This week I have chosen to tackle option A and argue that the garment industry is in fact guilty of contributing greatly to the depletion of our natural resources. There is no denying that the human population is exploding and will continue to do something about it. This is the root of all of the problems we are facing today and thus, because there are more people, more clothes are needed. More clothes means more cotton needed, so the more land we clear and use for crops. One of the major problems with this is outlined in the ESMA article "Approximately 60% of the ecosystem service evaluated in this assessment are being degraded or used unsustainably." As stated in the FS article "the use of pesticides cab cause..soil degradation and biodiversity loss." If we can not maintain healthy soil, especially with heavy pesticide use, we will no longer have good soil upon which to grow new cotton for new clothes. In addition to the soil degradation, which in the Walsh article represented the largest environmental cost in growing cotton, water use is a major issue.
Water, although not much of a problem here in a the United States, is very much a problem in the developing countries in which the cotton is grown and the clothes are produced. In the FS article it is said that "Cotton is a thirsty crop. A problem made worse by poor agricultural practices, in some cases over 10 tonnes of water are used to grow enough cotton to make 1 pair of jeans - or 6 pints of water per cotton bud!" This water comes from wells, which comes from an aquifer. This same water is used for drinking for the local people. As the water is used beyond its replenishing capacity deeper wells must be drilled, causing many people's wells to run dry. "In central Asia, inefficient water use in cotton production has all but eradicated the Aral Sea."
One issue that is a bit more difficult to control is human consumption of the clothing. As our society continues to exploit our desire for consumerism, the demand for more clothes grows. In the FF reading, "Over the last two decades clothing has become increasingly affordable to everyone. Retailers and brands have capitalized on this affordability by moving away from a 'summer' and 'winter' season to fresh collections throughout the year." In the Walsh article they did justify additional cost to offset externalized costs within the products themselves, but not to set "green taxes" which they felt would be detrimental. Although cost is not all of it: the trend to release clothes more frequently is a hard cycle to break. Many designers could not stand being "behind the curve." This is not just a problem for the garment industry, it is all industries. So this becomes a human mindset problem, which will take as long of a time to correct as it took to set in the first place, potentially even longer. This is certainly a heated topic in who is actually responsible. I think that both the consumer and the industry are equally at fault. With the current sustainability movement, I believe more and more people are becoming aware of the consequences of our actions. The movement of the general public is like an old steam train, it take a lot of energy to get the wheels turning, but when they do begin to turn, momentum is gained exponentially. It is best to note that like the Beatle's song "We all live in a yellow submarine", like that submarine our earth is contained, and we are all in this together.
Josh - interesting angle. I agree human population is the main culprit in the problems we are facing. That and industry, so I disagree that the responsibility is 50/50. The environmental problems we face began with the Industrial Revolution, thus its industry that got us here and its industry thats the only large enough machine that can get us back on track. They are at the top of the supply chain - as stated in the FF article.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't think Walsh and Brown claimed green taxes would be detrimental. They said because of the uncertainties, they wouldn't recommend using their model as a base for setting green taxes.
Have a good weekend.
Well, to me it is really a chicken and the egg sort of problem: the population creates a demand, the industry fills that demand. If people did not demand, there would be no industry for it. Also, the greatest problems our planet faces are not from the European and United States industrial revolution, it is the Chinese and Indian revolution. The charts in the readings all begin to spike dramatically in the 1960's and 1970's to the current day. I somewhat agree with you that industry has the clout to get the things accomplished. Again, I think industry alone cannot do it, it must be from the public as well.
DeleteI cannot come up with a rebuttal for the green taxes thing right now.
Hi Josh,
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brittney in that the human population is the main culprit and that most of the problems that we face today are a result of the Industrial Revolution. During that time period, we did not know nor care about the environment as much as we do today, so they used products and processes without knowing the consequences of that use. I believe that our constant improvements in technology will play a key role in bringing us out of this hole that we have dug ourselves in. By developing new processes and renewable products, hopefully we can slow the effects of our natural resource depletion.
The report by Walsh and Brown was definitely an interesting one, but I'm not sure how much we can rely upon it. It is a new practice as they said and it will improve as with all things over time, but right now, I do not believe we can really stand on solid ground with their findings. But as with all things, we have to start somewhere.
Have a good weekend.
I like to refer you to my response to Brittney. China and India have over 2 billion people going through an industrial revolution right now. The United States and Europe has a tiny fraction of the population of that. I am not saying what we did wasn't bad, but we must take some comparative relevance when talking about this subject. Yes, developing technology will have a major impact on moving forward. The clean air act was a great example of this, although it was government sanctioned.
ReplyDeleteYes, the Walsh and Brown report was a good report, but it is clearly in its infancy.
This is a very interesting dialogue! I agree that population is putting a particular strain on our environmental issues, not necessarily in the U.S. (where population has slowed), but abroad. But, about 100 years ago, we were doing the same thing. Industry, and specifically, mass production and distribution, has fueled population by making goods transportable to the far corners of the planet, permitting population to flourish. And, I would say they SHARE a responsibility with citizens to find solutions. Some argue that development in places like China and India has followed a similar pattern as the West once did in their industrial revolution -- using the West a benchmark for their progress. Some in the West, having realized the error in some of our methods, take issue with the way in which China and India desire progress (in the ways we once did). What do you think about that?
ReplyDelete