Cotton is the most used natural fiber in the textile industry. It accounts for about a quarter of global textile fibers, and demand has surged with the rise of fast fashion. Yet growing and processing cotton leaves a sizable environmental footprint, driven by heavy water use, toxicity, eutrophication, and greenhouse gas emissions.
How dirty are jeans or a shirt? An international research project examined these questions and explored alternatives to reduce clothing’s environmental footprint. The study, published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, analyzed the cotton life cycle to reveal where the biggest impacts occur.
During cultivation, environmental harm depends on irrigation levels and the use of pesticides and fertilizers. In textile production, impacts hinge on energy systems and production technologies. In the usage phase, outcomes vary with consumer habits around purchasing, washing, drying, and ironing.
Depending on the impact category and country, cotton’s footprint can be dominated by different stages. For example, in nations with carbon-heavy energy grids like the United States, the use phase can dominate greenhouse gas emissions, according to the study.
Two drones monitor a cotton field. Pixabay
Researchers emphasize that shifting to alternative fibers can lower these environmental burdens. They point to fibers such as jute and linen, which require far less water than cotton.
Wash laundry less often
The study notes that more assessments are needed to fill data gaps about developing regions, the frequency of wearing cotton garments, and other environmental impacts, including socioeconomic effects.
To reduce cotton’s footprint, the researchers suggest improving water efficiency in agriculture, advancing textile recycling, and washing clothes less often.
Environmental scientist Laura Scherer, who coordinates the international cotton project, notes that the rapid rise in textile consumption drives environmental impact. Much of Scherer’s prior work focused on food sustainability, but she argues that clothing choices matter too. Not everyone can afford high-efficiency equipment, but everyone can decide what to wear and how long to keep clothes in use.
Air-drying clothing lowers the environmental footprint. Scherer’s team examined cotton to map its clothing footprint and explore reduction opportunities. While polyester dominates the textile market as a synthetic fiber, cotton remains a central natural option.
Growing cotton plants requires substantial water. Assessing sustainability starts there. Often, consumers overlook production impacts because they occur abroad. For example, purchases in Europe can influence water shortages in China and India, according to Scherer.
Avoid ironing
Researchers from Leiden University in the Netherlands found that Americans tend to wash and dry clothes frequently, which adds a large carbon load. In some cases, the use phase can exceed production in shaping the carbon footprint of items like jeans.
By contrast, in places like Sweden where energy is cleaner, clothes are worn longer before washing and air drying is common, so the wearing phase contributes less to jeans’ carbon footprint. The researchers advocate washing fewer clothes, running full loads, and avoiding ironing to cut environmental impact.
The question remains whether cotton should be avoided when choosing new trousers. The team compares cotton with various natural and synthetic alternatives, but studies on consumer behavior make it hard to declare a clear winner. More research is needed, admits Scherer.
Shirts in a store. Pixabay
Scherer’s proposed path is simple: buy less overall and transition from fast fashion to slow fashion. Changing product design, marketing, and consumer behavior is essential, she says. Clothing production may seem distant, but consumers can make a meaningful difference. Buying fewer clothes and washing them less often is beneficial and can save money, she concludes.
Reference work: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00476-z
….
Delete this section if needed. Contact address of the environmental department: [redacted]