Support Grist
Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.
Ask Umbra

Pest Control

On environmental busybodies

By Umbra Fisk
15 Nov 2006
Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.
Got questions about the environment? Ask Umbra.
question Dear Umbra,

A friend recently said I should "walk the talk" by replacing my synthetic clothes (purchased before I saw the environmental light, as it were) with new things made entirely of organically grown fibers. I thought about this, and it seems wasteful to get rid of clothes that still fit and look nice, just to buy new clothes that I don't really need. What to do?

Arvella
Georgetown, Texas

answer Dearest Arvella,

Where do these people come from? Why do people think they can further their own environmental goals by being pushy and patronizing? You should "walk the talk," sure, and your friend should take a long walk off a short pier.

Don't be clothes-minded.
Don't be clothes-minded.
Photo: iStockphoto
Ooh -- cranky! Unfairly cranky, I suppose. But I get my advice pants in a wad whenever folks are handing out advice based on a train of thought shorter than the aforementioned pier. I'm on your side, which is probably why you wrote. Yes, it is wasteful to dump clothing just because it's not all organically grown. If you look good and the clothes fit, wear them into the ground. They currently do no harm. Alright, they could do a bit of harm if you dry clean them or use dryer sheets, but if you're just wearing them -- and not doubling the amount of clothes you purchase -- you win. Reduce, as they say.

Many of the assumptions we all make about which choice is best are just wrong. I notice this again and again in researching this column. We don't know enough, or we forget to consider one bit or another. It's true of dishwashing, diapering, travel mugging, bagging ... the whole paper vs. plastics debacle is a shining example of bad assumptions. Trees are better than oil, we all know that -- trees are renewable, oil is not. But when we measure all the factors involved in paper and plastic products, the whole picture of water use, pollution, climate, wee animals, and so on, the outcomes are strikingly non-striking. There's not such a big difference between tree versions and oil versions of the same products. On occasion, oil even wins.

Your pushy friend means well. She (or he) knows that organic fibers are better than synthetic fibers, and wants to encourage you to take action now that you've seen the light. But new organic clothing is not better than already-purchased synthetic clothing. From now until the ragperson comes, the only impact your current clothes will have is in the washing, whereas new clothes will carry the burden of manufacture and washing. Wash your synthetics in cold water, hang them up to dry if you can, and you'll be walking the talk.

Clothing should be low priority, in any instance. There is no need for you to make a change in the Garment Area of Life just now. You could probably better walk the talk simply by actually walking instead of driving. Just once a week. I know, I know, will I ever stop hammering home this "focus on the big things" message? So tedious -- but so necessary. See my list of Top Things You Can Do for more ideas.

I've written a bit about clothing choices in the past, so check the archives when replacement time does come. If you wish, of course. I don't mean to be pushy.

Gently,
Umbra



Tools: print | email | discuss | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS
Yours is to wonder why, hers is to answer (or try). Please send Umbra any nagging question pertaining to the environment -- but first check out her FAQs!
The claims made in this column may not reflect the views of this magazine. Neither the magazine nor the author guarantees that any advice contained in this column is wise or safe. Please use this column at your own risk.
Umbra Fisk is Grist Research Associate II, Hardcover and Periodicals Unit, floors 2B-4B.
< Previous | Next >
Comments: (1 comment)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Username: Password:

Forgot your password? Enter your username and click:

paper vs. plastic - wrong question, wrong answer

Of course, as you say, "the whole paper vs. plastics debacle is a shining example of bad assumptions", however, Umbra also makes a bad assumption, that "paper vs. plastic" is the question rather than asking a better question, "what kind of bag is best"? And, thus, comes to the bad conclusion, that is that it makes no difference what kind of bag to use, but it does! The right answer to the right question is that a reusable bag is best, usually a durable cloth one! Remember Umbra, "reduce" (so don't take new plastic or paper bags, unless absolutely necessary) and "reuse" bags. Thanks for the rest of the Pest Control article. I have clothes I still wear that are over 30 years old and I shop at second hand clothing stores or buy organic and recycled clothing only when I absolutely NEED additional stuff.

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?


Also in Grist

The Week's Most Popular
From the Archives
A Mug's Life, by Umbra Fisk. On travel mugs.
Chilly Screens of Winter, by Umbra Fisk. On inefficient windows.
A View to a Sill, by Umbra Fisk. On window manufacturers.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Jobs Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcasts
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra® | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2007. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks