From: vln@icpsr.umich.edu (Victoria Neff)
Subject: Re: Enviromentally-conscious sewing
Organization: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:38:36 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.190116.7181@iscsvax.uni.edu> klier@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.154113.5942@terminator.cc.umich.edu>, vln@icpsr.umich.edu (Victoria Neff) writes:
>
>Let me play devils advocate again-- this time on the subject of attitudes:
>
>> One thing I wonder about with the recommendation about blends -- blends
>> tend to pill more.  I wonder if clothing made from blends actually gets
>> thrown out sooner than all-cotton clothes which may wear out sooner but
>> look better longer.  Who wants to wear totally pilled but still functional
>> clothes?  
>
>What if we made pilled fabrics fashionable?  I've seen stranger-looking
>brand new fabrics!

Eeeeuuuwh!  ;-P

>> I also find that polyester clothes hold on tenaciously to
>> stains that would wash out of cotton easily (I'm just getting rid of a
>> polyester blouse that is in perfect shape except for the grease stains
>> [from food] down the front).
>
>Uh, I once "solved" a similar problem by treating an entire blouse with
>crisco.  Now it was all uniform, therefore no one thought it was stained...
>(ah the joys of a stepped-on wallet!)

Interesting idea.  That never occurred to me....

>Actually, I don't have residual stain problems on most blends-- a
>little pre-treatment seems to do it for me.
>
>> Wool was not mentioned at all in this discussion.  I believe wool production
>> is completely sustainable (if people don't try to have too many sheep at
>> one time).  Sheep are dipped in insecticide once or twice a year, and are
>> wormed, but I believe that that's the extent of poisons needed....
>
>Range-maggots, we call 'em in the conservation trade...  Sheep eat plants
>right down to the roots (goats are worse, they'll eat the roots too), so
>many plant species can't regenerate in an area that has been "sheeped".
>In general, a net loss of biological diversity makes the ecosystem of
>the area more fragile, more easily damaged by minor changes.  There are also
>problems with soil erosion and compaction caused by sheep.   The British
>Nature Conservancy has been experimenting with sheep exclosures on some
>of the lands in their care (sheep are EVERYWHERE!!! in Britain)-- and you
                                       ^^^^^^^^^^ -- no kidding, even in
                                                     city parks!  We were
						     surprised to see them
						     EVERYWHERE, as you say!

>can really see the difference between "sheeped" and "unsheeped" plots
>after a couple of years. 

Well, now, I wan't suggesting running them on the open range.  I was thinking
of the small operations (like the ones I know of that are concerned with
producing hand-spinning fleeces) that run their sheep on fenced pastures.
And good husbandry dictates rotating the sheep from pasture to pasture
BEFORE they eat everything down to the roots....

Somehow I suspect that grazing on public land just begs for abuse.  Why should
they care if the land is over-grazed?  They sell their product and can then
move on if they want....

>
>> Figuring out how to be "green" isn't easy.  
>
>Truer words were never spoken!!!
>
>> Is it better to buy a new
>> fridge NOW, while the new ones are very energy-efficient to run but have
>> CFCs, or to wait for the non-CFC ones which will use new and less-efficient
>> technology?  Etc.  I'm glad Kay raised the issue, even if it is one more
>> thing to feel guilty about.....
>
>If you ever get the chance to see a film called, "Lovins on the Soft Path",
>about energy conservation and *the redesign of technological items and
>attitudes* to make the conservation possible, you might enjoy it.  Take
>"energy use" as a metaphor for "anything use"-- it's still applicable.

I'll save that title....