When the subject of climate change comes up, most people have images of belching smokestacks at coal plants, or polar bears standing on melting icecaps. We all have some familiarity with these things, but I'm going to suggest something much more familiar … and intimate … to you – the clothes on your body.
Now, I realize, some of you may be reading this in the buff … likely while still under the sheets on your bed, but even you are highly likely sometime today to put clothing on your body. Sooner or later, we all have an intimate relationship with our clothes.
So what in the world does that have to do with greenhouse gases and climate change? Well, according to the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration, the textile industry is the fifth largest contributor to CO2 emissions in the USA, after primary metals, nonmetallic mineral products, petroleum and chemicals.
In their concern to reduce greenhouse gases, I know lots of people are trying to reduce the amount of driving they're doing, but I can't say I know anyone whose planning to give up their clothing! So if you're not willing to give up your clothes, what can be done?
Actually, a lot! More importantly, a lot is already being done. Here's the interesting thing to note: a lot is being done, and virtually none of it is related to the Paris Climate Treaty. So with respect to textiles, there's bad news and good news. The bad news is that textiles definitely contribute to the greenhouse gas problem around the world. The good news is that even though the US is dropping out of the Paris Agreement, there will likely be absolutely no impact on efforts to reduce greenhouse gas intensity in textiles. Let me explain why.
As I mentioned previously, textiles represent the fifth largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the USA. The production of a broad range of textiles creates these gases, but polyester and other synthetic type textiles are the biggest contributors. This is because synthetics are largely made using a chemical reaction involving coal, petroleum, air and water. Synthetic polyester represents 10% of the market share for all plastic materials, coming third in terms of popularity after polyethylene (33.5%) and polypropylene (19.5%). A study done by the Stockholm Environment Institute found that 9.52 kilograms of CO2 are emitted per ton of polyester produced, and 49 million tons of polyester were produced in the USA in 2008, the latest data I was able to locate. Non-synthetic fabrics such as cotton and hemp produce less greenhouse gas emissions than synthetic polyester, but still a lot. For example, conventionally produced cotton creates about 5.9 kilograms of CO2 per ton, still about 62% that of synthetic polyester. Most of this is a by-product of farm production.
The other really bad thing to note is that synthetic fibers also create problematic gases besides CO2. Nylon, for example, creates emissions of N2O, which is 300 times more damaging than CO2. The problem is compounded by the fact that N2O has a very long life, taking more than 100 years to break down. It's so bad that during the 1990's, the N2O emissions from a single nylon plant in the UK were thought to have a global warming impact equivalent to more than 3% of the UK's entire CO2 emissions!
So unless you're planning to join a nudist colony, you're going to be contributing to the problem.
That's the bad news, so let's talk about the good news … and there's actually a lot of good news. That's because of an emerging field called synthetic biology; and it holds a lot of promise, but also a lot of challenges. A few years ago, it was hoped that synthetic biofuels might displace the use of a lot of petroleum. Around 2008 some startups promised to use synthetic biology to produce biofuels from pond scum. A lot of money was invested. Unfortunately, while the technology worked on a small scale, companies had a lot of trouble scaling up: the microorganisms that produce the biofuels behaved differently in factory settings, it turned out, than in laboratories.
Today, a new crop of startup companies is applying synthetic biology technology to textiles. While the textile applications may still be problematic, there is some cause for hope that the outcome will be different this time. One reason the result may be better this time is because the startups are focusing on higher margin products that have fewer market fluctuations than fuels and specialty chemicals. The other key reason for hope is that new technologies for gene editing, as well as for scaling up biologic processes, have been developed over the past decade.
While there are a number of startups trying to develop textile products using synthetic biology, one that stands out is called Bolt Threads in Emeryville, California. Bolt has developed technology to induce spiders to produce silk. Bolt's CEO, Dan Widmaier, says that the synthetic fabric the company can produce is stronger than steel, stretchier than spandex, and softer than silk. Moreover, the Bolt product is both biodegradable and does not create the greenhouse gas problem of traditional synthetics. Bolt has built an 11,000 square foot factory to produce commercial quantities of bio-engineered silk from spider. The company employs more than two dozen PhD scientists. The company is presently trying to scale up its process to industrial scale. It needs to do this because it has inked deals to sell to multiple customers, one of which is the apparel company Patagonia
Bolt isn't the only company in this space. A German company called AMSilk is also developing synthetic bio textiles. Beyond textiles, Boston is home to GingkGo Bioworks. Gingko is focusing on organisms that can create new perfume fragrances and food sweeteners, among other products. At the same time, certain investment groups are focusing on this area, one of which is OS Funds.
While there is no assurance of success, Bolt Threads and other companies in this emerging space offer an exciting potential way to produce textile products that have a far lower greenhouse gas footprint than traditional textiles. If at least some of these companies are successful, most likely a huge amount of additional capital will be invested.
Besides the fact that the technology is both interesting and exciting, I bring this to everyone's attention because it is a solution that does not depend upon the government. The technology underlying these companies, as well as the companies themselves, is not the result of any international climate agreements. International agreements such as Paris have absolutely zero impact on these companies, or the technology they might produce. They represent just another example of how the USA can have a hugely positive impact in addressing the greenhouse gas problem even without the Paris Climate Agreement. Not only that, if the companies are successful in scaling up the technology, people will be beating down the doors to invest. Those trying to beat down the doors will include people who deny that greenhouse gases are causing climate change.
What's the takeaway? The synthetic biology industry should be encouraged. It's happening as we speak, through investments by angels and venture capitalists. Is there a role for government? Yes, most likely in the form of research grants. These can be provided both at the Federal and State level.
Which brings me back to the bad news and good news. Unfortunately, textiles produce a lot of greenhouse gases, so the fact that the average person wants to wear nice clothes, and probably can't afford to eliminate synthetic fabrics from the wardrobe, we can look forward to lots more greenhouse gas emissions caused by textiles. Beyond that, as incomes in the rest of the world increase, everyone else will have expanding wardrobes contributing to the problem. After all, as poor people begin to have higher incomes, among the first things they buy more of is clothing. The good news is that if Bolt, and similar synthetic biologic companies, can produce very low greenhouse gas emitting synthetic fabrics, textiles will move from being one of the problems to one of the solutions.
Synthetic biology holds a great deal of promise as a technology. It isn't a panacea, but it could help provide all of us the "dress" to address some of the problem of climate change.
