The clothing and textile industry has an ecological footprint which is far from sustainable. The industry emits 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 annually, is responsible for extensive water use and pollution, and produces 2.1 billion tonnes of waste annually, to name just a few aspects.
Global consumption of clothes doubled be- tween 2000 and 2014. Today, on a global average, every person buys 5kg of clothes per year, but in Europe and the USA the figure is as high as 16kg.
H&M was classified as ‘ambitious’; Nike, adidas and Mammut were ranked in the ‘upper midfield’;
VF Corporation (e.g. The North Face, Timberland), Hugo Boss, Odlo and Calida ended up in the ‘lower midfield’; and Triumph, Chicorée, PKZ and Tally Weijl were classified in the ‘latecomers / intransparent’ group – meaning they take very limited action regarding environmental issues, or do not disclose any information.
Cotton is a water-intensive crop that is usually grown in dry regions so as not to damage the eventual quality of fibre.
Not just cotton, synthetic bres such as polyester, rayon and viscose use much energy and chemicals to produce, often up to five times as much.
Since large-scale production of the synthetic materials began in the early 1950s to 2015, humans have created more than 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics https://perma.cc/NN5V-ZUWS
The textile industry creates 5-10% of global CO2 emissions. At the current rate this could increase to 26% by 2050.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/FoodWasteTelegram/132
What are microfibers and why are our clothes polluting the oceans? https://perma.cc/2B3Z-7BMA
Once our clothes reach a washing machine, the synthetic fabrics release tiny strands: so-called microfibers. These are essentially microscopic pieces of plastic, just like the microbeads you find in cosmetics.
The IUCN calculates that 35% of this microplastic pollution comes from washing synthetic textiles.
More https://perma.cc/9ZTY-6QYW https://perma.cc/GWP6-UU92
Global consumption of clothes doubled be- tween 2000 and 2014. Today, on a global average, every person buys 5kg of clothes per year, but in Europe and the USA the figure is as high as 16kg.
H&M was classified as ‘ambitious’; Nike, adidas and Mammut were ranked in the ‘upper midfield’;
VF Corporation (e.g. The North Face, Timberland), Hugo Boss, Odlo and Calida ended up in the ‘lower midfield’; and Triumph, Chicorée, PKZ and Tally Weijl were classified in the ‘latecomers / intransparent’ group – meaning they take very limited action regarding environmental issues, or do not disclose any information.
Cotton is a water-intensive crop that is usually grown in dry regions so as not to damage the eventual quality of fibre.
Not just cotton, synthetic bres such as polyester, rayon and viscose use much energy and chemicals to produce, often up to five times as much.
Since large-scale production of the synthetic materials began in the early 1950s to 2015, humans have created more than 8.3 billion metric tons of plastics https://perma.cc/NN5V-ZUWS
The textile industry creates 5-10% of global CO2 emissions. At the current rate this could increase to 26% by 2050.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/FoodWasteTelegram/132
What are microfibers and why are our clothes polluting the oceans? https://perma.cc/2B3Z-7BMA
Once our clothes reach a washing machine, the synthetic fabrics release tiny strands: so-called microfibers. These are essentially microscopic pieces of plastic, just like the microbeads you find in cosmetics.
The IUCN calculates that 35% of this microplastic pollution comes from washing synthetic textiles.
More https://perma.cc/9ZTY-6QYW https://perma.cc/GWP6-UU92
There are only two ways to decrease the impact: by decreasing the temperature from 40 °C to 30 °C and by filling the washing machine to its full load instead of running it half-full. Thus, if the t-shirt is washed at 30 °C within a full washing machine, the environmental impact would decrease further.
According to the results, the consumer should follow the following principles: (1) quality over quantity (in order to increase the t-shirt's lifetime and thus favoring consumption reduction); (2) a fuller washing machine is better; (3) avoiding the tumbler and favoring air-drying; and (4) the lower the washing temperature, the better.
It was observed that a washing temperature of 40°C instead of 60°C could cut the carbon footprint of the use phase by 45% and 30°C instead of 40°C by 40%.
It can be noticed that wool ber consumes lower energy and also leads to lower carbon footprint than the other listed fibers, except hemp fibers, which have the lowest carbon footprint.
Electrical energy is one of the major energy consumption sectors in the textile industry, and electrical energy is spent for driving machinery, cooling, temperature control, lighting, and of ce equipment. Among the various textile industries, the spinning industry takes the major share of electricity with 41%, followed by weaving and wet processing units.
However, energy used and CO2 emitted to manufacture 1 ton of natural fiber are much lower as compared to synthetics fibers. Production of wool fiber uses lower energy and has lower carbon footprint as compared to cotton fibers.
More
https://news.1rj.ru/str/PollutionFacts/909
https://news.1rj.ru/str/WWFFacts/187
https://news.1rj.ru/str/FoodWasteTelegram/132
https://news.1rj.ru/str/PollutionFacts/911
According to the results, the consumer should follow the following principles: (1) quality over quantity (in order to increase the t-shirt's lifetime and thus favoring consumption reduction); (2) a fuller washing machine is better; (3) avoiding the tumbler and favoring air-drying; and (4) the lower the washing temperature, the better.
It was observed that a washing temperature of 40°C instead of 60°C could cut the carbon footprint of the use phase by 45% and 30°C instead of 40°C by 40%.
It can be noticed that wool ber consumes lower energy and also leads to lower carbon footprint than the other listed fibers, except hemp fibers, which have the lowest carbon footprint.
Electrical energy is one of the major energy consumption sectors in the textile industry, and electrical energy is spent for driving machinery, cooling, temperature control, lighting, and of ce equipment. Among the various textile industries, the spinning industry takes the major share of electricity with 41%, followed by weaving and wet processing units.
However, energy used and CO2 emitted to manufacture 1 ton of natural fiber are much lower as compared to synthetics fibers. Production of wool fiber uses lower energy and has lower carbon footprint as compared to cotton fibers.
More
https://news.1rj.ru/str/PollutionFacts/909
https://news.1rj.ru/str/WWFFacts/187
https://news.1rj.ru/str/FoodWasteTelegram/132
https://news.1rj.ru/str/PollutionFacts/911
Whereas Swedish consumers, on average, report the lowest purchasing frequency for both jeans and t-shirts, US and Polish consumers are responsible for the highest production- induced impacts from jeans and t-shirts, respectively.
We further show that the greater importance of the use phase in the US is driven both by more carbon-intensive energy grids (relative to Germany and Sweden) and more frequent washing and drying!
In fact, by hypothetically transferring the washing and drying patterns of Swedish consumers to the US context, we observe that these behaviors induce a 64% lower impact than those of the average US consumer, thereby highlighting the significance of washing and drying behavior in countries with carbon-intensive energy grids.
The number of wears before washing (see Table 5) − which varies from 3.5 (1.8) in the US to 12.2 (2.6) in Sweden for jeans (t-shirts).
We estimated a potential GHG saving of 5.9 million tonnes CO2−eq per year from switching all washes to 30 °C or lower.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/PollutionFacts/919
Norway has the lowest emissions with 1.2 × 102 g CO2−eq/wash cycle and Poland has the highest emissions with 7.9 × 102 g CO2−eq/ wash cycle.
The population-weighted average life cycle GHG emissions in Europe are equal to 5.1 × 102 g CO2−eq/ wash cycle.
In the case all washes were done using the temperature category of 30 °C or lower, inter-country variability would be a factor of 4.5 and the population-weighted average life cycle GHG emissions in Europe would be 330 g CO2−eq/wash cycle. Given that the average GHG reduction potential of this scenario would be 177 g CO2−eq/wash cycle that implies a 35% reduction in the life cycle GHG footprint of clothes washing.
Remember that is important to consider how a country produce electricity!
So obviously nordic countries have better values
https://news.1rj.ru/str/EnergyFactsTelegram/275
https://news.1rj.ru/str/EnergyFactsTelegram/365
etc.
Turning down your laundry temperature can save up to 60% of the energy used in every wash https://perma.cc/A6HF-KQNY
We further show that the greater importance of the use phase in the US is driven both by more carbon-intensive energy grids (relative to Germany and Sweden) and more frequent washing and drying!
In fact, by hypothetically transferring the washing and drying patterns of Swedish consumers to the US context, we observe that these behaviors induce a 64% lower impact than those of the average US consumer, thereby highlighting the significance of washing and drying behavior in countries with carbon-intensive energy grids.
The number of wears before washing (see Table 5) − which varies from 3.5 (1.8) in the US to 12.2 (2.6) in Sweden for jeans (t-shirts).
We estimated a potential GHG saving of 5.9 million tonnes CO2−eq per year from switching all washes to 30 °C or lower.
https://news.1rj.ru/str/PollutionFacts/919
Norway has the lowest emissions with 1.2 × 102 g CO2−eq/wash cycle and Poland has the highest emissions with 7.9 × 102 g CO2−eq/ wash cycle.
The population-weighted average life cycle GHG emissions in Europe are equal to 5.1 × 102 g CO2−eq/ wash cycle.
In the case all washes were done using the temperature category of 30 °C or lower, inter-country variability would be a factor of 4.5 and the population-weighted average life cycle GHG emissions in Europe would be 330 g CO2−eq/wash cycle. Given that the average GHG reduction potential of this scenario would be 177 g CO2−eq/wash cycle that implies a 35% reduction in the life cycle GHG footprint of clothes washing.
Remember that is important to consider how a country produce electricity!
So obviously nordic countries have better values
https://news.1rj.ru/str/EnergyFactsTelegram/275
https://news.1rj.ru/str/EnergyFactsTelegram/365
etc.
Turning down your laundry temperature can save up to 60% of the energy used in every wash https://perma.cc/A6HF-KQNY