It was purposes the only time a 93-year-old has stolen the show at Glastonbury’s Pyramid stage. Sir David Attenborough had important things to say when he mellowed up for Kylie Minogue last month. After showing scenes from Blue Planet 2, the wildlife series credited with wakening a sea change in attitudes towards plastics pollution, the broadcaster thanked festival goers and organisers for banning single-use drench bottles. “This great festival has gone plastic-free,” he said to cheers. “Thank you! Thank you!”
Kylie’s crowd was correct to feel virtuous – single-use plastic is an oil-derived menace to marine life – but how many paused to look down at the flexible in their waistbands, the polyester in their T-shirts and the nylon in their shoes? Plastic in what we wear may be less discoverable than it is in bottles or straws, but it is no less toxic. Yet somehow we have woven it so tightly into our throwaway society that we no more than notice it, even when it is on our own backs. Now there are moves – at the top and bottom of a complex global supply chain – to do something encircling it.
“When I started doing this five years ago, suppliers wouldn’t even show me their recycled fabrics or they wouldn’t settle accounts have them in their bag,” says Kimberley Smith, head of production at a US clothing company Everlane. Since her gathering committed to eradicating all non-recycled, or virgin, plastic from its supply chain, stores and offices by 2021, her job has become a line of work to demand more of them. “Now, recycled is the first thing they show us,” she adds.
But that mission is also in all directions fighting apathy and ignorance among shoppers. “There’s a lot more pressure now to be more educated about issues groove on water and air pollution, but I think people aren’t as clear that, ‘Oh, by the way, your know your fleece or your Puffa jacket is cook up d be reconciled of virgin oil?’ I don’t think people understand,” says Smith, who has previously worked at Gap and Levi’s.
Perhaps the development of synthetic fibres as a way to mimic natural fabrics – and add skilful functionality – helped obscure the plastic in so much of what we now wear. You don’t have to check a label on a bottle of water, for illustration, to know what it’s made of. With textiles, change started slowly. First came plant-derived synthetic essences such as rayon, which used wood pulp. Truly synthetic fibres arrived with nylons in the past due 1930s (courtesy of DuPont, the American chemicals giant that also developed rayon), while polyester was a 1940s British origination.
A process called polymerisation had given us plastics with innumerable potential uses, from hosepipes to dental floss. Mellow blend down, plastic chips could be spun into a strong, light, fast-drying plastic yarn. When it was tendered in stockings in a storm of publicity, nylon was more expensive than silk. New technology carried a premium. War swiftly diverted effort to parachutes and tents, and synthetic stockings, or “nylons”, became a currency on the black markets of Europe, but mass production geared up thereafter and man-made fibres wove their way across the world.
Plastic goods of all kinds were celebrated for their utility and ebbing cost – but also their very disposability. In a 1955 edition of Life magazine, a family was photographed throwing dozens of prosaic household goods into the air, including some made of plastic. “Throwaway Living” was the headline. The objects in the picture “commitment take 40 hours to clean – except that no housewife need bother”, the magazine said. “They are all importance ofed to be thrown away after use.”
Throwaway culture might not be as celebrated today, but the same globalising forces on trade and trade means it has spread into clothing. How often do you wear a T-shirt bought for £4? And what do you do with yours definitely it has lost its shape or fallen apart (if it hasn’t already disappeared at the bottom of a drawer of similarly priced clothing)? A return to using uncountable cotton would alleviate the plastics problem, but no fast fashion is truly green; it can take up to 22,500 litres of not make sense to grow a kilo of cotton in parts of India that are already water-deprived. Moreover, there are things that cotton can’t do, such as attend to the rain out or repel sweat.
Production of polyester alone has multiplied 10 times since 1980, to 53.7 million tonnes in 2017, according to figures collated by the Textile Exchange, a US nonprofit industry body. Polyester now accounts for 51% of all fibre production, twice that of cotton (mock fibre production overtook cotton in the mid-1990s). That’s a lot of oil, energy and air miles. Yet we throw away an estimated 48 million tonnes of dressing of all types each year, 75% of which ends up in landfill or is incinerated. Less than 1% of clothing was recycled into new clothing in 2017.
And soft clothing can be uniquely toxic, even while it is still in use or after it has been recycled. A 2016 study by the University of California at Santa Barbara start that, on average, polyester fleece jackets release 1.7 grams of plastic microfibres each time they go into the make sense. Older jackets shed more and almost half the barely visible fibres made it through water-treatment flowers into rivers and seas. Microbeads of the sort used in cosmetics were banned in the UK last year, but microfibres may be reasonable as destructive – and prevalent. A Plymouth University study estimated in 2016 that a single six-kilo load of synthetic laundry could story 700,000 tiny bits of fibre. Their toxic effects have been observed concentrating as they archaic up the food chain, devastating marine life and, in an unappetising case of unwanted recycling, ending up on our dinner plates.
The root technology needed to dress a growing global population more sustainably has existed for decades. “We launched our first recycled polyester chisel in 1993,” says Matt Dwyer, director of materials innovation at the US-based outdoor-clothing giant Patagonia. The fleece now rooms in the company’s archives and is still a faded pale green – it was made of discarded plastic bottles before green and depart bottles were separated. “I’ve handled it and it’s a bit crispy now and the quality wasn’t quite there, but that’s not the story now,” Dwyer adds. More than 80% of the imitation material Patagonia uses is now recycled and that proportion should hit 90% in the next year.
By sorting and processing old flexible into shreds and then turning them into chips, recycled-fibre producers such as the US-based Unifi, which cut d understands Repreve, a recycled fibre, can spin the chips back into yarn. Unifi alone has processed more than 16bn cut offs since 2008, and hopes to hit 30bn by 2022. The company supplies Patagonia as well as brands including Ford, for which it originates seat coverings.
Dwyer says myths that remain about recycled materials often become condones. There is an assumption that there isn’t enough of it (“There’s plenty of waste that needs picking up,” he says), that it’s at rest low-quality and that – crucially, in an industry of tight margins – it’s too expensive. “Any business of reasonable size can buy enough recycled constituents to defer costs,” Dwyer adds. Perhaps more tellingly, there has not been a sense of demand from the tushy. “That’s the other big excuse: ‘My customer doesn’t care so why should I?’”
Patagonia is now an industry poster child for sustainable create and Dwyer receives regular calls from other companies starting from zero. They all ask the same in doubt: “Where do we start?” Dwyer advises them first simply to ask suppliers where their stuff comes from. “The other task I tell them is that making supply chains traceable and using recycled materials is future-proofing, because at some direct attention to your customer will care or – worse – it will get legislated and you’ll have to change anyway,” Dwyer says.
Companies are waking up to this future with shifting degrees of commitment. Stella McCartney wants to phase out virgin nylon by 2020 and polyester by 2025. In the mass deal in, Adidas has committed to using recycled polyester in all viable applications by 2024. Meanwhile, brands such as Asos and Boohoo, which are synonymous with the surpluses of fast fashion, have set out their stalls – or, at least, stalls within their stores. Asos has grown its Eco Alter since its launch in 2010. To qualify, clothing must contain at least 50% “sustainable” fibres, including recycled plastics. Conclusive month, Boohoo launched For the Future, the brand’s first recycled range (“Dress well and do your bit for the planet? We’re entirely here for it.”).
But is there not a risk of greenwashing when brands whose business models rely on cheap fashion posture themselves as environmental crusaders? “You’ve got to make a big statement and put it out there,” says Smith at Everlane. “Saying, ‘We’re going to start a tiny baby eco line,’ is better than nothing but by setting a real target and telling everyone about it, you’re like: ‘OK, now we’ve absolutely got to do it.’”
On Boohoo’s homepage at the time of writing, the link to the recycled range, which includes a T-shirt for £5.40, comes some reserve below a “50% off absolutely everything” banner, a link to the summer and swimwear range with the slogan “catch flyings not feelings” and right next to a link to non-recycled plastic swimsuits on sale for £5. There is nothing on Asos’s homepage to manifest it has an “eco” range (now called the Responsible Edit) – I have to click through to find it. Boohoo says its new range was innumerable prominent on its site at launch and that it is only “the latest in a line of initiatives designed to make it easier for our customers to do the fix thing”. Asos says it promotes its ethical range through several channels beyond its homepage and has added “honest” filters to all its ranges rather than confining the clothes to one page.
Beyond recycled ranges, campaigners are asking whether fast fashion can ever be green. “The big issue I struggle with is that, yes, we can entreat for brands to become more sustainable, but as long as they’re churning out millions of garments a year, we’re not going to change anything,” votes Tolmeia Gregory, a 19-year-old sustainable-fashion blogger and environmental activist. She has changed the way she dresses to include more secondhand wears and sustainable brands, and is spending more on higher quality items that last longer.
Legislation may be part of the liquid, but the government was accused of complacency last month after rejecting recommendations from MPs to improve fashion’s wider collision on the environment. In its report, Fixing Fashion, published in February, the Environmental Audit Committee said a 1p levy on each garment would exhilarate £35m a year to improve infrastructure for the collection and sorting of clothes that otherwise go to landfill. It proposed a VAT cut on clothing working order and better rewards and penalties. The committee also recommended mandatory environmental targets for bigger retailers.
“There’s a spectrum of employment in the industry, including those paying lip service to this new landscape, and we need regulation to set a level playing field,” translates Mary Creagh, the chair of the committee. Creagh compares the forthcoming ban on plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds with the regime’s response to the report. “Straws was EU regulation but [the environment secretary] Michael Gove did a very good job of making it his own for a Brexiter,” she forecasts me. “The government likes to talk green but it’s not very good at walking the walk.” In its response, the government said it recognised the weight of tackling fast fashion and said it was already taking action, but it accepted none of the committee’s recommendations.
In the meantime, brands with an eye on the clock are changing inroads. Those that rely less on synthetic materials are using new technology to recycle cotton, for example. On the Isle of Wight, Rapanui now proposals customers £5 in credit if they return clothing to it for recycling rather than throw it away. Mart Drake-Knight, the co-founder of the companionship, says it has flourished because it has invested in sustainability. “We’re not hippies … we’re doubling in size each year – the economy has rewarded us for this.”
Occasionally it’s the little details that pose the biggest challenges for those trying to eliminate virgin plastic. Patagonia essayed for years to find a supplier to make its logo labels with recycled plastic. At Everlane, plastic zips and buttons present Smith a headache. “The next big challenge is elastic,” she adds. “Everyone wants stretch now and that’s all made from virgin petroleum and there isn’t uncommonly recycled elastane out there yet.” She is hopeful a solution may yet show itself. Another effect of loudly self-imposing targets is that innovating suppliers agree the cry. “There are more and more people doing really cool things we didn’t even know about,” she go on increases. “The more people doing it and the more influence we have the better so we can make change together.”