There was an article yesterday in the New York Times about eco-fashion. It includes some pros and cons about various textile manufacturing and compares some ecofashions in a slide show, but concludes that there isn’t much benefit to eco-fashions.
I don’t think they picked the best examples.
Also, while there are some cons, it seems to me that they are looking at the situation as “half empty” rather than “half full”. To me, it’s better to support products that are partially green than products that are not green at all. And by doing so, we move the market to be greener and greener.
The article also points out, “the trend [of consumer interest in green products] has advanced so quickly that it becomes difficult to evaluate the claims of products that say they are biodegradable, carbon neutral or made from sustainable materials. In recognition of rapidly expanding consumer interest, the Federal Trade Commission said on Monday that it will quickly re-evaluate its guides for green designations in marketing, last updated in 1998, to determine whether they need to be expanded.” This is good news.
The downside for me of this article was the fashions they chose were outrageously expensive and more couture. I would have preferred showing some of the many green fashions that are more affordable to the general public. It made it look like Barney’s was the only place to buy green clothing. Of course, the greenest clothing I could find is on Debra’s List: Textiles.
They seemed to conclude that green fashion wasn’t really green at all, and there was no point in buying it (at least that was my take). This is what happens to public enthusiasm about green products when there is too much greenwashing…
