'How a clothes shopping ban changed my life’

Shopping 

 

 

 By

Hannah Rochell

29 July 2021

 

After an epiphany in Topshop, former fashion editor Hannah Rochell began to question her relationship with clothing. Here’s why she has not set foot in a fast fashion store in more than two years

My lightbulb moment happened in Topshop. I was browsing the Oxford Circus store, ready to buy a skirt that was so ‘me’ I could have designed it myself. It was cheap and yellow and I loved it. But I had made a vow to shop more sustainably and that meant reading labels.

The skirt was made from polyester. Polyester is plastic. Plastic is made from oil. Fossil fuels are killing the planet and plastic doesn’t decompose for hundreds of years. So I put it back and walked out. And I found the rush I got from my willpower even better than the excitement of buying something new.

Shortly after, in April 2019, I made a pledge to not buy any clothes for a year. After 12 years working as a fashion journalist, I had become more and more disillusioned with the very industry that literally put clothes on my back. Because not only was I a serious over-consumer myself when it came to clothes, but the language I used in articles and particularly headlines, such as ‘must-haves’, ‘need’ and even simply ‘new’, was all part of the problem. I was part of the problem.

Three years earlier I had been made redundant from my job as fashion features editor at a glossy magazine when it ceased publication. Going freelance gave me enough distance from the fashion industry to start to see the role I was playing in the climate crisis.

In April 2019 Hannah made a pledge to give up buying any new clothes for a year

/ Image courtesy of Hannah Rochell

I am a passionate recycler, I hunt down low-impact beauty products and I even cook for my dog to reduce the amount of packaging I get through, but for some reason - probably my love of clothes and my pay packet - up until that point, I had conveniently blinkered myself from the relationship my job had with the environment and the exploitation of garment workers. I decided to make a change.

I diversified my blog, which at the time focused solely on flat shoes, introducing conversations around sustainability and using fewer shopping links. But the real turning point for me was learning more about fabrics and fibres via a job I got writing for Common Objective, an industry platform of sustainable fashion resources, which in turn made me a serial label checker.

Following that trip to Topshop, I set about examining my own, somewhat extensive wardrobe. Much of it was bought on the high street, which in turn meant I had loads of polyester. There was a surprising amount of viscose, which, if not made sustainably, causes deforestation (it’s usually made from tree pulp) and uses toxic chemicals in its production which are harmful both for those working with it, and who live in the surrounding areas where it is washed into the water system.

Hannah Rochell

Much of my cotton was blended with a man made material, meaning that every time I washed it, it was releasing microplastics into the environment. And even the 100% cotton pieces, in spite of being made from a natural fibre, come with all sorts of problems of their own which I don’t have the word count to go into right now.

After having an epiphany at the Oxford Circus Topshop, Hannah Rochell has not set foot in a fast fashion store for over two years

/ AFP via Getty Images

But the main thing that stood out was this: I have a lot of clothes. I really don’t need anything new. So I began shopping from my own wardrobe, spending time styling up new outfits with old clothes, and falling back in love with things I’d had for decades. I discovered that I’m not the jeans and T-shirt girl I always thought I was and that instead, I’m a massive fan of the versatility and comfort of a shirt dress (helpful for any future denim-related shopping wobbles).

I’d like to point out that what I have done isn’t possible for everyone - I was privileged enough to have a well-stocked starting point, my weight doesn’t fluctuate that much and I also don’t have any growing children to clothe, but those of us that can should be slowing down the way we shop for the sake of the planet and the people that make our clothes, who are all too often underpaid in unacceptable working conditions.

Garment workers at a factory in Bangladesh

/ Getty Images

It’s not an exaggeration to say that my shopping ban changed my life. I will never shop fast fashion again. I now buy very rarely, and very carefully, from independent brands that I have fully vetted. If I buy clothes, it’s because I love them and because I know I will cherish them for years.

All my friends and family check in with me before they buy anything new, too. And I no longer write fashion articles about trends and ‘must-haves’; instead I earn my crust writing about sustainable and slow fashion, and environmental issues for togetherband.org, a movement which aims to advance the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals through creativity and culture. And I’m still very much a serial label checker, not that I’ve set foot in a fashion store for about two years...

Fancy trying it yourself? Here are my five tips for changing your own relationship with shopping:

Stop impulse buying. I usually wait at least a few days, which also gives me time to properly research the brand’s ethics and the fabric that the item is made from. Giving yourself a cooling off period will often make you realise you didn’t really want that new item after all. This method has also saved me loads of money!

Unsubscribe from fast fashion newsletters. Because what are newsletters designed to do? Make you want to buy stuff. See also shops. When I started my shopping ban I changed the route I walked to work to avoid temptation.

Hannah says we should all be aiming to wear every item of clothing at least 30 times

/ Image courtesy of Hannah Rochell

Curate your Insta feed. Only follow brands and influencers that don’t try and push fast fashion on you. The more you do this, the more inspiring people the algorithm will help you to find - I’ve discovered many of my favourite sustainable brands and creatives on Instagram.

Do a wardrobe challenge. It doesn’t have to be giving up shopping for a whole year; you could try 3 months or limit yourself to second-hand only for a while. The main thing is to break the fast fashion cycle. And, full disclosure, I broke my ban a month earlier because so many small sustainable brands were struggling during the pandemic - I had already planned the few purchases I was going to make when I’d finished my experiment and I wanted to support them when it really mattered.

Start counting the number of times you wear your clothes. We should all be aiming to wear every item of clothing at least 30 times to reduce their carbon footprint. It will also help you figure out what items you rely on and what you should avoid buying in the future. In my case, jeans.

Hannah Rochell is deputy head of content at togetherband.org and writes her own blog at enbrogue.com. You can find her on Instagram @hannah.rochell

Plastics Can Be Broken Down Into Fuel, And We Just Found a Great Method For It

Reycling 

 

 

JACINTA BOWLER

23 APRIL 2021

If you didn't know already, we have bad news – the plastic recycling industry is severely under-performing. Only 9 percent of plastic waste ever produced has been recycled. Around 12 percent has been burnt, leaving 79 percent of all plastic ever produced still out there in the world.

While we work out how to be less reliant on these materials, researchers have also been investigating how to reuse one of the most common types of plastic – polyolefin – by turning it into fuel.

"Single-use plastics impose an enormous environmental threat, but their recycling, especially of polyolefins, has been proven challenging," researchers from the University of Delaware (UD) write in a new paper.

"We report a direct method to selectively convert polyolefins to branched, liquid fuels including diesel, jet, and gasoline-range hydrocarbons."

This is definitely not the first time scientists have turned plastic into fuel (in fact, we've been reporting on these methods for years), but like most material sciences, the goal is to get the most plastic converted into the most fuel, at the cheapest cost and using the least amount of resources to do so.

The new technique ticks plenty of those boxes: it uses 50 percent less energy than similar technologies, can be done at temperatures of a normal kitchen oven, and doesn't involve adding carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. All exciting steps in the right direction.  

"Plastic waste is a serious environmental issue. I believe that this research can help lead to better methods of plastic repurposing," said Andrew Danielson, a UD chemical engineer.

The team uses a chemical process called hydrocracking to break down the carbon bonds in the plastic, using a catalyst made up of minerals called zeolites and mixed metal oxides.

(Liu et al., Science Advances, 2021)

Mixed metal oxides are used to break down large molecules, while zeolites foster the formation of branched molecules – a technique which makes the plastic goop more easily translated into an end product.

"Alone these two catalysts do poorly. Together, the combination does magic, melting the plastics down and leaving no plastic behind," UD biomolecular engineer Dion Vlachos said.

"These are not exotic materials, so we can quickly start thinking about how to use the technology."

As an added bonus, the team's process doesn't need to separate different types of plastics, which is helpful when many of the plastic products now sold are multicomponent - either as composites, blends, or having multiple layers of different types.  

This is far from the end of plastic waste, of course, and only deal with one symptom of the larger issue. To create a circular economy, we have to eventually stop pulling oil from the ground to make plastic, which is something that the researchers are well aware of.

"As this circular economy gets going, the world will need to make fewer original plastics because we will be reusing materials made today into the future," Vlachos said.

"We want to use green electricity to drive the chemical processing involved in making new things … that's where we are headed over the next 10 to 20 years."

Sounds like it is time to get started.

The research has been published in Science Advances.

Why is food wrapped in plastic inside plastic?

The Plastic Epidemic


 We all need to take responsibility now, before it is too late!

Story at-a-glance

• Fresh produce, which comes in its own biodegradable “packaging,” is often wrapped in plastic or bundled into plastic bags and containers
• In 2015, 34.5 million tons of plastic were generated in the U.S., accounting for 13.1% of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation
• Plastics are found in all MSW categories, but containers and packaging have the most plastic, coming in at 14 million tons in 2015
• In the case of plastic packaging, 95% of the material value, an estimated $80 billion to $120 billion annually, is lost after its first usage
• In the U.S., only 3.1 million tons — or 9.1% — of plastic was recycled in 2015

In the U.S., plastic is still largely considered to be an integral and necessary part of daily life. A stroll through any grocery store will reveal this unhealthy plastic dependence not only in the form of plastic grocery bags but also in the food packaging itself.
Fresh produce, which comes in its own biodegradable “packaging,” is often wrapped in plastic or bundled into plastic bags and containers. Ears of corn come shucked and wrapped in Styrofoam and plastic; garlic cloves are peeled and shrink wrapped; even apples are sliced and packaged in baggies.
Everything from nuts and cheese to milk and lettuce comes encased in plastic. Sometimes, the food is wrapped in plastic and then put inside another plastic bag or container.
It’s said that plastic bags tend to be used for an average of 12 minutes, but can take 500 to 1,000 years to break down in the environment.^1,2 While some stores and cities have made moves to ban plastic bags, this is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to reducing plastic waste.

How much plastic is generated by US supermarkets?

The answer is, nobody knows. The Guardian launched a series titled “United States of Plastic,”³ which included an attempt to gauge the scale. Five grocery stores, including natural chains like Whole Foods, in New York City were perused, revealing plastic to be virtually everywhere. According to The Guardian:⁴

“Plastic, often low-quality and unrecyclable, felt like the only thing more ubiquitous than the food itself — and it was prevalent everywhere we shopped. H-Mart sold a single butternut squash in red plastic netting.

At Whole Foods, whose entire business is based on marketing sustainability, plastic-wrapped vegetables were sold alongside hard plastic containers bagged in plastic. Whole Foods also sold a plastic bag holding individually plastic wrapped salmon filets in the freezer section. In another aisle, there were plastic-lined juice boxes with plastic straws wrapped in plastic.”

It’s a sickening display, especially as it becomes clear that plastic waste is endangering the planet. In 2015, 34.5 million tons of plastic were generated in the U.S., accounting for 13.1% of municipal solid waste (MSW) generation.⁵
Plastics are found in all MSW categories, but containers and packaging have the most plastic, coming in at 14 million tons in 2015. This includes much of the plastic waste seen in supermarkets, such as:⁶

• Bags, sacks and wraps
• Other packaging
• Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles and jars
• High-density polyethylene (HDPE) natural bottles
• Other containers

Still, The Guardian noted, “American supermarkets continue carrying products that use excessive and difficult to recycle plastics in the name of convenience, cleanliness or individual and child-sized portions.”⁷
In the case of plastic packaging, a report from the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, in partnership with the World Economic Forum, revealed that 95% of the material value, an estimated $80 billion to $120 billion annually, is lost after its first usage, adding economic problems to its already loaded drawbacks:⁸

“When additional value losses in sorting and reprocessing are factored in, only 5% of material value is retained for a subsequent use. Plastics that do get recycled are mostly recycled into lower-value applications that are not again recyclable after use.

The recycling rate for plastics in general is even lower than for plastic packaging, and both are far below the global recycling rates for paper (58%) and iron and steel (70 – 90%). In addition, plastic packaging is almost exclusively single-use, especially in business-to-consumer applications.”

---

Most plastic is not recycled

The fact that some plastic can be recycled is often touted as its saving grace, but even if it can be, it typically isn’t. Using data from the American Chemistry Council and the National Association for PET Container Resources, the U.S. EPA measured the recycling of plastic in the U.S., revealing that only 3.1 million tons — or 9.1% — of plastic was recycled in 2015.⁹
Even among specific types of plastic that had better recycling rates, the levels were still low. For instance, 29.9 % of PET bottles and jars were recycled in 2015, as were 30.3% of HDPE natural bottles.¹⁰ Meanwhile, 26 million tons of plastic were sent to U.S. landfills that year and another 5.4 million tons were combusted, or burned.
Burning plastic waste brings up a host of new problems, however. In some cases, plastic waste is burned to produce heat and steam that turn turbine blades and generate electricity.¹¹ But in so doing, the combustion may release toxic emissions of dioxins, heavy metals and carbon dioxide into the environment.
According to a report by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL), the production and incineration of plastic will produce more than 850 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2019, which is equal to the emissions released from 189 500-megawatt coal power plants.¹² With the plastic industry planning to expand instead of scale back, the report notes that the problem may get even worse:¹³

“If plastic production and use grow as currently planned, by 2030, these emissions could reach 1.34 gigatons per year — equivalent to the emissions released by more than 295 new 500-megawatt coal- red power plants. By 2050, the cumulation of these greenhouse gas emissions from plastic could reach over 56 gigatons — 10–13 percent of the entire remaining carbon budget.”

Problems with plastic incineration

While modern incinerator plants are supposed to use filters to capture toxic air emissions, this depends on the plants operating properly and controlling emissions. If burned openly, plastics incineration is clearly toxic and a major source of air pollution.
Because of the toxic gases it releases, researchers wrote in Procedia Environmental Sciences,“ … [B]urning of plastic wastes increase the risk of heart disease, aggravates respiratory ailments such as asthma and emphysema and cause rashes, nausea or headaches, and damages the nervous system.”¹⁴ Further, according to CIEL:¹⁵

“US emissions from plastic incineration in 2015 are estimated at 5.9 million metric tons of CO2e [carbon dioxide equivalents] for plastic packaging, which represents 40 percent of plastic demand, global emissions from incineration of this particular type of plastic waste totaled 16 million metric tons of CO2e in 2015.

This estimate does not account for 32 percent of plastic packaging waste that is known to remain unmanaged, open burning of plastic, incineration that occurs without any energy recovery, or other practices that are widespread and di cult to quantify.”

Coral and fish are eating plastic

When plastic breaks down, it turns into tiny microplastic particles (less than 5 millimeters) that are polluting waterways and oceans. In 2008, researchers from the University of New South Wales in Sydney showed that tiny plastic particles don’t simply pass through sea creatures unnoticed, as was once thought.
Using mussels as an example, the study revealed that ingested microplastics first accumulated in the gut but, within three days, traveled to the circulatory system where they remained for more than 48 days.¹⁶
Even coral is ingesting plastic. Boston University scientists collected wild coral known as Astrangia poculata off the coast of Rhode Island, then inspected their polyps. An average of over 100 microplastic particles were found in each polyp.¹⁷
Consuming microplastics is dangerous for a number of reasons. The microplastics may contain chemicals that are transferred to the organism, and they may also trick the animals into believing they’re full, causing them to stop eating and starve to death.¹⁸
In the laboratory, the Boston University researchers offered plastic microbeads or tiny brine shrimp eggs to coral, and the coral overwhelmingly preferred the plastic for their meal. “Corals preferred microplastic beads and declined subsequent offerings of brine shrimp eggs of the same diameter, suggesting that microplastic ingestion can inhibit food intake,” the researchers noted.¹⁹
Freshwater environments are also being inundated with plastic. In one such study, 83% of the fish had plastic debris in their gut, mostly microplastics, particularly microfibers.²⁰ In fact, rivers are a major source of transport of plastic into oceans, with researchers suggesting they should be a major focus of plastics cleanup and prevention efforts.²¹

Ocean will soon have more plastic than fish

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation report highlighted the case for rethinking plastics, starting with packaging, as plastic packaging is the materials’ largest use, representing 26% of the total volume.²²
Forty percent of plastic packaging ends up in landfills while another 32% “leaks out of the collection system,” ending up being mismanaged or illegally dumped. Some of it inevitably ends up in the ocean as well, where it’s possible that more plastic than fish could soon accumulate:²³

“Each year, at least 8 million tonnes of plastics leak into the ocean — which is equivalent to dumping the contents of one garbage truck into the ocean every minute. If no action is taken, this is expected to increase to two per minute by 2030 and four per minute by 2050. Estimates suggest that plastic packaging represents the major share of this leakage.

The best research currently available estimates that there are over 150 million tonnes of plastics in the ocean today. In a business-as-usual scenario, the ocean is expected to contain 1 tonne of plastic for every 3 tonnes of fish by 2025, and by 2050, more plastics than fish (by weight).”

Even if the flow of plastics into the ocean were reduced, the amount of plastic in the ocean wouldn’t necessarily decline but rather would become stabilized.

Agriculture’s plastic problem

Even in agriculture, plastic is a problem. Researchers have looked into how polyester microfibers may be affecting microorganisms in the soil, especially since sewage sludge, which is applied as a fertilizer in industrial agriculture, is loaded with microfibers.²⁴ They found that the microplastics did, indeed, lead to changes in the soil, including altering the bulk density, water-holding capacity and microbial activity.
Black plastic, sometimes referred to as plastic mulch, is also a primary method of weed control for many organic farmers, particularly for tomato, pepper and melon plants. Many grass and perennial weeds are unable to penetrate the plastic, which also prevents sunlight from hitting the ground and stimulating the growth of weeds.
Unfortunately, at the end of the season most of the plastic ends up in landfills. This represents a massive amount of plastic waste, as it’s not unusual for large organic farms to spread plastic over thousands of acres. While some have had success with recycling programs, they didn’t last long, leaving landfills as the primary landing point for the plastic.²⁵
Biodegradable plastics aren’t the answer either, as it’s unknown what effects plastic breakdown products could have on the environment, and ultimately the impacts of biodegradable plastic mulches on soil health remain completely unknown.
A healthier alternative would be a film made from 100% plant materials — and right now this is the only type of biodegradable mulch allowed under the National Organic Program. Unfortunately, such a solution isn’t widely available, while other natural mulches, such as straw or paper, are often too expensive or labor intensive for farmers.²⁶

Time to get serious about plastic

Everyone can play a role in reducing plastic waste, starting at the supermarket, where you can choose food items that are free of plastic packaging as much as possible. Eating a whole food diet lends itself to minimal plastic packaging, but be careful to avoid plastic-wrapped produce as well.
Following are some additional straightforward steps you can take to cut down on plastics usage in your life. Share them with a friend or two and the positive impacts will only continue to be magnified:

Use reusable shopping bags for groceries	Take your own leftovers container to restaurants
Bring your own mug for coffee, and bring drinking water from home in glass water bottles instead of buying bottled water	Request no plastic wrap on your newspaper and dry cleaning
Store foods in glass containers or Mason jars rather than plastic containers and plastic freezer bags	Avoid disposable utensils and straws and buy foods in bulk when you can, putting the food in a reusable bag to take home
Opt for nondisposable razors, washable feminine hygiene products for women, cloth diapers, handkerchiefs instead of paper tissues, rags in lieu of paper towels, and infant toys made of wood rather than plastic	Avoid processed foods (which are stored in plastic bags with chemicals). Buy fresh produce instead, and forgo the plastic bags

Peeled Oranges Sold In Plastic Boxes Cause Outrage

Peeled Oranges Sold In Plastic Boxes Causes Outrage

 Natalie Gordon took a photo in her local brand of Wholefoods, and put it on Twitter. She wrote: "If only nature would find a way to cover these oranges so we didn't need to waste so much plastic on them." Her photo has now been retweeted more than 500,000 times, and attracted hundreds of comments.

Well, Oranges already have a skin so where is the need to cover them with plastic.  This is a clear case of deliberately polluting the environment.