I realize the question was only about comparing cotton and wool, but I still think an environmentalist could mention the simple practice of living simply. I think many Americans, with their huge but stuffed closets, growing need for storage units, constant exposure to advertising, and now, orders from our POTUS to "spend, spend spend!" could make the effort to just buy less. Whether you buy cotton or wool, the real question might be, how many sweaters do you need?

Recession is good for the environment!

Perhaps unemployment, poverty and starvation are also. It is easy to be smug, unless it is your job being lost. The economy is a more pressing issue for most people, because it is what effects people directly every day. This same thing is going to be true next year when there is a Democrat in office. Nancy Pelosi and Congress can't inject more cash into the economy fast enough.

The environment is important, but most people are going to look out for their own immediate interests first. You can preach all you want about how this is selfish, but if you want to win elections, you do it with pocket book politics. Watching Senator Clinton's TV campaign ads, just count how many times the economy is mentioned, as opposed to Environmental issues. It is not even close. Don't expect that to change, since the Democrats will need the union vote come November. They will not be talking about anything that even remotely hints at sending even more jobs to China.

Who is preaching here? lol

Welllll... this argument doesn't really apply to this debate, I must say. Fact is, most clothing sold in the US -- whether it's made out of cotton, wool, synthetics, leather or anything else (except maybe hemp?) -- is made overseas, in decidedly non-union shops.

I agree. The only environmentally ethical answer in consuming clothing is to buy used. I can't believe the author didn't mention that option after elaborating on the environmental harm that both cotton and wool production cause.

Buying used is easy and cheap! And the best way to consume responsibly!

Where do you think "used" clothing comes from? All clothing is new at one point, and they only reason you believe there is this abundant supply of "used" clothing, is because the majority of people are not buying "used" clothing, and the "used" clothing available that is in any kind of condition anyone would want to actually wear, is available because of a much more valid issue regarding clothing's impact on the environment.

The almost like "new" used clothing is dumped into these places by affluent folks who buy way more clothes than any reasonable person would have use for. Just making room in the closet for more stuff. It is especially true of places like Goodwill, where they dump what they no longer care to wear, and get a tax write off to boot. I am not sure how "ethical" all of this is.

Sure, you can probably get a good deal on something purchased in one of these shops or at a yard sale, but if you think that is having much impact on the evironment, you are just kidding yourself. Consuming less may, but last week I purchased a "new" pair of jeans. I hardly consider this purchase "unethical". It is these absurd absolute holier than thou comments that turn people off to the whole Green movement.

There's a huge difference between "environmentally ethical" and plain old "ethical." The scale used by Green Latern and the posters here judges actions by their environmental impact alone. It's not necessarily "ethical" to be as "environmentally ethical" as possible.

In that context, though, buying used clothing has essentially zero environmental impact. The clothing already exists, and its purchase does not stimulate more production of new clothing. Regardless of the behavior of other consumers, the decision to purchase a used item is the option with the least environmental impact.

tjcerveza:

The environment is important, but most people are going to look out for their own immediate interests first.

But if you buy less then you also need to make less money to live. Problem sovled. The environment is helped and the economy stays stable. Everybody wins.

Drinks are on you!

The statement was "the only environmentally ethical answer", and that is just stupid. It is a totally unworkable answer, if everyone suddenly wanted "used" clothing, and shunned "new", the supply of "used" clothing would be expended in no time at all. Then what would you do? Buying "used" only works when you have the majority of people discarding perfectly good clothing.

And don't be so sure it has no environmental impact. If you go to a department store to buy a new pair of pants, you are almost certain to find exactly the size, color, style you need/want on one trip. A search for "used" clothing could be quite a journey, expending a great deal of fuel and time in the effort. Imagine the effort if the entire nation suddenly wanted to wear used clothing. There would soon be "used clothes shortages", "Used Clothing Rationing" and in the end "Used Clothing Riots" (Sarcasm alert)

Extending this notion of Environmental Ethics, would it then be unethical to bury dead people with their clothes on. I mean, all those perfectly good articles of clothing going to waste. How could emleche sleep at night, I mean there oughta be a law against burying perfectly good clothes that emleche could be wearing.

When does the "ick" factor kick in.

If there is such a thing as the "most" environmentally ethical answer, then it is to buy the clothing that you actually need, and wear it till you got the optimum amount of use of it.

Of course, very few people think like this, and it is not how the fashion/clothing industry works. What people wear is almost as a much a statement about ones self image, as it is about protecting ourselves against the elements, perhaps more so. If environmental extremists had their way, we would all be issued one Mao suit, and told to shut up and like it.

Wow man. Used clothing is a freaking disaster in your world!

It may be an exaggeration to say that used clothing is the only environmentally ethical answer, but it's certainly an option worth considering.

Even if they're largely sarcastic, the arguments here are specious. Used clothing is a great option, and it's unfortunate this column didn't mention it. As for these specific points:

1. "if everyone suddenly wanted "used" clothing, and shunned "new", the supply of "used" clothing would be expended in no time at all." It's highly unlikely that everyone would suddenly start shunning new clothing. And even if they did, they still might want to clear their closets of rarely worn items (perhaps to make room for new-to-them items). Clothing will obviously wear out and there will always been a need for a certain amount of new clothing, but the nice thing about supply and demand is that it's self-regulating.

2. "If you go to a department store to buy a new pair of pants, you are almost certain to find exactly the size, color, style you need/want on one trip." The majority of people who shop for used clothing know from experience that you can't walk into a thrift shop with a specific style and color of pants in mind. To do so is simply an exercise in frustration. The key to buying used is being flexible and working with what's available. (Having a sewing machine or knowing a good tailor is a big help.)

3. "A search for "used" clothing could be quite a journey, expending a great deal of fuel and time in the effort." Anyone who is shopping for used clothing for environmental reasons is surely already aware of the effect that gas consumption has on the environment. Luckily, even if the buyer isn't flexible about what they're looking for, in many large cities thrift stores are clustered in a particular area and it's possible to make one trip to visit multiple stores. It's also possible to take public transportation and go to a thrift store on the way to another destination to reduce this kind of impact.

4. "would it then be unethical to bury dead people with their clothes on." Allow me to take you seriously here. Of course it makes no logical sense to bury someone in clothing (which is a long way from suggesting it's unethical). Burial rituals are fraught with cultural significance (and taboo), but it is never a bad thing to consciously consider these rituals rather than blindly following them, even if you ultimately decide that, yes, you and your loved ones will be dressed. (I'm not advocating this for open caskets, though!) Many people are reconsidering other aspects of burial ritual (such as the impact of embalming and elaborate coffins), a decision about clothing can be thrown into the mix. I'm considering being buried in Greensprings natural cemetery (<link>), possibly with a tree as my only marker, possibly naked. :)

5. "When does the "ick" factor kick in." Typically, most of a deceased person's clothing is donated to a second-hand outlet of some kind. I'm not sure why there's an ick factor; any reputable second hand shop will wash all clothing before putting it out for sale. If the idea of wearing clothing that previously belonged to a dead person is repulsive, then used clothing is probably not for you (which is fine). I personally wear and cherish several outfits that belonged to my mother (who died when I was 7).

6. "If there is such a thing as the "most" environmentally ethical answer, then it is to buy the clothing that you actually need, and wear it till you got the optimum amount of use of it." Now this I can agree with wholeheartedly! Clothing can be sewn or patched or even tailored into something else, even if that something is then only suitable for gardening, painting or car repair. After that, cotton rags work as well as or better than paper towels in many cases.

7. "Of course, very few people think like this, and it is not how the fashion/clothing industry works." We didn't get into the environmental mess we're in by thinking-- we got here by not thinking. Discussing things that we normally do without thinking empowers us all make positive, responsible choices. As for the fashion industry (and our entire, deeply-flawed, consumer-driven economy)... well, all of us can use a some improvement.

8. "What people wear is almost as a much a statement about ones self image, as it is about protecting ourselves against the elements, perhaps more so." But buying and wearing used is a statement, and I would argue that it's a much more powerful one than having the latest and greatest in trendy clothing.

Hey, I have no problem with people buying or wearing used clothing. But if you think thrift store shopping is going to effect the climate, you are just kidding yourself. I doubt you will see Tipper next to you, digging through the racks at Goodwill.

It's the hippy-dippy, holier than thou attitude of some greens, who sound more and more like the religous right every day, who turn me off.

It's true that one person doing one thing doesn't make a real difference. But lots of people doing one thing can and does.