A brutal lesson in marketing: EarthKilt

**Alan H** · 19th February 09, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Beertigger

IANAL, but I wouldn't dream of getting involved in any sort of int'l commerce w/o the legal protection of a corporation.

you not anal, you smart.

Me, smart, too.

Originally Posted by pdcorlis

Be careful what you ask for my friend, you might just get it.

*Exactly*

**Nanook** · 20th February 09, 01:12 AM

There is nothing "earth friendlier" about those "organic cotton" labels on those global lifestyle clothing brands than the cheaper polyester ones. The ecological balance of many global brands is poor. Sure they might use organic cotton. What's that? A lot of it these days is from India where GM (genetically modified seeds) is BIG. Indian "Organic Cotton" is about the cheapest and so the most popular to get used in mass market "organic clothing". Organic is "big money" so a lot of "organic" is not quite what people think.. Even non-fake, correctly documented organic is not always what people think--- I've seen organic produce that had higher pesticide levels than non-organic. What we need also to understand is that "Organic certification" cost money and is really only open and accessible to "bigger" players. Small farmers can't get certification! Its a business in the hands of global players and that's where India, China and even Turkey come into the picture. Lets say its not GM "organic" but high priced Egyptian organic from one of the EU funded rain feed cotton projects? Transport? Is moving Egyptian cotton to the US or Europe for processing and then sending it to South America for cheap labour and then importing it back as finished goods really "ecological" and "earth friendly". Its sure friendly to transport organizations... I won't even start to address the amount of energy nor even the issue of labour rights in the middle of the production and supply chain.. nor even start to talk about its impact on labour conditions of non-union U.S. garment workers (especially in the sweat shops which feed on "undocumented" workers).

**Pleater** · 20th February 09, 07:32 AM

I believe that the idea I am about to put forward might already have occured to you - to create a kit for the construction of a kilt, with all that is required for the task and full instructions.

My younger offspring was at one time creating soft toys, and finding that the time taken to hand sew them, (the process proving impossible to mechanise) was reducing the hourly rate to something absurd. The solution was to provide a kit of the cut out shapes, the thread, and stuffing with printed out instructions, and they were very well taken up.

It was even possible to do customised kits in particular colours of fluff, there being little extra cost and only a longer delivery time due to the ordering in of the fabric.

Anne the Pleater

**Alan H** · 20th February 09, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Nanook

There is nothing "earth friendlier" about those "organic cotton" labels on those global lifestyle clothing brands than the cheaper polyester ones. The ecological balance of many global brands is poor. Sure they might use organic cotton. What's that? A lot of it these days is from India where GM (genetically modified seeds) is BIG. Indian "Organic Cotton" is about the cheapest and so the most popular to get used in mass market "organic clothing". Organic is "big money" so a lot of "organic" is not quite what people think.. Even non-fake, correctly documented organic is not always what people think--- I've seen organic produce that had higher pesticide levels than non-organic. What we need also to understand is that "Organic certification" cost money and is really only open and accessible to "bigger" players. Small farmers can't get certification! Its a business in the hands of global players and that's where India, China and even Turkey come into the picture. Lets say its not GM "organic" but high priced Egyptian organic from one of the EU funded rain feed cotton projects? Transport? Is moving Egyptian cotton to the US or Europe for processing and then sending it to South America for cheap labour and then importing it back as finished goods really "ecological" and "earth friendly". Its sure friendly to transport organizations... I won't even start to address the amount of energy nor even the issue of labour rights in the middle of the production and supply chain.. nor even start to talk about its impact on labour conditions of non-union U.S. garment workers (especially in the sweat shops which feed on "undocumented" workers).

Nanook, you are absolutely right. How environmentally friendly is it to spew hundreds of pounds of carbon dioxide in the air via a cargo ships smokestacks, to move "sustainable" fabric from China to the USA, and then from the USA to El Salvador, and then move the finished product from El Salvador to California? How environmentally friendly is it to then put these kilts into the US Mail so that government trucks can schlepp them around the countryside?

If I wanted to be TRULY environmentally sound, and utterly minimize my impact, and never ever participate in any socially unjust system in any way then I would have to properly dispose of all my long-term impact goods like consumer electronics and then retreat to a primitive lifestyle. You see, even subsistence farming reduces natural habitat, doesn't it? Heating my little stone hut burns fuel and contributes to a carbon load in the atmosphere. So I can't farm, I can't raise non-natural, non-native animals because that impacts species diversity....I guess if I want to live at all, I have to be a hunter-gatherer of the pre-bronze age, and clothe myself in animal skins from animals that I shot with my stone-tipped arrows. God forbid that I mine and smelt any metal.

How can you be concerned with environmental quality and use a computer, Nanook? Don't you know what happens to computer circuit boards when the computer is obsolete? They go to India and Pakistan and China and workers with no protection at all strip the boards of their metals in acid-wash baths, and then retrieve the metal from the solutions and then dump the acid in the local river. How can you, in good conscience, be a part of that chain of events?

You get my drift?

You nor I cannot address EVERY single social and environmental issue. It's impossible, and if you or I try to do it, we wind up living impossible lives. Absolutely, it makes sense to buy local stuff....food, beer, wine, clothes, whenever possible. But I gotta tell you man, if I could ONLY buy clothes made in the San Francisco Bay Area, from materials grown int he Bay Area, that's REALLY going to limit my choices and you know what?

I can't have any tartan kilts, because tartan is imported from Scotland..

I do what we can, and I try to make one or two changes for the better if I can. If I can make one or two things a little bit better, then that is a LOT better than doing nothing at all....which is what I've been doing for a long time.

**Alan H** · 20th February 09, 10:53 AM

Post deleted...The therapy was in the writing of it, not having you all read it.

And now that this project is sadly buried, it's break-time.

**sathor** · 20th February 09, 11:47 AM

Originally Posted by Canuck

OK, but after that I'm done

Guess every here should be glad I'm none to quick at saving up money then.

**Howard Clark** · 20th February 09, 12:15 PM

I feel for you Alan. You had a great idea to try and help people. It just is not gonna work out that way.

All any of us can do is "what we can do". One day at a time, one decision at a time, about anything. We have more choices about more things than any humans ever had before. Those of us in the developed west waste a great deal of the earth's resources, whilst there are others wanting. We all can and should, do what we can to help change that, no matter how small it may be, or how futile it may appear.

There are loads of choices to make, and the world is complicated. It can be overwhelming. Deep breaths, quiet time. Do what you can and rejoice in the fact that you can do something.