Prosperity without growth

Have you ever heard of the Easterlin Paradox?  It is a theory developed in 1974, which goes something like this:  Money makes you happier until you reach about an average income.  After that, money’s affect on happiness is greatly reduced.  But there are those who argue that “happiness” is a very imprecise science, so maybe  Senator Bobby Kennedy (who might have known what he was talking about) might have gotten closer to the problem:  “Gross Domestic Product measures everything…except that which makes life worthwhile.”

The government of Bhutan has been following a policy of Gross National Happiness since 1972, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently announced that happiness levels would be taken into account when measuring the country’s economic performance.  Whether this happiness component is taken into consideration or not, there seems to be a paradigm shift from neoclassical to ecological economics now underway.  Is it possible that  there is a direct correlation between economics, ecology and happiness?

This new shift is  typified by Tim Jackson and his new book, Prosperity Without Growth, which is a completely revised and updated version of the Sustainable Development Commission report of the same name.  Tim Jackson is a Professor of Sustainable Development in the Centre for Environmental Strategy (CES) at the University of Surrey.  Since January 2003, Tim has been employed at CES under a research fellowship on the ‘social psychology’ of consumer behavior.   In the last twelve years he has pioneered the development of an ‘adjusted’ measure of economic growth – a ‘green GDP’ – for the UK. He is also an advisor to the UK government as a Commissioner on the Sustainable Development Commission and  is an Associate of the New Economics Foundation.  In other words, no lightweight.

Tim  wrote an article last summer which appeared in Adbusters  (and if you don’t know about Adbusters please check them out – they are working to change the “ way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society”.  It’s entitled “Thinking the Unthinkable”,  based on Prosperity without Growth;  it explores the point at which economic growth becomes uneconomic growth.  The conclusions are disturbing.   Charles Siegel of The Sierra Club says it should be  required reading for everyone working to avoid ecological collapse (click here to read the review) . The article from Adbusters is reproduced below; the entire book will be available November 2 through Earthscan (www.earthscan.co.uk/pwg) or you can read the original report online at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914:

Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate, the economy will be 80 times that size by the year 2100.

This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology we depend on for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems.

For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that – financial crises aside – growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our well-being.

The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters – as it has done recently – politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries.

But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems we depend on for survival. It has failed spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.

Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil; the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices; the degradation of forests, lakes and soils; conflicts over land use, water quality and fishing rights; and the momentous challenge of stabilizing concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.

In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilized society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people’s jobs – and creating new ones – is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.

Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task for policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.

But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.

For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.

Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.

Clarification regarding GreenGuard certification

Hi folks:  I heard from Josh Jacobs, Technical Information Manager at GreenGuard about what they feel is misleading information in last weeks post about the fees charged by GreenGuard.  I told them I’d publish their clarification, so here it is:

“Fees charged to participating manufacturer’s in the GREENGUARD Certification Program^SM vary depending upon a couple of reasons; certification and testing. The certification fee takes into account company size and administrative, application and licensing fees. Testing, which is not conducted by the GREENGUARD Environmental Institute, but is required for certification, will also vary depending on the number of products a manufacturer is looking to have certified and the amount of testing that is needed. The fee that was mentioned in the prior blog post would typically include anywhere from five to more than 25 products and they would come from multiple manufacturing locations/facilities. Additionally, this would in most instances encompass tests that help categorize numerous products into similar product groupings and manufacturing reviews which are not applicable following the first year of certification.

We appreciate being mentioned alongside other credible third-party certification programs and standards and wanted to make sure that the textile industry understood that the entry fee for attaining GREENGUARD Certification is not as steep as has been published in other venues. We value O Ecotextiles efforts to distribute accurate information and their support of true third-party certifications. We thank them for the opportunity to speak with them regarding this misunderstanding in the marketplace.”

Textiles, organic agriculture and water use

A new study focused on global water issues, commissioned by an  international network of  scientists,   found that people around the world view water issues as the planet’s top environmental problem -  greater than air pollution, depletion of natural resources, loss of habitat or climate change. (click here to read more on this study).  That shouldn’t be too surprising, given the alarming statistics we’ve been hearing recently:

From World Water Day:  “The world water crisis is one of the largest public health issues of our time. Nearly 1.1 billion people (roughly 20% of the world’s population) lack access to safe drinking water. Water is essential to the treatment of diseases, something especially critical for children.  This problem isn’t confined to a particular region of the world. A third of the Earth’s population lives in “water stressed” countries and that number is expected to rise dramatically over the next two decades.”

From Water.org:

• 3.575 million people die each year from water-related disease.
• The water and sanitation crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns.
• An American taking a five-minute shower uses more water than the typical person living in a developing country slum uses in a whole day

Given that the textile industry uses vast quantities of water – and is the #1 industrial polluter of fresh water on Earth – it is necessary that the industry at the very least institute water treatment at each and every mill so that the water returned to the ecosystem is safe and doesn’t cause harm.  Currently the industry is adopting voluntary certifications which demonstrate to consumers what they are doing to protect the environment.    Some certifications include standards for water treatment (such as GOTS, C2C, SMaRT) and some do not (such as Oeko-Tex, GreenGuard).  But these certifications are voluntary, and water treatment is expensive.  The market doesn’t yet know enough to demand safe fabrics, let alone better processing procedures.  The industry is not adopting these standards quickly nor is there much discussion about water treatment by American textile mills.  It is not enough.  We are calling for a government mandate for water treatment (pH, temperature and COD and BOD content) at each mill in the United States with standards that really have teeth.

We recognize that industrial water pollution is only part of the problem – that the consumer piece of the equation (laundering) is important also.  But the government cannot mandate how you launder your clothes  -  while it does have the power to change and monitor effluent levels from industry.

We  have a made a Faustian bargain:  we have exploited our natural resources and given up long term conservation for short term gain.  I know it’s easy to point fingers after the fact, and it would have been unusual for anybody (including myself) to point out the folly of using up our limited resources when the gains from doing so were so great.  But time is change, and we’re now facing different circumstances.  It is not really even a question of whether we should do this or not,  because our ability to act has been taken away – the water is simply disappearing.  It’s not being replaced.  We have to adapt to circumstances – and now the only question is “how”?  Let me tell you a story.

There are generally two images of the Great Plains that most Americans of my generation keep in their minds.  The first is that iconic black and white photograph by Arthur Rothstein of the 30’s Dust Bowl:

The second is of a swath of verdant farmland, ripe with wheat, corn, sorghum, soybeans and cotton –   field after verdant field stretching to the horizon:

This startling change can be attributed to the Ogalala Aquifer, one of the largest aquifer systems in the world.  Total water storage in the aquifer is about equal to that of Lake Huron, and it is the single most important source of water in the High Plains region, providing nearly all the water for residential, industrial and agricultural use.   It is this water that transformed the Great Plains from a region of subsistence farming into one of the richest agricultural areas of the world – $20 billion per year in food and fiber depends on this aquifer.   It stretches across all or portions of eight states and underlies 174,000 square miles.  It lies relatively near the land surface in most of this area, and could almost always be counted on to yield water to a well drilled into it.

In the 1930s, people began to realize the potential of the vast water supply that lay beneath them.  Irrigation of cropland began in earnest.   And very little water conservation technology was available:  lots of water was lost to evaporation and deep percolation; open, unlined ditches were used to transport the water to the fields; it wasn’t uncommon to have evaporation losses of 50%. Early settlers thought the water was inexhaustible.

It was not.  And today we risk having the first image above superimposed again on the second.   That is because  the Ogalala Aquifer is being sucked dry.

Today, the Ogalala Aquifer  is being depleted at a rate of 12 billion cubic metres a year – amounting to a total depletion to date of a volume equal to the annual flow of 18 Colorado Rivers.(1)  Although precipitation and river systems are recharging a few parts of the aquifer, in most places “nature cannot keep up with human demands.” (2)

According to a major study just completed by Camp Dresser & McKee, a Boston engineering firm, 5.1 million acres of irrigated land (an area the size of Massachusetts) in six Great Plains states will dry up by the year 2020 ( that’s 10 years!), and millions of acres of irrigated acres will be lost across a 5-state area.  Yet this drastic estimate, declares Herbert Grubb of the Texas department of water resources, is  “20% too optimistic.”(3)

Ship Bright is a blog concerned with fresh water issues, and the post on October 12, 2009 (read it here) features a great description of the current situation, including what they call the “planned bankruptcy”  caused by current water management strategies.

Farmers in the area are waking up to the fact that they will have to use less water – and this in the face of global warming predictions that the area served largely by the Ogalala Aquifer is predicted to be hotter and drier.(4)

One way to conserve water is to use more efficient irrigation systems, another way is to grow crops that require less water.    Then there is “going dryland” – meaning using no irrigation at all.  That requires using some techniques such as leaving stubble in the ground and planting a new crop in the residue.  This not only reduces soil erosion but also decreases evaporation and catches more blowing snow than bare ground.  It also reduces moisture loss by the equivalent of an inch or more of rainfall annually, and in an area that averages only 18 inches of rainfall per year that’s a lot.

These techniques have long been part of organic agriculture  – growing what is appropriate for an area, using what is available.  Many organic crops which do not use artificial fertilizers also have lower water requirements.  There is some research going on into the suitability of cotton as a replacement for corn in this area, because cotton crops use less water than corn.

In addition, some farmers are looking into converting their land back to grasslands, which would provide wildlife habitat, and grazing land for cattle or even buffalo.  (See our blog “Organic Agriculture and Climate Change” 7.29.09 and “Why does wool get such high embodied energy ratings”, 8.4.09).   And once a national carbon market is established, farmers could sell credits for storing carbon in grassland soil.  But the government doesn’t provide lucrative financial incentives for grassland conversion as it does for the production of corn or other commodities.

Once again, organic agriculture proves to be important, perhaps crucial, in our fight modify our water use and perhaps allow the Ogalala Aquifer to recharge.

(1)  Little, J.B., “Saving the Ogalala Aquifer”, Scientific American “Earth 3.0″, Vol 19, No. 1, 2009

(2) Ibid.

(3) Stengel, Woodbury, Allis, “Environment: Ebbing of the Ogalala”, Time, May 10, 1982

(4)Bock, J., Bowman, W., Bock, C, “Global Change in the High Plains of North America”, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Great Plains Research, Vol.1, No. 2

Certifications – what to look for in textiles

Apparently Good Housekeeping now has a green seal of approval.  UL laboratories, the safety test lab, also has it’s own green seal of approval.  In fact, according to the new 2009 Conscious Consumer Report from BBMG, there are now over 400 different certifications  related to “green” and environmental attributes of products and services.  So many that such marks risk losing their effectiveness.    Steven Colbert  said that they now had a “Green Colbert Report”  – they’re reducing their emissions by jumping on the bandwagon.

And like all comedy, it only hurts when we laugh.  Since we’re all about textiles, let’s focus here.   Do you even know what certifications pertain to textiles?

The market is absolutely rife with claims about organic cotton – and believe me, I have absolutely nothing against organic cotton.  But the focus (by marketers and consumers alike) is that if it’s made of organic cotton, then the product is sustainable.  That’s far from the truth.  We like to use the analogy of “organic applesauce” – that is, if you take organic apples, then cook them with preservatives, emulsifiers, Red Dye #2, stabilizers and any number of other additives – do you end up with organic applesauce?  Just like bread – which is made from wheat which is grown (maybe organically), harvested, ground into flour, mixed with milk, yeast, salt and maybe other things, then baked – fabric undergoes the same type of transformation.  I mean, really, do you actually think that the cotton boll which you see in the picture is transformed into your blouse without some kind of serious work?  What about oil?  Think of crude oil and and your new sheets – what do you think has to have happened to that crude to make it acceptable for your bedroom?

So the certifications which are often used for fabrics have only to do with the FIBER, and not with the processing.  The processing is environmentally damaging and results in fabric that contains many chemicals that seriously jeopardize our health.  And often a product is advertised as being an “organic fabric” when what they mean is the fabric started out with organic fibers – but the processing, like the organic applesauce mentioned above, results in fabric that contains a high proportion, by weight, of synthetic chemicals (such as lead or mercury, formaldehyde, chlorine, or phthalates).

Besides the proliferation of certifications, further muddying of the waters happens because some of the certification agencies which can certify fabric ALSO certify fiber.  In other words, each end product can be certified.  So if we deconstruct a piece of fabric, we can have certification at each stage:   (1) growing and harvesting of organic fibers  (2) ginning or other preparation of the fibers to make them suitable for use in spinning;  (3)  spinning of the fibers into yarns; (4) weaving of the yarns into fabric and (5) final product (i.e., blouse, tablecloth, etc.).  Makes you dizzy doesn’t it?

It’s quite common to find  “organic cotton” fabrics  in the market – in other words, fabrics made of organic fibers.  Or at least,  the claim is that the fibers are organic.   Unless they are certified organic fibers, the claim is meaningless:    there are no standards for calling a natural fiber “organic” since by definition  they are organic – because the definition of “organic” is  “of, relating to, or derived from living organisms.”  There is a big difference between a fabric or product which claims to be “organic” and one that claims to be “certified organic”.  So it is important to look for the certification and ask who certified the fibers (if they don’t display that information).  Believe me, if a company has gone to the trouble and expense of certifying their fibers, they will definitely have the information of who did the certification!

Common certification agencies for fibers include:

• United States Department of Agriculture, National Organic Program
• Soil Association Certification Limited (SA Certification) is the UK’s largest organic certification body. It’s also the only certification body linked to a committed charity, promoting organic food and farming.
• OneCert:  OneCert provides organic certification worldwide. Certification and inspection programs include the US National Organic Program (NOP), European Organic Regulations (EU 2092/91), Quebec Organic Standards (CAQ), Japan Agricultural Standards (JAS), IFOAM, and Bio Suisse. Services include organic certification, organic inspection, export certificates, transaction certificates, on-line record keeping, answers to certification questions, and presentations of organic topics.
• Control Union (Skal):  Control Union is a global one-stop-shop for a range of certification programs, including organic fibers.  It certifies to the standards of
  • AB logo
  • Bio Suisse
  • Canada Organic Regime
  • EU organic
  • Japanese Agricultural Standards
  • Naturland inspections
  • NPOP
  • Polish EU organic
  • USDS/NOP
• The Institute for Marketcology (IMO): IMO is one of the first and most renowned international agencies for inspection, certification and quality assurance of eco-friendly products. Its world-wide activities are accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Service (SAS) according to EN 45011 (ISO 65), which is the international standard for certification. IMO offers certification for organic production and handling according to the European Regulation (EU) Nr. 2092/91.

The certifications  above verify that the fibers have been grown and harvested to organic standards set forth by the various standards.  But they do not deal in any way with the processing of the fibers into fabric.

There exist several third party certifications which we think every conscious consumer of fabric should be aware.  We  should all know what the certification does – and doesn’t – cover:  Oeko-Tex, GOTS, C2C, GreenGuard, Global  Recycle Standard and SMART.

Before giving a summary of the main points of each of the certifications which deal with fiber processing (i.e., weaving), it’s important to note that these certifications are all in business – it costs money to achieve the certification -  sometimes it costs a LOT of money.    Like organic designations in food, some farmers, for example, grow hemp sustainably (because they can).  But  because there isn’t a robust market yet for hemp they don’t want to spend the money for the certification to show it as organic.  Cradle to Cradle and GreenGuard can cost up to $30,000 per product for certification, so when you look on the web sites for these certifications,  you see only large, well established companies who can afford to pay the certification costs.  In addition to these certifications, there are many new “green guides” on the internet which purport to list green products.  A basic listing may be free, but any additional bells and whistles costs money.  So prominently featured green products may be specially featured because the manufacturer has paid for the spotlight.

List of certifications:

GreenGuard (www.greenguard.org). GreenGuard is not designed specifically for fabrics, but it is often advertised that a fabric is GreenGuard certified. GreenGuard has developed proprietary indoor air-quality pollutant guidelines based on government and industrial bodies.  Those products that pay the testing fee and pass muster earn the right to call themselves GreenGuard certified.  It was launched in 2000 by Atlanta-based for profit Air Quality Sciences (AQS), which is now a separate not for profit organization.

GreenGuard tests for the emitting chemicals coming from a product; that means it tests only for evaporating chemicals, chemicals which are a gas at room temperature.   And that is all GreenGuard does – it does not look at the production of the fabric, or any social justice issues nor does it look at carbon footprint.

And GreenGuard, by measuring only emitting chemicals, is significant for what it does not measure:

• It does not measure any of the heavy metals (lead, mercury, copper, etc.)
• It does not measure PVC, which is a polymer and therefore not volatile
• It does not measure phthalates (except in the Children and Schools certification); phthalates are semi volatile, and don’t begin to evaporate until approximately 7 days after exposure to the air.

Oeko Tex (www.oeko-tex.com) :  founded to provide an objective and reliable product label for consumers and a uniform safety standard for the assessment of harmful substances in fabrics.  Its aim is to ensure products are free of harmful substances.

The Oeko-Tex Standard 100 excludes harmful substances or limits their use. The following parameters form part of the Oeko-Tex list of criteria:

Specifically banned

• AZO dyes*
• Carcinogenic and allergy-inducing dyes
• Formaldehyde*
• Pesticides
• Chlorinated phenols
• Chloro-organic benzenes and toluenes
• Extractable heavy metals
• Phthalates* in baby articles
• Organotin compounds (TBT and DBT
• Emissions of volatile components

Biologically active products and flame-retardant products are regulated separately.  Oeko Tex is a registered trademark.  Make sure that the test number is quoted and the test institute is named as shown on the logo above.

This certification does not look at the processing or manufacturing (whether wastewater is treated, for example, or renewable energy is used to power the mill) – it is solely concerned with the final product.  There are also no social requirements.

Cradle to Cradle (www.c2ccertified.com) : primarily it certifies that the product uses environmentally safe and healthy materials – however the list of what is considered safe is proprietary so we have to take their word for it.  In other words: they’re not transparent. C2C certifies just the product, without looking at how it is installed or used.   It has an energy, water and social responsibility component.

Cradle to Cradle’s strength is in material chemistry.  All ingredients in a product are identified down to 100 parts per million (ppm) and assessed according to 19 human and environmental health criteria:

C2C Human and Environmental Health Criteria
Human Health:	Environmental Health
Carcinogenicity	Fish Toxicity
Endocrine Disruption	Algae Toxicity
Mutagenicity	Daphnia Toxicity
Reproductive Toxicity	Persistence/ Biodegradation
Teratogenicity	Bioaccumulation
Acute Toxicity	Ozone Depletion/ Climatic Relevance
Chronic Toxicity	Material Class Criteria
Irritation	Content of Organohalogens
Sensitization	Content of Heavy Metals

All ingredients are rated: green, yellow, red (which has been ascertained to be toxic) or grey (incomplete data, handled like a red).   To achieve Gold and Platinum levels, a product cannot contain any ingredients classified as RED – unless there are no existing substitutes.  MBDC developed this database and it is not available to outsiders.

All ingredients are classified as either a technical or biological nutrient: published C2C literature doesn’t define “recyclable” or “compostable” but MBDC uses European Union guidelines for biodegradability, and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines for recyclability.  FTC guidelines require an established recycling pathway.

For the energy component, it  focuses on the manufacturer’s use of renewable energy in production.  Manufacturers need to use renewable energy for the product’s manufacture to achieve Gold certification, and for the energy used in the product’s entire supply chain to achieve Platinum.  Renewable energy may be purchased on site or purchased thru energy credits.

Certification requires that companies work to preserve the quality and supply of water resources; implementation of these guidelines is required for Platinum.

Manufacturers must adopt corporate ethics and fair labor statements

However,  it’s easy to confuse the ideals and philosophy of the founders with the actual requirements for certification.  For example, a C2C Silver doesn’t guarantee that a product is free of all red ingredients; the only “knockout” chemical at Silver is PVC.  There is no report card for consumers that details what a certified product does or does not include.

In addition,  nutrients may not be returned to technical or biological cycles as described:  the minimum requirement for certification is that a product be 67% recyclable or biodegradeable.   But even a 100% recyclable product may not be able to return to either the technical or biological nutrient cycle.

MBDC certifies just the product, without looking at how it is installed or used.  HYCRETE (an additive to make concrete waterproof) is an example of how misleading this can be – when used as intended, HYCRETE is not biodegradeable and cannot be recycled by any established process.  Yet the product can degrade -  if you accidentally spill a five gallon bucket into a local stream, it’s going to degrade and isn’t going to do any harm.  Yet if used as intended it can neither biodegrade nor be recycled.

C2C criteria does not  refer to manufacturing byproducts or the waste and energy use associated with resource extraction (such as is the case with polyester).  Also the energy and water use standards focus on manufacturing, leaving out the energy and water consumption that results from use of the product.

EXAMPLE: Kynar (coating on Formawall panels): uses fluoropolymer in mfring process which releases PFOA (bioaccumulative and likely carcinogen).  But the PFOA slips thru the C2C assessment since it’s not a  product ingredient.

Finally, some say that C2C is not true third party certification,  but rather a second party program  since MBDCs primary business is consulting with manufacturers,

IN SUMMARY: C2C is distinguished by inspiring ecological thinking,  affiliation with respected thought leaders and idealism.  But it is complicated by a  lack of transparency and gaps in underlying criteria; lack of boundaries between the C2C standards developing body, C2C certification body and the MBDC consulting body.

They’re revising it now, but historically they have not looked at carbon footprint.

For more on C2C, see the article “Cradle to Cradle Certification: A Peek Inside MBDC’s Black Box”, which appeared in Environmental Building News, February 2007

The Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) ( www.global-standard.com;  see also: www.organic-textile-services.com) is a collaborative effort between the United States Organic Trade Association, Soil Association, International Association Natural Textile Industry (IVN) and Japan Organic Cotton Association (JOCA) to codify textile standards so consumers and manufacturers have one certification – an important step toward harmonization and transparency in textile labels. Since work began on codifying the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) in 2002, it has evolved into the leading set of criteria in the field of organic textile processing.

GOTS aims to define a universal standard for organic fibers—from harvesting the raw materials, through environmentally and socially responsible manufacturing, to labeling—in order to provide credible assurance to consumers. Standards apply to fiber products, yarns, fabrics and clothes and cover the production, processing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, exportation, importation and distribution of all natural fiber products,   GOTS provides a continuous quality control and certification system from field to shelf.  There are also social responsibility components (i.e., fair wages, no forced or bonded labor, etc.)  All parameters are listed and accessible. The GOTS parameters for materials include prohibitions or restrictions on:

• Aromatic solvents
• Chloro Phenols (TCP, PCP)
• Complexing agents (APEO)
• Formaldehyde and short chain aldehydes
• Fungicides and biocides
• Halogenated solvents
• Heavy metals
• Ammonia treatment

There are detailed social criteria:  no forced or bonded labor; workers are not required to lodge “deposits” or identity papers with employer; no child labor; workers are free to leave after reasonable notice; working conditions are safe and hygenic.

Wastewater treatment includes measurement  and monitoring sediment quantities, waste water temperature and waste water pH. Wastewater from wet-processing sites (except greasy wool scouring sites and flax retting sites) must, when discharged to surface waters after treatment, have a COD content of less than 25 g/kg of textile output expressed as an annual average.   If the effluent is treated on site and discharged directly to surface waters, it must also have an pH between 6 and 9 (unless the pH of the receiving water is outside this range) and a temperature of less than 40C° (unless the temperature of the receiving water is above this value). The COD/BOD ratio must be ≤ 5. The copper content must not exceed 0,5 mg/l.

The GOTS certification applies to only natural fibers, it cannot be applied to polyester or other synthetic fibers.

SMaRT Sustainable Products Standard (www.sustainableproducts.com):  based on transparency, using consensus based metrics and life-cycle analysis. They also have in place rules which prevent industry trade association dominance so they can move substantially beyond the status quo.  Renewable energy and conventional energy reduction are specified.

Environmental, social and economic performance criteria are defined and quantified In areas such as:

• Acid Rain
• Smog
• Climate change
• Habitat alteration
• Ozone depletion
• Fossil fuel depletion
• Criteria and indoor air pollutants
• Water pollutants water intake
• Solid and hazardous waste

The Sustainable Textile Standard incorporates procedures and protocols established in the following sustainability standards, thereby eliminating both redundancies and potential inconsistencies:

• Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Social Indicators http://www.globalreporting.org/GRIGuidelines/index.htm
• Stockholm Toxic Chemicals List  http://www.chem.unep.ch/publications.htm
• Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ISO General Principles Standard http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=23151
• General Product Life Cycle Diagram (Figure 1, p. 15)
• Federal Trade Commission Environmental Marketing Guides http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/greenguides.htm
• US Green Building Council LEED Rating System http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/existing/leed_existing.asp
• FSC Certified Wood Practices  http://www.certifiedwood.org/
• Green-e Power http://www.resource-solutions.org/Green-epage.htm

SMART has a certification specifically for textiles called the Smart Sustainable Textile Standard.  For textiles it requires 1300 chemicals be tracked and addressed; it is also transparent (i.e., nothing is proprietary or hidden in their requirements or in decision making).  Confers multiple achievement levels.

The Global Recycle Standard (www.certification.controlunion.com):   This  brand new standard was developed to help verify claims regarding recycled products.  The Gold level requires products to contain 95 – 100% recycled material; Silver requires 70 – 95% and Bronze contains a minimum of 30%.  The definition of “recycled” under this standard is based on criteria already laid down by Scientific Certification Systems.  In addition,  the standard contains environmental processing criteria and strick raw material specification (water treatment and chemical use is based on GOTS and Oeko-Tex 100)  and social responsibility is incorporated – which ensures workers health and safety and upholds workers  rights  in accordance with International Labor Organisation (ILO) criteria.

Required reading

Paul Hawken gave the commencement address to the University of Portland graduates this past June.   I think it’s pretty special.    Please take the time to read it, posted below:

When I was invited to give this speech, I was asked if I could give a simple short talk that was “direct, naked, taut, honest, passionate, lean, shivering, startling, and graceful.” No pressure there.

Let’s begin with the startling part. Class of 2009: you are going to have to figure out what it means to be a human being on earth at a time when every living system is declining, and the rate of decline is accelerating. Kind of a mind-boggling situation… but not one peer-reviewed paper published in the last thirty years can refute that statement. Basically, civilization needs a new operating system, you are the programmers, and we need it within a few decades.

This planet came with a set of instructions, but we seem to have misplaced them. Important rules like don’t poison the water, soil, or air, don’t let the earth get overcrowded, and don’t touch the thermostat have been broken. Buckminster Fuller said that spaceship earth was so ingeniously designed that no one has a clue that we are on one, flying through the universe at a million miles per hour, with no need for seatbelts, lots of room in coach, and really good food—but all that is changing.

There is invisible writing on the back of the diploma you will receive, and in case you didn’t bring lemon juice to decode it, I can tell you what it says: You are Brilliant, and the Earth is Hiring. The earth couldn’t afford to send recruiters or limos to your school. It sent you rain, sunsets, ripe cherries, night blooming jasmine, and that unbelievably cute person you are dating. Take the hint. And here’s the deal: Forget that this task of planet-saving is not possible in the time required. Don’t be put off by people who know what is not possible. Do what needs to be done, and check to see if it was impossible only after you are done.

When asked if I am pessimistic or optimistic about the future, my answer is always the same: If you look at the science about what is happening on earth and aren’t pessimistic, you don’t understand the data. But if you meet the people who are working to restore this earth and the lives of the poor, and you aren’t optimistic, you haven’t got a pulse. What I see everywhere in the world are ordinary people willing to confront despair, power, and incalculable odds in order to restore some semblance of grace, justice, and beauty to this world. The poet Adrienne Rich wrote, “So much has been destroyed I have cast my lot with those who, age after age, perversely, with no extraordinary power, reconstitute the world.” There could be no better description. Humanity is coalescing. It is reconstituting the world, and the action is taking place in schoolrooms, farms, jungles, villages, campuses, companies, refuge camps, deserts, fisheries, and slums.

You join a multitude of caring people. No one knows how many groups and organizations are working on the most salient issues of our day: climate change, poverty, deforestation, peace, water, hunger, conservation, human rights, and more. This is the largest movement the world has ever seen. Rather than control, it seeks connection. Rather than dominance, it strives to disperse concentrations of power. Like Mercy Corps, it works behind the scenes and gets the job done. Large as it is, no one knows the true size of this movement. It provides hope, support, and meaning to billions of people in the world. Its clout resides in idea, not in force. It is made up of teachers, children, peasants, businesspeople, rappers, organic farmers, nuns, artists, government workers, fisherfolk, engineers, students, incorrigible writers, weeping Muslims, concerned mothers, poets, doctors without borders, grieving Christians, street musicians, the President of the United States of America, and as the writer David James Duncan would say, the Creator, the One who loves us all in such a huge way.

There is a rabbinical teaching that says if the world is ending and the Messiah arrives, first plant a tree, and then see if the story is true. Inspiration is not garnered from the litanies of what may befall us; it resides in humanity’s willingness to restore, redress, reform, rebuild, recover, reimagine, and reconsider. “One day you finally knew what you had to do, and began, though the voices around you kept shouting their bad advice,” is Mary Oliver’s description of moving away from the profane toward a deep sense of connectedness to the living world.

Millions of people are working on behalf of strangers, even if the evening news is usually about the death of strangers. This kindness of strangers has religious, even mythic origins, and very specific eighteenth-century roots. Abolitionists were the first people to create a national and global movement to defend the rights of those they did not know. Until that time, no group had filed a grievance except on behalf of itself. The founders of this movement were largely unknown — Granville Clark, Thomas Clarkson, Josiah Wedgwood — and their goal was ridiculous on the face of it: at that time three out of four people in the world were enslaved. Enslaving each other was what human beings had done for ages. And the abolitionist movement was greeted with incredulity. Conservative spokesmen ridiculed the abolitionists as liberals, progressives, do-gooders, meddlers, and activists. They were told they would ruin the economy and drive England into poverty. But for the first time in history a group of people organized themselves to help people they would never know, from whom they would never receive direct or indirect benefit. And today tens of millions of people do this every day. It is called the world of non-profits, civil society, schools, social entrepreneurship, non-governmental organizations, and companies who place social and environmental justice at the top of their strategic goals. The scope and scale of this effort is unparalleled in history.

The living world is not “out there” somewhere, but in your heart. What do we know about life? In the words of biologist Janine Benyus, life creates the conditions that are conducive to life. I can think of no better motto for a future economy. We have tens of thousands of abandoned homes without people and tens of thousands of abandoned people without homes. We have failed bankers advising failed regulators on how to save failed assets. We are the only species on the planet without full employment. Brilliant. We have an economy that tells us that it is cheaper to destroy earth in real time rather than renew, restore, and sustain it. You can print money to bail out a bank but you can’t print life to bail out a planet. At present we are stealing the future, selling it in the present, and calling it gross domestic product. We can just as easily have an economy that is based on healing the future instead of stealing it. We can either create assets for the future or take the assets of the future. One is called restoration and the other exploitation. And whenever we exploit the earth we exploit people and cause untold suffering. Working for the earth is not a way to get rich, it is a way to be rich.

The first living cell came into being nearly 40 million centuries ago, and its direct descendants are in all of our bloodstreams. Literally you are breathing molecules this very second that were inhaled by Moses, Mother Teresa, and Bono. We are vastly interconnected. Our fates are inseparable. We are here because the dream of every cell is to become two cells. And dreams come true. In each of you are one quadrillion cells, 90 percent of which are not human cells. Your body is a community, and without those other microorganisms you would perish in hours. Each human cell has 400 billion molecules conducting millions of processes between trillions of atoms. The total cellular activity in one human body is staggering: one septillion actions at any one moment, a one with twenty-four zeros after it. In a millisecond, our body has undergone ten times more processes than there are stars in the universe, which is exactly what Charles Darwin foretold when he said science would discover that each living creature was a “little universe, formed of a host of self-propagating organisms, inconceivably minute and as numerous as the stars of heaven.”

So I have two questions for you all: First, can you feel your body? Stop for a moment. Feel your body. One septillion activities going on simultaneously, and your body does this so well you are free to ignore it, and wonder instead when this speech will end. You can feel it. It is called life. This is who you are. Second question: who is in charge of your body? Who is managing those molecules? Hopefully not a political party. Life is creating the conditions that are conducive to life inside you, just as in all of nature. Our innate nature is to create the conditions that are conducive to life. What I want you to imagine is that collectively humanity is evincing a deep innate wisdom in coming together to heal the wounds and insults of the past.

Ralph Waldo Emerson once asked what we would do if the stars only came out once every thousand years. No one would sleep that night, of course. The world would create new religions overnight. We would be ecstatic, delirious, made rapturous by the glory of God. Instead, the stars come out every night and we watch television.

This extraordinary time when we are globally aware of each other and the multiple dangers that threaten civilization has never happened, not in a thousand years, not in ten thousand years. Each of us is as complex and beautiful as all the stars in the universe. We have done great things and we have gone way off course in terms of honoring creation. You are graduating to the most amazing, stupefying challenge ever bequested to any generation. The generations before you failed. They didn’t stay up all night. They got distracted and lost sight of the fact that life is a miracle every moment of your existence. Nature beckons you to be on her side. You couldn’t ask for a better boss. The most unrealistic person in the world is the cynic, not the dreamer. Hope only makes sense when it doesn’t make sense to be hopeful. This is your century. Take it and run as if your life depends on it.