A few years ago, “eco fashion” became the hottest buzzword. The media in particular loved it and used every opportunity available to position it as the hottest trend. Recall those “Green is the New Black” headlines everywhere? Fast forward to today, and we know that eco fashion is definitely not a trend. It is a movement, and one that is taking the world by storm.

How so? Well for starters, a growing number of designers are now sourcing more sustainable fabrics than a few years ago, and the variety and quantity of those fabrics has grown out of this demand. An increasing number of brands and retailers are now engaged in ethical sourcing, and are working with their suppliers to create benchmarks and standards. Many companies now understand the benefits of corporate social responsibility (CSR), even if their product or service is not “green”.

Organic Exchange (OE) offers more evidence of this eco fashion movement. According to their Organic Cotton Market Report, global sales of organic cotton apparel and textiles has grown by $1 billion in 2009, which amounts to a 35 percent increase over 2008. And at the same time that organic cotton sales have grown, overall cotton clothing and home textiles sales have shrunk by seven percent.

However, the rise of organic cotton has been steady for nearly a decade – on average by 40 percent each year since 2001. You just didn’t hear much about it because it wasn’t deemed important enough by mainstream media and industry. But that seems to be changing.

Organic Exchange estimates that the organic cotton market will continue to grow at this steady pace of 20-40 percent – both this year and next, to about $6 billion; and that the organic cotton market has been driven largely by consumer interest in “green” products, and by retailers and companies looking to offer more organic options.

So just who are the top organic cotton buyers from 2009 according to the OE report? You might be shocked to learn that it’s some of the biggest names in retail, including Nike, Walmart and Adidas.

But really, this isn’t all that surprising when you consider the report Exporting Textiles: March to Sustainability, that recently profiled the top brands and retailers who are implementing environmental sustainability throughout their global supply chains. Among the 19 companies profiled are once again, Nike, Walmart and Adidas! So what exactly are these companies doing to be given such accolades? Let’s take a look.

Adidas adheres to the ISO14001 standard and has an internal environmental benchmarking assessment that they use to collect data from their suppliers. Their top three sustainability priorities are embedding environmental sustainability across the business, effectively managing business risks and social compliance in the supply chain, and extending engagement internally and externally.

Walmart, as we all know, has issued their Sustainability Index, which asks their suppliers a series of questions as they relate to social and environmental practices. They also carry GOTS certification on organic textiles (although questionable to what degree) and their focus on energy efficiency is now shifting toward their suppliers.

Nike uses a few internal tools such as Material Analysis Tool (MAT) and Considered Index to evaluate its life cycle impacts. They have a water program, and have integrated energy efficiency practices at supplier factories.

According to this report, which focuses primarily on energy efficiency, carbon emissions, water and chemical footprint as well as logistics, these three companies rank in the top 5 (Levi Strauss & Co. and Marks & Spencer round out the list).

And so the evidence is mounting. It becomes clearer every day that eco fashion is a movement, and one that is gaining solid ground. I look forward to actively watching as more and more of the big brands and retailers move toward increased sustainability, motivated by people like us who demand quality and ethics from the products we choose to buy.

Image: adifansnet

Finland’s new mail program hopes to cut costs and decrease pollution.

According to the Telegraph, a new system launched in Finland may have snail mail sliding even further from our fingertips. On April 12, Itella, which runs the country’s postal system, will begin a pilot program in which mail is scanned, digitized, and then emailed to recipients. Once in action, it is anticipated that this plan will reduce carbon emissions, paper waste and cut costs by limiting the number of mail carriers on the road.

So far, 126 households and 20 businesses have volunteered to take part in the project. Once mail is scanned, participants receive a text message or email that their mail is ready to view. Some skeptics are worried about privacy issues and have likened this new mail system to tactics used by the KGB. But advocates of the program insist that mail is not read nor is it kept once it has been copied. When it comes to security, Itella’s director, Tommy Tikka, compares the approach not to e-mail but to web banking, insisting the program is safe and secure.

But what about things that can’t be scanned? Replacement credit cards, the feel of embossed fonts, the smell of perfume-scented love letters? For this trial, hard copies of scanned mail (including any additional non-scannable pieces) will still be delivered twice weekly to homes and offices. It’s unclear as to whether this will continue on a regular basis after the trial period has concluded. The trial will run through the end of the year, and if the feedback is positive, the result will be a more widespread program.

With America appearing to move towards cutting Saturday mail deliveries, will this new mail system be next for us, too? Here’s hoping!

But, in the meantime, if you want to eliminate your junk mail right now, check out Tonic’s own Precycle!

Editor’s note: Article by Sophie Rosenblum. Originally published by our friends at Tonic.com. Tonic is a digital media company and news source dedicated to promoting the good that happens each day around the world. Tonic tells the stories of people and organizations who are working to make a difference, by inspiring good in themselves and others. Be sure to visit them and say hi, and follow Tonic on Twitter, too!

Image: uzvards

Google Maps released a feature that gives turn-by-turn biking directions in 150 American cities this week, as it has previously for driving, public transportation and walking routes.

According to the company’s own blog, bike directions were the most requested feature by Google Maps users. Pro-bicyclist, and environmentalist groups like Austin’s GoogleMapsBikeThere.org had created petitions and lobbied Google to develop this tool as early as 2007. Their petition scored more than 51,000 signatures.

Others, like RideTheCity in New York, worked to develop their own bike route mapping tools online, with specific, insider knowledge of each metro area.

The new Google feature delivers information about bike trails that have no motor vehicles, and the streets and routes recommended for cyclists, avoiding motor vehicle traffic, and steep hills. So far, the green and bike loving blogosphere has reacted with mixed reviews, deeming Google Maps for Bikes a good start, but not quite there yet.

We hope that Google’s Bike Maps feature will encourage car commuters to go green and get fit. Biking where you might have driven before can prevent tons of carbon emissions each year, while burning hundreds of calories an hour.

Basic Reading:

“Motor vehicle emissions represent 31 percent of total carbon dioxide, 81 percent of carbon monoxide, and 49 percent of nitrogen oxides released in the U.S. A short, four-mile round trip by bicycle keeps about 15 pounds of pollutants out of the air we breathe.” – Top environmental reasons to bike not drive from BikeLeague.org

“Google worked with the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, which advocates for the creation of biking and walking paths throughout the United States, to gather trail-map data. “˜The demand for trail maps and information has never been higher, especially as more people recognize biking as a viable, inexpensive and healthy alternative to driving,’ Rails-to-Trails President Keith Laughlin said in a statement.” – A news item ‘Google Maps Your Way to the Bicycle Path,’ via Silicon Valley Mercury News

“Avid bicyclists, who have long demanded they be treated as equals on the city’s streets, suddenly felt the pain of every driver who has taken a wrong turn after getting glitchy Google Maps directions… Some [cyclists] said the site wanted them to backpedal away from official city bike routes, often adding 10 or 15 minutes to their usual commutes. One regular rider said Google was trying to kill her – directing her to get on Interstate 5.” – A mixed review for Google’s Bike Maps feature by Portland, Oregon cyclists via Oregon Live

“My guess: Google’s bike maps feature will be mostly neglected until they are vastly improved. One suggestion, Google needs a better system to accept crowdsourced input. If cyclists get behind the project, however, Google’s bike maps could become really helpful.” A tough review of Google Bike Maps, by David Coursey for PC World

Further Resources:

“I burn about 66 carolies per mile on my bicycle. My car emits .932 pounds of CO2 per mile”¦” – A by-the-numbers post at CarFree blog

Wired’s Autopia blog seeks readers’ opinion for a “crowdsourced” review of Google Maps new bike feature

A post by Jason St. Amand about the most affordable and best bikes via WalletPop

The website of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which tracks safety issues around driving, mostly, with some cycling and walking studies too

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by columnist Lora Kolodny.

Image: Pixel Addict

E-readers are spineless compared with hardcover books, lacking the soulful carbon fingerprints of readers past. You cannot fold the pages of the wafer-thin gadgets, or make your mark with splotches of food or wine. And the idea of clutching the casing to your chest after reading the final line of a novel just leaves me cold. As one book club friend of mine waxes, “There’s just something about the smell of a book.”

Still, we all can smell and see the writing is on the screen when it comes to these devices outsourcing print media, sparing trees and saving money. According to ID TechEx, the total market size in 2010 is a whopping $131 million, and is expected to soar to $1.7 billion by 2014. Much of that growth is attributed to huge success of Kindles and other portable e-readers. “In 2020, the market value will reach $7.45 billion thanks to the availability of flexible, color displays and faster refresh rates,” the market analysts predict.

Why do users find them so friendly?

“I bought one for my wife for her birthday and enlarged the fonts so she can read the words on the screen without squinting or wearing reading glasses,” says Steve Montoya, a Bay Area IT consultant. “She’s an avid reader. Recently, she read a series she couldn’t get in e-print, and couldn’t wait to finish it and get back to her Kindle.”

While you can’t download all desirable titles now, the Amazon library and others are growing every day.

“You can get books, magazines, newspapers, even audio books to listen to with headphones,” Montoya says.

The graphite feature also is a huge power saver, he finds, noting you can get several days of reading on one charge. And since it works on a cellular network, it also makes it easy to instantaneously order books and have them appear on your library. Plus, the e-readers never seem to lose connection.

“My brother-in-law is in Afghanistan and his iPhone doesn’t work, but his Kindle does,” says Montoya.

If the prequel of our paperless future is the tragic death of magazines and newspapers, will the sequel be the disappearance of paperback and hardcover reads? Are there upsides to this plot? Here are some of the pros and cons of e-reading devices:

Cost

Pro: If you are a voracious reader without a library card, you probably will save money on an e-reader. If you are a voracious reader with a library card, you probably will save on late fees.

Con: You have to spend a lot for the cheapest iPad, which is wifi-only, holds 16GB of storage and sells for nearly $500. The Que is $649 and has a 4GB of data storage. The 3G wireless Amazon Kindle is more affordable at $250.

Storage

Pro: When the Kindle was introduced in 2007, travelers loved the benefits of of storing up to 1,500 books on a device the size of a small paperback read. And the library of available books to download keeps expanding (the first chapter of any book is free). Let’s face it, we are a storage-challenged human race with too much junk and not enough apartment and home space. This eliminates the need for shelving.

Con: Our private libraries are important for sharing with our friends and children and passing down treasured collections – classics and complementary fiction that rocked our world. Plus, it’s a lot easier to lose a gadget than an entire dusty collection.

Green

Pro: Many green publications, including Inhabitat, sing the praises of e-readers because they ultimately aid the environment by requiring no deforestation to manufacture, compared to the traditional paper publishing industry. This doesn’t even include the energy, materials, dyes and carbon from shipping that shames the print industry. According to a study by Cleantech, the carbon emitted in the lifecycle of  a Kindle, for example, is fully offset after the first year. And more earth-friendly models are on the move, like LG’s Solar ebook introduced last year, boasting a thin photovoltaic cell which keeps the juice pumping so your novel won’t go kaput during the climax.

Con: What is being offered is a new thing to buy, to keep you busy on the subway. High tech by nature is incompatible with green with exceptions such as solar panels, which also require an investment in energy to make. Green means a return to what your grandparents did, a return to simplicity: Walk a few blocks to school and work. Open a book on your front porch and snooze. That’s 18th Century technology. Also, the effectiveness of reducing emissions by popularizing these gadgets is dependent upon the publishing industry standardizing its adoption of the technology while committing to cutting down the production of physical books and other print media. Is this likely to happen anytime soon, other than by default?

Convenience

Pro: Toss the paper thin, lightweight, wireless device in your bag and you’re good to go. The new generation of Kindles is lighter than a paperback at 6″ and 10.2 oz. and you can hold it with one hand, which aids those carpal tunnel issues. This is why so many e-readers are the new companions of commuters. Hopefully, driving laws will keep users from biting into New Moon while behind the wheel. If you thought texting was was a dangerous distraction while driving…

Con: The tactile experience of gripping a book, magazine or Sunday paper can outweigh the fact it might be heavier to lug. It is this experience that is woven into our cultural wiring. No matter how hard technology tries, the tendency for consumers to prefer print over e-readers will endure for many years to come. With regard to our cultural connection to books, a graduate student at the University of Toronto wrote that his first experiences with a reader felt like “a courageous betrayal of every word written from the moment papyrus gave way to paper.”

Connection

Pro: We are a society that needs to stay connected now more than ever. In terms of signal range, e-readers never seem to drop out.

Con: Losing connection might be easier on the eyes. Having your head in a book just isn’t the same as having your peepers fixed on a screen for hours of pleasure reading. Computer Vision Syndrome (CVS) cases are rising in people looking for relief from fatigue, strain and irritation caused by focusing on worlds and images on a surface without well-defined edges contrasted against backgrounds. Eyes simply respond better to most printed text of bold black letters on a bright, white background.

Images: E-readers

“Get real! This is the biggest crisis humanity has faced,” warns Annie Leonard in her latest environmental education video, The Story of Cap & Trade. It is getting mixed reviews as the dust settles since its recent release.

A follow up to her widely popular animated eco tutorial, The Story of Stuff, it offers a pureed breakdown of how energy traders (greedy corporations and industries) and Wall Street financiers hope to get rich off of pretending to save the planet. The method to the madness: capping carbon emissions by giving permits to the polluters, who will in turn have the free license to pollute, especially in the third world where lax standards pose disastrous consequences for farmers and villagers.

Leonard’s release of the video comes on the heels of what many considered the failed talks for climate change solutions at Copenhagen, and identified the devils in the existing caps and trade proposals. These include issuing free permits to major polluters rather than selling the permits instead and allotting dividends to citizens and paying back ecological debt.  She also cites fake offsets which let polluters make false claims about what they will do the cut emissions, as well as the most dangerous devil of the plan – distraction.

Leonard tells us relying on the scheme weakens our ability to make strong laws away from fossil fuels.

While climate talks in Europe or on Capitol Hill have yet to scratch the surface on global caps on carbon emissions, the video illustrates (with charming, monochromatic animated stick figures) that education of the masses is crucial for curbing any crisis, as witnessed with the AIDS public information campaigns of the early 80s.

Leonard is adept at making sense of it all with her wholesome, kindergarten teacher approach to feeding our overwhelmed brains one truth at a time. In the end, she basically throws up her arms to declare about the process, “It’s protecting business as usual.”

Not all agree. “Just colossally ignorant,” is how one Grist writer sums up the video’s treatment of the trade entities, such as Enron, and how Europe has botched its attempts at handing out permits to cut emissions. Of course, many of the critics calling the critique of cap and trade deceptive also lump Leonard with the rest of the “Left” making up all of this hogwash about fossil fuels contributing to climate change.

Meanwhile, eco activist Michael Gaworecki, writing for Change.org, agrees with the video’s arguments, but says he isn’t sure the cap-and-trade plan isn’t the best mechanism for lowering carbon emissions that we can put in place  in enough time to make a difference.

“America needs to take the lead on stopping global warming if we’re to stand a chance, and anything perceived to interfere with unfettered capitalism is unlikely to fly in the good ol’ US of A,” he says.

Gaworecki adds that the few alternatives, such as a straight-up tax on carbon pollution, could be simple and effective, but “would never make it out of the American Congress alive.”

Image: Telegraph

Better hope the lease isn’t up on the crystal stemware when your mother-in-law comes over for dinner.

Is encouraging citizens to rent, rather than own, household possessions the “secret weapon” countries need in order to meet their climate change targets?

Yes, according to WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme), the British Government’s waste watchdog. The recently released WRAP report has found that if households shifted a fifth of their spending from purchasing to renting, there would be a 2 percent (or 13 million tonnes) reduction in CO2 emissions each year. We smell a micro-trend.

WRAP has identified these five categories of household items that should really, for the sake of the planet, be rented rather than purchased.

High-end clothing and accessories. Celebrities do it so why shouldn’t we? Renting from sites such as Bag Borrow or Steal, From Bags to Riches, Borrowed Bling, and Rent the Runway instead of buying not only saves you cash and clutter. It also lets you keep up with quickly changing trends.

Glassware and tableware. Keep the everyday glassware and tableware, but forget about stashing away a special occasions set of china. These can be rented as needed from local party and catering rental companies.

Tools and equipment for house and garden. A garage full of tools and machinery might look impressive but they are only taking up space if you only use them once or twice a year. Better to locate the nearest tool lending library and rent what you need when you need it.

Vehicles. For many of us (myself included), it’s hard to imagine not owning a vehicle. But not having one could be the answer to cash and space problems. Alternative options include car sharing, renting, and leasing.

Telephone, audio and recreational equipment. The problem with the continuing advancements in technology is that everyone rushes out to buy the latest gadgets as soon as they hit the market, regardless of whether or not they need it. As a result, people often throw out old phones and electronic equipment that still works, creating e-waste disposal problems.

Renting instead of buying makes senses really. After all, how many times have you bought something, only to use it briefly and then pack it away in a cupboard and drawer? If, instead, you were to rent it, use it and then return it, the item would soon be available for someone else to use.

As a result, less items would need to be produced and there would be less waste. Just don’t bounce the rent check, or it’s repossession of the china for you.

Images: tiffa130, quinn.anya, huzzahvintage

Commuting could take on a whole new meaning with the Safe Road Trains for the Environment (SARTRE) research project funded by the European Commission.

The project, based on the concept of linking vehicles together using wireless sensors, is aimed at finding an inexpensive and environmentally friendly way of getting cars to travel together, convoy style.

The way to do this, according to project SARTRE, is to create road trains of up to eight separate vehicles – cars, buses, and trucks – which has the potential not only to reduce fuel consumption, but also improve journey times and reduce congestion.

Lead vehicles would be driven by a professional driver controlling the road train. Any vehicle could use their sat-nav sensor to determine if a road train’s going their way. If it were, they would be able to approach the moving road train and indicate that they wish to join. The lead vehicle would then take control of the vehicle, positioning it and pulling it closer, allowing the newly joined driver to sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery rather than focusing on driving.

The SARTRE project, scheduled to run for three years, aims to first determine the true feasibility of these “road trains” and then track test it in the UK and Sweden, with further plans for public road trials in Spain.

If successful, road trips as we know them will never be the same again.

Read more about this project here.

Image: pedrosimoes7

A new study has found that the American health care sector accounts for 8 percent of the country’s carbon dioxide emissions.

The study, conducted by University of Chicago researchers and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, measured how much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the health care industries (hospitals, scientific research, pharmaceuticals, etc) released. It is the first-of-its-kind calculation of health care’s carbon footprint.

Using the environmental input-output life cycle assessment (EIOLCA) model of environmental impact developed by the Green Design Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University, the researchers were able to determine exactly how much health care activities directly and indirectly affected the environment.

Not surprisingly, hospitals release the largest amount of carbon emissions, mainly due to their high energy needs for temperature control, ventilation and lighting in large and often aging and poorly structured hospital buildings. But interestingly, the second largest contributor of carbon emissions was the pharmaceutical industry, primarily because of associated manufacturing and transportation.

While the researchers realize that hospitals and pharmaceutical companies are more concerned with treating people than the environment, they hope that the results of this study will encourage them to look at ways of providing health care and researching and developing drugs in a more environmentally friendly way.

Image: tacitrequiem

Anyone who subscribes the KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid) philosophy will appreciate the results of this new study recently completed by Thomas Dietz and his colleagues at Michigan State University.

In a first of its kind study, the researchers examined the potential emissions reduction (PER) of 17 well-known energy saving actions that individuals already do or could do without any major lifestyle disruption and minimal to little damage to the wallet.

What they found was that if these 17 simple household actions were universally adopted by Americans, US carbon emissions could be reduced as much as 7% over the next 10 years. The actions include:

- Home weatherization

- HVAC equipment

- Changing HVAC air filters

- Tuning up AC

- Installing low-flow showerheads

- Using an efficient water heater

- Using energy saving appliances

- Buying low rolling-resistance tires

- Driving a fuel-efficient vehicle

- Sticking to routine auto maintenance

- Lowering the laundry temperature

- Lowering the water heater temperature

- Reducing standby electricity use

- Trying minor thermostat setbacks

- Line drying clothes

- Employing conservative driving behavior

- Carpooling and trip-chaining

They’re easy changes all. So, the next time someone asks you what the average person can really do to combat global warming, you can say that according to Dietz and colleagues, plenty.

Image: Andy_5322

Buying food really was a whole lot easier a hundred years ago. There was less choice, the food was usually homegrown or locally grown, and there was little in the way of additives and preservatives. Plus, the shoppers back then didn’t have to read the food labels to find out how many nutrients, calories or fat content a product contained.

Today’s shopper, on the other hand, is spoilt for choice. But along with the choice come responsibilities and obstacles – the 100 mile rule, organic vs. non-organic, food labels, sugar content, trans fats, preservatives, packaging, BPA – that can make a trip to the supermarket seem more like a university exam than a shopping expedition.

And just when you thought it couldn’t get more complicated, the Swedes, who have been at the forefront of many new carbon emission reduction initiatives (including burning bunnies for fuel) have come up with new food guidelines and labels that will list a food’s carbon-emissions rating.

It’s part of an experiment that the Nutrition Department at the Swedish National Food Administration is running in an attempt to encourage people to consider not only their health but the health of the environment when they are choosing the food they eat.

This experiment came about following a 2005 study by Sweden’s national environmental agency that determined that a quarter of their national per capita emissions was directly attributable to the food Swedes ate, such as meat, farmed salmon, greenhouse tomatoes, bananas, rice, bottled water and soda.

As a result, the National Foods Administration has created food guidelines that highlights better food choices that work for both the environment and people’s health.

If all Swedes were to follow the guidelines set out by the National Foods Administration, it is estimated that Sweden could cut carbon emissions that result from food production by 20 to 50 percent.

Along with the guidelines, new “climate declared” food labels will be appearing on food products found in grocery stores and on restaurant menus around the country. Each label will list the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that result from the production of each food product.

It will be worth watching to see how effective Sweden’s new food guidelines and labels actually are.

To find out more, read this New York Times article.

Image: timsamoff