unconsumption
unconsumption:


H&M to encourage shoppers to recycle unwanted clothes … while rewarding them with discounts on purchases of new clothing?
From the Los Angeles Times: 








Fast fashion retailer H&M wants your old clothes. 
The Swedish clothier is rolling out a global initiative to encourage its shoppers to recycle unwanted outfits instead of throwing them in the trash, H&M said in a statement Thursday. 
“Every year, tons of textiles are thrown out with domestic waste and end up in landfill. As much as 95% of these clothes could be used again; re-worn, reused or recycled — depending on the state of the garment,” H&M said. 
H&M will accept clothing from any brand in any condition (now might be a good time to bring out the stained sweatshirts and dozens of cotton T-shirts). In return, the retailer will give shoppers vouchers for future H&M purchases (thereby providing fodder for future recycling trips). All H&M stores will start accepting used clothing in February. 
This may help the retail giant to counter criticism that the rise of H&M and other fast fashion retailers such as Forever 21 has fueled shoppers, especially young ones, to treat clothing as disposable goods that can be chucked after wearing an outfit two or three times. 
H&M is partnering with recycling company I:Collect, which will take the clothes to a sorting facility in Germany. There, the clothes will either be separated for re-use as apparel or sent on its way for a second life as rags, stuffing, padding and other purposes. 
The retailer said its long-term goal is to “reduce the environmental impact of garments throughout the lifecycle.”









More in H&M’s press release here. 
[Side note: Many of you might recall that H&M came under fire a couple of years ago for destroying and discarding unworn/unsold clothing.]
Related: Earlier this year, UK retailer Marks & Spencer launched a recycled clothing initiative, a.k.a. “shwopping,” meant to reduce the amount of clothing going to landfill. Items — any brands’ merchandise — dropped in M&S in-store drop boxes either get resold through Oxfam, or are repurposed or recycled. M&S recently announced the program will expand beyond its stores: clothing collection boxes will be available at some workplaces. M&S gives customers vouchers redeemable for discounts on future purchases.   
Also: Clothing manufacturer Patagonia also accepts worn clothing — its own products — and provides drop boxes in stores. Through the company’s “Common Threads” program, some used Patagonia merchandise can be resold via eBay; items that are no longer wearable are recycled or repurposed.
What do you think about such clothing-collection initiatives? As a part of these programs, should customers be offered incentives, e.g., vouchers, to buy new clothes, or should they even be offered anything in return for their participation?  

unconsumption:

H&M to encourage shoppers to recycle unwanted clothes … while rewarding them with discounts on purchases of new clothing?

From the Los Angeles Times

Fast fashion retailer H&M wants your old clothes. 

The Swedish clothier is rolling out a global initiative to encourage its shoppers to recycle unwanted outfits instead of throwing them in the trash, H&M said in a statement Thursday. 

“Every year, tons of textiles are thrown out with domestic waste and end up in landfill. As much as 95% of these clothes could be used again; re-worn, reused or recycled — depending on the state of the garment,” H&M said. 

H&M will accept clothing from any brand in any condition (now might be a good time to bring out the stained sweatshirts and dozens of cotton T-shirts). In return, the retailer will give shoppers vouchers for future H&M purchases (thereby providing fodder for future recycling trips). All H&M stores will start accepting used clothing in February. 

This may help the retail giant to counter criticism that the rise of H&M and other fast fashion retailers such as Forever 21 has fueled shoppers, especially young ones, to treat clothing as disposable goods that can be chucked after wearing an outfit two or three times. 

H&M is partnering with recycling company I:Collect, which will take the clothes to a sorting facility in Germany. There, the clothes will either be separated for re-use as apparel or sent on its way for a second life as rags, stuffing, padding and other purposes. 

The retailer said its long-term goal is to “reduce the environmental impact of garments throughout the lifecycle.”

More in H&M’s press release here

[Side note: Many of you might recall that H&M came under fire a couple of years ago for destroying and discarding unworn/unsold clothing.]

Related: Earlier this year, UK retailer Marks & Spencer launched a recycled clothing initiative, a.k.a. “shwopping,” meant to reduce the amount of clothing going to landfill. Items — any brands’ merchandise — dropped in M&S in-store drop boxes either get resold through Oxfam, or are repurposed or recycled. M&S recently announced the program will expand beyond its stores: clothing collection boxes will be available at some workplaces. M&S gives customers vouchers redeemable for discounts on future purchases.   

Also: Clothing manufacturer Patagonia also accepts worn clothing — its own products — and provides drop boxes in stores. Through the company’s “Common Threads” program, some used Patagonia merchandise can be resold via eBay; items that are no longer wearable are recycled or repurposed.

What do you think about such clothing-collection initiatives? As a part of these programs, should customers be offered incentives, e.g., vouchers, to buy new clothes, or should they even be offered anything in return for their participation?  

unconsumption
unconsumption:


To celebrate Earth Day 2012, Bonobos introduced a special line of environmentally sustainable denim made completely from recycled materials.  The jeans are called Bottle Rockets– aptly named because each pair of jeans contains 3-5 recycled beer bottles.
Bottle Rocket jeans are made from White Oak Cone Denim, which features EarthSpun yarn. EarthSpun is an innovative company that makes apparel and yarn out of 100%  recycled cotton, polyester, plastic bottles, and x-ray film.  Instead of using dyes or chemicals in their yarn, the colors of EarthSpun yarn (and the resulting apparel and denim) come from the colors of the recycled plastic bottles and x-ray film they use- blue, green, and brown yarn comes from the recycled bottles, and gray yarn comes from the x-ray film.

(via Jeans Made Of Recycled Beer Bottles - PSFK)

the one time drinking leads to making pants, not losing them….

unconsumption:

To celebrate Earth Day 2012, Bonobos introduced a special line of environmentally sustainable denim made completely from recycled materials.  The jeans are called Bottle Rockets– aptly named because each pair of jeans contains 3-5 recycled beer bottles.

Bottle Rocket jeans are made from White Oak Cone Denim, which features EarthSpun yarn. EarthSpun is an innovative company that makes apparel and yarn out of 100%  recycled cotton, polyester, plastic bottles, and x-ray film.  Instead of using dyes or chemicals in their yarn, the colors of EarthSpun yarn (and the resulting apparel and denim) come from the colors of the recycled plastic bottles and x-ray film they use- blue, green, and brown yarn comes from the recycled bottles, and gray yarn comes from the x-ray film.

(via Jeans Made Of Recycled Beer Bottles - PSFK)

the one time drinking leads to making pants, not losing them….

unconsumption
unconsumption:


Hosiery company No nonsense … has started the first pantyhose recycling program. “Our current goal is to recycle five percent of our sheer hosiery shipments, the most popular kind sold,” says Steve Brinkey, director of marketing at Kayser-Roth, the company that manages No nonsense. Inspired by Nike’s shoe recycling program, No nonsense accepts all brands and color of hosiery and tights. 

Noted: Recycle Your Pantyhose | The Etsy Blog

THIS IS AWESOME. I hate having to toss out old, ripped, ill-fitting pairs, and it’s great that someone somewhere is making an effort to recycle something that would otherwise end up in the dump!

unconsumption:

Hosiery company No nonsense … has started the first pantyhose recycling program. “Our current goal is to recycle five percent of our sheer hosiery shipments, the most popular kind sold,” says Steve Brinkey, director of marketing at Kayser-Roth, the company that manages No nonsense. Inspired by Nike’s shoe recycling program, No nonsense accepts all brands and color of hosiery and tights. 

Noted: Recycle Your Pantyhose | The Etsy Blog

THIS IS AWESOME. I hate having to toss out old, ripped, ill-fitting pairs, and it’s great that someone somewhere is making an effort to recycle something that would otherwise end up in the dump!

hokayhereitis

Reduce Reuse Recycle. There’s a reason why it’s last.

hokayhereitis:

This will be a highly opinionated and sorely uninformed post, so feel free to ignore it.

After scanning the ‘Recycle’ Tag, I’ve realized that many people out there feel like recycling is the only way that soemone can ‘go green.’ While recylcing is always encouraged and certainly has its benefits, people always seem to forget that it is truly a last resort.

Recycling is costly, energy exhaustive, and isn’t exactly consequence free. Sure, it’s one million times better than throwing something into a landfill, where the product will sit and sit and sit for days innumerable. There’s also no denying that recycling is always done with the best intentions. I can’t express to you how very important and significant it is that people even care enough to recycle; there are still so many out there who don’t. But there are better options to resort to when trying to be ‘green.’

First and foremost we must try to Reduce. And in a world where more is better than less, getting people to reduce their use, reduce their consumption, is probably the biggest battle we’ll face. People don’t want to use less water, they don’t want to buy fewer ‘disposable’ plastics (eg. water bottles), they don’t want to cut back. But by reducing our use of certain things, like plastic bags and bottles, water and even electricity, we are thereby reducing the amount of waste we even have to deal with. By training ourselves to reduce, we have fewer things to worry about recycling. If we keep buying more, companies will keep producing more, and the damaging cycle of new product production continues. Reducing takes no energy at all, and really not much effort either, and it’s the first and best step we can take.

Reuse is often confused with Recycle. Yes, taking something old and using it for something new is recycling it’s purpose, but technically, that’s reusing. But why am I getting bothered by semantic technicaility, the point is all the same, and it’s wonderful. Reusing a product, or ‘recycling’ its purpose, either way, you’re saving yourself from purchasing a newly made product, and using the products that have already been produced to their full potential. In the case of glass products, you can use those for pretty much forever, and plastics, those too. Reusing something as something else takes almost no energy, and is more customizable to your needs and wants.

Recycling a product, the more technical meaning of the term, is more energy costly and not exactly effective. It’s great to see recycling bins next to trashcans, see symbols on shirts and bags, and see people making an effort. As I mentioned before, it is definitely better than letting a non-biodegradable product sit in a landfill for year and years, but it’s still an imperfect process, with it’s own pollutants and energy costs. It is the easiest of the three, but the least effective. While people argue that it takes less money and energy to create a product from recycled material than from new ones, the energy put into creating the original product, and the energy put into recycling it into something else still amounts to more than if we didn’t have to produce the product at all.

And even these opinions have flaws. The biggest argument is that one person’s reduction, or reuse, is not enough to make corporations stop producing as much as they do, but you’d be surprised. A company that notices product sales going down isn’t going to keep producing the same volume of products for their next quarter. It not about being one person that does something, it’s about being the one person to inspire others. Your good habits should never just be your own, they should be an example for the people around you. To be terribly cliche, I want you to be the small drop in the big pond, that makes all those ripples. Or something like that. But it will take more than just that third step.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.

unconsumption
unconsumption:


Rogan Gregory and Scott Mackinley Hahn, the owners of the organic fashion brand Loomstate, decided to take the gamble, challenging a class at Parsons the New School for Design to create garments with zero waste.
The students’ work was whittled down to five finalists, with the  winner—a loose-fitting anorak with dolman sleeves by Andria  Crescioni—chosen at a Parsons exhibition on zero waste. Along the way,  Gregory and Hahn coached the class, led by Timo Rissanen, on methods of  construction and Loomstate’s style. The key was to maximize a single  piece of cloth, using the scraps for pockets and cuffs and external  details
The anorak is available in limited quantities for $345.

Not crazy about that price point. And not sure I get why it’s a “limited quantities” situation, which implies that this was a bit of a publicity stunt. But still: Two cheers, right? And nice job by the students…
(via Loomstate To Parsons Students: Design A Zero-Waste Garment, And We’ll Make It | Co.Design: business   innovation   design)

unconsumption:

Rogan Gregory and Scott Mackinley Hahn, the owners of the organic fashion brand Loomstate, decided to take the gamble, challenging a class at Parsons the New School for Design to create garments with zero waste.

The students’ work was whittled down to five finalists, with the winner—a loose-fitting anorak with dolman sleeves by Andria Crescioni—chosen at a Parsons exhibition on zero waste. Along the way, Gregory and Hahn coached the class, led by Timo Rissanen, on methods of construction and Loomstate’s style. The key was to maximize a single piece of cloth, using the scraps for pockets and cuffs and external details

The anorak is available in limited quantities for $345.

Not crazy about that price point. And not sure I get why it’s a “limited quantities” situation, which implies that this was a bit of a publicity stunt. But still: Two cheers, right? And nice job by the students…

(via Loomstate To Parsons Students: Design A Zero-Waste Garment, And We’ll Make It | Co.Design: business innovation design)

jtotheizzoe

jtotheizzoe:

From Scientific American, thoughts for Black Friday:

“There is no doubt true that our overly consumerist culture is contributing to our addiction to oil and other natural resources and the pollution of the planet and its atmosphere.

Unfortunately the tendency to acquire and even horde valuable goods may be coded into our DNA. Researchers contend that humans are subconsciously driven by an impulse for survival, domination and expansion which finds expression in the idea that economic growth will solve all individual and worldly ills. Advertising plays on those impulses, turning material items into objects of great desire imparting intelligence, status and success.”

remarkably-clever
Look Before You Leap Think Before You Buy.
remarkably-clever:

Stumbled across this. Thought it was pretty cool. Check it out at patagonia.com.

Today is Cyber Monday. It will likely be the biggest online shopping day ever. Cyber Monday was created by the National Retail Federation in 2005 to focus media and public attention on online shopping. But Cyber Monday, and the culture of consumption it reflects, puts the economy of natural systems that support all life firmly in the red. We’re now using the resources of one-and-a-half planets on our one and only planet. Because Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time – and leave a world inhabitable for our kids – we want to do the opposite of every other business today. We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else. Environmental bankruptcy, as with corporate bankruptcy, can happen very slowly, then all of a sudden. This is what we face unless we slow down, then reverse the damage. We’re running short on fresh water, topsoil, fisheries, wetlands – all our planet’s natural systems and resources that support business, and life, including our own. The environmental cost of everything we make is astonishing. Consider the R2® Jacket shown, one of our best sellers. To make it required 135 liters of water, enough to meet the daily needs (three glasses a day) of 45 people. Its journey from its origin as 60% recycled polyester to our Reno warehouse generated nearly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, 24 times the weight of the finished product. This jacket left behind, on its way to Reno, two-thirds its weight in waste. And this is a 60% recycled polyester jacket, knit and sewn to a high standard; it is exceptionally durable, so you won’t have to replace it as often. And when it comes to the end of its useful life we’ll take it back to recycle into a product of equal value. But, as is true of all the things we can make and you can buy, this jacket comes with an environmental cost higher than its price. There is much to be done and plenty for us all to do. Don’t buy what you don’t need. Think twice before you buy anything. Go to patagonia.com/CommonThreads, take the Common Threads Initiative pledge and join us in the fifth “R,” to reimagine a world where we take only what nature can replace.

Look Before You Leap Think Before You Buy.

remarkably-clever:

Stumbled across this. Thought it was pretty cool. Check it out at patagonia.com.

Today is Cyber Monday. It will likely be the biggest online shopping day ever. Cyber Monday was created by the National Retail Federation in 2005 to focus media and public attention on online shopping. But Cyber Monday, and the culture of consumption it reflects, puts the economy of natural systems that support all life firmly in the red. We’re now using the resources of one-and-a-half planets on our one and only planet. Because Patagonia wants to be in business for a good long time – and leave a world inhabitable for our kids – we want to do the opposite of every other business today. We ask you to buy less and to reflect before you spend a dime on this jacket or anything else. Environmental bankruptcy, as with corporate bankruptcy, can happen very slowly, then all of a sudden. This is what we face unless we slow down, then reverse the damage. We’re running short on fresh water, topsoil, fisheries, wetlands – all our planet’s natural systems and resources that support business, and life, including our own. The environmental cost of everything we make is astonishing. Consider the R2® Jacket shown, one of our best sellers. To make it required 135 liters of water, enough to meet the daily needs (three glasses a day) of 45 people. Its journey from its origin as 60% recycled polyester to our Reno warehouse generated nearly 20 pounds of carbon dioxide, 24 times the weight of the finished product. This jacket left behind, on its way to Reno, two-thirds its weight in waste. And this is a 60% recycled polyester jacket, knit and sewn to a high standard; it is exceptionally durable, so you won’t have to replace it as often. And when it comes to the end of its useful life we’ll take it back to recycle into a product of equal value. But, as is true of all the things we can make and you can buy, this jacket comes with an environmental cost higher than its price. There is much to be done and plenty for us all to do. Don’t buy what you don’t need. Think twice before you buy anything. Go to patagonia.com/CommonThreads, take the Common Threads Initiative pledge and join us in the fifth “R,” to reimagine a world where we take only what nature can replace.