Carbon footprint of the textile industry

We’re starting a series of blogs on the carbon footprint of textiles.    Because it’s such a complex subject we’re breaking it into smaller portions, beginning with looking at the textile industry as a whole.   In other words, why the fuss over textiles?

Fabrics, believe it or not, have a large carbon footprint.  In other words, it takes a lot of energy to produce fabrics.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. textile industry is the 5th largest contributor to CO2 emissioins in the United States (after primary metals, nonmetallic mineral products, petroleum and chemicals).  In the developing world, where the textile industry represents a larger percentage of GDP and mills are often antiquated, the CO2 emissions are greater.

In fact, today’s textile industry is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gasses on Earth, due to the huge size and scope of the industry as well as the many processes and products that go into the making of textiles and finished textile products. (See Vivek Dev, “Carbon Footprint of Textiles”, April 3, 2009, http://www.domain-b.com/environment/20090403_carbon_footprint.html)

Based on estimated annual global textile production of 60 billion kilogrms (KG) 0f fabric, the estimated energy and water needed to produce that 60 billion KG of fabrics boggles the mind:  1,074 billion KWh of electricity (or 132 million metric tons of coal) and between 6 – 9 trillion liters of water.

Fabrics have been the elephant in the room for too long.  Do we overlook them because they are almost always used as a part of a finished product, such as sheets, blankets, sofas, curtains, and of course clothing?  It’s estimated that clothing and textiles account for about one ton of the 19.8 tons of total CO2 emissions produced by each person in the U.S. in 2006 (see Jurg Rupp, “Ecology and Economy in Textile Finishing”, Textile World, Nov/Dec 2008).

In the U.K., the Carbon Trust, working with Continental Clothing, has developed the world’s first carbon label for clothing (http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/03/27/uk-launches-first-carbon-footprint-label-for-retail-clothing/)  The new label will provide the carbon footprint of the garment, from raw materials and  manufacture to use and disposal.

carbon footprint label

The first point we want you to keep in mind is that the industry is huge, and because of its size it’s impacts are profound.  There is more to think about when buying a fabric than thread counts or abrasion ratings.

Just found this and had to share…

I just found the web site for Green Air (www.greenairradio.com) which bills itself as  “a nationally syndicated news radio feature and multi-platform interactive hub for Green and environmentally significant news, stories and entertainment. It is comprised of a broad network of media professionals including producers, journalists, broadcasters, writers, photographers and filmmakers worldwide. Green Air creates, publishes, and distributes traditional and new media content with a contemporary and humanistic voice.”

While scrolling through the GreenAir search, I found the segment titled Toxic Textiles ( http://greenairradio.com/?p=1612 ) Please take the time to watch it!    It was an eye opener even for me, who prides herself on knowing the facts about textile manufacturing, but when I actually see those farmers spraying the pesticides – how it’s done in a developing country – and when I see the dyehouse workers wringing dyed fabrics by hand, it’s a different ballgame.  Not to mention the two women profiled who have health problems brought on by exposure to these fabrics.

With global warming, shouldn’t we always buy fabric that’s produced nearby if possible?

Lots of people are concerned about the transportation costs of shipping fabric from China to the US, because they think the shipping contributes to an enormous carbon footprint of, say,  cotton fabric. The thinking goes that the homegrown variety (which doesn’t have the transportation burden) is far preferable because you save so much by not having to ship such long distances.

Well…A wise guy once said that green is not black and white.

An article which appeared in the New Yorker magazine by Michael Specter entitled  “Big Foot” describes how  easy it is to confuse morality and science.  It turns out that the carbon accounting thing is extraordinarily complex and often counterintuitive.
Mr. Specter quotes Adrian Williams, an agricultural researcher in the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University in England:   “The idea that a product travels a certain distance and is therefore worse than one you raised nearby—well, it’s just idiotic,” he said. “It doesn’t take into consideration the land use, the type of transportation, the weather, or even the season. “  He cites as an example the environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to England.  New Zealand apples can have a smaller carbon footprint than those raised 50 miles outside London because in New Zealand they have more sunshine than in the UK, so the yield is higher and energy needed to grow the crop is correspondingly lower.  Also electricity in New Zealand is mostly generated by renewable resources, none of which emits large amounts of CO2.

Turns out that that applies to natural fibers and fabrics also.

We found two reliable LCA studies – one done by Patagonia (for finished products) and another by the the Stockholm Environment Institute (entitled “Ecological Footprint and Water Analysis of Cotton, Hemp and Polyester”) , which  both  found that transportation costs account for only about 1% of the total energy used.  Resources used to produce the fibers require by far the greatest amount of energy.   Patagonia’s Director of Sustainability, Jill Dumain, is quoted in the WSJ  “Six Products, Six Carbon Footprints”, as saying that “there’s a lot of reasons to have a tight supply chain, but environmentalism isn’t one of them.”  By far the largest part of the footprint is from the production of the fibers.   And the situation is further complicated by  organic vs. conventional production – it’s not always true that organic (in terms of carbon footprint anyway) is always better.  In fact, the study done by the Stockholm Environment Instutite found that the total ecological fooprint, measured in global hectares, to produce one ton of spun fiber is higher for organic cotton grown in Punjab, India than that of conventionally produced cotton grown in the USA.  That’s due to the poor yields in Punjab, meaning they need more land to produce the same amount of fiber – therefore greater resource use.

Polyester, the most popular fiber in the world,  also has the largest carbon footprint – by a factor of about 4!  But that’s the next blog.

Why should I choose an organic fabric when I have to put an FR treatment on it anyway?

The questions is whether it’s a better choice to use inherently flame retardant fabrics such as AvoraFR rather than a natural fiber (like cotton) which has been doused with toxic FR chemicals.  The answer is complicated and like most in this emerging green area, there may be no “best” answer.  We think the answers may lie in the tradeoffs we have to make.  But we’ve got an opinion, and it’s based on the following reasoning:

Fabrics which are inherently flame retardant are synthetics which have been changed at the molecular level to make the fabrics thermally stable and able to pass commercial flame tests.   Some petroleum-based synthetic fibers, such as Avora FR, Trevira CS and Lenzing FR viscose – add a flame retardant to the chemical treatment before polymer extrusion rather than change the molecular structure of the polymer.  This process builds the chemical treatment into the backbone of the polyester rather than adding it later to the finished product.  It is presumed to be less likely to expose the occupants to chemicals.

So how do you compare the two?

When comparing the synthetic with a natural fiber, we think it’s important to look at the carbon footprint of the fibers.  A synthetic like polyester requires much more energy to produce a ton of fiber than does conventional cotton – in megajoules (MJ) of energy the difference is about four times: 126,000 MJ polyester vs. 33,000 MJ for conventional cotton.  Organic cotton is even less:  only 16,000MJ.

It’s important to look at how these fibers are woven into fabric.  (And that’s a different set of carbon calculations).  If the polyester or the cotton is produced conventionally, the finished fabric has residuals of many chemicals which have been proven to harm human health.  The majority of Americans mistakenly believes that the government tests chemicals used in consumer products to ensure safety, accoring to an opinion poll released by the Washington Toxics Coalition.  However, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), there is no legal requirements to test most chemicals for health effects, including impacts on neurological development, at any stage of production, marketing and use.  An organic fabric is one which has not used any of the many chemicals used in textile production which are known to be toxic.

So looking at two fabrics (even if one polyester fabric is produced using optimized production methods – i.e., avoiding the toxic chemicals) the organic cotton (or better yet, hemp or linen) fabric is one I’d rather live with.  But fire kills many people every year and we have reason to keep fire codes in place in public spaces.  So the issue focuses on the chemistry used to fire retard the fabrics.

Natural fibers must have a topical FR treatment applied after manufacture.  In the past, these treatments were based on halogenated chemistry, like PBDEs.  The industry is moving away from these chemicals and most have been banned, but decaBDE is still allowed in the US.  With careful attention and questioning of your supplier, you can have a natural fiber fabric that has an FR treatment which meets all codes – and which is not persisten, bioaccumulative and compromises your health.

So now the question becomes how dothe two fibers react in actual fires?

An important thing to remember about synthetics is that they do not burn, they melt.  That’s why protective clothing (firemen, police, rescue) is not made of synthetics – even inherently fire retardant synthetics – because the melting fabric would cause severe burns.

Another issue (and one we think is most important) is that the smoke created by burning or melting fabrics.   Conventionally produced fabrics (natural fiber or synthetic) release chemicals which add an extra dimension to the already toxic smoke.

So where do we stand?

• With a carbon footprint of 16,000 MJ vs 126,000 MJ (organic cotton vs. polyester) to make the fiber and
• with organic fabrics having little or none of the chemicals which have been proven to harm human health and
• because of the ability to use a nonhalogenated FR treatment on an organic fabric and
• in the case of a fire, not having to breathe toxic fumes from melting synthetics or conventionally produced fabrics

is there really a choice?

Happy May Day

In honor of May Day and workers everywhere,  I’d like to suggest that you check where your cotton comes from.  Like extracting oil which has different energy requirements depending on where its found, there’s a lot of variation in cotton depending on where its grown.    And cotton from Uzbekistan is not a good choice.

Uzbekistan is the second largest exporter of cotton in the world,  but the human rights issues (putting aside the environmental issues for the time being) associated with Uzbek cotton puts it at the bottom of the heap.

According to the Environmental Justice Foundation:

Instead of using machines to harvest cotton, as is done in other major cotton exporting countries, Uzbekistan’s government uses children. Every autumn state officials shut down schools, and send students, together with their teachers, to the cotton fields. Tens of thousands of children, some as young as seven, are forced to undertake weeks of arduous labour for little or no financial reward. Headmasters are issued with cotton quotas and made to ensure that students pick the required daily amount. Children who fail to pick their target of cotton are reportedly punished with detentions and told that their grades will suffer. Those who refuse to take part can face academic expulsion.”

And if you have happy memories of picking cotton for your grandparents to help bring the crop in, read the letter from Brian Schroeter (whose wife was one of those Uzbek kids forced to pick cotton) published in the Delta Farm Press  http://deltafarmpress.com/news/uzbek-cotton-1217/ In this letter, Brian explains how the situation is such a human rights disaster.

As consumers, ask where your cotton comes from.  Ignorance on the part of the seller, as always, is no excuse.  Tell your retailer that you will not buy it if there is no credible information about where the cotton is produced.   Seek out fair trade cotton.