Entries categorized "Climate Change and Textiles"

July 08, 2008

Eco-fabrics Featured At G8 Summit

As reported by Eco Textile News: Eco-fabrics featured at G8 summit

_44449822_hokkaidoafpgetty203 TOYAKO – [08.07.08] Heat resistant PLA fabrics and recycled polyester textiles from Teijin Fibers have featured at an eco fashion show as part of the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit of world leaders currently taking place in Japan.

Teijin’s latest ‘Biofront’ fibre was used in garments for the ‘Fashion for the Earth in Sapporo’ show, which took place under the auspices of the sponsor organisation and as part of The Environmental Exhibit of 2008 (sponsored by the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Commemorative Summit in the Hokkaido Environmental Exhibition Organising Committee).

All the garments worn at the show were made primarily of ‘green materials’ which included women’s jackets made of Teijin’s heat-resistant poly-lactic acid (PLA)-based fibre ‘Biofront’. Unlike earlier versions of PLA fibre, this new polymer has pushed up the melting point of ordinary PLA fibres to 210oC from 170oC, which has enabled high-temperature and high-pressure dyeing along with moderate-temperature ironing of the fabrics.

Previously it was virtually impossible to iron garments at high temperatures made with PLA without destroying the fibres. There were also issues surrounding the dyeing of deep shade fabrics due to the limitations of PLA when it came to heat resistance during dyeing.

Teijin says that Ms. Masako Oka, chairman of the fashion show‘s executive committee, has been promoting the use of the PLA heat-resistant materials at the event and has worked together with Teijin’s ‘Sustainable Management’ team.

Meanwhile, the huge message flags used for the G8 Hokkaido Toyako Summit events at the Environmental Exhibit 2008 were made from Teijin’s ‘Eco Circle’ recycled polyester fibres which have been certified with an ‘Eco Mark’ seal of approval. This message flag uses roller-screen textile fabrics developed jointly by Teijin Fibers and Tachikawa Corporation. Copyright © 2008 Mowbray Communications Ltd  

June 05, 2008

What Does it Really Mean to Take a Stand?

Children_around_world

We sometimes think of taking a stand as.......making a declaration for or against something, forming a resolution or perhaps choosing a side.

Werner Erhard distinguishes taking a stand from all of these.

He defines taking a a stand as:

“A powerful way of being that can enable an individual to have an impact in the course of humanity.”

With sustainability, more of us are integrating personal values into business, or should I say are not fearful of "taking a stand" for future generations-"taking a stand" is also more effective when utilized in creating teams.

......."We Can Solve It"  or The We Campaign is another way that Al Gore is taking a stand, his stand for Climate Change is the stuff of which Werner Erhards definition is made of.

"The We Campaign is a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection -- a nonprofit, nonpartisan effort founded by Nobel laureate and former Vice President Al Gore. Our ultimate aim is to halt global warming. Specifically we are educating people in the US and around the world that the climate crisis is both urgent and solvable."

May 30, 2008

Agricultures Role in Mitigating Climate Change

3929_web

What is carbon sequestering and how could it mitigate climate change?

Crops and other plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere and, as they are harvested, their residue and roots are deposited into the soil where portions can remain for long periods as soil organic matter.

This process is known as carbon sequestration, plants and soils act as “sinks” for atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon “sequestered” in vegetation and soil is captured in the sink, providing a significant boost in the efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

Carbon accumulation in agricultural soils can be greatly improved by various forms of conservation management, such as no‑till and replanting with grasses.  This carbon sequestration occurs because there is less soil disturbance and more carbon is added to the soil.  Benefits of carbon sequestration are increased soil fertility, reduced soil erosion and increased soil quality.

What is the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions in agriculture? 

The single main source of greenhouse gases in agriculture is from fertilizers: the production of fertilizer is an energy intensive process which uses fossil fuels as raw materials (mostly methane). When fertilizer is applied to the land it emits more nitrous oxide emissions. This results in the emission of large quantities of carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide. 

Fertilizers also acidify the soil, requiring the regular application of lime by farmers, in turn that process, produces more carbon dioxide. Fertilizers also have the effect of suppressing the soil micro-organisms that break down methane in the atmosphere. By reducing the soil oxidation rates, fertilizers cause there to be more methane in the atmosphere.

What is No-till farming?

Also known as conservation tillage or zero tillage, it is a way of growing crops from year to year without disturbing the soil through tillage.

Converting from conventional plow tillage to no-till practices is among the most cost-effective ways to reduce the buildup of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No-till also increases the accumulation of soil organic carbon, thereby resulting in sequestration of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Changing tillage practices can:

  • Reduce the need for fertilizer.
  • Decrease emissions of oxides of nitrogen by applying nitrogen fertilizers only when and in quantities needed.
  • Decrease the costs of chemical and mechanical treatments of crops and the labor they require.
  • Reduce field activity with equipment, thereby reducing farm machinery emissions from fossil fuels.

What are some of the possible positive effects on agricultural that could result from climate change?

  • Longer growing season due to higher average temperatures (more frost free days.)
  • Opportunity for growing longer season, diversified crops, i.e. cover crops, winter wheat, corn, switch grass.
  • More diversity in crop rotations, will give more options for disease, insect, weed controls.
  • Shorter and milder winters (may lower heating requirements, reduce winter feeding,  easier winter grazing, less winter kill and risk to crops).

What are some of the potential agricultural risks that might be associated with Climate Change?

  • Increased occurrences of extreme weather drought, flooding, heat waves, etc.
  • Decreased soil moisture and water shortage and availability.
  • Water will become more valuable, irrigation will become more costly.
  • Accelerated wet and dry summer cycles from more extreme weather events.
  • Input costs could increase, increased energy, higher fertilizer and chemical prices
  • Extreme weather events may increase the risk of soil erosion and crop damage.
  • Increased occurrence of forest fire and possibly grass fires.
  • Increased pest infestations due to milder winters and longer growing seasons (which may      increase the need for pesticides).
  • Crop price increases due to shortages and competition (market demand) for climate -  policy driven biofuel initiatives, animal feed costs may also increase.

How can organic agriculture effect climate change?

Rodale study; Organic Farming Sequesters Atmospheric Carbon and Nutrients in Soils

"Organic farming may be one of the most powerful tools in the fight against global warming." Findings from The Rodale Institute’s 23-year Farming Systems Trial® (FST) comparing organic and conventional cropping systems show organic/regenerative agriculture systems reduce carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gases-positioning organic farming as a major player in efforts to slow climate change.

Besides being a significant underutilized carbon sink, organic systems use about one third less fossil fuel energy than that used in the conventional corn/soybean cropping systems. According to studies of the FST in collaboration with Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University, this translates to less greenhouse gases emissions as farmers shift to organic production. The ability of organic agriculture to be both a significant carbon sink and to be less dependent on fossil fuel inputs has long-term implications for global agriculture and its role in air quality policies and programs.

The Rodale Institute’s 23-year findings show that organic grain production systems increase soil carbon 15 to 28%. Moreover, soil nitrogen in the organic systems increased 8 to 15%. The conventional system showed no significant increases in either soil carbon or nitrogen in the same time period. Soil carbon and nitrogen are major determinants of soil productivity.

Increasing soil organic matter for the soil’s carbon bank is a principle goal of organic agriculture. Organic agriculture relies on the carbon bank and stimulated soil microbial communities to increase soil fertility, improve plant health, and support competitive crop yields. This approach utilizes the natural carbon cycle to reduce the use of purchased synthetic inputs, increase energy resource efficiency, improve economic returns for farmers, and reduce toxic effects of fertilizers and pesticides on human health and the environment. 

Organic farming can play a major role in addressing climate change.

“Organic agriculture’s use of compost and crop diversity means it will also be able to better withstand the higher temperatures and more variable rainfall expected with global warming. Organic agriculture is about optimizing yields under all conditions,” says Louise Luttikholt, strategic relations manager at the International Federation of Organic Agriculture (IFOAM) in Bonn, Germany. IFOAM is the international umbrella organization of organic agriculture movements around the world.” For example, a village in the Tigray region of northern Ethiopia that had converted to organic agriculture continued to harvest crops even during a severe drought, while neighboring villages using conventional chemical fertilizers had nothing, Luttikholt told IPS. Because compost is used rather than chemical fertilizers, organic soils contain much more humus and organic carbon — which in turn retains much more water. They can also absorb more water faster which means they are less likely to flood,” she said

Resources;

USDA; http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Technical/land/pubs/ib3text.html
FAO; http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/005/Y4137E/y4137e02b.htm
Rodale; http://www.strauscom.com/rodale-release/
Rodale; http://www.strauscom.com/rodale-whitepaper/

Soil Association; www.soilassociation.org

May 29, 2008

Better Get Efficient...and Fast

G2gbookcover

by Andrew Winston (posted here)

It's pretty clear that the business world is facing dramatic change driven by environmental concerns. Over the coming years and decades, we're going to change the entire energy system and find new ways to design, make, ship, sell, and consume things. While it's uncertain if quality of life will suffer (and I hope not), the quantity of resources used will change dramatically - e.g., using a lot less energy, or at least carbon-driven energy, to power our lives.

And this change is becoming a business imperative regardless of whether you buy the climate change argument (and I really don't want to open that can of worms from my last post ). Just looking at the high price of everything from metals to food to fuels, the case for being radically more resource efficient is getting clearer every day. What's also clear is that the world can't currently provide for what will be nine or ten billion people who all want our lifestyle (the government of China has set a goal of moving half its population into the middle class by 2020 - that's 600 million people; if they all use oil at our rate, China alone will need more than the world produces by 2030 or so). At current technologies and modes of production, there isn't enough stuff. So there's a business need and a system overload requirement that we innovate and do more with less.

But don't just take my word for it...............................

The Wall Street Journal ran a stunning article recently that I've been mulling over for awhile and needed to get my head around. It was titled, "New Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears." The shocking part of this article was the fact that it didn't malign the idea that we may run out of things, which Milton Friedman-esque business people have been laughing at for 200 years (since Thomas Malthus first drew an exponential population chart plotted against a geometric resource growth chart and said we'd all starve). Yes, those doomsayers have been very wrong in critical ways, mainly related to our ability to innovate and substitute out of products when we found new options (like from whale oil to kerosene to oil).

But the Journal was deadly serious, talking about resources like water that we can't substitute our way out of. The related point was that there's really nothing left to substitute to -- we know where pretty much everything is. Two quotes were fascinating: "Record highs in the prices for oil, wheat, copper...are signs of a lasting shift in demand as yet unmatched by supply". The "as yet" is a big qualifier, but it feels a bit like wishful thinking, especially given the second quote from ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva: "I don't think we are going to see the [oil] supply going over 100 million barrels a day, and the reason is: Where is all that going to come from?" So even the oil CEOs are telling us there's not enough stuff.

So what does this mean for business and how is it connected to the green movement? First, rising prices for nearly everything mean we're entering the big leagues. Whether you call it "green" or "eco-efficiency" doesn't matter; either way, all the efficiency tools we have - such as total quality, lean manufacturing, six sigma - are going to be put to the test. If your company has a knack for cutting out waste and reducing resource use, it will survive and thrive. If you can't reduce your reliance on fossil fuels in your whole value chain - from sourcing to manufacturing to distribution - you may be in trouble.

Second, if you can offer a new "supply" to help bolster that side of the Econ 101 curves, you will have a giant market to satisfy (those billions of consumers). And I'm talking about smart supply growth, not the corn ethanol kind that actually exacerbates all of our problems. I'm talking new low-carbon energy, water saving technologies and processes, good design principles, building efficiency, and on and on.

The mad race for renewable energy technologies and the dramatic shift in car offerings are good examples. The venture capital money flowing to new technologies easily recalls the Internet boom. But is this one a bubble? It might be, but these entrepreneurs are working to satisfy existing multi-trillion dollar energy and resource markets, not trying to create new markets or needs. So money from the biggest, smartest names in Silicon Valley is flowing freely. This is a very good thing. There will be a shakeout, but some winners will win big.

As demand for resources outstrips supply, the Journal worried, what if countries just try to grab what's left in a big resource fight? Companies might go down a biggest is best path as well. But won't the best companies profit much more if they just find a way to need less? And won't the competitors that help their customers use less do extremely well?

May 15, 2008

THANK YOU.......

Thank_you

Thank you to all the regular readers of this blog, you have made this blog one of the
most searched for and read blogs on Organic Cotton, and Sustainable Fashion.... facts, practices and processes on the global internet.

Our regular readers are from every continent and dozens of countries including: France, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia and the UK.

May 06, 2008

Sustainability Resources.........

Imgcertification




General Sustainability recommended websites 

Biomimicry;  www.biomimicry.net
Business for Social Responsibility; www.bsr.org
Climate Counts; www.climatecounts.org
Environmental Defense PAPER CALCULATOR; www.environmentaldefense.org/papercalculator/
Environmental Sustainability Index; www.ciesin.columbia.edu/indicators/ESI/
Design for the Environment; www.epa.gov/dfe
Fair Labor Organization; www.fairlabor.org
Global 100; www.global100.org
International Institute for Sustainable Development; www.iisd.org
International Labor Organization; www.ilo.org
Marks & Spencer Code of Conduct; www.marksandspencer.com/thecompany/ourcommitmenttosociety/index.shtml
MBDC; www.mbdc.com
The Natural Step; www.naturalstep.org
O2; www.o2-usa.org
Rocky Mountain Institute; www.rmi.org
SustainAbility at www.sustainability.com
Dow Jones Sustainability Index at www.sustainability-indexes.com
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainability Division at www.un.org/esa/sustdev/
World Business Council for Sustainable Development at www.wbcsd.ch
 

Other "Organic and Sustainable" Industry Related Resources

Andrew Winston; www.eco-advantage.com
Better Cotton Initiative; www.bettercotton.org/site.php
Cotton Inc; www.google.com/ig?source=gapg&hl=en
Fair Trade Certification; www.fairtrade.net

GAIAM; www.gaiam.com
Hartman-Group; www.hartman-group.com
Making Sense of Sustainability; http://www.ecolutionaryselling.com/ m.hunt email;mary@ecolutionaryselling.com

MTS; www.mts.sustainableproducts.com
Organic Trade Association; www.ota.com
Soil Association; www.soilassociation.org
Sustainable Cotton Project; www.sustainablecotton.org
World Watch Institute; www.worldwatch.org/
World Resources Institute; www.wri.org
WWF; www.wwf.org

Coral Rose; Founder, Eco-Innovations; www.e-Ecoinnovations.com or Coral@eco-textiles.com or

Coral Rose, Sustainable Action Leadership Blog; www.coralrose.typepad.com

April 25, 2008

Marks and Spencer Celebrate Opening of "Green Garment Factories"

_96471_marks_and_spencer_logo_300_1

25 April 2008| Source: just-style.com

Marks & Spencer CEO Sir Stuart Rose today (25 April) paid a one-day visit to Sri Lanka to open the world’s first ‘green’ garment manufacturing plants which will supply clothing to M&S stores.

 

The plants are owned by two of Sri Lanka’s biggest garment producers, Brandix Lanka and MAS Holdings.

Speaking at the opening ceremony of MAS Intimates Thurulie, a new lingerie factory located in the MAS Fabric Park in Thulhiriya, Sir Stuart described the plant as “a truly exciting development in clothing production.”

He continued: “It really has been a partnership of two like-minded companies, M&S and MAS, and will trial a completely new approach to manufacturing and set standards for others to follow.

In particular he praised its “leading standards in employee welfare.”

 

In his address, at the opening of the Brandix plant, Sir Stuart said: “Not only has it reduced its carbon footprint since its renovation, it has also reduced its energy usage, uses less water and no longer sends waste to landfill. “It will also continue to produce great quality clothing.”

First green factories
“Brandix and MAS are the first green factories that we would be associated with,” said Paschal Little, head of technology for lingerie and childrenswear, M&S, speaking at a press conference organised by Brandix yesterday (24 April).

M&S, which currently buys up around GBP300m (US$592m) worth of clothing from Sri Lanka, will buy up the total production from the two ‘green’ factories.

 

This greening of Sri Lanka’s garment sector is part of the UK retailer’s plans to become carbon neutral by 2012.

M&S says it is setting up ‘model’ green factories, similar to those in Sri Lanka, in other parts of the world as well.

“Since we have not done this before, there are no benchmarks or models that we can refer to,” said Little.

“So we are looking at setting up model green factories, through different projects, in different parts of the world.” M&S is already talking to potential partners in China and Bangladesh.

 

M&S says it “encourages” its suppliers to go green, by providing resources in the form of financial sponsorships and technical assistance. For instance, M&S contributed LKR16m ($148,354) to convert the Brandix factory into a green factory.

The concept of ‘model green plants’ is also expected to demonstrate that going green can have commercial benefits.

Brandix says its converted green factory in Seeduwa has managed to cut electricity bills in half at a time when factories in Sri Lanka are complaining of escalating electricity prices.  In the first month itself, electricity costs reduced by 48%, and in the second month they went down by 51%,” said AJ Johnpillai, a director of Brandix.

In addition the Brandix factory claims to have reduced overall energy consumption by 43%, water consumption by 58% and carbon emissions by 77%. The factory has also eliminated all waste that previously went into land fills.

By Dilshani Samaraweera.

 

April 23, 2008

Do You Need to “Believe” in Climate Change?

by Andrew Winston via Andrew Winston Blog

Global_warming Another Earth Day is here (and gone). It’s probably trite to say, “Hey, every day is Earth Day”, but I’ll give it a go. Yes, we need to worry about Earth stuff every day, but not just because the planet is in peril – which is a pretty good reason. Think of it this way: the Earth is often metaphorically compared to our home and, as a fairly recent homeowner, I can tell you that your home needs care and feeding much, much more than once a year (my small lawn of non-pesticide laden, eco-cared-for grass and natural weeds grows really fast). It’s a constant battle to keep a house running smoothly and providing for you and your family.

But let’s take a business perspective. Minding your costs, taking care of your assets, figuring out and fulfilling customer needs – all part of green value creation – are best done consistently and aggressively, not just in big flashy moments of marketing excitement. The days of “plant a tree” Earth Day celebrations being the only thing companies do are over. But many execs still see green as a checkbox exercise, not a corporate mandate and core strategy – do a few things such as retrofitting a facility or putting together a CSR report and move on.

But the environmental work we have ahead of us will be hard and ongoing. Luckily, it should get easier over time. Like the “flywheel” analogy from the bestseller Good to Great, you keep pushing away, and you start to get some real momentum.

All this relates to a question I’ve been struggling with lately: Does it matter if a company or its execs believe in climate change and other environmental imperatives? What got me started on this weeks ago was GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz’ comment that “global warming is a crock of s***.” And at nearly every talk I give on green business, people at all levels in companies from CEOs down inform me that climate change is not real.

My approach in these moments has generally been to stay quiet or point out that it doesn’t really matter whether you believe it or not, as long as you buy that going green is good for business. If you’re still pursuing green value through, say, eco-efficiency or product innovation, then who cares what you believe. This is basically what Lutz went on to say after his more colorful remarks ("My thoughts on what has or hasn't been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors”). This general idea that you don’t really need the first half of the Green Wave (made up of natural forces/pressures and stakeholders), is a key point my co-author and I make in our book Green to Gold.

But I’m beginning to wonder.

Yes, in the short run, you can go down a profitable green path with the conviction that if enough of your stakeholders care, it’s good for business. But what about in the longer-run, as the excitement that’s swept the business world quiets down and we have to make this new green way of doing business work?

Innovation is hard. Creating new products and services and finding new markets for them is hard. Handling what may be a permanent rise in the cost of all commodities and thus the cost of doing business is extremely hard. Won’t all these pursuits go a lot easier if there’s a bit more on the line than “well, we just have to do this because our competitors are doing it and customers are asking for it”? Won’t employees drive harder if they and their bosses believe the underpinnings of why it’s good for business? When Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer said recently that dealing with climate change “will be hard work and there is little time,” I believe his employees appreciated the blunt honesty and could set their nose to the flywheel/grindstone.

So does belief matter? I don’t have the answer, but I have my suspicions. The now oft-told green business success story of the Toyota Prius still speaks volumes – the company set out to make an environmental car. It wasn’t just an efficiency pursuit, but a real belief that the 21st century needed a form of transportation that reduced environmental burden. Going forward, GM may have trouble matching Toyota’s innovations if attitudes remain so different.

In the end, doesn’t it hurt morale, creativity, and productivity to hear your boss say one of the biggest drivers for action is a crock?

 

April 13, 2008

Al Gore: New thinking on the climate crisis

Al_gore




In Al Gore’s brand-new slideshow (premiering exclusively on TED.com), he presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting, and challenges us to act with a sense of "generational mission"

The kind of feeling that brought forth the civil rights movement -- to set it right. Gore's stirring presentation is followed by a brief Q&A in which he is asked for his verdict on the current political candidates' climate policies and on what role he himself might play in future.

Click here to view

March 29, 2008

Shouldn't Every Hour be "Earth Hour?"

Earthhour


Earth Hour.org

Earth Hour  is now annual international event started by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) Australia in 2007. This is a great example of how a ‘grassroots’ movement has spread to a global effort and event.

Held on the last Saturday of March, this year March 29--WWF asks households and businesses to turn off their lights and non-essential electrical appliances for one hour in the evening from 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm.

My question is this: Shouldn’t every hour be ‘Earth hour?’ An idea might be to hold Earth Hour once a month? The last Saturday of EVERY MONTH?