Hacker News Reader

Hemp is a good alternative to cotton that has similar advantages - biodegradable, non-toxic, allows skin to breathe, but does not require input of toxic chemicals to produce.

One major drawback of synthetic fabrics that is recently coming to light is the tiny particles they constantly shed, which are too small to be filtered by most municipal water systems and are now found all over in lakes and rivers: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/20/microfib...

The Patagonia website used to have a really goo presentation about the pollution caused by washing synthetic clothing but they seem to have redesigned their website very recently and it's not easy to get around.

Another major source of ocean plastic pollution is from car tyres. That 6mm of tread which disappears from your tyres is generally washed off the roads, through the drains and into the ocean.

> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39042655

> The report found between 15% and 31% of plastic pollution came from primary microplastics, of which the biggest contributors (almost two-thirds) were abrasion of synthetic textiles, while washing, and abrasion of tyres, while driving.

You'd think most countries would have good drainage by now, which includes filtering and reusing as much rain water as possible before dumping it back into the rivers / oceans / etc. I know in most towns over here, rain water goes through a different sewage system than sewage and isn't just discarded in the nearest river.

Much infrastructure in the US is old and critically underfunded for maintenance, much less improvements, even when inadequate. Witness the drama over the collapsing Oroville dam in California, the collapsed bridge in Minneapolis, or more specifically, sewage overflows in Great Lake states.

I lived in Duluth, MN, and anytime there was significant rainfall, the sanitary sewer system would be overflowed by storm water, and dump thousands of gallons of untreated sewage directly into Lake Superior. http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/news/3772570-court-order-du...

It is a problem for the whole region: https://greatlakes.org/campaigns/sewage-overflows/

It's to do with how fine these plastic particles are and the sheer volumes of waste which need filtering. They do remove a fair percentage but not all. [1]

Even in regular drains there will be a significant amount of contamination which would prevent the water from being used as-is; if you have a specific rainwater collection system that would work but is basically what our reservoirs are now.

[1] https://www.patagonia.com/blog//2017/02/an-update-on-microfi... "wastewater treatment plants filter a good amount of microfibers (65–92 percent) but still release a significant volume of waste into the environment"

Talking of hemp, hemp "concrete" blocks are also considered good for buildings.

Hemp-lime aggregate is good insulation, but cement-fiber aggregates do not have the characteristic properties of more famous composite materials. Additionally, Portland cement is highly basic and tends to weaken wood, so the hemp is not really acting as a reinforcement in this case, but a filler which reduces density. Hempseed shells (the indigestible portion of hempseed) are often preferred here. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-reinforced_concrete

You're right! It's ideal for suburbia or rural villages. So long as you don't need them to be higher that a story, hempcrete is great.

I agree with a lot of your sentiments. I’ve similarly worked in a clothing supply chain environment and found it, well, gross. But your opinion on synthetics is totally divorced from the products actual lifecycle.

Polyesters dethread quickly and the fibers rub constantly. A polyester winter jacket will start pilling within 2-4 months of daily use. The wool version can last a decade plus. A synthetic version’s fabric will start balling up in weeks.

Second, polyesters don’t breath and sweat leads to accelerated breakdown and abrasion in the fibers.

WRT your edit: there’s a production difference between high-volume garments and short-run high fashion.

Neither should be immune from such ratings, but I think these manufacturing techniques will end up being the polar ends that template the future of clothing production.

You mentioned wool, which is another good natural material - how environmentally friendly is the production of that compared to cotton?

"I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced."

One of the bigger problems with many such fabrics is they don't breathe. This can be a really big problem for women, who can get vaginal yeast infections from non-cotton underwear and/or tight pants, often made with a nice stretchy material with plenty of man-made fibers woven into the cotton. It can also be an issue with socks. I personally have to wear breathable socks and shoes (usually cotton or wool socks and leather or fabric shoes) to keep from having athletes foot quite often.

Once the man-made fabrics can actually compete with these sorts of things found with natural fabrics and have an affordable price point - it seems more feasible to wear such garments most of the time.

I wouldn't give a pass to the sewing either. There's been more than enough investigations into the conditions of those sewing garments overseas to make me distinctly uncomfortable about it.

Then there's the garments that are a hot-spot for child labour as they use items that need hand sewing - beads for example.

Buy locally made? Well I used to, and still do if it's feasible, but it's become such that all the brands are made in the same places. Funny that I noticed no savings at all for the consumer when Levis or whoever switched production to Vietnam etc.

Polyester has it's own problems. As you wash polyester clothing, very tiny pieces of the polyester break off and get washed down the drain and into the ocean. It's contributing to plastic pollution.

Cotton is nice because at least it degrades naturally. We can regulate fashion to remove the most environmentally damaging parts. If distressed jeans are the most egregious offenders, then just ban them. (And for what it's worth, cheaper clothing brands do have noticeably less distress marks on clothing than expensive ones - it's clear they recognise it's a huge expense and have optimised it)

Also, the fashion industry is fully funded by what mobile devs would call "whales"; a small group of people who do most of the purchasing. I haven't bought many clothes in the last 10 years, an item here and there. But there are others who buy new stuff every week and then stuff it away in closets. Perhaps we need to have more awareness around wasteful shopping?

> Also, the fashion industry is fully funded by what mobile devs would call "whales"; a small group of people who do most of the purchasing. I haven't bought many clothes in the last 10 years, an item here and there. But there are others who buy new stuff every week and then stuff it away in closets. Perhaps we need to have more awareness around wasteful shopping?

Do you have a source for that? It's a compelling hypothesis but I'd like to see some data.

I think I know some do called "whales" and they care neither for money nor for environment :)

I'd prefer them highly taxed

Textiles is a funny one, it makes for a great (extreme) example for looking at current and past economic system debates. Free market emergence vs centralized design. Consumerism vs.. whatever the alternative is.

For a central planner in 2018 (if planned economies were still a thing), clothes would be an easy one. It's easy & cheap to make enough clothes for everyone to wear, in above-median economies. You might face inefficiencies. but, there is little chance of failure like the eastern block's automative industry failures in the 70s.

Free markets see efficiency differently, but from a planning perspective, the free market for textiles seems pretty inefficient. The hard inputs are cheap. The biggest "value adds" are not strictly necessary: fashion-design, wholesale, retail and marketing.

I realize this is a cheat, but imagine a small, leninist country popped into existence today. The central planning comittee could go to a global clothing manufacturer and order 1 million winter jumpers. They would buy them at a small fraction of retail prices. Jumper problem solved. You can deal with a lot of inefficiency before the cost of a jumper approaches the average retail cost of free market jumpers.

The variety, choice and such will be gone, but it's unlikely there will be a shortage of jumpers.

I've framed this in a potentially argumentative way, but if we look past the ideological aspects, the fashion industry has a lot more of "avoidable" costs, from a purely utilitarian perspective.

Thinking back, It's interesting to recall the last days of planned economies in eastern europe. There were all sorts of shortages. Most iconic was cars. Most ridiculous was consumables like toilet paper or tires.

With clothes.. One recurring story from eastern european travelers in the late 70s and early 80s was jeans. Jeans represented western youth culture, rock and roll, liberalism.. People wanted them, really wanted them. I've heard several people (famous people and people I know) talk about exchanging pants with someone (presumably someone they like) in the street, and making their day.

I don't think they had pants shortages though. People had pants, they just didn't have cool pants.

Curious.

The practical, measurable, rationally justifiable needs this industry serves represents a tiny fraction of its economic output. Mostly, it's about decoration.

You can deal with a lot of inefficiency before the cost of a jumper approaches the average retail cost of free market jumpers.

Can you really? Primark sells jumpers for less than ten bucks. Can you really buy and distribute for much less than that?

Possibly not, but that isn't the average price of a jumper. It's the lowest price.

What I mean is this. A soviet-like economy might be able to produce enough jumpers for everyone, at a lower average price than a modern one. There won't be the choice or fashion and consumers may not like them as much, but they will be perfectly functional jumpers.

This is not the case for cars or smartphones...

>Possibly not, but that isn't the average price of a jumper. It's the lowest price.

As one who lived in an eastern Europe stalinist country, I assure you that the mass produced, single version of jumper provided by the state will be typically of an inferior quality that even the lowest priced free market version.

I vividly remember the way common western goods seemed almost magical before and shortly after the fall of communism. They were slick, finished and of an exceptional quality, the Pepsi Cola bottle seemed to me almost an abstract work of art.

The free market incentives affect production and design to such a degree that it's often impossible for a centrally planned economy to reproduce: the most inferior capitalist good is still the result of a selection process that induces large survivor bias, so even if the central planners are just as competent and motivated, you would still usually end up with an inferior product due to sheer luck. And once production is in motion, small inadequacies pile up without a strong and conscious efort to improve the product, to the point where people in my country were buying in 1989 a car that was in every way inferior to the same car built by the same factory in 1970, itself a replica of a 60s western car.

There are exceptions to this, particularly with fungible agricultural goods: when things like butter or cheese were available, they were of very high quality and made to traditional recipes compared to the more "efficient" free market versions that have copious amounts of fillers, adulterants and preservatives.

Sure, I'm absolutely not argueing for Stalinism, just using it as a mental prop to think about textiles. In any case, clothes would not be a reason for Stalinism even if they were great.

The point that I was trying to get at is that it is fairly easy to make/get clothes. Most of the retail price, and most of the competitive dynamics between operators are related to things outside the basics: materials, manufacturing and logistics. These are shockingly cheap in 2018.

You're point on food quality is interesting, an example where open markets have produced excellent volume and variety, but often poor quality, especially in the previous generation.

Belarus?

I want to argue with you, but I have problem understanding where you're making a factual observation and where you're making a value judgement.

You're using words "utilitarian perspective", "rationally justifiable", "decoration". I hope you don't want the whole society to be based on such values, do you?

Utilitarian = gets the job done. In this case, producing clothes.

Rationally Justifiable = justifiable in non-subjective ways: warmth, durability...the kind of argument you could make to a central planner.

Decoration = Not Rationally Justifiable

BTW... central planning is not a rare thing. Tesla is centrally planned, so is Shell. If you want to argue for private offices or gym memberships in a company, you'll generally be limited to "rationally justifiable" (to stick to this choice of words) reasons. People will get more done, employee churn will be lower..

^ I'm not going to argue back

Fashion is one of the few remaining industries where obsolutely zero consideration is given to environmental impact when designing and producing clothes. This isn't just a poor country thing where they make clothes in a enviornmentally destructive way, the design of the clothes involves IMHO a lot of un-necessary production steps for an extra minuscle percentage of improvements.

It's interesting that you highlight this, as fashion is one industry that springs to mind where the costs of production and the costs of sale do not correlate nearly as closely as with other industries.

In your car part example, the cost of production viz. energy inputs is priced into the end product, so that there's a direct financial incentive to drive down that production cost. In contrast, fashion has 'premium product' overheads which in many cases dwarf the possible efficiencies derived from production, disincentivising their realisation. Indeed, in some cases less efficient production is more desirable, for example with handmade and bespoke items rather than efficiently mass-producted items.

"I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced."

Linen and hemp are also good natural fabrics. They require less water than cotton and are quite comfortable.

Their main problem is the price as they are less mass produced than cotton.

What do you think about organic clothing? When it comes to regular clothing, it's become relatively easy to buy organic clothing at least where I live, primarily due to relatively big-name clothing store C&A having a pretty wide selection of organic clothing. However, since they cost just as little as other clothing, I'm wondering whether it really is that much better.

Then again, I guess production costs are hardly factored into final pricing anyway.

> Clothes need an environmental impact label.

They already have a price label. And I expect companies that produce it to pay market price for the robots, washing machines and electricity.

And if they don't, let's fix exactly that, not just patch up a problem a couple of steps down.

That price label may not fully represent the actual economic cost of the good (if the environmental impact externalities are not factored in). Factories could pay market price for all materials and labor, but cheap out on waste disposal. If that waste flows downstream and causes adverse health effects, the cost to that economy is not reflected in the clothing production. Market price for cotton could be the farmers who over farm their land. This price would not include the damage done and impact it might have on farming food years later.

You're right that we need to be fixing the issues at the level they appear, but every level is being squeezed for the best cost. It's up to the retailers, consumers, and fashion companies to place a larger value on environmental impact and pay the proper price.

golergka’s point is that if there are environmental problems in the production of clothes they should be fixed as part of the problem of side effects of production rather than specifically as production of clothes.

If there are negative externalities of production those externalities should be taxed, whether in the production of books, clothes or automobiles.

If there are "negative externalities of production" then the producers should be sued by those harmed by their actions, not taxed.

Otherwise, the point is spot on—environment impact should be dealt with at the source and factored into the price.

> I have a new found respect for man-made fibres like polyester, polypropylene etc as producing those fibres is so much cleaner than natural goods, and instead of having to spend a lot of energy getting the fabric to "feel" right, you just modify the properties of the fibre by changing how its produced.

I wonder how rayon fits in this picture. It's a semi-synthetic, made from natural cellulose. In terms of comfort, it is probably my favourite synthetic fibre, but the manufacturing process is still pretty nasty.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayon

I think the real trouble with rayon, at least in my experience with it, is that it seems to be slightly less durable than chewing gum, so you have to replace the garments more often.

The labeling of environmental impact for clothes is an exceptional idea.

We do it for durable goods like a refrigerator or car, yet the clothes you use during the same period could have an impact that is orders of magnitude higher than, say the extra fuel impact of a certain car.

I totally agree with this and wish it was easier to make environmental impact a part of my purchasing decision.