If you still think eco-friendly fashion means shapeless, earth-toned duds, you've not yet met the 20-some designers showing their latest creations this week in Seattle. From Heatherette to Diane von Furstenberg to Oscar de la Renta, these eco-minded artisans are whipping up "fashion with a conscience" faster than you can say "green is the new black." (And really, people, can we stop saying that altogether?)
Increasingly, clothiers are adding bamboo and other alternative fibers to their collections. Even major brands like Levi's are offering organic cotton options. To hear the fashionistas tell it, green may soon be all there is: "Not only is there not much of a choice from the perspective of where we are environmentally," says designer Lara Miller, "but the consumer demand is out there."
In order to prepare for Seattle's first-ever Green Fashion Week, I tried on all of my little black dresses caught up with three of the designers putting their eco-conscious spring collections on the runway. Each approaches the idea of green fashion from a different angle: Miller and her eponymous line focus on pieces that can be worn in a number of ways (talk about reuse!); Aiden Dinh of Sling & Stones creates premium denim products that achieve that coveted "vintage" look without the use of harmful chemicals; and Suzi Johnson of Souchi handlooms cashmere sweaters to last a lifetime.
Their experience in the fashion industry varies from fresh off the rack to old hat, but all three designers are excited to share their hopes for the future of sustainable fashion -- and, in Dinh's words, to "show people that being green doesn't mean you gotta look like a tree."
Lara Miller of Lara Miller
How do you incorporate sustainability into your product lines?
Ever since the beginning, I've been focusing on using at least some sustainable fibers. ... And I always wanted to have some green practices -- definitely producing in Chicago and keeping away from even looking into any overseas production.
I think it's always important to just be honest about it; like I say in my website, it's an aspiration toward sustainability. [I also] ensure that everything that happens -- whether it's at my cutter, or my patternmaker, or at the studio -- gets recycled.
You mentioned keeping it all in Chicago; is that an effort to keep your stuff local?
If I produce in Chicago, then I can eliminate the amount of fuel and the amount of back-and-forth shipping. ... Sustainability means not only being sustainable for the earth, but also being sustainable for your community. The more I can do to ... sustain the community here and keep jobs here, I think it's really important. It definitely adds to the price of my product, but every one of my labels is made in Chicago, and I'm really proud I can say that.
How do you address complaints about the higher price of green fashion?
Yeah, it's really hard. Honestly, that question could be addressed in about a five-hour-long discussion and then could continue going on after that because it comes to so many different issues ... What I'm doing [is producing] sweaters that can be worn multiple ways. The idea behind that -- and from a business perspective it's probably a really silly thing -- is you have one sweater, but really within that sweater there are three different ways to wear it. You don't need to buy as many sweaters. You've got your shrug, you've got your cardigan, and you've got your scarf top.
What else can people expect to see on the runway here in Seattle?
As far as fibers go, I'm still definitely focusing a lot on the handloomed bamboo sweaters, then also incorporating some organic cotton, and organic cotton with seaweed fabric (a seacell fabric), as well as the bamboo with organic cotton jersey.
What do you see ahead for the future of green fashion?
I hope that 10 years from now, there won't even be such a thing as green fashion. And I think that we don't have much of a choice. We really need to start being aware of everything that we do, and our clothing is just a small part of that.
Aiden Dinh of Sling & Stones
How do you incorporate sustainability into your product line?
We try to be as idealistic as possible. For Sling & Stones, our whole idea was to present our consumer with the most premium denim we could possibly make while making it as socially and ecologically responsible as we can. We try to take it further than just using certified organic cottons; we try to dye our garments with plant-based dyes, ecologically nontoxic eco dyes, or even not dye the fabric at all. In our laundering processes, we minimize water by using ozone washing, which is a process in which an ozone generator separates O3 from the air and uses it as an oxidizer to remove color from our denim (instead of using chlorine bleaches or other harmful chemicals). We also are opposed to using any sort of pumice stones in any of our garments to achieve that "vintage" worn-in look that everyone is after; instead, we hand-sand using sandpaper.
Do you see the fashion industry moving in a sustainable direction?
The industry will change when consumers begin to put their dollars into green clothing. If the industry sees that there is a desire in the market for more green fashion ... then definitely, organic clothing could be sustainable. In terms of socially responsible clothes, brand owners and contractors will have to want to pay their employees fair wages, or consumers will have to want to know that their money is going back to the garment worker -- and there is a lack in both, currently.
So do you see sustainable fashion as just a small niche in the market?
What we are doing is still a niche market that is growing. With the success of food markets like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods, I think it will eventually translate from educated consumers thinking twice about what they are eating -- how it was grown and who grew it -- to what they are wearing, what it's made out of, and who has sewn it.
What can we expect to see on the runway in terms of green fashion?
For this coming season, you will probably see a lot of designers offering standard organic cotton knits and wovens in basics, but you will also see a few people introducing more technical fabrics such as PLA [which is derived from cornstarch], recycled plastics turned into nylons, bamboo/cotton mixes, and bamboo denims. Many of these garments and fabrics will probably be made in China, which lacks a lot of social awareness in the garment industry. I like to remind people that it's great to be ecologically sustainable and protect our earth, but I think it's really just as important to be socially sustainable and protect the people living in it.
Suzi Johnson of Souchi
How do you incorporate sustainability into your product lines?
I have always relished the idea of handmade products of the finest quality. Yes, it costs more, but the quality, durability, and lifetime of the garment warrants that price. You can buy one $500 cashmere sweater that will last a lifetime or you can buy 30 sweaters at $100 a piece to last the same time. To me, it's never been a question. There are reasons you can walk into a vintage store and buy a cashmere sweater in perfect condition from the '50s. I don't believe the same could be said today. But with Souchi, it will, and I hope I see them in stores when I'm in my 60s.
What do you see for the future of sustainable fashion?
I believe that sustainable fashion will continue to grow, especially among smaller labels/designers. My concern would be that mainstream or corporate-driven fashion companies are just jumping at this "trend" and not really changing practices that will better the environment, humanity, and the quality of products out there.
You use organic cotton in your pieces -- what other fibers do you see becoming more mainstream as we move away from conventional cotton?
People love cotton for its softness and easy care. We need to find fibers that are just as friendly and not intimidating to mass consumers. I'm not sure we should move away from conventional cotton, but rather incorporate eco-practices in the making of cotton so that all cotton is organic. However, I do see a lot more soy, hemp, and bamboo being used, but in many cases it still lacks the softness of cotton.
What can people expect to see from you on the runway here in Seattle?
Feather-weight sheer knits in neutral colors that are meant to layer. This yarn is so amazing you won't want to take it off!
Who else's work are you most excited to see on the runway?
I love what Anna Cohen does. It's beautiful, always interesting, and I think our lines work well together. I'm inspired by anyone or anything that is trying to better the planet, people's lives, and add something more to fashion. It's fun, it's ridiculous, it's silly, and it's extravagant, but it can also be a great source of educating and enlightening people to what is available.
This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!
Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots
Toxic suds want to watch you shower
Comments
View as Flat
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:03 am
03 Oct 2007
I say: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FASHION YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
If you are fashion-conscious you are global-environmental-problem unconscionus. You cannot care about both at the same time and consider yourself a reasonable person.
Why? Because fashion means consuming frequently, discarding and replacing things when they are deemed outdated, considering the function of anything to include status, judging others by their belongings, and never, never being satisfied with what you have. How this can be anything but damaging to our environment at our current consumption levels and with our current world population is not clear to me. The fashion industry survives based on doing the exact opposite of what is necessary to be done. Some of what needs to be done is:
Buy less
Fix if it is broken
Buy things that are easy to take care of
Keep things for a looong time
Buy only what you need (not want)
All of this is violated by any stylist and the fashion industry as a whole. The behavior they expect a "good" customer to display is the opposite. It applies to cars, furniture, clothing, products, you name it. If it is chic you probably do not need it. Making sure it is made from superficially green materials, made locally, or if the materials are recycled does not change the fact that the concept of FASHION is just a nice term for OVER-CONSUMPTION. And where that has led us many have seen a while ago and now even fashion-designers have discovered.
Of course there is good money in this. Change is good. Fashion thrives on change. Environmental change can be used to the benefit of the designer. Some markets will disappear, but many NEW ones will develop (or be developed). And it is going on right now to a large extend. I wrote this somewhere else already: Most "green" products are more green if you do not make or purchase them.
If there is anyone more damaging to the environment than the blind consumer it is the stylist who influences those people to continue consuming more useless crap at profitable but unsustainable rates.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:46 am
04 Oct 2007
Instead of trotting out hemp hip huggers every week, how about a real world discussion of sustainability.
What is the one factor in the world that is controllable?
Yes, the number of kids. We can "gird our loins" and reduce demand on everything.
I just found this wonderful book:
Maybe One: A Case for Smaller Families
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0452280923/ref=sib_dp_pt/ ...
Here's the bottom line according to Bill McKibben: the earth will not be able to sustain its ever increasing population indefinitely. But the population problem is not just a phenomenon of developing nations--the United States is a major environmental threat, gobbling up a huge piece of the resources pie as our numbers grow larger every year. To avoid worldwide catastrophe, McKibben believes that the United States must reduce its birthrate.
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 2:08 am
04 Oct 2007
Yes, you can be "into" fashion and be an environmentalist. If I want serious, I read journals and books and maybe realclimate. But if I want a lighthearted read that combines some elements of our culture (even frivolous ones, like fashion) with fairly good interviews and the occasional "serious" piece about some piece of technology, I read Grist.
If I have to give up liking fashion to be an environmentalist, then take my membership card away. But I'm just going to go ahead and deny you the right to define my environmentalism (or lack thereof). I'm an environmentalist who likes fashion. So sue me. I'll make it as eco-friendly as possible, which usually means second-hand, but I'll enjoy fashion and fashion articles as much as I want to, and you can suck my toe, Karsten.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 6:28 am
04 Oct 2007
Go right ahead and send your membership card. Please send it to: Member Card Services, 1200 Superficial Green Drive, ... I got tired of inventing an address. Just keep it.
I am not defining your lack of environmentalism. I defined what fashion is and does and how this is in complete contrast to developing sustainable living on this planet. Please explain in more detail how YOUR sense of fashion results in a REDUCTION of consumption rather than the continued over-consumption which is not sustainable. That would actually help.
There is no person who can define environmentalism. However, I dare say there is a understanding what its goals may be and these goals are in stark contrast to anything fashion represents. So, if you really want to be eco-friendly, ditch the concept of fashion. Or at least give some useful examples of fashion that have nothing to do with quickly replacing what is considered out-dated with something that is perceived as more attractive. Somehow our society has to come to terms with the fact that consuming resources the way we do is not sustainable and will have to change. Have you ever thought about how little really poor people pollute? Not that they do not want or would not if they could. They just can't. Fashion is for people who can afford to consume and it means pollution. Fashion is consuming more than you need and if you are in North America it is way more than is sustainable.
I will not accept attempts on green-washing. It is dangerous and creates complacency. It is time to expose superficially beneficial ideas and people. Just because you don't like to hear it does not mean what you do is right, effective, or acceptable. If you support fashion and its concepts of consumption you are not an environmentalist who will make a difference. And hopefully one day want-to-be-environmentalists will be a minority.
I will accept that you FEEL you are an environmentalist. I do believe though that you have not thought this through to the end and are shying away from coming to uncomfortable conclusions. You may, without worries, continue to LIKE fashion. Just don't live or support it. (You are welcome.)
About your toe: I will not commit to this until we know each other better. No promises.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 3:11 am
05 Oct 2007
I'm not sure what to do with this. I am a graduate student in forestry who studies how rural communities are affected by forest management practices. I spend a lot of my time dealing with forest sustainability issues, tenure rights, globalization, consumption of wood products - it's kind of my thing. My yard is full of natives, I grow a lot of my own food, I don't drive ... I don't know how else to be an "environmentalist who will make a difference."
The fashion world is sick in many ways - models are too skinny, fur is god-awful, consumption and the steady drive to get "this season's" fad are despicable. Granted. But I don't need others to define fashion any more than I need you to define environmentalism.
When I've lived/traveled in poor countries, where I guess the "really poor" people live, there was still adornment that I would say is fashion. It's not necessarily consumption, but it's an elegance and, often, tradition, that makes the whole world more beautiful. You know, India can be so ugly, with its pollution and mangy dogs, but it is also one of the most striking places because of these women in flowing saris, bright spots of color across the gray cities. I think that's fashion.
Consumption is frustrating, and I have to deal all the time with greenwashing. Forestry is full of it. Like the people who move to rural communities and buy 5000 sq-foot houses next to National Forests and drive SUVs with "Keep Tahoe Blue" bumper stickers. That's greenwashing.
I don't think of purchasing clothes with an eye for fashion as inherently greenwashing. But you can try and be as environmentally-conscious as possible in your fashion choices. So, as to your request to list ways that fashion can actually reduce consumption: I don't think it can. But if you're wearing more than a rucksack, you've probably bought something that, by definition, is consumptive. I don't know what you wear, but a lot of very sincere and committed environmentalists I know are not "into fashion" but they sure do love their Prana sports bras and REI jackets and Patagucci. That stuff may be ugly, but it's no less consumptive.
I like beautiful things to wear. I like to look at beautiful things that others are wearing. It's a guilty pleasure, okay. It doesn't, in itself, advance environmental or social causes. Neither do other forms of art. I mean, I could take that analogy quite far ... but I won't. Not everything is going to reduce consumption, but you can do everything with an eye to reducing your own consumption, and you can throw in a little bit of flair just because it makes everybody smile.
And, though I'm sure that I've become tedious enough, I'll just go ahead and tell you what I'm wearing: 1950s-era wool pencil skirt, cableknit sweater vest, green "emerald" brooch. All from thrift stores. It's one of my "1950s secretary" looks. And I think it's kinda foxy.
Permalink
PolluteLessDotCom Posted 5:20 am
05 Oct 2007
I agree with you: If fashion is to be understood as traditional aesthetic, then fashion can be sustainable. The bone I have to pick is with folks who live and consume above and beyond what is sustainable and dare to declare it eco-friendly if a few things are changed but the basic concept is upheld.
I have no problem with folks wanting to wear beautiful clothes. I can easily extend this feeling to products of all sorts, not only clothing. I am an industrial designer by training and appreciate beauty. However, I did not appreciate the methods and philosophies and don't work in this profession any longer. Our manufacturing industry (global) is based on quick turn-over of all things. Products are designed to break after a certain time. Consumption cannot be stopped unless we stop the existence of human beings (which is not what I support), but I feel it needs to be dramatically reduced. Each person need to do their share. It seems you are doing more than most other people who love fashion in North America and certainly more than fashion designers.
My current clothes, with the exception of shoes, sock, and underwear, are from thrift stores. Nothing fashionable, because I like to keep clothes for a long time and if it is "hip" it will be "out" sooner than the condition of the clothes warrants it to be. Good enough to go to work.
I am disappointed that so few people takes this over-consumption issue serious though. I truly miss the shout-downs toward stylists, designers, etc. who are busy green-washing their image and bringing along thousands of willing, but unconscious consumers. It is a problem.
Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com
Permalink
blueberrysushi Posted 5:52 am
05 Oct 2007
I think we are basically agreeing, and I thank you for the discussion.
As a note, Vanity Fair recently came out with their "Fashion Issue" and it is just rife with consumption and elitism. All this following their issue on Africa and articles on the environment ... it's pretty gross. We all love the planet (just ask us!), but we have a hard time displaying that love in a society that rewards blind consumerism.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 6:00 am
05 Oct 2007
So I would amend "IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FASHION YOU CANNOT CLAIM TO BE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST" to "If you constantly buy non-vintage clothing on a regular basis, you cannont claim to be an environmentalist (or human rights-ist, since so much of it is produced by sweatshops). If you constantly buy eco-friendly and animal-friendly (non-fur, non-skin, etc.) clothing on a regular basis, you're doing somewhat better but not quite there. If you buy second-hand, vintage clothing when truly necessary, you're even closer. If you never buy any clothing ever and wear only hand-me-downs or sew your own clothes from eco-friendly and animal-friendly materials, or go around nude, you win the prize".
That probably has too many nuances so I don't think that's going to catch on.
I'm wearing: a hand me down jacket from my mom, a hand me down shirt from my friend, hand-me-down shoes from another friend. Okay, I bought the jeans new 4 years ago (but I had a $20 gift certificate!!). Now they have holes in them, most people would have tossed them by now but I will wear them much longer still. I won't go into my undergarments.
Permalink