|
|
||
Pest ControlOn environmental busybodies15 Nov 2006
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 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.
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
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.
|
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.
|
|
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.