We all have heard the age-old adage that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. However, this statement is not entirely truthful- as one might well anticipate. Many of us make our purchases, take out the essential bits, and throw away the packaging for the useless material it frequently is. In this instance, this trash may be viewed as useful or reusable by some, but to others… Well, that’s why they threw it away.

But once we have used the more precious materials of our purchase to the extent that we wish, we throw those away, too. This item my take a few jaunts down the hand-me-down or resale line, but, in the end, the trash of one man is still refuse, and it goes into the rubbish. But what do we, as the masters of this Earth. do with this rubbish?

Stick it somewhere where we don’t have to look at it, of course. For instance, the ocean.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a floating mass of debris grouped together by the gyre currents of the North Pacific. All said and told, the collection spans from the Western coast of North America to the Eastern coast of Japan, but clumps together in two distinct locations; these entities are large enough to have earned themselves proper names, the Eastern Garbage Patch and the Western Garbage Patch. In total, this compilation of refuse consists of more than 79,000 tons of plastic and covers a (whopping) total of 620,000 miles of ocean surface.

As imparted by the National Geographic article entitled “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” these clumps of garbage are actually vortexes of microplastics– tiny pieces of plastic produced from the degredation of larger pieces of plastic or from the polyethylene microbeads added to healthcare products- and larger rubbish bits as opposed to a solid physical entity of pure plastic. The depth of the rubbish collections varies as a result of the density of the submerged material; subsequently, scientists are still unsure of how deep the garbage patches truly are. Much of the small microplactic material floats on the surface of the water, covering vast quantities of surface area. Although this smaller material floats atop the water, other, denser material sinks to the bottom of the sea. According to the same National Geographic article, seventy percent of all “debris” makes its way to the bottom of the sea and there resides.

In their article, National Geographic further shared that scientists have traced source materials from fishing and oil endeavors, as well as shipping, in addition to land-based refuse disposal. Such studies have traced 20% of all material in the Pacific Garbage Patch back to the aforementioned sources and have additionally found that fishing nets alone contribute approximately 705,000 tons of substance found in the patch. Records of shipping losses have illuminated some of the original sources of debris, ranging from lost Nike sneakers (1990) to bath toys (1992), while the remainder of the rubbish came about from ships dumping waste cargo or from land-based life.

Other Water-Borne Garbage Collections

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is not, unfortunately, the only of its kind. According to Phys.org, “trash islands” have come about along the coast of Central America- but not in one specific location. These collections of refuse have sprung up all along the coasts of Central American nations, from Honduras to Guatemala.

Biological Effects

Major effects are wrought on the ecosystems in which marine waste resides. In the previously-mentioned Phys.org article “‘Trash Islands’ off Central America Indicate Ocean Pollution Problem,” local cleanup agents reported having seen fish and sea turtles deceased as a result of consuming the plastic materials. These same individuals also reported encountering plastic bags containing biological waste, such as blood. If such materials were to be released into the water, they would spread contagious diseases through not only that particular ecosystems, but the water supply, as well.

Such massive collections of floating plastic debris further cover the surface of the water, disallowing sunlight filtration into the water and removing the photosynthetic drive that fuels the basic components of marine ecosystems: algae and plankton. If the primary constituents of food chain are removed, obvious repercussions will pursue up the food chain and possibly result in populations losses and specie relocation due to lack of food.

Responses to the Issue

The widespread presence of this refuse epidemic clearly elucidates need for alteration of our consumptive practices and of the actions we take in disposing of our goods.
The three R’s of reducing, reusing, and recycling are the first course of action. Reduction of plastic consumption is the first, most effective way to combat the further dispersal of plastic within the Earth’s ecosystems. For instance, selecting not to purchase healthcare products which contain microbeads is an effective mode of diminishing their dispersal into water supplies and, eventually, into the ocean.
Reusing your plastic materials- for instance, bags (grocery or storage), containers, and utensils) is another mode which effectively keeps plastics from the environment.
Recycling all the products you possibly can further lessens the magnitude of environmental waste release, as you likely known, already.

As stewards of this planet, it is our job to take care of it to the best of our abilities and to take responsibility for the damage we have already dealt. After all, why should a treasure such as our planet be transformed into trash?

We all know the quip-like statistic “71% of Earth’s surface is covered by water,” and many of us uncovered it early on in our educational careers. We carry it around in our pockets like a coin, a handkerchief, or a key. But do we ever really think about its implications? Do you really, truly consider the fact that we live on a little blue marble dabbled with brown-green blotches when you take a swig of water after a jog? If you don’t, then you likely don’t consider the actual implications of the figure we know so well.

Unfortunately, our beloved “70%” statistic isn’t all-encompassing (nor is it quite accurate; it is actually 71%). It leaves out a related figure that proves to be a little bit more hard-and-fast: 96.5% of all water on this planet is saline. I won’t insult your intelligence by assuming you don’t recognize the breadth of the (meager in comparison) 3.5% fresh water concentration. Nor will I pretend that anyone actually reads this blog and have subsequently witness my previous ramblings about the water scarcity we are currently experiencing. I will, however, explain what exactly there is being done about this sticky situation involving a small amount of pure, drinkable water (not considering all that we have befouled) and a relatively large amount of seemingly untenable saline water.

Salt Water Desalination

In areas where fresh water is more scarce (or is being more so) than fresh water, desalination of local salt water is utilized for usable fresh water production. Nationals all across the globe, from the Middle East to the United States’ sates of California and Florida, employ desalination as a means of fresh water production given their outstanding environmental conditions. According to Scientific American, there are 13 000 active desalination plants across all corners of the globe which, in a given day (as of 2015), produce 55.6 billion liters of purified product.

Although the concept of desalination appears neigh-flawless, a primary factor contributes to its lack of amplified application: energy costs. As presented by Scientific American, producing one cubic meter of desalinated water costs between $1 and $2; this value is dependent upon the cost of energy in the area in question and on the prevalence of fresh water in the same area. These costs compare (generally) unfavorably to those of regular, fresh water supplies, which ring up from ten to twenty cents per cubic meter depending, again, on local fresh water availability. Overall, energy prices are the source of desalinated water’s hefty price tag and are further the reason why desalination processes are not in particularly high use.

Cost is only one of the few concerns oriented about desalination processes, though. Associated environmental concerns involve the intake of ocean water as well as the excretion of concentrated brine product and their impacts on adjacent aquatic ecosystems. In the intake process, aquatic life, including fishes, algae, and other microorganisms, can be and are pulled into the desalination systems; in some expulsion processes, brine from the systems are directly ejected into the neighboring waters, raising the salinity. Both of these actions alter the ecosystems present in the regions surrounding the plant and have subsequently given rise to opposition to particular desalination practices due to environmental concern.

Desalination Processes

As of now, two primary modes of water desalination exist: distillation and reverse osmosis, which are more commonly referred to as thermal and membrane processes. Whereas distillation processes have been utilized throughout history, membrane processes are a relatively recent development. Membrane processes’ comparably lower level of energy consumption has allowed for their heavier usage in water desalination., and many of the plants which have recently been developed (for instance, the Carlsbad Desalination Project in California the Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant) use membrane processes as their method of production.

Large thermal operations require proportionate amounts of energy; however, due to the historic presence of such processes, many of the first desalination facilities have used and continue to use them as their made mode of desalination. Thermal processes involve the heating of saline water solutions and the collection of the vapor produced and are moved onto other heating phases to produce a quality drinkable product. Some thermal processes are completed at altered pressures to allow for lower vaporization temperatures, but the multi-stage processes explained above are more prominently used.

Because of their lower energy consumption, membrane processes have increased in prevalence. Hari J Krishna explains the particular processes of reverse osmosis in “Introduction to Desalination Technologies.” Multiple steps are present in the process. Water is first treated to remove all debris or microorganisms in the water through flocculation. In the process of osmosis, saline water passes to through a semi-permeable layer to a solution of higher salt concentration, is exposed to pressure, then returns through the semi-permeable layer. During this return trip, the salt dissolved in the water remains in the membrane and the water is purified in this passing. Finally, once the water passes through the membranes, it is again treated to assure its purity.

All in all, the desalination of water is on the rise as a primary means of fresh water production as a result of climate change and water quantity concerns. Although its prices (be they economical or environmental) may appear a bit steep, desalination does provide an alternative option for meeting fresh water needs.

Have you ever truly considered where your waste really goes when you use the restroom? That some individuals do not have the same luxury of transportable sewage? Or that some of those individuals directly deposit this waste directly into fresh water sources where they mingle with biotia or debris?

Take a moment to consider these questions. What impact do you think the presence of human waste and related debris play on the associated ecosystems? On the world’s water as a whole? Finally, how much waste do you think is actually disposed of through improper methods?

As I have already discussed, the need for freshwater conservation is quite real; we, as a planet, are scheduled to run out of drinkable fresh water as a result of drought and population increase. These factors are exacerbated by improper removal of various forms of waste from (and their insertion into) this essential resource. The deposit of human waste into fresh water sources plays a particularly significant role in current water concern, as can be seen in the March 2017 post by the UK’s Independent article and in the recent surge in scientific papers studying the effects of sewage on ecosystems and on fresh water bodies utilized for human water consumption.

True Metrics & Effects

Let me begin by answering one of my earlier questions, particularly that concerning the quantity of sewage that goes improperly treated. The standard figure is over 80 percent (as first established in Independent(UK)‘s article “Stop wasting sewage to save ‘finite’ supplies of fresh water, warns UN“).

If you live in a portion of the United States fortunate enough to have full access to plumbing and fresh water, your waste is likely transported to a systematic, multi-tiered treatment system involving the substances’ transportation from your abode to a (relatively) nearby facility. However, if you are located in a region without such amenities, be it inside of or outside of the United States… Your waste may be directly outsourced to a number of locations, including local freshwater sources (ponds, lakes, streams, etc) or the ocean.

As collected by the Independent via an interview with Professor Stefan Uhlenbrook of the United Nation’s World Water Assessment Program, 300,000 deaths (counting only children under the age of five) occurred in 2012 alone as a result of inadequate hygiene and sanitation measures. The issue with sanitation is very apparent, as clearly seen through these data, and has easily understood implications on human life.

However, sewage-filled water poses a threat on multiple levels beyond that of apparent pathogenic (and strikingly unsanitary) dilemma. The nutrients present in human feces and urine foster biological growth in a similar manner to animal manure. Such presences result in the ability of contaminated waters to foster some biologic growth: algae. Prosperous algal blooms affect aquatic ecosystems (including the ocean) by removing oxygen from the water in a process that is called “hypoxia.” Both plants and bacteria in the water utilize dissolved oxygen in the water for their biological processes, stealing the oxygen from the native ecosystem inhabitants and causing them to asphyxiate. Sciencing.com further explains that this creation of environments with low dissolved oxygen content permit the flourish of invasive species which thrive in the variant conditions.

In the same interview conducted by the Independent with Professor Stefan Uhlenbrook, an astounding figured regarding the land area of aquatic ecosystem affected by sewage-contaminated water was shared. According to the Professor, 250,000 square kilometers- an area he relates to the size of Great Britain- are impacted by such conditions.

The impact of dissolved solutions in feces and urine is furthered through the medications and chemicals sourced therein. Developmental and reproduction issues are noted to result in animals exposed to conditions containing antibiotics and excess hormones prior dissolved in the ill-disposed-of waste, indicating that the impact of our lack of discretionary disposal results in highly negative response by other organisms.

Clearly, this lack of proper disposal of human  waste results in a myriad issues involving our existence as well as that of the organisms with which we share this planet. It is assuredly our role to right the environmental wrongs we have committed and clean up the waste which we have introduced into our environment: out planet is not a toilet, nor is it a landfill. Our fresh water resources are becoming more and more restricted with each passing year and we must do all that is in our grasp to assure that we do not truly run dry.

Glittering landscapes; days filled with sledding, skiing, snowboarding, and tubing; cozy nights spent nestled be the fire with a good book… With all of the glorious activities and sights to experience, one might questions what there is to suggest that winter is not the perfect wonderland that we hold it to be in our minds. However, we all know of the storms that frequent the northern portions of the North American continent, blanketing the region with freezing rain, ice, and snow, and we are equally aware of the losses of power and mobility which result from these mighty displays of weather. We stock up on bread, milk, and toilet tissue; gather together our shovels; and prepare countless bags of road salt and deicing chemicals for treatment of our driveways and roads.

Once the storm hits, we either hunker down and cozy up to wait out the storm or brave the whirling tempest to clean off travelways- and finally let loose those tons of road treatment compounds we use none-too-gingerly. Yes, the road salts may splash onto your shoes and vehicle, but these compounds make further splash in our waters, where they impact aquatic life, as well as drinking. ground, and surface water quality.

Sodium Chloride

One of our most popular food amendments has another use sourced in the treatment of roads in instances of wintry conditions. Sodium chloride is predominantly used for the melting of snow on roads and walkways and has for long been used in states across the United States. Because the compound dissolves entirely when introduced to water, its components, the sodium and chloride ions, separate from one another completely and remain within their water source. The prolonged effects of these ions result from their difficulty of removal from water sources. The Minnesota Stormwater Manual explains that the chloride ion is not easily extracted from its solvent and therefore does not willingly participate in selective precipitation, which is used as a primary mode of water treatment.

As prior stated, melted wintry weather makes its way into runoff and groundwater upon melting, and from there heads into local bodies of water and drinking water sources. Of immediate concern are the high concentration of ions present within close proximity to treated roadways. Even over brief amounts of time, soil substrates are altered by the presence of sodium and chloride ions such that their permeability and density are affected such that increased erosion occurs. This creates the issue of loose soil presence in groundwater sources in addition to that of difficult-to-treat compound contaminants. Once present within drinking water, these seemingly-benign ions wreck havoc, contaminating drinking wells for long durations and endangering the health of those who cannot consume large quantities of sodium.

While slightly less issue is posed by the dissolved ions in running streams, their impact is more heavily felt in stiller bodies, like ponds and lakes. Of particular note is the effect of sodium chloride in the turning process of lakes; because the compound is much more massive than the water molecule by itself, a heavy “saline layer” forms at the body’s bottom. This results in the inability of the body’s convection current from pulling this bottom-most layer of liquid from its depths, and further causes issues for lakebed-dwelling organisms which are smothered by the lack of oxygen and high ion concentration within the water. (For more information about the effects of deicing compounds in lake waters, please head to The Minnesota Stormwater Manual’s article “Environmental impacts of road salt and other de-icing chemicals” and scroll to the section entitled “Surface Waters,” or AskSmithsonian‘s article entitled “What Happens to All the Salt We Dump On the Roads?“)

Further pressures are felt by biotic life beyond the stagnation of lake current. Many organisms which reside in aquatic conditions require highly balanced and distinct environments that are thrown askew by increases in salinity and toxic metal release catalyzed by the presence of chloride ions. Alterations begin at the very bottom of the food chain with bacteria and other microorganisms on which fish and higher-order predators rely and slowly creep their way through the hierarchy. This further permits the possible harm of humans by way of consumption of fish or other aquatic organisms.

Other Deicing Agents

Sodium chloride is clearly not the only chemical utilized in the treatment of road and pathways in events of winter weather. Other popular compounds include those that are acetate- or carbohydrate-based.

Acetate-based compounds, in particular calcium-magnesium acetate, dissolve when introduced to water in a process which uses oxygen; this deprives organisms inhabiting the water source from the resource and can inspire asphyxiation.

Due to the natural inefficiency of carbohydrates themselves in deicing measures, they are often combined with other compounds to ensure effective treatment; however, many of the carbohydrates utilized are founded in more natural sources (like beet juice). While little formal research has been completed, there is speculation that the decay of the carbohydrates (once they are unleashed into the environment) can contaminate waters and other environmental pieces by way of produced nutrients.

Although we have nearly competed our annual journey through the bog of cold and flu season, sniffles and sneezes still hang heavy in the air. And let’s face it: no one wants to be ill, nor does anyone really have the time to be ill. With all of these contagions, though, what does one do to combat the ever-present threat they impose? We scrub our hands and common surfaces down with antibacterial cleansers and soaps, washing away all of the bacterial and microbes we so deplore.

Now, I understand how busy we all are and I know that illness is, now-a-days, a rather foreboding risk. But I’d like to ask you this: have you ever considered where your “germ-slaying” soap ends up when your done using it (for the thirty seconds that you do)? If I told you that it remains in our water even after it has been treated, would you believe me?

Properties and Threats

In 2016. the FDA published the article “Antibacterial Soap? You Can Skip It, Use Plain Soap and Water” to elaborate on the true composition and effects of antimicrobial soaps and detergents. The article begins by discussing recent research findings which determined that antibacterial soaps and cleansers are no more effective than their “regular” counterparts. These references are followed by a general announcement which declared that the active ingredients in antimicrobial soaps were to be taken off of the public market for their recently-discovered impacts on the global water supply and subsequent ecology.

Following these introductory measures, the FDA detailed the effects of antibacterial products’ active ingredients. While there are nineteen chemicals used for primarily antibacterial purposes, triclosan and triclocaraban are the two most prevalent in over-the-counter soap products. Both compounds are organic in nature and are dominantly composed of carbon and chlorine atoms in lengthy succession. Though the title “organic” makes these molecules seem benign, the former, triclosan, is of questionable impact on ecosystems and environmental  first made its way into broad-spectrum use by way of farming- as a pesticide.

Unfortunately, the FDA stopped their explanations of the compounds there, an article published by Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences entitled “Say Goodbye to Antibacterial Soaps: Why the FDA is banning a household item” shares that multiple studies have found that triclosan affects the hormone signaling processes in animal and human cells. This same article further shares that scientists worry triclosan may be responsible for generating drug-resistant bacteria and documents that even the most basic bacteria found on human skin is known to become resistant to the chemical after prolonged use. Such concerns join those posted in the Smithsonian article “Five Reasons Why You Should Probably Stop Using Antibacterial Soap,” including those that involve enhanced risk of allergy development in children as a result of diminished exposure to bacteria and the contamination of freshwater sources (links first cited in the Smithsonian article).

Environmental Implications

A further article posted by the Columbia eBlog Environmental Leadership, Action, and Ethics shared the results of an Environmental Science & Technology publishing on the necessity of triclosan regulation within the United States. This document went on to discuss the chemical’s presence in drinking water samples and its subsequent appearance in 75% of US urine and 97% of US breast milk samples. Further data in the same article indicate that there is between a six-of-ten and a ten-of-ten probability of finding triclosan or triclocaraban in any US stream in the event of random sampling.

This outstanding presence in two of the most essential biological samples clearly illustrates that the molecule remains in fresh water after it has been directed through water processing functions. As stated by Environmental Leadership, Action, and Ethics’ piece, 25% of all original triclosan sample remains in treated water and makes its way into ecosystems. Once introduced into the environment, the chemical leaks into the sediment and soil as well as other “sludge” reservoirs, where it persists for decades. In these locations, the chemicals can be absorbed by all members of the ecosystem and there wreck havoc. Triclosan is known to alter the photosynthetic processes of algae and other plants and to affect the behavioral characteristics of fish, thereby inhibiting their ability to survive. Such protracted presence within any ecosystem can lead to any number of impacts on the structure and function of the ecological flow and of the prevailing food web, and the EST article further elucidates that studies are being and have been completed to determine the precise implications of thee chemicals’ presences.

Antibacterial chemicals have not just been found in fresh water sources, however; data collections have located particular antimicrobial molecules in the systems of aquatic life ranging from worms to dolphins. The magnitude of the antibacterial chemical issue can be seen quite clearly in their appearance in fresh and salt water samples alike. Although the FDA has inhibited the sale and use of many antimicrobial substances, those amounts which have already been introduced into the world’s water supply will remain for quite a number of years and will impart numerous, yet-unknown impacts during that time. It is now that we must consider what, precisely, we are running down the drain- and later taking into our bodies- and how those products may affect our precious life source and the innumerable organisms it renders to life.

Many of us reside in abodes that contain at least one source of fresh water, if not more; odds are, you are no more than 100 m from a sink or water fountain at this very moment. With our perpetual proximity to running water (and the numerous other attributes of life which divert our attentions from matters concerning global water distribution and conflict), we rarely consider that there are hundreds of thousands of individuals on this planet who lack the same sort of access we ourselves are party to. We do not have to come to arms with neighboring peoples to protect our water, to protect our livelihoods, and so we fail to recognize that, at this very moment, numerous groups half-way across the globe are at odds with one another over what we consider one of the most basic resources: water.

Involved Parties

Such is the situation between the Dassanech (Merile), Mursi, and Nyangatom of Ethiopia and the Turkana of Kenya. Historic dispute between these groups has, since 2009, become intimately related to the diminishing presence of water within the Elemi Triangle, the region of territory which falls within territories prior claimed by Ethiopia, Kenya, and Sudan, as explained by Circle of Blue in the article “Water Conflict: Violence Erupts Along Ethiopia’s and Kenya’s Water-Stressed Border.” This same article clarifies that the delineation between regions belonging to the Dassanech and Turkana peoples- theoretically separated by the border between Ethiopia and Kenya, falls along Lake Turkana and its tributary, the Omo River.

Transpirings

The seemingly clear delineation of the respective territories has become further muddied by the retreat of the shoreline of Lake Turkana, whose recession has been tracked since 1973. The direct track of the lake’s waning can be seen in the clip featured in the Yale Environment 360 article “When The Water Ends: Africa’s Climate Conflict” at 8 minutes and 50 seconds. Many resources agree that this natural phenomenon is the source of further discord between the pastoral groups of the Dassanech and Turkana. As a result of the fallback of Lake Turkana, the Dassanech peoples have followed the water to provide the supplies necessary to allow their livestock and peoples to survive. The result: the Dassanech peoples crossed Ethiopian border into Kenya and pushed into historic Turkana territory.

An article by The Irish Times entitled “In Kenya, Scarcity and Drought Are Causing Two Tribes to go to War” explains the actions resulting from these appropriations, detailing the range from torchings of tribe members’ abodes to multi-person death tolls. The Circle of Blue article referenced above clarifies, however, that the tribal issues detailed above are not full-fledged conflicts, which they correlate with rapid change that results in direct violence.

The impact and implications of governmental involvement in these happenings cannot be ignored, however, and each of the articles I utilized referenced the great impact which the construction of a three-dam system within the Omo River-Lake Turkana shall impart on the involved tribes. Development of the Gibe I, II, and III dams will further redirect water away from the areas inhabited by the tribes and will fuel future conflict due to the subsequent redistribution of water resources. The integral role of water in the agrarian-pastoral lifestyles of the tribes will clearly drive them to pursue the resource to permit the survival of their peoples and, with the involvement of the governmental authorities in the production of the Gibe dams for hydroelectric power, may result in more than mere tribal dispute.

Climate Connections

Regional and global scientific communities tie this prolific lessening of the body of water to changes in climate within the region. As directly stated within the E360 Yale article: “For the past 40 years at least, Lake Turkana has steadily shrunk because of increased evaporation from higher temperatures and a steady reduction in the flow of the Omo due to less rainfall, increased diversion of water for irrigation, and upstream dam projects.”

While no other direct delineations were made as per the cause of the lake’s diminish, other natural phenomenon within the region have indicated that the issues involving the lake are not isolated. The article further referenced a 2 degree-Fahrenheit increase in the temperature of the region as compared to 1960 and claimed that another temperature increase upwards of two degrees Fahrenheit is anticipated between 2010 and 2060.

Relevance

Although the short film and adjoining article produced by Yale have not been updated since 2010, their information continues to apply to the region and its inhabitants. The most recent of the articles I came across, published by The Irish Times, was published in 2016. At the time this article was written, the accounted-for death toll of the Turkana was 61, but precise values for the Dassanech were yet unknown by Kenya authorities.

Last week, I introduced the textile industry’s hefty impact on the global water reserves, ranging from the amounts of water used to produce single garments to the more personal impact which the textile industry makes on those who feed the behemoth it is. However negative this topic may appear, there is a definite positive component to its neigh-mind-boggling scope. Advancements in the technology of and movements in favor of more water-friendly methods of clothing management and production are changing the face of the textile industry toward efforts in sustainability.

Industry’s Efforts Towards Water Conservation

Chemical & Engineering News‘s article “Cutting Out Textile Production” indicates that, as of 2011, large-name brands including Adidas, GAP, H&M,  and Nike have all joined the effort for Zero Discharge of Hazardous Chemicals (ZDHC) with the goal of ceasing use of dangerous chemicals in their production processes by the year 2020. Many of the firms are partnering with larger-scale companies and universities to research effective- and low-impact- methods of garment production; of particular note is the interaction of Nike with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At the forefront of this effort lies Adidas, who, according to Chemical & Engineering News, has been at the forefront of clean production methods with the DyeCoo method, which involves the utilization of CO2 within specialized pressure and temperature conditions to dye fabrics without water. More can be found about the process on the document “Dyeing without Water” published by DyeCoo.

“Saving Water is on Trend in the Apparel Industry” written by Kirsten James of News Deeply further indicates that Patagonia and Levi’s are two large actors in low-water garment production methods further research into each firm’s processes can be found on their sites for more direct detail as to the ideologies and processes of each and I encourage any who are interested to note both of these details!

The Good Trade also lists 35 firms which participate in water-friendly and ethical clothing production, so those that are interested should certainly drop by the site and see which firms are making strides to diminish their worldly impact.

Personal Efforts Consumers Can Make

Legally “Inspired”

In 2008, the OECD published a document entitled “Promoting Sustainable Consumption: Good Practices in OECD Countries” which enumerates the steps taken by OECD member nations in making strides toward overall sustainability. In regards to water, the document references the systematic taxation of water consumption in particular regions (Canada, Mexico, and many European nations) to deter the production of larger volumes of wastewater at the level of the household consumer. As stated in an article posted by The Guardian, “How Can We Stop Water From Becoming A Fashion Victim?,” forty percent of water consumption at the domestic level is traceable to wash, with developing countries contributing a larger drop to this wastewater bucket due to inefficient cleaning methods. Obviously, taxing water is not exactly a mode through which consumer can choose to lessen their water consumption, but there exists positive impact in the act. People are driven to save money and, with levels of taxation comparable to 150% (as seen in Denmark in 2005), are given fiscal incentive to make viable efforts at reducing the amount of the resource they use.

After referencing the (not-so avoidable) taxation of water within these regions, the OECD discussed the subsidization of sustainability efforts made at the household level and their resulting successes. Such actions of subsidization provide a basal emphasis for households to partake in more eco-friendly uses of resources- particularly water- and further fuel the growth of movements in favor of environmental protection.

Similar approaches at reducing wastewater produced by wash were taken on by the European Union in action against phosphate-containing wash detergents, which posed a major contribution to the contamination of the Danube River. This conflict with the sort of detergents being used for clothes washing resulted in the complete refusal of phosphate-containing wash detergents from the markets of EU member states and further contributed to the movement against phosphate-free detergents at the global scale. Because consumers were blocked from purchasing detergents containing phosphates as a result of their banishment from shoppable markets, the levels of water pollution resulting from that source were lessened within the confines of Europe. Subsequently, a model- and further fuel- for the global-scale movement against detergents containing phosphates was created, further permitting its development in nations like the US, where dominant companies (like Proctor & Gamble) actively work at mitigating the pollution produced by such chemicals. Consumers can select to purchase these materials and, in doing so, participate in the movement against clothing-related water pollution.

The methods of taxation and subsidization taken by certain nations within our world, all-in-all, contribute to the water-saving cause and inspire consumer to participate, if not to save the world’s water resources, to save a dime.

Truly Personal

More private modes of sustainability can be exhibited through an individual’s decision to refrain from purchasing goods produced by firms which do not practice water-sustainable growth methods or textile production. This is a simple enough effort for one to partake in given the mounting efforts in transparency exhibited by brands and by the rising number of companies (some mentioned above) which actively produce goods using methods which mitigate harmful wastewater production. All that needs be done is a search for the production policies of a particular clothing produce on an online engine- some of the chemicals listed on the tags of clothing might also be worthy of search for their impact beyond that of mere water pollution.

Image a world with brightly colored waters blossoming from overflow pipes into streams, rivers, and lakes, the color of the water changing day-to-day. Monday, violent red; Tuesday, cobalt blue; Wednesday, grass green… The multicolored spectacle would surely cause you to ponder the true state of these transpirings and what, precisely, might be their source. Could it be a natural occurrence resulting from algal blooms or bacteria in the water source? Or possibly a sedimentary dislodge from a monstrous weather event?

Now, though, you might be wondering whether this could be an Earthly phenomenon. The answer to your question is an unfortunate “yes.”

Textile Dyes’ Impact on Global Water Supplies

We all wear clothing, whether it be designer, second-hand, or homemade- and many of use (I can surmise) neglect to note the effects our garments have on the environment of their place of production. Whereas privately-produced garments derived from natural pigment sources may be of least concern to the world’s water resource, those that are commercially-manufactured provide a significant base for water perturbations in the realm of conservation. Chemical and Engineering News author Alex Scott quotes the World Bank’s figure on the percentage of global water pollution traceable to the textile industry in his article “Cutting Out Textile Pollution,” a staggering twenty percent. This weighty value not only illustrates the true impact the clothing we wear imparts on our most valuable resource, but also sheds light on the role synthetic chemicals and dyes play in the environment once they are introduced to the water supply.

The very same Chemical and Engineering News article detailed that more than eight thousand chemicals are utilized in the dying of the the world’s fabric. These chemicals are blended with vast amounts of water to produce the clothing we wear each day. A technical paper titled “Textile Dyes: Dyeing Process and Environmental Impacts” published by joint Brazilian Universities enumerates the environmental impacts of synthetic dyes on bacterial and mammalian life, with gastrointestinal distress and DNA damage exemplify some of the most serious effects of ingesting the selected chemical compounds. Other finishing chemicals utilized in the production process inhibit biological life once released into the environment by blocking the filtration of light through water, thereby stifling photosynthesis.

Although the chemicals used in the aforementioned production seem detached from human use, they, in truth, pack  a punch when associated with the quantities of water in which they are dissolved. Earlier, when I claimed that vast amounts of water were used to dye clothing, I truly meant vast: one thousand eight hundred gallons of water are required to dye a single pair of jeans while seven hundred gallons are needed to dye a tee shirt (Alex Scott, “Cutting Out Textile Pollution“). Multiply these values by the number of garments churned out in a single batch, then by the number of batches kicked out in a month, then by twelve. Eventually, one would be able to account for the impairment of one-fifth of the world’s water after considering all of the garment forms that produced and consumed by the human populous.

The primary sources of more massive water dumping are developing countries; China and India have, for the majority of the twenty-first century, remained in the top tier for textile-based pollution. A study completed by the Gandhigram Rural Institute-Deemed University of Tamilnadu, India on the water quality of the textile town Chinnalapatti in the Dindigul district of Tamilnadu, India found that 68.75% of the water within the area was unsuitable for drinking due to the high levels of total dissolved solids found in the ground water supply. Similar situations are paralleled in other regions of India and China that participate heavily in the textile industry, but many of these cases go unnoticed and unseen by the public eye.

More Personal Impacts

Clearly, the implications of this industry on the global water supply are of major issue, but those which it imparts on smaller global communities are equally magnificent. The developing regions in which textile production presides as the major industry are bound within its grasps; they cannot escape the impoverished conditions created by their occupations or the negative environmental conditions they create. Within many of the affected regions, the pollution of local ecosystems and water supplies makes it unhealthful (and sometimes impossible) for inhabitants to farm adjacent lands. This inability to forge subsistence beyond the textile industry causes those who dwell within the bounds of such textile cities proliferates poverty and illness within the regions’ peoples, giving them little or no other means of survival if (and when) new, eco-friendly means of textile production were to replace the antiquated, pollutant-producing methods still used today.