christian Louboutin heels or look-alikes by Jessica Simpson, couldn’t we all stand to be a little pickier about how our shoe shopping choices impact the environment? If you care about keeping your – stylishly-clad – carbon footprint low, read on to find some of the most fashionable, eco-friendly footwear on the market.

Mohop (see above for shoes)

Who: Chicago-based footwear company created by architect (and earth-loving vegan) Annie Mohaupt, who began designing shoes as an experiment.
What: Environmentally sustainable wooden shoes. The soles are made out of recycled tires, and production uses only eco-friendly wood, glues, sealers and inks. All pairs are customizable by simply changing the ribbons that tie them on. Easy to care for—the wooden platforms can be cleaned with olive oil, and the ribbons are hand-washable. Ribbons come in sets of multiple palettes: brights, pastels, neutrals, even stripes.
Where: Find them on their website and in select boutiques nationwide.
Cost: A pair of cute platform wedges with a set of ribbons will set you back $298; keep in mind that, thanks to the interchangeable ribbons, you’re really getting several pairs in one! Also, prices vary depending on sole style; for instance, the plywood heels are less expensive than the wedges.

Form & Fauna

Who: California shoe company whose mission is to “create, but not at the expense of nature.”
What: Stylish shoes that meet every criterion on an ethical checklist: recycled and/or sustainable materials, fair trade, made in the USA, cruelty-free (from the high-quality, toxin-free Italian synthetics to the water-based glues). You can read the complete list here.
Where: Form and Fauna and 11 different stores
Cost: The “Paris in Spring” style retails at $295. As part of their mission statement, Form & Fauna advocates buying less of things, and their heels are built to last.

Patagonia

Who: Environmental clothing and sporting goods authority that “believe[s] in using business to inspire solutions to the environmental crisis.”
What: Though known for their active wear and sports gear, Patagonia also has an extensive footwear collection, some of which is surprisingly fashionable. Try the ‘Gilia’ ballet flats, or leather-rubber-and-jute ‘Alkali’ sandals. Keep in mind that while the company is committed toward sustainability, these shoes aren’t perfectly green: the soles are 15-20% recycled, and vegans should note that they are made from pigskin leather.
Where: Patagonia
Cost: A little less expensive than their trendier counterparts: The ‘Alkali’ costs $80; The ‘Gilia,’ $85.

Terra Plana

Who: U.K.-based, award-winning sustainable footwear company.
What: The cutest eco-friendly shoes—ever. Sustainable? Check. Recycled materials? Check. Cruelty-free? Well… the Terra Plana Worn Again line uses leather, but it’s recycled from old car seats. To me, that’s the grandfather clause, and it’s better to use that leather for shoes than to just throw it away. The Vivo Barefoot shoes are made from chrome-free leather, vegetable-tanned leather, or ‘E-leather’ (“a unique blend of leather and textile fibers intimately ‘re-woven’ and finished so it is practically indistinguishable from good quality leather”). And these designs are made from many recycled materials: in addition to car seats, Terra Plana uses seatbelts, bicycle tires, parachute silk, reclaimed denim, even tweed jackets!
Where: Terra Plana and Worn Again
Cost: Depending on the style, of course, expect to pay anywhere from $50 to $200.

These are just a few of the great shoe companies that can help you “green your sole.” For additional eco-friendly footwear options, try directories like Planet Shoes or EcoMall.com. What are some of your favorite ethical shoe companies? Would you wear any of the designs we featured? Let us know what you think!

Some good or bad news came out this week– depending on your perspective: Steve & Barry’s, retailer for low cost brands, filed for bankruptcy on Wednesday. Despite the ethical and environmental questions that many of us had in recent months (see Green Cotton’s Part I and Part II of the Cheapest Dress in the World), I must admit that I was shocked by the news.

Given their tremendous growth over the past two years (opening more than 200 stores) coupled with high profile draw of their celebrity lines such as Bitten by Sarah Jessica Parker, I was not under the impression that they were about to go under. Rather, I thought they were enjoying a price-driven surge amidst our economic downturn that would last for years to come. As a privately held company however, it appears we were not given the whole story until recently.

According to this weeks NY Times article and CNN reports, it appears that Steve & Barry’s may have miscalculated cash flow on a couple of fronts: 1) increasing lease costs (due to lapses in temporary landlord incentives put in place to incentize entry into resource-poor areas); 2) decreasing revenue from certain items such as the Jessica Parker dress (featured in Part I and Part II) associated with temporarily lowered prices; 3) high celebrity licensing fees and 4) all of the above combined, creating an inability to pay off immediate debts.

All these factors, combined with rising oil prices, tightening of credit markets and decreased retail vitality, create a sure-fire formula for a downward crash. Steve & Barry’s is not the first company to run into these problems.

Yet what is unique about Steve & Barry’s story for me, and perhaps some of you, is that the company’s downturn represents yet another example of conventional input-focused models (driven almost exclusively by price) failing to deliver over time. To me their story was inevitable, it just happened to be a lot sooner than I expected.

It is becoming increasingly apparent to me (as oil prices increase and ice caps continue to melt) that when businesses adopt environmental sustainability criteria and fair wage practices from the beginning of production to the storefront, a more sustainable business model is created, not only for our generation, but for generations to come. Even when this means passing some increased cost onto consumers, ultimately this is a good thing, since it creates a market based on “true costs” rather than partial or imagined ones.

The other benefit of increasing product cost (eg in the case of organic clothing), is that ultimately that means we will buy fewer dresses or other items for the season. Plus, we are more likely to appreciate the items more since we invested more in them and will likely not throw them away as quickly. By the way, 80% of garments end up in the landfill within a few years of their purchase (!).

On the other hand, countless companies are currently pioneering social and environmental programs that actually save them money over time and therefore do not lead to increased customer costs. For example, Patagonia, Stoneyfield Farms, Eileen Fisher, Seventh Generation, Timberland, the list goes on….have all proven in one way or another that environmentally sustainable practices (recycling programs, renewable energy investments, waste management, organic fabric sourcing) can all be profitable - in addition to sustainable. See Stirring it Up by Gary Hirschberg for more details. (By the way, I just finished reading that book - and it is great, highly recommend it!).

By creating more holistic business practices that factor in natural resources which are not finite as well as human resources, the fabric of global communities, perhaps our companies will stay in business longer too. Margins may be higher and we may simultaneously create stronger linkages between the land we cultivate, the workers and artisans that produce our goods and those of us who buy them.

May the Steve & Barry lesson be one that others learn from in carving their path into the retail future.

Photosource top: Mark Lennihan/Associated Press as seen in The NY Times

Photosource below: Tony Ciola for the NY Times also noted in Green Cotton post on the Cheapest Dress Part I