Well, it is Sunday 3rd January 2021. I woke early, (as usual) and after looking out of the window at the pouring rain, decided that my scheduled Sunday walk with my good friend, John was likely to be cancelled. A quick text message exchange confirmed that yomping across the saturated heathland around the Oakhanger satellite ground station was not high on our list of priorities.
So, I decided to make today a very productive one, so I launched myself into the task of clearing all the old papers from the home office.
I spent most of the morning going through old documents, and had to stop, as the shredder was showing signs of iminent meltdown.
Opening another dusty box that appeared to have been packed in 1999 (judging by the papers, letters and bank statements) I came across a hand written poem, written by none other than SWMBO.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.
I think it’s very good, so I have reproduced it below. Well done Sue, it seems that you and I are both wordsmiths…
So here it is!
How to look Great!
A look in the mirror can shatter a dream,
Lotions and potions, a bottle of creme,
A wrinkle, a spot, a tragedy great,
Will I be ready for dinner at eight?
A crater, a canyon, a ravine very deep,
So into a bath full of bubbles I leap,
The hair, and the nails, and the make-up all done,
“Darling, how on earth do you always look so young?”
I was in my mid-thirties when I decided that I would make flying my profession, rather than a hobby. As I thought that there was no point in training for a Commercial Licence, I was going for the full monty – the Airline Transport Pilot Licence.
Being a naturally cautious person, I read up on the CAA’s Class One medical requirements, and thought that I would meet most of them, but before wasting the not inconsiderable fee, I decided to have an eye test at my local opticians.
It turned out that I needed some correction, as I was astigmatic, so I duly ordered two sets of spectacles (as required under the CAA regulations). Luckily, my eyes have remained relatively stable for many years, and I only needed infrequent changes.
When I did need a change of lenses, I used this as an opportunity to buy new frames – not that I am a dedicated follower of fashion – just that as my hair decided to part company with me, aviator-style teardrop glasses looked a bit odd.
As the years have gone by, my hairline has stabilised at what us aviation professionals describe as “bald as a billiard ball” but my prescription now changes much more regularly, with presbyopia adding to my astigmatism.
Why am I telling you this?
Well, it’s about waste, and sustainability.
I attended my annual sight test at the local branch of a well-known high street optician and, as expected, my prescription had changed, and I needed some additional correction.
Now, I paid a lot of money, relatively speaking, for my last set of glasses, and the frames were comfortable, lightweight, and suited me, as they sat comfortably under aviation headsets, and weren’t uncomfortable whilst wearing a motorcycle helmet.
“May I have these frames re-glazed with my new lenses?” I asked the sales assistant.
“Let me check” she responded, tapping away at her keyboard. Frowning, she looked up at me, saying “I’m sorry, but it’s more expensive to re-glaze your glasses than to buy a new pair.”
“These frames are only two years old!” I exclaimed, “and I like these ones.”
She squinted at the arm of the glasses, reading the name off. A flurry of further whacking on the keyboard, and she eventually looked up. “Good news – the frame is still a current model.”
“OK” I said. “How much?”
“”Well, for the first pair, with all of the lens options (Varifocals with photochromic tinted lenses, and anti-glare and anti-scratch coatings), it comes to £407, and the second pair with a plain lens is £165.00”
I thought about this for a Nano-second.
“No.” I said firmly. I needed to think about this.
So, if spending almost six hundred quid on new glasses was the cheap option, and reglazing was more expensive, then I would consider cheaper frames. I didn’t have the time to select alternative frames that wouldn’t cost the equivalent of the GDP of a small country, so thanking the staff, I left to return home.
I thought about the incredible waste going on here. A perfectly good frame essentially being scrapped. Maybe this was a cosy arrangement with the opticians as the frames were their own brand and they were effectively influencing customers to buy new frames. New frames = better turnover = more profit.
A few days later, I was sitting at my laptop with a mug of tea in my hand, idly watching two Robins fighting in the garden. I realised that I was squinting, so I slipped my glasses on, which improved things a lot, but not 100%. This reminded me that I needed to do some research into the wastefulness of planned obsolescence in the optical trade.
It wasn’t long before I discovered that there is a solution.
I came upon a website called Lensology. Previously known as Reglaze My Glasses, this company specialises in fitting new prescription lenses into existing frames.
The company have no retail outlets, and are in fact an optical laboratory, producing lenses for the optical industry.
A bit of background here – consider this; The Association of British Dispensing Opticians reports that about 3.2 million pairs of glasses (which were no longer adequate due to prescription changes) were collected by their members annually. ABDO no longer collects them as the charity to which they were sent can’t make their collection financially viable any longer. Even so that is a lot of glasses.
Suppose that the average cost of a pair of glasses is £150. A staggering £450 million being thoughtlessly discarded.
Many spectacle frames are plastic, and contribute to the problem of global pollution and climate change.
Since 2010, a charity called Vision Aid Overseas collected these spectacles, which were then processed in order to raise funds for improving eye health in developing nations, such as Africa.
This would include recovering precious metals such as gold from spectacle frames, selling on appropriate frames to vintage and retro outlets, and recycling the other components such as lenses, and the metallic parts.
This was until august of this year, when the scheme stopped due to being economically unviable.
As a result, VAO report that many people will now just dispose of their redundant spectacles by throwing them in the refuse.
So, I decided to act, and get my perfectly adequate frames re-glazed with my new prescription.
Lensology’s process is ridiculously simple.
I registered on-line, and within a couple of days they sent me a flat packed cardboard box in the post. Filling in the enclosed form, I selected my lens type and my personal options (Varifocals, photo-chromic, together with anti-glare and anti-scratch coatings). and a copy of my optical prescription. The last thing was to email the company a photograph of me wearing my spectacles in order that they could measure my inter-pupil distance. This ensures that the glasses will be a perfect match.
I then put two frames into the box, and using their Freepost address, I popped it into the post.
The next morning, I received a friendly email from one of the staff at Lensology, who informed me that they had received my frames, and including a quote for the re-glazing of my frames.
The quote was exceptional. I could have my primary glasses with all the bells and whistles and a spare with just a plain varifocal lens for £334.75!
A saving of £237.25
I immediately placed the order, paying online, and a few days later, received my glasses.
The glasses were an excellent fit.
And the best surprise?
Inside the box, was a handful of chocolates.
This is, without doubt, the best way forwards. No waste, money saved, and chocolate.
Lounging on the sagging brown leather sofa in the Petersfield branch of Costa Coffee, I take a swig of my coffee. Not my normal velvety creamy latte, but a black coffee. Dark and with no sweetener. Not anywhere near as satisfying, but under my new weight loss regime, essential.
A middle-aged woman walked briskly past the window, a stark contrast to the overcast day; bright floral trousers, baby-pink quilted jacket, a lurid multi coloured beanie hat, and electric blue plastic clogs.
Her flamboyant outfit sent my mind rocketing back 4 decades, to the mid 1960s.
The summer of 1967 was sunny and warm. I was eight years old, and loving my school holidays. To my boyish eyes, all of the local women were fabulously gorgeous, and there was an excitable buzz everywhere.
In the USA, the Summer of Love was happening, with over 100,000 young hippies assembling in Haight-Ashbury, a San Francisco suburb, preaching peace, happiness, self-determination, and rebellion against repression and materialism.
These flower children were hopeful and idealistic, as we all are when we are young, and want to see change.
I started to ponder things. The hippie dream was one of love and peace, with multi-ethnic communes striving to live with minimum impact on the environment – an ethos that was strong in 1967. I wondered how much of that dream has survived the intervening 52 years?
The hippie motto of “turn on, tune in and drop out” was a rallying call to disengage from contemporary middle-class values and materialism, and concentrate on expanding the mind – albeit propped up with the use of Psychedelic drugs and living in harmony – not just with each other but with the environment.
Pop culture drove some of this, with icons such as the Beatles promoting eastern religious teachings, and whilst vegetarianism had always been an option, it never had the wide promotion and uptake that it enjoyed with the hippie generation.
Hippies were generally aligned to “Make Love not War” and many thousands protested at the US’s involvement in the Vietnam war, including two demonstrations in London, leading to a number of injuries caused during confrontations with the Police.
The Hippie counter-culture was influenced by a number of global events. In January of 1968, Alexander Dubček, the First Secretary of the Czechoslovakian Communist Party introduced a series of reforms intended to give more democratic freedom and civil rights to its citizens. By August of 1968, the Soviet Union aided by other Warsaw Pact countries invaded and ruthlessly supressed the “Prague Spring.”
At about the same time, in Vietnam, the Tet Offensive began, leading to the US military commander General Westmoreland announcing that the Viet Cong could only be defeated by drafting another 200,000 men, and activating the reserves.
This not only unsettled middle-class America, but also further affected the Hippie psyche. Draft-dodging became recognised as acceptable conduct amongst the disaffected young; In my part of the globe, England, I well remember the protests in London, and seeing in later years the student riots in France, as the idealist young rebelled against the old world order.
The increasing public awareness that there could be a better way led to the normalisation of the emergent ecologic movement, and that man should go back to living in harmony with the planet.
Music of the time reflected the changing values. Donovan sang “Universal Soldier” as a protest about the Vietnam War. Barry McGuire released “Eve of Destruction” as a protest against the broken civil rights system, war, the worsening situation in the Middle East and the assassination of John F Kennedy.
At the time, this angry protest was deemed so inflammatory that several radio stations in the USA banned it, as did Radio Scotland. Even dear old Auntie Beeb placed it on a restricted playlist, meaning that it couldn’t be broadcast on general entertainment shows.
So, what of the Hippie dream now?
Well, it may not exist in quite the same form, but be under no illusions, there are still plenty of idealistic people out there.
Greenpeace still upholds ecological ideals and frequently protests robustly. More recently in the UK we have seen Extinction Rebellion protesting against the lack of state action on the climate emergency.
Highly organised and connected via social media they advocate peaceful protest against inaction by the government.
Their website suggests that protests should be occupying relevant and significant buildings, chanting at meetings, and gluing themselves to doors and infrastructure. Not quite so radical as French students setting cars ablaze, but still quite effective.
I think that pretty much everyone has heard of Greta Thunberg, the schoolgirl who protested climate change outside the Swedish parliament every Friday. Now an internationally recognised figure, and a speaker at global climate change conferences, she has captured the younger generation’s consciousness and has catalysed a global movement.
In the UK in 2019, School and University students called a strike to highlight climate change, as did youth from across the globe, from Australia to India, and the USA to Sweden. The events were co-ordinated using social media under the banner of Fridays for Future.
However, there are other equally able and motivated young people here in the UK, who don’t appear to be as well known.
Take, for example, Bella Lack. She is now 17 and has been an activist against climate change. She has over 150,000 followers on social media, and as a result of her activities, she is Youth Ambassador for the Born Free Foundation, The RSPCA, The Save the Asian Elephant and The Ivory Alliance.
Amy and Ella Meek, sisters who formed Kids Against Plastic, an organisation that is dedicated to reducing single use plastics, and educating young people in the environmental issues facing us, and highlighting the fact that young people have a voice, and can make a difference.
I believe that the Hippie Dream is still alive and kicking. Its face may have changed, but its spirit lives on in the likes of Greta, Amy, Ella and Bella.
These are the new Hippies – caring, thoughtful, and motivated to make the world a better place for all of us.
Maybe their music isn’t as good as that churned out in the 60s Summer of Love, and maybe we don’t have Woodstock or Flower Power…
The gloomy sky overhead Haslemere made it seem darker and colder than it was. A depressing midweek afternoon, with both Christmas and the New Year landmarks disappearing over the rear horizon.
Costa Coffee was almost empty, and I shared the place with just one barista and the branch manager, both of whom were courteously ignoring me, and conducting a desultory, spasmodic conversation related to their respective family Christmases.
As always these days, Christmas was a mixed bag of news, but one item did catch my attention. A lot of media coverage was being dedicated to criticising the time-honoured Christmas jumper.
It seems that such jumpers are environmental disasters, and the bombardment of negativity made it almost feel as if the green lobby were deliberately greenwashing Christmas. In some cases, this leads to “green fatigue”, and I heard a lot of comments that bemoaned the continual media attention focused on environmental issues. I must admit, that I too “switched off”.
The net result is that, as usual, my interest was piqued, and I immediately fired up the laptop, and started researching the environmental impact of the garment industry.
What I discovered is interesting, yet shocking.
The fashion and garment industry is simply huge. It is worth US$ 1.3 trillion, and employs about 300 million people. It greedily consumes 60% of all textiles produced.
Approximately 5% of all EU household expenditure is for clothing and footwear, (80% clothing, 20% footwear) about 12.6kg per person.
EU research also revealed that more than 30% of the clothes hiding in European wardrobes had not been used for at least a year.
According to a report published by Worldbank the garment industry is responsible for 10% of annual global carbon emissions! That is more than the combined annual Global Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) for Aviation and International Shipping, yet the media focus is nearly always focused on the transport sector.
Consider this; annually the garment industry uses 93 billion cubic metres of water – that is enough to satisfy the annual consumption needs of about five million people!
This is not just the water used for manufacturing garments, but also includes the irrigation requirements of the cotton and fibre crops.
Dyeing material and treatments during manufacturing contributes to 20% of worldwide wastewater generation.
Polyester, one of the most popular fibres for clothing, is made from fossil fuels, and is totally non-biodegradable. It does have the benefits of being tolerant of washing at lower temperatures, has a low water footprint, dries quickly, needs virtually no ironing, and it can be recycled into new fibres.
Now the downside. Recent studies have shown that just one domestic washing load of polyester clothing can discharge in the region of 700,000 microplastic fibres in the waste water, which subsequently release toxins into the marine environment, which eventually contaminate the human food chain.
This in itself is an appalling situation!
To put this into perspective, it takes about 3,800 litres of water to make a pair of jeans. This equates to CO2 emissions of about 34kg!
Garment production is resource-greedy, and materials used all have an impact on our world. For example, we are exhorted to wear natural products rather than synthetic, but perversely, natural products are the most un-eco-friendly – cotton contributes to excessive water consumption. The production of wool also adds significantly to methane emissions.
So, manufacturing clothing currently has a high environmental cost.
You may buy that pretty dress, or that cool shirt, or yet another pair of denim jeans. Do you think of the hidden environmental costs when you buy it?
Globally, clothing is massively under-utilised – and usage of clothing has slumped by about 36% compared with just fifteen years ago. Some items are discarded after just seven to ten wears. This is appalling!
An article in the Daily Mail reported that many women had adopted a throw away “wear it once” mentality related to clothing. The report suggested that much of this was due to the peer pressure exerted through social media in not wanting to be photographed or “tagged” wearing the same item more than once.
The associated costs are high and that’s not just from an ecological perspective. Globally, customers are squandering an estimated US$ 460 billion per year on waste and unneeded replacement.
Less that 1% of textile materials recovered from clothing is reused for clothing. Most of what is recovered is simply shredded and then used for lower purposes such as furniture stuffing, insulation, and cleaning cloths.
Unused clothing is often just dumped into landfill as refuse. There are high costs associated with the disposal of clothing, and to put this into perspective, the UK spends approximately £86 million per year to process and dispose of it.
This is also driven by the relatively new fast fashion culture. In the past, most clothing designers would launch their collections on a seasonal basis, but now many lower cost clothing stores offer new designs far more frequently, sometimes as often as weekly!
The fashion chain Zara offers 24 new clothing collections each year, and H&M between 12 and 16.
Fast fashion is frequently made from very cheap materials – almost planned obsolescence and is likely to fail quite quickly.
The consumer is almost led to believe that items of clothing are perishable goods and outfits are seen as disposable in the same way as a cigarette lighter.
The pressure on consumers, both from social media and commercial retailers to refresh their wardrobes has led to a state where the average person buys 60% more clothing today than they did in 2000.
In 2000, 50 billion new garments were made globally. In just twenty years, this has doubled, according to research conducted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation.
Significant environmental impact occurs during consumer use. Throughout the lifecycle of the clothes, they will be laundered many times, using water, chemicals and energy. Each time they will shed microplastics into the water system. They will then, in many cases, be tumble dried, and then ironed and pressed, using yet more energy.
So, what can be done?
Firstly, the old linear manufacturing system has to change. Linear systems simply take raw products, and through subsequent processes, manufacture a garment. The garment is sold, used, washed, used and then discarded.
A new circular economy needs to be created, where the discarded garment is collected, processed, recycled and remanufactured.
Clothing designers need to embrace a new concept of reducing waste at every stage of production. Products should be designed to have multiple life cycles using materials that are tailored to their intended subsequent uses.
Manufacturers should be considering materials such as bio-based polyesters (which use starches and lipids sourced from corn, sugar beet and plant oils) and man-made Cellulosic (MMCs) made from dissolved wood pulp. New products such as Lyocell (Tencel) made of cellulose from Eucalyptus which grow quickly and require no irrigation or pesticides must be rapidly incorporated into the manufacturing chain.
Retailers should also introduce much more effective labelling with tags clearly stating the item’s sustainability and emissions information, and better and more intuitive washing and care instructions.
Secondly, consumers need to make a significant change in mindset.
They need to be encouraged to make small behavioural changes such as reducing the temperatures at which they wash clothing, always washing a full load wherever possible, avoiding tumble drying, and buying clothes made from ecologically friendly fibres.
Unwanted clothes should always be donated to charities rather than discarding them into landfill.
Dare I also say that clothes should be washed less frequently, airing them instead, and avoid any unnecessary ironing.
Instead of fast fashion, “Slow Fashion” should be adopted – buy fewer clothes of better quality, and keep those for longer.
New ideas such as a clothes sharing economy. Why buy clothes, when you could lease them, or rent them for a pre-determined time?
High Tech solutions may be just around the corner – with Artificial Intelligence working with advanced three-dimensional printers that would simply produce a custom item of clothing instantly and on the spot. No overproduction or distribution and warehousing costs there, eh?
So – maybe you should make a cup of coffee, and go and check your wardrobe.
I just checked mine, and I seem to have quite a lot of clothes cluttering up my life which haven’t been used for a year.
I only own 8 items of footwear – and that includes 2 pairs of hiking boots, a pair of motorcycle boots and a pair of dress cowboy boots. Two pairs of deck shoes, and two pairs of work Chelsea boots. All of them are regularly cleaned and maintained, so replacement is rare.
I now have to fill a number of bin bags to take a trip to the charity shop.
So – Buy cheap, buy twice!
Together all of us making a small difference, makes a big difference.