Is renting clothes greener than buying them?

Clothing rental is a hot new industry and retailers are demanding to get on board in hopes of attracting green shoppers. But is renting fashion actually more environmentally-friendly than buying it, and if so, how much more? Journalist and author Elizabeth Cline investigated this question and concluded that it’s not as sustainable as it seems.

Take shipping, for example, which has to go two ways if an item is rented — receiving and returning. Cline writes that consumer transportation has the second largest carbon footprint of our collective fashion habit after manufacturing. She writes, “An item ordered online and then returned can send out 20 kilograms of carbon each way, and increases up to 50 kilograms for rush shipping. By comparison, the carbon impact of a pair of jeans purchased from a physical store and washed and worn at home is 33.4 kilograms, according to a 2015 study by Levi’s.”

Then there’s the burden of washing, which has to happen for every item when it’s returned, regardless of whether or not it was worn. For most rental services, this usually means dry cleaning, a high impact and polluting process. All the rental services that Cline looked into have replaced perchloroethylene (氯乙烯), a carcinogenic (致癌的) air pollutant that is still used by 70 percent of US dry cleaners, with hydrocarbon alternatives, although these aren’t great either.

Lastly, Cline fears that rental services will increase our appetite for fast fashion, simply because it’s so easily accessible. There’s something called “share washing” that makes people engage in more wasteful behaviors precisely because a product or service is shared and thus is regarded as more eco-friendly. Uber is one example of this, advertised as “a way to share rides and limit car ownership.” and yet “it has been proven to discourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation use.”

Renting clothes is still preferable to buying them cheap and throwing them in the dustbin after a few wears, but we shouldn’t let the availability of these services make us too satisfied. There’s an even better step—and that’s wearing what is already in the closet.

They like using the Internet. They have lots of pocket money to spend. And they spend a higher proportion of it online than the rest of us. Teenagers are just the sort of people an online seller is interested in, and the things they want to buy — games, CDs and clothing — are easily sold on the Web.

But paying online is a tricky business for consumers who are too young to own credit cards. Most have to use a parents card. They want a facility that allows them to spend money.

That may come sooner than they think: new ways to take pocket money into cyber space are coming out rapidly on both sides of the Atlantic. If successful, these products could stimulate online sales.

In general, teenagers spend huge amounts: $153 bn (billion) in the US last year and £20 bn annually in the UK. Most teenagers have access to the Internet at home or at school — 88 percent in the US, 69 percent in the UK. According to Jupiter Research, one in eight of those with Internet access has bought something online — mainly CDs and books.

In most cases, parents pay for these purchases with credit cards, an arrangement that is often unsatisfactory for them and their children. Pressing parents to spend online is less productive than pressing on the high street. They’re more likely to ask “Why” if you ask to spend some money online.

One way to help teenagers change notes and coins into cybercash is through prepaid cards such as IntenetCash in the US and Smart cards in the UK, Similar to those for pay-as-you-go mobile telephones, they are sold in amounts such as £20 or $50 with a concealed 14-digit number that can be used to load the cash into an online account.

There are various means consumers can do if they find that an item they bought is faulty or in some other way does not live up to the manufacturer’s claims. A simple and common method used by many consumers is to complain directly to the store manager. In general, the“higher up”his or her complaint, the faster he or she can expect it to be settled. In such a case, it is usually settled in the consumer’s favor, assuming he or she has a just claim.

Consumers should complain in person whenever possible, but if they cannot get to the place of purchase, it is acceptable to phone or write the complaint in a letter．

Complaining is usually most effective when it is done politely but firmly, and especially when the consumer can demonstrate what is wrong with the item in question. If this cannot be done, the consumer will succeed best by presenting specific information as to what is wrong, rather than by making general statements. For example,“The left speaker does not work at all and the sound coming out of the right one is unclear”is better than“This stereo does not work.”The store manager may advice the consumer to write to the manufacturer. If so, the consumer should do this, stating the complaint as politely and firmly as possible. If a polite complaint does not achieve the desired result, the consumer can go to a step further. She or he can threaten to take the seller to court or report the seller to a private or public organization responsible for protecting consumer’s rights.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Early Adopters Fall into a Costly Trap

Being among the first to try out a new piece of technology is cool. When you’re the only member of your social circle with the latest hot device, people stare in fascination. However, people tend to underestimate the costs of this temporary coolness, which they pay in more ways. Frankly speaking, early adoption is a bad investment. The earliest versions of devices are not only expensive, they are also the most expensive that those devices will ever be. Companies are attempting to recover the cost of production as fast as they can, and once the profits from early adopters’ purchases are safely in their hands, they can cut the price and shift to the next marketing stage: selling the product to everyone else. This is why the cost of the original iPhone dropped about $200 only eight months after its release.

Those who are first to leap into a new technology also risk wasting money and time on something that will never catch on. In 2006, HD DVDs, a new format for video, entered the market. A few eager consumers bought HD DVD players that were discontinued in early 2008. The early adopters were then stuck with pricey devices that just sat on their shelves collecting dust.

Another good reason to resist the early adoption temptation is that the first version of a product typically has imperfections. For example, when Microsoft’s game machine, Xbox One, was first released in 2013, users immediately began to complain of problems. Devoted gamers worked to find and share solutions to these issues. Such problems are so common with new technology that early adopters are basically unpaid testers.

So don’t join the first wave of consumers who invest in the latest version of device; instead, wait and see.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________