In the rush to go green through every possible venue, we have all largely overlooked the pink elephant in the room.  Shopping seems like such a benevolent thing to do in this economy.  (RED) signs in the Gap window assure us that our purchases are helping others in another country.  Wearing TOMS shoes gives us the ability to put shoes on someone’s bare feet.  These are great ideas, just some of the few available under the giant umbrella of the fashion industry.  But what about the rest of it?

So, just how responsible is the fashion industry, on the whole?  For years, textile and clothing companies have been accused of exploiting foreign labor.  Fashion also drives consumer demand and consumption.  Even “eco clothing” purchases are often discretionary consumption.  So, what are our options?  How do we improve the fashion industry while we continue to use it?

First of all, we have to take the fashion industry seriously.  Just hearing the word “fashion” calls up images of pouty models, haute couture and glossy magazines covered with airbrushed, smiling faces.  Beneath this timeless veneer is the root of our biggest obsession and consumption.  Fashion needs to be taken seriously and handled with care.  That is just what the Greater Washington Fashion Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C. plans to do.

Christine Brooks-Cropper, the president of this organization, “has made considerable strides in creating a Fashion Caucus to represent the voice of the Fashion Industry in Congress nationwide,” Jessica Hoy, senior associate, said.  “The interesting thing about this Caucus is it could represent everything from trade issues and sweat shop regulations to Design Piracy and fashion week locales.”

“[Brooks-Cropper] is trying to mobilize the fashion industry and give it a voice on a law making level so issues can be discussed and resolutions can be made,” Hoy said.

What exactly are the issues that need to be dealt with in the fashion industry?  Consumers and designers alike weighed in.

“The issue that I really care about is producing clothes by sweatshop labor,” Lidia Wachowska, proprietor and designer of Evil Kitty, said. “I understand that 95 percent of clothes are produced oversees, mostly in sweatshop condition. I’ve been told so many times that I have to outsource and go abroad; otherwise there is no future for my label.”

Wachowska, however, disagrees.  “I believe you can be successful and keep your production local. Evil Kitty is a socially responsible company. I use a local Chicago manufacturer, who is located 5 blocks from our studio. We reduce the carbon footprint to the minimum there and at the same support the local economy. All of our fabrics are purchased from U.S. mills or local distributors and fabric stores. I also believe in making a quality garment, a piece that you can keep for years, and will not go out of style.”

Designers are also looking to consumers as the next big trend in turning the fashion industry’s practices on its ear.

“People need to become aware of where things are being produced and become more conscious shoppers,” Kate Robertson, owner of Mayu Hand-Knit Alpaca, said.  “Consumers have power.  If consumers would just realize and value the practice behind the product, then they would be showing the fashion industry consumer responsibility.”

For some, it is a matter of balancing the trends and desires of consumers.

“I feel the fashion industry, though having a myriad of influences itself, greatly influences consumer behavior,” Adrien Edwards, owner of TheNakedHippie organic t-shirts, said. “But at the same time, I think the chicken and egg argument has to be determined for two very different factions of the ‘Fashion Industry.’”

“The fashion businesses that influence the trends more tend to be the ones with the most well funded marketing departments, such as Gucci, Armani, Gap, etc…. Whereas the more subtle businesses such as Snorg Tees, Tom’s Shoes, ecco or Ugg back in the day, and of course TheNakedHippie, tend to be directed more by the consumer’s desires.  Many of the ladder style businesses were erected as a result of an existing trend,” Edwards said.

There are other sustainable and eco-friendly designers forming a grassroots effort to save the planet and still make people feel individual through expression.  Activist fashion house Vaute Couture, which makes vegan coats, Rising Tide Fair Trade, an ethical fashion company and LAVintage, a company that deals in “recycled” clothing, are just some of the better choices available.  But what about the other designers?  How do existing designers “go green”?

Kathleen Fasanella just may be the missing link.  In addition to blogging about the fashion industry “from a sustainability standpoint,” Fasanella “leads, instructs, and teaches designers about how to produce responsibly.”

However, Fasanella and her small team at Fashion-Incubator can’t do it alone.  It all comes back to the consumer.  We have a voice, and it speaks even louder through our wallets.  If we educate ourselves on what we’re buying, then perhaps our dollars will do the talking.  Eventually, we just may turn the fashion industry around.

Remember that in this day and age, knowledge is the new black.  People aren’t paper dolls and it’s time we let the fashion industry know that the days of irresponsible silence are over.

Check out some of the fashion discussions going on today at SocialYell!

Ashley Strickland is a senior majoring in journalism at the University of Georgia.  She is now seriously considering buying a vegan coat.

Weight Watchers has teamed up with some great partners – Share Our Strength and Action Against Hunger – to fight hunger, promote weight loss and raise awareness for both worthy causes.

What you can do:

1. Visit the Lose-A-Palooza website (complete with informative video featuring Jenny McCarthy) and learn more

2. Tomorrow, on September 15, Tweet #LoseForGood and follow @sharestrength and @acfusa.  The site suggests (and I suggest) you tweet “Share the good with @sharestrength @acfusa and #LoseForGood, help fight hunger”

Weight watchers will donate $1, up to $25K,  for every tweet.  It would be a shame to, um, leave any of that on the table.  (Feel free to kill me in the comments for that terrible, terrible pun.)

This is all part of the Weight Watchers Lose for Good campaign, which aims to help people lose millions of pounds, to donate millions of pounds of food and to donate up to $1 million to fight hunger.

If you’ve been following us, you know that SocialYell really likes it when companies use their competencies for social responsibility, so we’re following this campaign with excitement.

When leaving a footprint make sure it's a helpful one

Green travel can mean more than offsetting carbon emissions. Travelers should also think about where their money is going while on vacation. When the family takes a trip to Disney World where does the ticket price go? What communities are really impacted from the stops cruise ships make?

GoGreenTravel makes a distinction between eco-friendly travel and responsible travel. While eco-friendly adventures will have a smaller environmental footprint, responsible travel makes sure the footprint is beneficial in more ways than one. The triple bottom line approach they recommend focuses on the environment, culture and economics.

Instead of looking just at avoiding environmental impacts, try to make some positive impacts. Travel can benefit conservation efforts like with ecotourism trips. Through the International Ecotourism Society you can find a trip as adventurous as you’re comfortable with that funds efforts like wildlife conservation.

A highlighted trip on the blog YourTravelChoice is the Parque Natural de Madeira, Portugal. Visitors can explore, in a sustainable manner with a local guide, a unique island ecosystem of rare subtropical woodland communities and protected marine habitat. “The best way to be part of the local community’s conservation efforts is to visit Madeira, show your awareness of the issues and be a responsible traveler.” Money spent in the area will go back to the community and to local NGOs working to conserve the ecosystems.

Even a low key trip to a nearby national park will bring funds to much needed restoration efforts in your locale.

Many ecotourism companies also focus on the community of people, not just ecological issues.  A trip to Marmaris-Dtaca, Turkey is also highlighted in YourTravelChoice.  Villagers dependent on local resources and tourism have made an effort to preserve not only the natural environment but their traditional culture.Instead of inviting chain hotels and tour guides to run their tourism business, they do it themselves and the money made actually goes to benefit the communities people are visiting. Not only are traditions preserved but travelers will have an unquestionably unique experience.

Travel is one part of modern life that is difficult to replace with a smaller-footprint alternative. So when traveling make sure your footprint leaves behind something good for the communities you visited.

Elizabeth Ulion is a graduate student at Northwestern University. Her latest eco-travel experience was at Mono Lake, CA.

Photo courtesy of DavidSC78/Flickr

“Managers should try to act more responsibly. But they should not expect the market to necessarily reward them–or punish their less responsible competitors,” stated a 2008 Forbes article. While many have claimed that a socially responsible company will do better in business there has been little evidence to support this across the economy.  ““Part of the reason why CSR does not necessarily pay is that only a handful or consumers know or care about the environmental or social records of more than a handful of firms,” said David Vogel, a professor at U.C. Berkley’s business school. The public is more concerned with price, convenience and quality when purchasing products.

Even those who are aware of the impact a company has on the world will find it extremely difficult to find a completely responsible or irresponsible supplier of their needed wares. An example given by Vogel was Merck. The pharmaceutical giant “has been widely applauded for its development and free distribution of a drug to cure river-blindness, a dreadful disease which affects tens of millions of the world’s poorest people. Yet this same company withheld important information regarding the safety of its highly profitable drug Vioxx.”

While it’s always nice to hear about a company building green or donating to charities for many corporate social responsibility is more about what the company does not do. Betsy Atkins , CEO of Baja Ventures highlighted what CSR should focus on:

–Transparency in financial reporting
–A quality product, not misrepresented through marketing
–If something about the product endangers the consumer, be forthright and let the public know
–Do not use predatory practices in offshore manufacturing, such as child labor.
–Do not pollute your environment or other environments, and adhere to laws and regulations.
–Be respectful, fair and open in your employment practices.

There are also misconceptions surrounding corporate social responsibility.  Deborah Doane, the chair of the Britain organization CORE Coalition listed four common myths of CSR.

1. The market can deliver both short-term financial returns and long-term social benefits – the interests of businesses are often at odds and responsible investment is unlikely to pay off as quickly as the stock market requires
2. The ethical consumer will drive change – again, consumers are looking for price and convenience, just look at Wal-Mart
3. There will be a competition to be the most ethical business – often CSR is just good PR without any incentive for changes in behavior
4. Countries will compete to have the best ethical practices – competitive pressure for foreign investment has created a system where less stringent for human rights standards or environmental regulations attract more investors.

What do you think? Yell it out at SocialYell.com! Or in the comments below.

Elizabeth Ulion is a graduate student at Northwestern University.

Photo courtesy of Office Now/Flickr.

One of the most greenwashed goods I have ever seen is called the “Guiltless Green Home Theater”. Marketed thusly by the Home Theater Specialists of America, buyers of the entire package get an HD projector, 100” television screen, an AV receiver, a Blu-ray player, a control system, 5.1 surround speaker including subwoofer and four 1.75 KW solar panels. In the prototype display there is even “green seating,” a couch and chairs with leather processed without chromium.  “We took the green initiative even further by re-using some of the carpet,” said the HTSA.

With the 4 panels of this size a family can have “19 hours of off-the-grid entertainment every week.”  All for All for $29,575, “a very appealing price for a lot of people,” according to the write up by Richard Glikes, executive director of HTSA.

Now let’s look at the amount of energy produced by this size solar installation. Four 175 watt panels will churn out 700 watts per hour. That is 22 KW a week if the sun is shining, apparently enough for 19 hours of electronic entertainment time. Comparatively the electricity bill at my parent’s four bedroom suburban home uses this much electricity in a week. The whole house.  By installing the Guiltless Green Home Theater system you can also guiltlessly double your home’s energy usage! Of course you’ll be offsetting the energy drain through solar panels but why not just install the solar panels, forget the Blu-ray and go off-grid with your current energy usage?

Next up – electronics consumption. Guiltlessly purchase all new electronics and ensure the continued conflict in Africa funded by coltan mining and a pollution filled future when the tv and projector are sent overseas to be “recycled.”

The weight is lifting off my shoulders already. I’m going to sit down in my chromium free chair, pop some organic popcorn, crack open a locally brewed beer and guiltlessly watch hours of advertising quality programming.

Elizabeth Ulion is a graduate student at Northwestern University.

Called the "village pharmacy," Neem trees offer many potential uses for people worldwide.

International Affairs done in 1992 showed the range of possibilities the tree offers. It grows in arid land where it can be planted to reforest and build up soil. The oils from the tree can be used as non-toxic pesticide and hair and skin tonic. Called “the healing tree” or “the village pharmacy”   by many, medicinal treatments can be made from the bark, oil, root, leaves, seeds and fruits.  Check out this video compilation on the Neem – complete with David Suzuki and great background music.

Sounds like we’re saved! Thanks Neem! But if this study was done in 1992…what’s been happening since? Most of the recent articles featuring Neem discuss its use in organic gardening. With the potential to help so many in developing countries it seems a waste if nothing more is done with a plant that offers so much.

Elizabeth Ulion is a graduate student at Northwestern University. She’s been using Neem shampoo for the last month and had no idea it was such a rockstar tree!

Photo courtesy of nigelpilgrim/Flickr

I’m confused.

Agriculture faces an uncertain future with climate change

The International Panel on Climate Change predicted in a 2007 report:

“If temperatures rise more than 2.5 degrees C, the report forsees major changes in ecosystem structure and function, species’ ecological interactions, and species’ geographic ranges, with “predominantly negative consequences” for biodiversity, and water and food supply.”

While they found that crop productivity may slightly increase in certain areas if temperatures rise 1 to 3 degrees C, productivity will decrease beyond that. In other areas like tropical regions crop productivity is expected to decrease even with small temperature increases. Paired with drought, the spread of pests and extreme weather events the future of agriculture in places where its expansion is needed most looks perilous.

So while $20 billion dollars for the education of farmers in sustainable agriculture techniques is an amazing investment it won’t do much good on soil cracked from drought and crops decimated by invasive insects.

Maybe what the U.S. could bring to the table in these discussions is a bit of our environmental history. One of the most influential naturalists, John Muir, said,“When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the universe.”

Hunger, health, poverty, agriculture, biodiversity, economics, climate change – none of these are in a world apart. Let’s stop acting like they are.

Elizabeth Ulion is a graduate student at Northwestern University. She found reading up on global climate change politics incredibly depressing.

Photo courtesy of IRRI Images/Flickr

“Lighter than a typical paperback” and “as thin as most magazines” at 1/3 of an inch, Kindle sold out in five and a half hours during its premiere and remained elusive until late April 2008.  Ever since, customers have remained crazy for the technology that Kindle provides.  Amazon recently lowered the price to $299, but only because they have introduced a newer, bigger, better version called Kindle DX.  Nearly double the price of the original Kindle, the DX model also holds 3,500 books and has an easy-to-read display of nearly 10 inches.  But both Kindles include convenient 3G wireless, text-to-speech conversion that can read aloud, “Whispersync” technology for quick downloads and a guarantee of delivering “books in under 60 seconds.”  While the latest version promises a longer battery life, large storage space and a paper-like display with 16 shades of gray for reading clarity, the complaints on Amazon’s website are stacking up.

While 3,054 of the Kindle reviews are 5 star, 1,740 reviews are less than kind to Kindle 2.  Many consumers are lamenting the loss of Kindle 1, which was lesser in technology but easier to use.  Difficulties are plaguing users of Kindle 2, from download conflicts to the display.  As usual, technology, while paving the way, has inevitably placed some bumps in the road towards progress.  Will this cause Kindle users to revert back to their paperbacks?

Despite the images its name evokes, it’s hard to cozy up to a Kindle like you would a beloved paperback or hardcover novel.  But this is really in the eye, or hand, of the beholder.  When asked about which they would rather use, Kindle or a paperback, book enthusiasts had differing opinions.

“Paperbacks for sure,” Andrew Shaw, a Culinary Institute of America student, said.  “There’s something about the smell of a book and the words being tangible on paper.”

While many share Shaw’s simple pleasure of holding a book, other students see it differently.

“I don’t have a Kindle, but I spent an entire summer in Oxford saving money by reading online. The only negative was that the screen was hard to read. If that’s really not a problem with Kindle, then it wins, no contest,” Stephanie Jackson, a senior majoring in Journalism at the University of Georgia, said.

Jackson raises a great point: would a device like Kindle save you money in the long run, as well as paper?  Like the iPod, you have a large expense ($299) upfront followed by supplemental material later.  However, you won’t be paying miniscule prices like 99 cents or $1.29 for New York Times Best Sellers and New Releases; try $9.99 a piece.  While cheaper than the average hardcover, their prices for paperbacks barely compete with books you could buy at a discount at places like Wal-Mart or Target.  Newspapers run around $14.99 a month and magazines can run from $1.25 to $10.49 a month.  And now, Amazon has stopped discounting their new books.  Because Kindle is selling so well, as well as compatible e-books, even new paperbacks are selling for regular list price.

Will Kindle save you money?  Not much in the grand scheme of things, it seems.  But what about going paperless?  Think about what happens when your paperback has served its lifespan.  Do you throw it in the trash, pass it on to a good friend or even keep it on the shelf for a while?  The majority of readers turn them into charities, book drives or used bookstores.  Charities are a wonderful way to recycle your used paperback!  Used bookstores are also a great way to boost the local economy and in turn recycle your books while saving money on others (many used bookstores offer you a store credit for the books your bring in).  And, full disclosure, I relished my time in high school as a used bookstore sales associate and remain a loyal customer.

So, will paperbacks go the way of kindling to make room for growing technology?  Or will bookshelves and libraries reign supreme as people continue to enjoy that feeling you get when you crack open a good book?  Based on the debates I’ve attended on this topic, the paperback will prevail.  After all, we’ve used it for thousands of years without fail.

What do you think?  Ready to cozy up to Kindle or are you playing it safe with that old paperback?  Yell about it at SocialYell!

Ashley Strickland is a senior studying Journalism at the University of Georgia.  After this blog, she plans to sit down with her latest favorite paperback.