<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Three designers tell all during Seattle’s first Green Fashion Week]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by PolluteLessDotCom http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Wed, 03 Oct 2007 06:03:25 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/1 Oxymoron

The whole article is about green-washing rich, decadent people and their damaging behavior.We have big heated discussions about meat- eaters who supposedly cannot be REAL environmentalists. Let's see if we get something going along those lines here too. It is basically the same, although no animal product is consumed.

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 Because fashion means consuming frequently, discarding and replacing things when they are deemed outdated, considering the function of anything to include status, judging others by their belongings, and never, never being satisfied with what you have.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






]]> Oxymoron

The whole article is about green-washing rich, decadent people and their damaging behavior.We have big heated discussions about meat- eaters who supposedly cannot be REAL environmentalists. Let's see if we get something going along those lines here too. It is basically the same, although no animal product is consumed.

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






]]> Comment #2 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:46:57 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/2 Stop, Collaborate, and Lis-ten

Grist,

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.


]]> Stop, Collaborate, and Lis-ten

Grist,

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.


]]> Comment #3 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Thu, 04 Oct 2007 02:08:13 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/3 Oh, frickin come on

Grist: environmental news, advice, cartoons, a blog, and more that'll make you laugh out loud.

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.

]]> Oh, frickin come on

Grist: environmental news, advice, cartoons, a blog, and more that'll make you laugh out loud.

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.

]]> Comment #4 by PolluteLessDotCom http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Thu, 04 Oct 2007 06:28:09 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/4 There we go!

Finally someone who feels a nerve got hit. I was wondering what is going on.

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

]]> There we go!

Finally someone who feels a nerve got hit. I was wondering what is going on.

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

]]> Comment #5 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Fri, 05 Oct 2007 03:11:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/5 A long-winded reply, sorry

Hmmmm, Karsten. If you support fashion and its concepts of consumption you are not an environmentalist who will make a difference.

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.

]]> A long-winded reply, sorry

Hmmmm, Karsten. If you support fashion and its concepts of consumption you are not an environmentalist who will make a difference.

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.

]]> Comment #6 by PolluteLessDotCom http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:20:30 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/6 Thank you , thank you , thank you..

...for this very thoughtful response.

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

]]> Thank you , thank you , thank you..

...for this very thoughtful response.

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

]]> Comment #7 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Fri, 05 Oct 2007 05:52:56 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/7 I agree

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 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.

]]> I agree

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 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.

]]> Comment #8 by amc89 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/ Fri, 05 Oct 2007 06:00:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/fashion1/8 agree with both of you somewhat

It's not being interested in fashion and wanting attractive clothing that is inherently bad for the environment, it's the constant purchasing of newly-produced clothing that's harmful. Therefore it doesn't sound like Ms. blueberrysushi is doing anything too harmful to me.  

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.

]]> agree with both of you somewhat

It's not being interested in fashion and wanting attractive clothing that is inherently bad for the environment, it's the constant purchasing of newly-produced clothing that's harmful. Therefore it doesn't sound like Ms. blueberrysushi is doing anything too harmful to me.  

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.

]]>