We’re not talking about laundry detergents, bleach or color-preserving additives. Nor Ocean Breeze, Clean Linen or French Lavender scents or what some people consider to be irresistible Unstoppables fragrances.

We’re also not saying they aren’t damaging to the environment because they are. Unlike old-fashioned soap, most laundry products are made from chemicals. They may smell great and clean better, but they are toxic to the environment and aquatic life.

But the most recent wave of awareness when it comes to laundry is about the negative environmental impact of clothes themselves.

That fabulous, high stretch workout gear that helps keep you toned? Toxic.

That super soft, cozy, fleece hoodie you practically live in come fall? Toxic.

Jeans. Dresses. Jackets. Sweaters. Pants. Socks. Leggings. Many of them contain microfibers, tiny bits of plastic that shed from nylon and polyester. After they shed, they wind up in wastewater which often winds up in waterways where the microfibers are eaten by fish and other seafood and, eventually, by us.

One study said as many as “700,000 microfibers could be released in a single load of laundry.” Another study compared the microfiber release of top-loading and front-loading machines with the former releasing many more into the environment because of greater agitation. The International Union for Conservation of Nature estimates that “35 percent of microplastics that enter the world’s oceans comes from synthetic textiles.”

There’s a post on my page that’s titled, “What’s in Your Shrimp Scampi?” And the answer is…quite possibly fibers from your workout gear.

You can read all about it here: https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/fight-against-plastic-pollution-targets-hidden-source-our-clothes-ncna1000961.

# # #

Published by
Steven J. Schleider, MAI, LEED-AP BD+C
President, Metropolitan Valuation Services

In the U.S., recycling programs have had less than stellar results. Our intentions are good as we carefully separate plastics, aluminum, paper, and glass into the recycling bin, feeling like good save-the-earth citizens. What experts call “single-stream recycling” is certainly convenient and been embraced by much of the country.

But, alas, it’s a flawed system. A single-use plastic grocery bag can ruin an entire load of recyclable plastics. A dirty diaper, metal can with food waste in it, water bottle that bursts open to dispel its contents all have the same result.

Adding to the cross-contamination problem is that when everything recyclable is in the same bag and truck it gets crushed together, also making it difficult for recycling center sensors to tell a flattened can from a magazine.

Then there’s the issue of “aspirational recycling” which is when you have an item you believe – hope? – is recyclable when it isn’t. The New York Times even published a list of these types of non-recyclables ranging from pizza boxes to take-out food containers.

The problem intensified last year when China announced it would no longer accept “foreign garbage”, leaving many U.S. municipalities at a loss, which turned out to be local landfills’ gain.

There’s no simple solution. But there are alternative solutions. Although there are success stories such as those in Australia and New Zealand, Sweden is viewed as the poster child of ultimate recycling. Here is a country so good at recycling, that it’s actually run out of garbage (which it then imported to keep its recycling centers open).

In Sweden, only 1% of its waste winds up in the landfill. With the goal of becoming a zero-waste society, the country has also adopted a “waste to energy” system where garbage is burned to generate steam that is then turned into energy to heat homes and run busses. The government encourages sustainability, reduction, repair and reuse.

As for the six degrees of separation, recyclables are sorted into color-coded categories including metal, paper, e-waste, plastic and glass. The last category is waste of two types, food (this is where you put the (Kevin) Bacon) and other waste such as vacuum cleaner bags, kitty litter, clothing and shoes.

Dividing waste into six or sometimes seven or more categories is far more time and space-consuming than single-stream recycling. But the difference in results – no more cross-contamination, near-zero waste, turning waste into energy – far surpasses any inconvenience.

# # #

Published by
Steven J. Schleider, MAI, LEED-AP BD+C
President, Metropolitan Valuation Services