Carbon Model: More Clothing Materials (Linen / Merino)
philsturgeon opened this issue · comments
I got am awesome new linen shirt but the only shirt options so far are cotton and viscose. I’ve been writing and collating information about clothing options over here: https://protect.earth/clothing
Sadly I don’t have a carbon model to hand, but I’ve not tried as hard as I could have. I’m sure one exists.
It's a good point, and I also got curious about the actual difference. I haven't been able to find any good enough sources with comparison between same product (t-shirt) in different textiles though.
I did find this report from 2009 that has the following comparison on page 37:
This source contradicts our current source though in regards to viscose vs cotton.
In general it seems like most studies find that the use phase (washing, drying, ironing) is most important in terms of energy use and CO2e footprint. And for the above I would assume that the amount of ironing/steaming required for linen is usually higher than other fabrics? I would also assume that the wool products have different washing and drying usage in general.
There's also the question of durability which I'm not sure is covered here, so would be great if anyone knows of a better source :)
Thank you for doing the research here!
Is the purchase model meant to cover entire product lifecycle, and make assumptions about its usage and how/when the item is disposed of? That seems like its biting off a bit too much IMO.
The washing, drying, ironing would be covered by the energy usage models already right? I enter the kwh which includes all that, so the purchase is just the creation and it doesn't matter if I wash the item 1 or 100 times.
For me, I had wash everything, so I don't want to get slapped with an increased footprint for buying an item that might need handwashing more often.
As for ironing, I've not ironed anything in years, but if I did, that too would show up on my energy usage.
I can't speak to durability. I repair my clothes so something being thinner doesn't mean it'll last less time, it'll just get more stitches! 😅
That makes good sense, I'm actually not sure if all purchase definitions takes full lifecycle into account or not. And I guess there must have been some previous talks about this topic that I have missed :) Any inputs on this @martincollignon?
As far as I can tell most data coming from the French paper does use cradle-to-grave numbers, but I have to Google translate it so might have missed something..
The French Paper afaik actually does take into account cradle-to-grave and also origins of material (it's super extensive). It's always a bit more dangerous to mix sources, but your source looks quite serious, @madsnedergaard . If we find the average weight of a shirt / tshirt, I think we should use it!
Thanks @martincollignon. Do we always look at cradle-to-grave on purchases? Phil has a pretty good point about usage for this specific type of purchase - but I'm also wondering what's preferable for the "average" users :)
To be clear on what I was trying to say: I think "cradle" and "grave" are ok so long as we aren't double-counting the usage via purchase and energy.
Closing as we're unfortunately sunsetting North (https://www.tmrow.com/blog/sunsetting-north/)