View Full Version : Which is Greener: Wool or Fleece? (For the debate society :D)
Have at it boys! :D
The two views -
VIEW ONE: They are about equal in terms of impact:
Yes. And the overall situation and long-term sustainability problems of human population growth, development, and consumption isn't as simple as replacing petroleum based products with agriculturally based ones. Agriculture and especialy the raising of livestock have their own unsustainable impacts as well, like large scale agriculture to support animal feed (add energy and manufactured product requirements and their impacts), ground water depletion, deforestation, agricultural pollution, etc. And from a short-term sustainability standpoint, even animal fibers are far less efficiently produced than fibers produced directly from plants themselves (feed, water, energy, impact, etc).
Human population growth and development drives consumption. Technology has driven population growth but hasn't advanced equally on the efficiency and management (sustainability) side of the equation. And consumption in excess of what advances in technology can sustainably manage based upon available resources is what ultimately drives that unsustainability. Given current population growth and development rates, and the rate of efficiency gains in technology, there is no truly sustainable solution by any available means--and that includes agriculturally based products.
I'm just saying it just isn't as simple as replacing one with the other, because ultimately, our species is quite simply breeding itself into an unsustainable situation regardless of consumer choices.
VIEW TWO: Wool is more sustainable
Well, I had no idea when I wrote that one simple sentence "Wool is sustainable, fleece is not", it would lead to such a donnybrook. I don't intend to get into a debate on environmentalism, or whether or not the use of wool is better for the planet. Time will take care of that.
Maybe we'll see, maybe our children.
But it's a fact polypropylene comes from oil, while sheep graze on herbs and forbs and they aren't raised in pens, or barns like cattle or pigs. To try and equate wool production with feedlot agriculture is misleading and just plain wrong.
SlowLightTrek
04-19-2009, 20:50
It would be nice to see a deposit on synthetic garmets similar to California redemtion value which is based on weight. I wonder if the landfills will be dug up some day for their recycalble values. When you figure what they do with raw ore for metals etc. in open pit mines plus the need to refine the ore. I would think it would be cost effective to dig up some of the landfills.
It would be best to try and quantify the total life cycle cost of various clothing choices, including the cost and impact of production, distribution, laundry, recycling, and ultimately disposal. Such issues are complex because there are multiple paths. Also, renewable resources like vegetable oils and wood fibres can also be used to produce synthetic fibres, including nylon, polyester, and polypropylene. Another point is that definition of sustainable doesn't preclude the use of fossil fuels. It only prescribes that they not be used up before suitable replacements are found.
What isn't actually all that clear is which fibre, wool and polyester fleece, actually uses the most fossil fuels in their typical lifecycle. The amount of carbon in the products is probably less than the energy that goes into their production and distribution. I think the best argument for wool, currently, is that it is more biodegradable when it comes to ultimate disposal, and I think it also requires less laundering. That last argument goes out the window when people insist on dry cleaning. I think the most important thing is that people don't stop thinking about these issues just because they are complex.
The main point I would like to make is this..
The complexity of sustainability issues should make us ambivalent, not indifferent.
River Runner
04-21-2009, 01:34
Good debate.
I think it could go either way. Some fleece is now made with recycled soda bottles. High quality fleece can last a long time. Low quality fleece pills easily & may be replaced more frequently.
On the other hand, some wool uses processing methods that are harsh, thinner wool develops holes easily & may be replaced often. Moths like to eat wool, which results in more wool garments with holes being replaced, or chemical deterrents to repel moths. Then again, a quality mid or heavy weight wool can last a long time. And yet, sheep grazing a confined area can be more harmful to the vegetation than cattle, grazing the grass shorter and eating a lot of leafs off young trees and shrubs.
I think that makes it very hard to determine which is most environmentally friendly.
My original sentence was "wool is sustainable, fleece isn't."
"sus·tain·a·ble (sə-stā'nə-bəl)
adj.
1. Capable of being sustained.
2. Capable of being continued with minimal long-term effect on the environment: sustainable agriculture."
Can we agree Poly comes from oil?
Whether it's been recycled from milk bottles or spun from chemicals in a textile plant the original source is oil. That calls for oilfields, distribution centers, tanks and tankers, refineries... what part of those can be considered sustainable?
Oil production has peaked worldwide. The next 50-100 years will experience major depletion of the resource. What will happen to polyfleece then? What about the derelict infrastructure of the oil trade? Will it be "recycled" or allowed to sit, rusting, an eyesore on the land and sea?
Do they have 'sheep feed lots"? The only time I have seen sheep penned is at shearing and culling time. Otherwise they are in pastures or in the mountains where the impact is spread out over a large area.
As the flocks forage and the ground cover picked over they are moved to new pastures, allowing the vegetation to recover.
When a sheep becomes too old to produce it can be slaughtered and eaten, or allowed to decompose, feeding the pastures it has lived on.
"Exploding population" is a separate debate and clouds issue.
It is a simple statement, wool is sustainable, fleece isn't.
In theory, though not in current practice,
polyester fleece can be made from vegetable oils and other biomass.
I think you could eliminate some of the agricultural impact by cloning sheep without, say, heads and feed the bodies via a tube(supposedly a future option for producing human organs) and just shear the bodies. I don't know what impact the lab would have on the environment and it probably wouldn't be cost effective but something along those lines is worth considering... if you're as sleep deprived as I am right now.
In theory, though not in current practice,
polyester fleece can be made from vegetable oils and other biomass.
It would be very energy intensive though, which ultimately means more impact even if the energy and plant biomass are coming from solar energy, wind energy, canola, grass, and swamp scum. Maybe in the future, and maybe better synthetics fibres will be developed also.
At least currently, sheep and other animals are simply better at it.
They've been doing it longer. :)
I think you could eliminate some of the agricultural impact by cloning sheep without, say, heads and feed the bodies via a tube(supposedly a future option for producing human organs) and just shear the bodies. I don't know what impact the lab would have on the environment and it probably wouldn't be cost effective but something along those lines is worth considering... if you're as sleep deprived as I am right now.Good point, and excellent use of satire to make that point by the way.
I think we need to relearn to work with nature and natural processes.
We can continue to develop technology, particularly things like recycling materials, and improving efficiency, and including biotechnology, but we have to know where to draw the line, and what lines not to cross, and we have already crossed alot of lines and need to fix that. We need to keep in touch with nature and learn from nature so we don't forget where the lines are.
That's a big reason why we need to hike. So we don't forget what nature is.
Thank you. And with that, I'm hitting the sack but one more thought- Could sheep be genetically engineered to grow their wool faster? Or made to eat less?:-?
Thank you. And with that, I'm hitting the sack but one more thought- Could sheep be genetically engineered to grow their wool faster? Or made to eat less?:-?
Maybe we could genetically engineer sheep to grow polypro. This may sound myopic on my part, but I'd have to lean toward a natural product verses a synthetic product purely based on "what feels right". There aren't too many things more unnatural than plastic based compounds, and I know I'm guilty of using a lot of them every day. But for the purpose of the OP, I'd have to go with wool.
I think you could eliminate some of the agricultural impact by cloning sheep without, say, heads and feed the bodies via a tube
And maybe hook them up to a giant battery bank to harvest their electromagnetic energy...no,
that's already been done.
They probably can. Breeding is a form of genetic engineering, and we've been doing that for awhile. The merino sheep have been constantly improved for finer fibres with more crimps. Other sheep have been selectively bred for meat production, or wool production, or grazing qualities, or hardiness etc. Breeding and other animal husbandry practices can and have gone too far in many cases. Genetic engineering can also go too far, but it can also make some improvements without going to far. We just have to know what too far is. That is why we have religion and philosophy and the arts, and most importantly I think, why we have nature.
Polyester and polypropylene and nylon are useful polymers but not all that complex.
I think it would be a major step back to have sheep produce such simple fibres.
My daughter had a technology proect in school and asked my what the most innovative invention was in New Brunswick. I thought about the Steam Fog Whistle of Robert Fulton, and the Variable Pitch Propeller of Wallace Turnbull, both of which I learned in school.
Then I told here I thought it was the Rough Sea Birch Bark Canoe of the Micmac,
and in particular the tumblehome and hogged sheerline that made it capable of travel on the ocean for trading up and down the Atlantic coast from Massachusetts Bay to Newfoundland and Labrador and the Gulf of St.Lawrence.
She said her teacher couldn't find anything on that, so she did the variable pitch propeller.
I think the real point of the debate is not wool vs fleece, but in the means of production.
At its worst, synthetics made from petroleum are not sustainable at all since eventually the world will run out of petroleum, not to mention the environmental impact involved with disposal. At best, we are able to develop plant based synthetics in which the plants were grown on farms using zero fossils fuels and were not created by the cutting down of more forests, etc... The reality for most of us is that we purchase synthetics produced closer to the former description than the latter. As technology improves and we get closer (past?) peak oil the options for synthetics produced in a more environmentally friendly way will become more prevalent.
At its worst, a commercial venture raising sheep (or other animals) for wool can have a serious detrimental effect on the environment, use more fossils fuels, etc... at its best a single person (or family) who live off grid and are self-sustainable will have very little environmental impact and will use zero fossil fuels. The reality for most of us is closer to the former than the latter, however this thread has prompted me to look into local family owned farms/businesses to see what woolen products are available which were produced closer to the latter description.
In summary, it isn't wool vs synthetic fleece, it is which production/disposal process employed is more or less "sustainable". Or I am just full of it.
My mother just gave a wool sweater to my daughter that was knit for her by her mother 30 years ago.
I meant my wife. My wife gave my daughter her sweater knit 30 years ago.
Two Speed
04-21-2009, 09:29
JAK, are you having a debate with yourself, and who's winning?
I'm not sure I would want a world without wool, even if plant based fibres were developed to be just as good for less impact. I think ultimately the human population has to be part of the equation. Not sure what number. Maybe 10 billion, but maybe only 1 billion. The overall goal is not to maximize the human population. I am not sure exactly what the overall goal is, but I know that ain't it. If that was it then we might as genetically engineer ourselves to be the size of rats, and put us all in cages, declawed, detoothed, debrained.
I don't want to live in a world without sheep, or wolves.
JAK, are you having a debate with yourself, and who's winning?What's your ****ing problem Two Speed?
Can't a guy entertain two conflicting ideas in his head at the same time?
Why does everything have to be a debate, with people only taking one side?
Is there no room today for science or philosophy, or simple thought?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ina8bao0TU
Two Speed
04-21-2009, 09:47
Aaaaand JAK's the winner! :banana
4eyedbuzzard
04-21-2009, 09:53
Thank you. And with that, I'm hitting the sack but one more thought- Could sheep be genetically engineered to grow their wool faster? Or made to eat less?:-?
They are already genetically engineered in a breeding sense--there are some 800 different breeds of sheep, most all due to humans breeding them for thousands of years for different attributes of meat, wool, milk, climate, etc. I'm sure DNA manipulation could probably help in some sense, and likely it has already been employed--we've already cloned Dolly.
On the greater issue:
Back in the 40's and 50's there were at peak some 50,000,000 head of sheep in the US. That number is now about 7,000,000. And there were and are issues with sheep competing for public grazing lands with other livestock, notably cattle. In the old days it got downright violent (the sheep eat the grass down below the height at which cattle can graze). There are also the issue of overgrazing(especially on marginal lands), soil compaction, fire ecology, riparian runoff, water supply for the sheep, etc (lots of 'em if you make a true list). Back around the turn of the prior century(1900) there were serious livestock overgrazing related issues(grassland degradation) throughout much of the western US which required decades to recover.
Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool would have many negative as well as positive impacts:
The raising of sheep, the raw processing, fabrication into clothing, and transportation of wool uses a lot of energy plus other "goods and services", much of it derived from consuming oil--just as the manufacture of synthetic fleece does. Simply exchanging the source of the raw fiber material doesn't solve the larger problem of all the required supporting activities derived from oil consumption. It is doubtful that in order to satisfy the demand for fiber/clothing at any reasonably competitive cost that enough sheep could be raised via open grazing methods. It would require more feed input and a production/manufacturing economy of scale than small herd open grazing methods could sustain. And I'm not even touching on the issue of "greenhouse gas" emission from livestock. Like anything else, when you start analyzing it from an economics standpoint and factor in all the real impacts that are foreseeable(never mind the ones we miss, which tend to really bite us in the @$$), the true complexity becomes rather profound.
I'm not saying reducing our use of synthetic fiber and other oil consuming activities isn't a good idea. The price of oil will go up as the supply and new sources dwindle, and as the price of extraction increases. And ultimately we may have to synthesize oil for many of our needs. But in this case the overall issue just isn't as simple as replacing one fiber source with another.
Aaaaand JAK's the winner! :bananaFunny guy.
Two Speed
04-21-2009, 10:03
Thanks. You doing well?
I think we better ease it back a bit boys.
Some people are getting upset that there is some actual thought and discussion taking place.
4eyedbuzzard
04-21-2009, 10:04
Can't a guy entertain two conflicting ideas in his head at the same time?
Yeah, but you risk actually critically thinking... :-? :eek:
Some folks have used Kool-Aid in the past to cure the problem. :eek: :D
the sheep eat the grass down below the height at which cattle can grazeSo that's what all the fuss was about. I had heard about the animosty, from some movies mostly, but didn't know why a cattle rancher would feel threatened by a sheep raiser any more than another cattle rancher. Thanks for that.
They are already genetically engineered in a breeding sense--there are some 800 different breeds of sheep, most all due to humans breeding them for thousands of years for different attributes of meat, wool, milk, climate, etc. I'm sure DNA manipulation could probably help in some sense, and likely it has already been employed--we've already cloned Dolly.
On the greater issue:
Back in the 40's and 50's there were at peak some 50,000,000 head of sheep in the US. That number is now about 7,000,000. And there were and are issues with sheep competing for public grazing lands with other livestock, notably cattle. In the old days it got downright violent (the sheep eat the grass down below the height at which cattle can graze). There are also the issue of overgrazing(especially on marginal lands), soil compaction, fire ecology, riparian runoff, water supply for the sheep, etc (lots of 'em if you make a true list). Back around the turn of the prior century(1900) there were serious livestock overgrazing related issues(grassland degradation) throughout much of the western US which required decades to recover.
Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool would have many negative as well as positive impacts:
The raising of sheep, the raw processing, fabrication into clothing, and transportation of wool uses a lot of energy plus other "goods and services", much of it derived from consuming oil--just as the manufacture of synthetic fleece does. Simply exchanging the source of the raw fiber material doesn't solve the larger problem of all the required supporting activities derived from oil consumption. It is doubtful that in order to satisfy the demand for fiber/clothing at any reasonably competitive cost that enough sheep could be raised via open grazing methods. It would require more feed input and a production/manufacturing economy of scale than small herd open grazing methods could sustain. And I'm not even touching on the issue of "greenhouse gas" emission from livestock. Like anything else, when you start analyzing it from an economics standpoint and factor in all the real impacts that are foreseeable(never mind the ones we miss, which tend to really bite us in the @$$), the true complexity becomes rather profound.
I'm not saying reducing our use of synthetic fiber and other oil consuming activities isn't a good idea. The price of oil will go up as the supply and new sources dwindle, and as the price of extraction increases. And ultimately we may have to synthesize oil for many of our needs. But in this case the overall issue just isn't as simple as replacing one fiber source with another.Good coverage of both sides of the issue.
It would be worthwhile to quantify how much land and energy needed to keep one person clothed for a year, my wool, by synthetics, and by other means. Also it would be worth knowing how much use we get out of our clothing in North American before we throw it out. 50% maybe. Not sure. I seem to have way too many t-shirt for a guy that doesn't even wear them. I think out laundring and dry cleaning is very inefficient also, and leads to premature wear and disposal in addition to the energy and impact of laundring.
I think in addition to the development of more efficient technologies and naturally changing market forces with increasing energy costs, we also have to try and change the way we compel people to act. We use too much marketing and advertising, and not enough education and unbiased knowledge. It has gotten to the point know that someone screams blody murder when they release some information or provides public information that is contrary to that paid for by advertising and commercial interests. If something isn't corporate, we call it undemocratic, even communist. That's just ****ed up if you think about it. We have to let people make choices. I don't think giving corporate marketing and advertising the only playing field is letting people make choices. I don't think the American Revolution was fought for corporate interests alone. Maybe that was a big part of it, but surely there was more to it than that eh.
Is the WOOL...SMART?
Is the FLEECE ...dumb?
And whats up with ALL the posts, JAK?
these questions answered...& MORE on the next edition of "SOAP"
Don't hold your breath Jax. The world economy is based on growth. If there were less marketing and advertising and more consumer education the need for goods and services would collapse. Kind of like whats happening right now.
Nowhere have I advocated "Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool", I have three or four fleece sweaters and several pants, including a couple nylon windbreakers. But I also own as many made of wool (some lots older than the fleece clothing) that I enjoy also.
I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.
4eyedbuzzard
04-21-2009, 10:53
... I seem to have way too many t-shirt for a guy that doesn't even wear them.
Me too. I wear them, but even so, 7 should suffice for a week. Why I have 3 times that is just dumb and wasteful, though many were "freebies"(ah, marketing evils).
I think in addition to the development of more efficient technologies and naturally changing market forces with increasing energy costs, we also have to try and change the way we compel people to act. We use too much marketing and advertising, and not enough education and unbiased knowledge.
I agree in theory. But if a transition can be made, it isn't going to be "pretty"/easy moving away from a predominantly supply/consumerism model to what may be (our opinion-not everyone's) a more efficient, less wasteful one. As for marketing, well, it's been with us since before written history. Then came the Egyptians advertising on papyrus, and the rest is history--seriously. And you have to concede the positive side of marketing in making people aware of products that meet their wants and demands and better their lives. Honestly, most marketing/advertising isn't intended to be evil(yeah, some is), it's just the nature of merchants competing for consumers in the marketplace.
I don't think the American Revolution was fought for corporate interests alone. Maybe that was a big part of it, but surely there was more to it than that eh.
There were no corporations in 1776. Merchants and businesses, yes. But they weren't near the dominant player they are today. Like anything else, the corporate model has its pluses and minuses. We've gained a lot in terms of lifespan, health, products, ease of life. We've paid a lot though in terms of wars, quality of life issues like the nuclear family, the externalities of industrialization, and others. But it's very doubtful we will return to a more agrarian life. We will not go back to "living in caves", or any harder life--it's just not in our nature. Viewed in the long term perspective and smoothing out the oscillations in getting there, life is better now than it has been in the past, and likely the future will be better than today. We definitely do have our ups and downs along the way though ;).
4eyedbuzzard
04-21-2009, 11:06
I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.
Very likely. Things will change, the earth is not a static environment. Lots of human history will happen, be it by oil depletion, war, famine, pollution, climate change induced by human activity, etc. Then again perhaps it will be by some pandemic plague, volcano, ice age, comet/meteor--you name it. Hopefully, with some wisdom and hard work--and some luck will also help, we will survive and make the best of it.
There were no corporations in 1776.
Not entirely true,
There were no American corporations as America wasn't in existence yet. There were however, plenty other corporations, Hudsons Bay Conpany (1670), East India Company (1600) not to mention the Stora Kopparberg, the world oldest corporation in Sweden.
The American Fur Company didn't form until 1808 in order to compete with the HBC.
Don't hold your breath Jax. The world economy is based on growth. If there were less marketing and advertising and more consumer education the need for goods and services would collapse. Kind of like whats happening right now.
Nowhere have I advocated "Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool", I have three or four fleece sweaters and several pants, including a couple nylon windbreakers. But I also own as many made of wool (some lots older than the fleece clothing) that I enjoy also.
I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.
The world economy IS based on growth. That too has to change.
The world economy must transition into one based on transition and improvement.
But yer right, I won't hold my breath.
Throughout this discussion and the other one I think I've advocated using both wool and fleece, but buying as little as possible, laundering less, and getting more wear out of both.
I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.
Very likely. Things will change, the earth is not a static environment. Lots of human history will happen, be it by oil depletion, war, famine, pollution, climate change induced by human activity, etc. Then again perhaps it will be by some pandemic plague, volcano, ice age, comet/meteor--you name it. Hopefully, with some wisdom and hard work--and some luck will also help, we will survive and make the best of it.I agree. What we are facing is a formidable challenge. I can't see us taking it or making it without alot of major catastrophic failures along the way. I think we will make it though. I won't see it. I doubt I will even see much of the begining of the major catastrophies. I don't things will get that serious, other than economics, for another 20-50 years. The last half of this century might be bad, and the next probably worse. But that's just my crytal ball talking. Who the **** know really.
What I do know is anything short of sustainability isn't sustainable.
Jayboflavin04
04-21-2009, 11:23
Overall this a good debate and alot of good points have been raised.
I think we as a western society have become too disposable. Use it up throw it away!
The food we buy is overpackaged! Many items are packed for single serving in some sort or disposable container! Think about what your food packs down to for a trip after you get it home from the market.
Unless you are dumping it down the drain! The "bio-degradable" thing is a marketing ploy to make you feel better about throwing things into a landfill. THINGS DONT BIO-DEGRADE IN A LANDFILL! They are lined sealed enviroments.
JAK had metioned earlier about the amount of clothing that went into a landfill. Wool and cotton are natural fibers that utimatley may be able to be recycled into something we can dump into the ground with no effect on the environment. Example....we can recycle the resperation and urine from astronauts into potable H20. But we cannot break down natural fiber clothing into compost.
I believe there need to be national laws to require recycling. Which would force manufacturers and landfills to find solutions to what we all bury in the landfill and forget about. If everyone had to recycle. It would make them second guess picking up the disposable less durable single serving life style items. I think this would make for the best starting point for some of our current troubles. Make us into re-consumers instead of just consumers.
Hopefully, with some wisdom and hard work--and some luck will also help, we will survive and make the best of it.
I used to be optimistic, but lately I've swung the other way. So much we feared has come true.
When I asked my stepson (an accountant for KPMG, who travels the world counting beans for major corporations) what he thought about the possible world wide meltdown he said, "someone will come up with something".
And that just about sums it up doesn't it?
Was that just a misprint or did you say that cotton and wool don't decompose?
I'm pretty sure they do. Not sure how long it takes. Good question though.
4eyedbuzzard
04-21-2009, 11:30
Not entirely true,
There were no American corporations as America wasn't in existence yet. There were however, plenty other corporations, Hudsons Bay Conpany (1670), East India Company (1600) not to mention the Stora Kopparberg, the world oldest corporation in Sweden.
The American Fur Company didn't form until 1808 in order to compete with the HBC.
You are correct. Different animals in many ways though from what we think of as modern corporations.
I used to be optimistic, but lately I've swung the other way. So much we feared has come true.
When I asked my stepson (an accountant for KPMG, who travels the world counting beans for major corporations) what he thought about the possible world wide meltdown he said, "someone will come up with something".
And that just about sums it up doesn't it?Yeah it does.
We are relying too much on blind faith in a system that is failing us.
Even when we see stuff happening with a green label on it, 99% of the time it isn't real change, its just the same old same. Marketeering and Profiteering. That's all well and good, but we need something else to go with it, to cut through the bull. We need to find a way to get people to see and understand the difference between snake oil and the real deal. We have to find a way to make ourselves better consumers and citizens again.
Maybe it takes another Great Depression, or another World War Two.
Thing is even those things only delay the inevitable.
Gotta keep trying though. Change starts at home, and with ourselves.
Maybe we'll all get struck on the Road to Damascus? :sun
You're at least guaranteed to run into a real ass along the way. ;)
4eyedbuzzard
04-21-2009, 11:40
I used to be optimistic, but lately I've swung the other way. So much we feared has come true.
When I asked my stepson (an accountant for KPMG, who travels the world counting beans for major corporations) what he thought about the possible world wide meltdown he said, "someone will come up with something".
And that just about sums it up doesn't it?
Yeah, I'm not as optimistic as many out there. "Someone will come up with something" sounds like Pollyannaism to me. Just wishful thinking. Assets were drastically overvalued and simply won't return to their post Nov. levels until income can support those valuations. Asset overvaluation, especially real estate and financial equities, was absolutely absurd based upon asset to income ratios. With the entire world running on and directly trading their fiat currencies though its hard to figure out how it will play out. If I had a crystal ball I'd be pretty active in the futures market. In the mean time I'll stick to insured savings accounts and penny ante poker--it's a more predictable game.;)
GTG all. Have homework to do for a night class.
Jayboflavin04
04-21-2009, 11:44
Mis-print.....Cotton and wool ARE decomposable.
Yeah I figured it was misprint.
Recycling is a good thing, but decomposition is a form of recycling too.
Some lifecycles are best if they are really long, like a bridge for example.
Some lifecycles are better left short.
Some clothing might last 30 years, other 3 years, but for some items 3 months might be ok as long as they didn't take any more land and energy to produce per wearing. The thing is we need to somehow restructure our natural market forces so that things are engineered for our overall benefit rather than us allowing us to be fooled for short term and narrow minded corporate profit. We need to be frugal, but we need to have some choices out there that allow us to be more frugal.
Do you think corporations will get greener and wiser and friendlier,
or just better at fooling us and controlling us?
I think all of the above, but not green or wise or friendly enough,
so we as consumers and citizens have to wise up and man up and keep them honest.
Yeah I figured it was misprint.
Recycling is a good thing, but decomposition is a form of recycling too.
Some lifecycles are best if they are really long, like a bridge for example.
Some lifecycles are better left short.
Some clothing might last 30 years, other 3 years, but for some items 3 months might be ok as long as they didn't take any more land and energy to produce per wearing. The thing is we need to somehow restructure our natural market forces so that things are engineered for our overall benefit rather than us allowing us to be fooled for short term and narrow minded corporate profit. We need to be frugal, but we need to have some choices out there that allow us to be more frugal.
My eatable undies last one night.
Jayboflavin04
04-21-2009, 12:12
I agree! Scare tactic marketing. The best example I can think of is all the anti-bacterial cleansers. Clean up the germs you are gonna get sick. We get sick because we breathe recycled air in our tightly sealed homes, plus this is why you have an immune system. It needs excercise! I believe the best thing is fresh air and just regular old hand washing. I believe a doctor would say the same thing.
I am gonna throw an hypothetical idea out there.....Let say you buy the most durable product say a washing machine made out of raw material plastic. That product should be made to last XX amount of years. That product then reaches its life span and is recycled into say...a something a little less durable and has a lifespan of XX amount of years. That then reaches its lifespan. It is then recycled into a pair of long underwear that you and I love to wear hiking! The fiber material in that "new" pair of underwear might already be 15+ years old. And if you take care of them they may last you 3-5yrs. Does this sound un-realistic.
Jayboflavin04
04-21-2009, 12:18
My eatable undies last one night.
That is ok.....because your significant other will recylce those into compost for you!