Alan Kattelmann

Environmental Sustainability

Product Impact Research Essay

Jockey Shirts: Impact on People and the Environment

            This paper will be an analysis of the Microfiber Crew shirt by Jockey, and its relations to economically and environmentally sustainable practice. This involves the manufacturing, waste disposal, human element, lifespan, economics, and toxic materials processes used in the creation and lifetime of this product. I will judge if this shirt is something that is sustainable, or if it and similar products are not sustainable practices. The shirt is 93% polyester with 7% spandex, blue dye and a Teflon coating in order to make the shirt water resistant. The impact of these fibers and chemicals has a negative impact on the environment and human health as it goes through the Life Cycle process.

                                                             

            The manufacturing process of these shirts begins with the creation of the polyester and spandex fibers. Most of this process is done in China, as Jockey has secondary connections with factories in the country, and it is the primary producer of polyester. It is interesting to note that this might soon change, as many manufacturing plants are moving to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Lous because of lower costs. Polyester and Spandex are both petrochemicals, which means they are plastic fibers created using oil byproducts. This in itself is unsustainable given the non-renewable resources used to create the plastics. Large amounts of water and energy are used in to mass production of the synthetic fibers in order to meld them together and then cool the new product. Lubricants used during this process are often the cause of contamination of water sources near the factory. During the process of creating the plastic fibers, nitrous oxide is released as a byproduct. This is a greenhouse gas that is far more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The EPA claims, “Nitrous oxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for an average of 114 years before being removed by a sink or destroyed through chemical reactions. The impact of 1 pound of N₂O on warming the atmosphere is almost 300 times that of 1 pound of carbon dioxide”. According to the EPA Industry production only accounts for 5% of the nitrous oxide released into the atmosphere. However that is only the numbers released by the United States. The numbers released by manufacturing giants in Asia are much more difficult to find. Thankfully the EPA says that the impact can be reduced through technological upgrades enforced by law in the United States. Hopefully China’s new clean energy goals will help to reduce the threat from this greenhouse gas.

                       

            After the polyester is created, the fibers are shipped to Jockey factories in the United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, and Jamaica. The largest numbers of factories are located in Honduras, where workers are generally treated fairly well. This requires planes and trucks in order to send the fibers to the manufacturer, which expends energy, petrol, and creates air pollution. This second stage of the manufacturing process involves using dyes to color the shirt, weaving the fibers together, and coating with limited amounts of Teflon in order to create the waterproof feel. According to Ethical Fashion Forum, “During the dyeing process an average t-shirt will use 16-20 litres of water. 80% of the dye is retained by the fabric and the rest is flushed out … The global textile industry discharges 40,000 – 50,000 tons of dye into the water system and Europe discharges 200,000 tons of salt”. While this does not say how much water this shirt uses, we can use this to estimate the amount of water used in the dyeing process of the Jockey shirts. Jockey likely uses around 400,000 litres of water in the dyeing process of this shirt alone. Over the last two decades the synthetic dye industry has developed thorough health, safety and environmental standards to reduce negative impacts. However, there are still companies making carcinogenic dyes or those laced with harsh chemicals. These petrochemicals can cause irritation of the skin as well as contamination of water sources after disposal. Unfortunately many clothing manufacturers hide the amount of petrochemicals used in the dyeing process behind IP laws, and so it can be difficult to know how safe the dyeing of your clothing really is. Dye fixatives are also often heavy metals that end up in nearby water sources if not treated correctly. These artificial dyes are currently the only way to efficiently mass produce colored articles of clothing. However, an alternative to chemical dyes is natural dyes (dye colours made from plant and animal sources). These may not be suited to large scale production, often requiring large amounts of water and chemical fixing agents. However they can be grown organically and are carbon neutral, and their use brings great benefits at an artisanal level. Many trade organizations such as Aranya in Bangledesh have started using natural dyes again. These dyes are safer for the skin and the environment. Hopefully fashion professionals such as Jockey will be able to see the value in such methods, but the process will have to become cheaper for dyeing to be safer on a large scale.

            Another part in this stage of the manufacturing process is the weaving of separate fibers into cloth to be used to make the shirts. They are generally sent through a spinner and a loom in order to turn the fibers into cloth. In the spinner the fibers are carded, combed, twisted, and blended into s synthetic yarn to be weaved into huge sheets of fabric at the loom. The loom uses huge machines to weave the yarn into sheets of fabric. Both of these processes use large amounts of electric energy, but thankfully create few byproducts. This is one of the cleanest parts of the shirt manufacturing process. It is after the loom has created sheets that it goes through the dyeing process. Different from the usual cotton processes, these polyester shirts go through another process that involves coating the shirts in a material that makes then hard to wrinkle and water resistant. These chemicals often contain Teflon and Scotchguards. Both Scotchgard and Teflon are in a family of chemicals called perfluorochemicals (PFCs). 3M reformulated Scotchgard in 2000, under pressure from EPA following a series of alarming company-sponsored studies surfaced linking the Scotchgard chemical (PFOS) to birth defects and showing it to be a ubiquitous contaminant in human blood. The Teflon-related chemical called PFOA has since been linked to similar concerns, and DuPont and other manufacturers are under intense regulatory and legal pressure to reduce their use of this chemical and to clean up PFOA pollution around the country. Nevertheless, PFCs that are made from or that break down to PFOA in the body or the environment are still widely used in coatings that make products ranging from food packaging to household furniture water-repellant, grease-proof, and stain-resistant. PFCs like Scotchgard and Teflon are now in the rogues gallery of toxic, extraordinarily persistent chemicals that contaminate human blood and wildlife the world over (over 90% of Americans are showing PFOA in our bloodstream). As more studies pour in, PFCs seems destined to join DDT, PCBs, dioxin and other chemicals that are among the most notorious, global chemical contaminants ever produced. Thanks in part to EWG's hard work, in 2006 major manufacturers signed a voluntary phaseout of PFOA by 2015, but the chemical is still on the market for now. This means that many of our polyester shirts today still contain these PFCs. These chemicals finish the cloth making process. They are then sent to a Garment Factory (it is not known if this is a different factory in the Jockey production line, but this is the case with many pieces of clothing). In this process about 12% of the fabric is thrown away as scraps on the cutting room floor as laborers turn the fabric into the shirts we wear. These pieces of fabric are thrown into a dump, and the same problem as will be discussed later in this paper is amplified.

            With this done, the finished shirt is taken to the stores located mostly in the United States. This processes requires even more energy in transportation costs in gas and energy. The shirt sells for $28 dollars online, and the company revenue is about 443.2 million per year. The polyamide shirts account for about 42.5 million dollars of the company’s 2014 revenue. This means that the shirts are currently economically sustainable, however it is not known how long this will be the case since the cost of petro chemicals continue to rise.

                                                The process after the shirt is sold is almost as important as the manufacturing process, as it determines lifespan, demand, recyclability, and waste disposal. According to research performed by Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and management, this is actually the most resource intensive stage of a garment’s life. “The life cycle inventory and assessment for this study indicate that the garment use phase is the most resource intensive and the largest contributor to global warming potential in the shirt’s life cycle. Cotton production uses the most water, whereas polyester production uses the most energy in shirt creation. All four facilities exhibited different efficiencies in each process.” The environmental impact from shirt disposal is insignificant. However, reusing or repurposing shirts can reduce resource consumption and environmental degradation by displacing virgin material. Large amounts of water, power, and CO2 are created in the laundering process of a shirt. This, given that the lifetime of the shirt is likely about 2-5 years, a large amount of these resources are used. This is the energy used up during this stage of the product’s life, and since very few of the shirts are recycled, given that they can only make other shirts, many head to second hand vendors or straight to the landfill.

            When one of these shirts winds up in a landfill, it causes problems for the local environment. Even though these problems are not as extreme as those caused by heavy metals, chemicals, etc., there is still an issue. Many of the petrochemicals in the shirt are broken up in the toxic mesh and leak out into the ground through leachate. Leachate is the liquid formed when waste breaks down in the landfill and water filters through that waste. This liquid is highly toxic and can pollute the land, ground water and waterways.

Sources

1. http://www.bren.ucsb.edu/research/documents/missionlinen_brief.pdf

2. http://environmentvictoria.org.au/content/problem-landfill

3. http://www.epa.gov/

4. http://www.ethicalfashionforum.com/the-issues/dyes

 

Jockey Shirt Fact Sheet

The Microfiber Crew sold by Jockey Inc. is part of a line of largely polyester shirts worn by active people looking for a sweat wicking fiber.

Manufacturing location- The majority of Jockey’s shirts are manufactured in the United States, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Jamaica. However, a large amount of their materials come from China, who exports large amounts of polyamide and spandex fibers.

Sales- The shirt sells for 28 dollars online. The company revenue is 443.2 million yearly, and the polyamide shirts account for about 20% of the profits. This shirt and those similar to it generate about 88.64 million yearly.

Recyclability and Product Lifespan- The estimated lifespan of this shirt with the average American user is around 3-7 years. After the shirt has passed this period, many are donated and used second handed. While the exact number isn’t available, many have the potential to last another 10 years in the hands of new owners. Polyamide is a recyclable material, and Jockey claims to have contractors to perform recycling services. However, many end up in a landfill with other forms of solid waste.

Toxic Materials- The polyamide shirt contains a surprising number of toxic chemicals. The polyamide itself is known to irritate skin but little else. The dangerous aspects are the Teflon coating to repel water and petrochemical dyes to give the material its color. Teflon is a known cancer agent as well as dangerous to groundwater sources after the shirt begins to decompose in a landfill. While this may not be an issue, many polyamides from China are often treated with formaldehyde to cheapen production and give the shirt a sleek feel. This is a potential danger similar to the Teflon. It is dangerous to human skin, the environment around a landfill, and workers handling the materials. Petrochemical dyes are used to give the shirts color, and darker dyes are known to contain toxic chemicals as well. Overall the shirt is not a healthy choice for yourself or the environment, but could be made better through enforcement of strict safety policies by Jockey to reduce levels of formaldehyde and Teflon.

Sentimental Value- Although the shirt is stated in reviews to be of high quality, it is unlikely to have much sentimental value to its marketed demographic (men 20-50 years of age). This said the shirt would last until it experiences wear or the user replaces it with a more recent shirt.

Alan Kattelmann Traffic Report

        In order to estimate traffic levels near Mercer I stayed on the street in Mercer village and observed all through traffic for 45 minutes around 4:30pm on Thursday afternoon. During this period I observed 92 cars pass by my spot. What I observed is as follows:

Large(ex: pickup truck or SUV)-44
Medium(ex: sedan, smaller 4 door, etc.)-25
Small-(ex: 2 door, fuel efficient car)-23

The age is an estimate considering that I could not see the year of each car that passed.
Old(older than 2000)-34
New-58

Number of people in car:
one-68
two-12
three-7
more-5

Analysis- According to the U.S. EPA web site, transportation accounts for 32% of CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. While my findings do not speak for Macon as a whole with such little data, it does not speak well for the levels the drivers in this area who likely are responsible for a large amount of CO2 releasing into the atmosphere. Most of the cars I saw were fairly large cars, and while gas mileage has certainly gotten better on these bigger vehicles, they still can pose a risk to the environment in large numbers. However, their practicality for families and working people is going to be more important, as well as their popularity and strong marketing from producers in this area. I didn't really find the number of cars surprising, however, the fact that there was usually only one person in the vehicle did. I can only assume that people were coming back from work, but this drive is where they put on the most mileage every day. Most people that don't face a morning commute have no reason to inconvenience themselves with a carpool, and public transportation is poor in Macon. My father is the owner of a brand new F-150 that he drives himself to work in every dat because that is a sustainable practice for him. To my family and many others economic sustainability is more important than environmental sustainability. On another note, several of the older cars I saw would likely not pass any sort of environmental inspections, being decades old and spewing black exhaust from their tail pipe. I understand that this is a reality anywhere that people can't afford newer cars, or simply prefer older ones. As time passes I would like to think this problem will get better, as new more efficient cars will be lower in value as time passes and be affordable to the segment the population that does not have much. On a personal note, I hope its a little warmer the next time someone has to do this assignment, because man it was cold out there.

Google Earth Special Spot