Wel green is ok.
As a businessplan it's still rudimentary
Tommy

I got a stupid (unintentional) question: is this disposable shirt you mean?

Nice idea, needs some refinement.

you need to actually show how you offset the carbon.

phaze: I don't think he's actually offseting the carbon. What he's doing is buying carbon credits and then not emitting. The carbon credit system is supposed to allocate certain amounts to each emitter, and if any given emitter reduces their emission, they can sell their surplus, basically giving the buyer of the credit permission from the government to emit more. By buying these credits and not emitting, he's keeping the credits out of the hands of people who would use them to pollute.

yes micco thats right

t-shirt businesses typically have razor thin margins. you're proposing to use more expensive materials and then give back some portion of whatever profit there is to the government for carbon emissions... how will this business sustain?

scrollinondubs: not to speak for GL, but I think you'd charge fairly high prices for the shirts and people would be willing to pay since it was a mechanism for reducing global warming. People pay $100 for a fashion shirt which is no different (materially) from an $8 discount tee. I don't do that because I don't care about fashion, but I might pay a premium for this cause. My wife has a couple of high-priced tees that donate to a world hunger fund.

I like the idea of purchasing credits but not emitting. If you can make the business side viable without charging prices that are TOO extortionate I think an increasing number of consumers will be interested in this.

Try to figure out if you could become a SELLER of carbon credits and use that to make these shirts competively priced.

Beware of scams (and lots more will be coming) in the carbon credit world.

Thanks for all your comments, micco is right once more.

Most T shirts sell for under $15... These Tshirts would be a good bit more... selling at $30 to $40 a shirt. And yes most of you are going to say "Im not paying that" and thats because you are not the target market. I am selling these shirts to higher income people, who want to be seen as helping the environment... make it trendy.

I don't see how jill's idea works... the whole point of this idea was to absorb carbon credits and hence reduce the amount of CO2 emitted. That necessarily incurs some cost that will push up the price of the shirts, but the hope is that people will pay the extra to be 'green'.

PhilipH, as I understand it, G_L was going to produce a product in a green way, thereby reducing CO2 as compared to conventional production process.

He was also going to purchase carbon credits. Maybe I misunderstand, but to me that means he pays cash to someone (via a broker, probably) who has carbon offsets to sell. We may simply be at cross-purposes over the nature of the "buy carbon credits" transaction. I see it as a cash outlay by G_L.

Regardless, here is the rest of my analysis.

Sellers of carbon offsets are organizations which are reducing CO2 through various measures, e.g. tree planting.

Since G_L himself is going to be a CO2 "reducer", maybe he could generate carbon offset credits and be a seller of them rather than a buyer. This might be accomplished by an agreement with the producer of his organic cotton, for example.

Then when someone buys the shirt, they get the shirt and a credit as part of the deal. The price would be higher if G_L had to buy the carbon credit so he could resell them. The price would be lower if G_L generates credits through his green shirt-making methods.

The individual consumer doesn't need to enter the carbon trading market via brokers, if they can buy products with carbon credits embedded. Notionally, buying the shirt with the carbon credit might offset the carbon emitted by going to the store to get the shirt.

I do not envision any fancy paper trail for the carbon credits. The shirt label would say that there is one credit (or whatever) per shirt, and on G_L's books he would track carbon credits, but there would be no further tracking of them at the consumer level. The assumption would be that the consumer is not going to resell but is purchasing the credit to offset personal carbon generating actions.

BTW I do not have a lot of confidence in the carbon offset market but that is beside the point.

Apologies for the long post but I think the nomenclature of carbon trading might be confusing. I had to spell it out so that I could understand it for myself.

this is not really a green business or a plan if you are interested in green business check out http://www.urbanrevision.com

WOW Jill I always love your comments! This is great! I had never even thought of that... I would have emission credits available for sale... saving a huge amount of money and making it possible for more people to take a stand for a greener tomorrow!

nonodynamo, that looks like an interesting but big site - is there anywhere in particular within it that you wanted to point out? thx for the link.

G_L, thx, it will take some research into the rules around carbon offsets, but maybe you can be a seller rather than a buyer. Good luck ;-)

Hmm... there seem to be two conflicting ideas about how carbon CREDITS work and how they fit into this scheme! The way I see it, a cap on emissions of CO2 is set by a regulatory body. Any business emitting above this level will be required to buy credits, of which a limited number are made available. The total emission is therefore capped, and businesses are financially rewarded for reducing emissions. Search Wikipedia for 'emissions trading' for more details.

It's therefore impossible to 'generate' emissions credits. What G_L could do is buy up credits that he doesn't need or use; this would increase his prices but decrease total emissions (by preventing other companies using them) and hence be good for the environment.

Carbon OFFSETTING is a different idea altogether, and I think this is what jill's thinking of. In this case organisations take measures to actively REDUCE the amount of CO2, thereby offsetting increased emissions. This is something G_L could sell and use to lower his costs, but simply reducing his own emissions won't cut it - he'll have to plant trees or something.

Both are valid ideas, but it's important to distinguish between the two and understand them properly!

Yes, thanks PhilipH for putting it sensibly ;-)

To make G_L a carbon offset generator (if that's the right term - a company which creates carbon offsets by actively reducing carbon emissions), what I was thinking was that he might have to have an agreement with e.g. an organic cotton producer to get some from them, possibly as part of the contract for getting them to grow the cotton to his specs.

This is where research is needed, to find out what can actually be done and what the economics would be. I do not know whether growing organic cotton is an activity that would generate offsets but it is worth looking at if this particular idea goes any further than the drawing board.

More generically, the idea of bundling a carbon offset with a consumer product has a certain appeal.

I think the whole carbon offset trading world is just developing and at present I am not a big fan, but it will mature.

Thanks Philip!

Googled a little bit:
http://www.ibexwear.com/
http://www.cleancottoncompany.com/

Sorry: unintented submit:
http://www.organicclothes.com/
http://www.eartheasy.com/
http://www.seasaltcornwall.co.uk/
etc. etc.
The only real differnce in your idea is the carbon credit part, which is in my opinion much to meager for a businuess plan.
Tommy

Yes there is other company's that are doing this! but how many clothing company's are there in an average mall? they all sell the same type of things...

With events like Live Earth being so popular and politician's like Al Gore becoming celebrity's because of what they believe in there has to be a market... I can not afford a smart car, or to put solar panels on my roof but I can ware a shirt that is green!

Thanks

I have had many of my T-shirts for twenty years or more. Surely not buying t-shirts is the most environmentally friendly option. This applies to over-consumption in general. Does this make me a communist?

anathema: it doesn't make you a communist in any way I can see. It doesn't even make you anti-capitalist since nothing about capitalism requires you to buy things you don't need or want. It simply makes you sensible and frugal.

But I submit that not buying the t-shirt is not the most environmentally friendly option. What GL proposed here is a way in which the t-shirts provide revenue to actively help the environment. Not buying is environmentally neutral. Buying a t-shirt which uses the revenue to buy carbon credits or do something else proactive is environmentally beneficial.

anathema,
It's the other things in your life that make you communist. Just kidding.

GL,
Interesting idea. Play on people's love of the environment and the current fad and popular interest that's going around.

Why not sell these t-shirts to Google and other corporations to give out at conferences? Then, you can sell them in bulk and Google gets the value of selling "green" t-shirts. My only problem is that I prefer blue t-shirts.

I'm glad to see this idea's still around. What's changed since last time and how has the idea progressed?

Can you eat the shirt as well?

Goosie that is just a stupid thing thing to say, Thanks for not helping at all.

PhilipH:
This idea has changed because I have a better understanding of how the Emission Exchange Network works. The idea has changed to reflected that, I have also included the idea of planting trees for each shirt that is sold.

I'm also concerned about global warming, but credits for planting trees... I don't think it will be very effective. Could be simply an extra $3 "donate" button on threadless for a sub-set of more environmentally friendly clothes.

(And I echo Jill's thought, "I do not have a lot of confidence in the carbon offset market." ... I personally do believe in a CO2 tax, and economic incentives, but only for the emission side, not for the capture side of the equation.)

Gord: I live in timber country, and it seems like the carbon credits for the capture side are an important factor in getting people to replant and maintain forests after clearcutting. I have friends in the timber industry so I can find out more if you're interested, but I've seen several local newspaper articles reaching out to tree farmers with info on credits for replanting.

Whether it's effective in actually offsetting CO2 I don't know, but anything that gets them to replant instead of just walking away with their money is a good thing.

Here is a thought. You could have shirts that have different amounts of carbon offsets associated with them. Maybe stripes on them. 1 ton of offset for each different color on it (or something like that). People could choose the amount of offset/status they wished to display.

Remember you are trying to apeal to people that want to "signal" their efforts to fight global warming to their community. If you give them more choices to communicate more in finer detail it would be even better.

Hi all,

Cotton in North America as you know is grown in the deep southern states or the West Indies.

We are in this instance specifically discussing Carbon Credits. The carbon being Carbon Dioxide Gas (CO2)
The USA is not a member of Kyoto so it is not eligible under the official
UN programme. This puts a sort of damper on getting carbon credits for a US domiciled factory?

In the manufacture of both Cotton and of T- Shirts, Co2 is produced by (a) the farming equipment. (2) the transportation equipment (c) the motors which drive the looms. If we were to go back to using manual labour , planting, picking, manual looms, horse and carts we could eliminate this CO2 production. it would be extremely expensive .

Green is a different issue. Using hand or solar powered looms may give you more creditability?
Heating the factory is not a major issue in the deep south or the West Indies.

Since Insecticides are recommended for Boll Weevil control, I am not sure that "organic" is a feasible option in the USA ?

The New York Stock exchange will begin trading in carbon credits next year, they estimate that this will become a $100 billion per annum market by 2020. It will require a lot of tee shirt sales in order to make a dent in a market that size.

When a Jewish friend dies I normally have a tree planted in Israel in his /her rememberence. There is a company which organizes this service together with sending a certificate and appropriate card to the relatives.

Perhaps you could consider something similar with T shirts. For example a $50/ $100 Attractive T-Shirt which includes a certificate proving that a tree was planted ?

Quote:
"North American made (low transportation emissions)
organic cotton
Solar heating of factory
biodegradable dyes
Matisse Derivan Silk Screening
Emission Credits
Online store"

I don't buy carbon offset credits myself. But there are lots of people that do buy them.

Those people are the target market for this business. (and by extension I'm not).

As long as people are willing to buy carbon offset credits (and they are). Then this business is very viable, because those same people want to tell other people about it (aka signaling). They can't go around holding a carbon offset certificate up, but they can wear a t-shirt. All the other cool people will know that they did good. Which will make them cooler. Which is what fashion is all about.

You could do your distribution with companies that sell carbon offsets. Brokers could sell the T-shirts. Or even airlines that are buying carbon offsets for their customers.

This would reduce your distribution and marketing expenses.

Hi Lars Bell,

Can you please explain how one sells something that they don't have or produce?
Cotton manufacturing does not produce carbon credits, and can only do so if you go back to a fully manual system of production, in addition the USA is not a member of KYOTO, which means that US producers are not eligible to benefit from the official audited Carbon Credit market.

The reason I suggested adding an official certificate to the T Shirt is that T-Shirts can be copied for around 50c a piece in China, India, Turkmenstan etc? An official Certificate may help assure the buyer of a $100 T-Shirt that he is actually aiding the green cause ?

Hemp? It's expensive, but only incrementally given the figures being tossed around above. The problem has always been processing a "white" hemp, vs. this brown bag look you see... there are plenty of website promoting almost a silk like version of hemp, very fine, unique, revolutionary.

Well you could make shirts out of recycled plastic and cotton.

Let me support you this time GL!

I like the way you think. I like hemp and bamboo clothes myself.

I agree, they make wonderful jackets our of Bamboo in the Far East, some feel like silk.

I agree with that also. As far as planting is concern...well, a certain amount from the sales will go to tree planting activities is much better.

thats true! not all people wanted to engage with tree planting activities...

5 stars for you!

CharonV Posted: November 2, 2007, 6:09 am
"Can you please explain how one sells something that they don't have or produce?"

You buy it, then re-sell it. The same way every retailer sells things it buys. We buy the carbon credit on a market (and no you don't have to be a member of any treaty to do that). Then "attach" the credit to the shirt. Of course by attach I don't mean you have to physically staple it to the shirt. It only has to be linked in a concrete maner.

I think we are agreeing on this. I also think that the shirt will have to be certified in some manner.

What the shirt is made of is almost irrelevant. Of course something green friendly would be a good idea, but the material choice is not central to this idea. What is central, I'll repeat myself, is social signaling.

Would this be any different from other save the Rainforest by selling stuff biz models?

t-shirt tangent
http://www.zazzle.com/?ckt=t

oh