the weight of your clothes in CO2 equivalents - Forum

Account deleted

wrote:

kruspersille wrote:
does this mean how much co2 is used to produce the textiles cause if so - is there no difference in klimautslipp of where those expensive ethically sourced organic locally produced clothing shops get they fabrics and wherever h&m gets their fabrics from?

used to produce was prolly worded wrong. a result of the produce idk

Its abt fast fashion i believe but i will read up on the original source for the numbers later today and see the details for it

The difference in organic v conventional goes beyond co2 emission, the same goes for ethical treatment

Private
World famous

Versailles wrote:

SweetLapis wrote:

Versailles wrote:
fast fashion is a disease, wish they actually made clothes which didnt get bad fast (so ppl would buy more) or holes in a short period of time. Thankfully i got sewing machine and try fixing if there's any prob.

Exactly. Well, it's all about money, and it's just like the classical saying "Money is the route of all evil". An it is, it's sickening and outright sad the extend people will go just for a buck.

True, and fast fashion know people need clothes and often cheap ones/affordable and it's taken advantage, yet give the workers in Bangladesh too much work/long hours and pay little.
Yet they try to greenwash themselves to seem "good". Oh the greed.

BunnyButts
International star

BunnyButts wrote:
my co2 emissons are probs thiccy cause of the new fabric I buy for clothes

SweetLapis
World famous

SweetLapis wrote:

Versailles wrote:

SweetLapis wrote:

Versailles wrote:
fast fashion is a disease, wish they actually made clothes which didnt get bad fast (so ppl would buy more) or holes in a short period of time. Thankfully i got sewing machine and try fixing if there's any prob.

Exactly. Well, it's all about money, and it's just like the classical saying "Money is the route of all evil". An it is, it's sickening and outright sad the extend people will go just for a buck.

True, and fast fashion know people need clothes and often cheap ones/affordable and it's taken advantage, yet give the workers in Bangladesh too much work/long hours and pay little.
Yet they try to greenwash themselves to seem "good". Oh the greed.

With this pandemic too, it doesn't make things any better. When things were real bad and people can't go to the malls, they instead shop online and go to places like amazon (which is filled to the brim with fast fashion). Thus, more of these fast fashion companies are excelling and it makes more room for new ones to show up.

Private
International star

ThugWorkout wrote:
I have far too many clothes to be weighing them which I know is a bad thing but yeah this is really interesting tho

Account deleted

wrote:
I should write a post abt all the questions coming up here or smth

Account deleted

wrote:
The details of the numbers:
* this report was created was to be a call to action to gather more robust environmental data for the fashion industry.
* They based it on: polyester fiber as a proxy for synthetic fibers, viscose fiber as aproxy for cellulosic fibers and linen fibers as a proxy for natural fibers. Conventional datasets were used for all fibers, without distinctions between different preferred fiber types within a fiber class (e.g., organic cotton).
* For this study, no distinction between conventional fiber material versus more sustainable fibers was made. As such, all-fiber materials here are assumed to be conventional materials.
* Does not include farming. Starts with "the extraction of fibers" until disposal (excl. the consumers use of the item, shipping out to the consumer, Luxus materials like fur and leather, cleaning\ironing.)
* 2016 is used as the baseline year.

otherwise, i have no idea how he came forth to the number 38.77kg co2 eq. per kg bc i seriously can't find it and i'm too tried to test myself at math and hard percentages

p. 10 -

Account deleted

wrote:
Alternative measurements: honestly i will copy past the stuff bc i don't feel like rewriting it
1. Identify the material as it is a good indicator on the energy intensity of the textile. [1}

* Organic v. Conventional:
> "Synthetic fertilizer use is a major component of the high cost of conventional agriculture: making just one ton of nitrogen fertilizer emits nearly 7 tons of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gases." [1]
> there's a table in the link you can look at!
>> A study published by Innovations Agronomiques (2009) found that 43% less GHG are emitted per unit area under organic agriculture than under conventional agriculture.
>> A study done by Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University found that organic farming systems used just 63% of the energy required by conventional farming systems, largely because of the massive amounts of energy requirements needed to synthesize nitrogen fertilizers.
>> Further it was found in controlled long-term trials that organic farming adds between 100-400kg of carbon per hectare to the soil each year, compared to non-organic farming. When this stored carbon is included in the carbon footprint, it reduces the total GHG even further. The key lies in the handling of organic matter (OM): because soil organic matter is primarily carbon, increases in soil OM levels will be directly correlated with carbon sequestration. While conventional farming typically depletes soil OM, organic farming builds it through the use of composted animal manures and cover crops. (1)
> Other benefits of organic: eliminates the use of synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and genetically modified organisims (GMOs) which is an improvement in human health and agrobiodiversity conserves water (making the soil more friable so rainwater is absorbed better – lessening irrigation requirements and erosion)ensures sustained biodiversity and compared to forests, agricultural soils may be a more secure sink for atmospheric carbon, since they are not vulnerable to logging and wildfire.

* Natural or syntethic materials?
> "For synthetics, a crucial fact is that the fibers are made from fossil fuels. Very high amounts of energy are used in extracting the oil from the ground as well as in the production of the polymers." (1)

2. Count in the energy it takes to spin\weave the fibers.
Synthetics:
> A study done by the Stockholm Environment Institute on behalf of the BioRegional Development Group concludes that the energy used (and therefore the CO2 emitted) to create 1 ton of spun fiber is much higher for synthetics than for hemp or cotton: (1)
> acrylic is 30% more energy-intensive in its production than polyester and nylon is even higher than that (1).

[1] oecotextiles.blog/2011/01/19/estimating-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-fabric/ (2011)

i'm too tired to add the rest rn
mayb tomorrow

if you want to read about the positive impacts of choosing hemp as your material: https://www.ethicuette.com/pages/impact-why-what-and-how-are-we-measuring-it

Account deleted

wrote:

Funnier alternatives:
The ThreadUp Quiz: How dirty is your closet?

Account deleted

wrote:
Other numbers i found around:

Account deleted

wrote:

LOLITA
World famous

LOLITA wrote:
oh god no im scared to check because most of my clothes are lolita dresses from china and japan and they're like heavy duty good quality stuff. when i do order i order all the things i need tho so i won't have to order like 100 times a month, i have no idea if that makes it better but uhhhh

Account deleted

wrote:

RATTUS wrote:
oh god no im scared to check because most of my clothes are lolita dresses from china and japan and they're like heavy duty good quality stuff. when i do order i order all the things i need tho so i won't have to order like 100 times a month, i have no idea if that makes it better but uhhhh

I tried to read the report for the numbers and i dunno what to say.. it was just covering a few textiles so it's like a huge estimate you're making with that number