ustainable fashion expert Elizabeth Cline isn't convinced.
可继续时髦专家伊丽莎白·克莱因不相信租衣服比买衣服更环保。
Clothing rental is a hot new industry and retailers are clamoring to get on board in hopes of attracting newly conscientious shoppers. This past summer alone, Urban Outfitters, Macy's, Bloomingdale's, American Eagle, and Banana Republic have all announced rental subscription services – a sure sign of changing times.
服装租借是一个抢手的新职业，为了招引环保认识复苏的顾客，零售商们力争上游地想跻身这一职业。仅在刚刚曩昔的这个夏天，Urban Outfitters、梅西百货、布鲁明戴尔百货、美国鹰牌服饰和香蕉共和国品牌都宣告推出租借服务——这肯定是年代改动的一个信号。
But is renting fashion actually more environmentally-friendly than buying it, and if so, how much more? Journalist and author Elizabeth Cline delved into this question in a feature article for?Elle, and she concluded that it's not as sustainable as it seems.
但租衣服是否真的比买衣服更环保，如果是真的，能有多环保呢？记者、作家伊丽莎白·克莱因在为《ELLE》杂志写的一篇专题文章中探求了这一问题，她得出结论说，租衣服并没有外表看起来的那么可继续。
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 footprint of our collective fashion habit after manufacturing.
以运送为例，租借衣服需求运送两次——收到和返还各一次。克莱因写道，由于咱们的团体时髦消费习气，消费运送留下的碳脚印仅次于服装制作。
She writes, "An item ordered online and then returned can emit 20 kilograms of carbon each way, and spirals up to 50 kilograms for rush shipping. By comparison, the carbon impact of a pair of jeans purchased outright (presumably from a brick and mortar store) and washed and worn at home is 33.4 kilograms, according to a 2015 study commissioned by Levi’s."
她写道：“依据2015年李维斯托付展开的一项研讨，在网上租借一件衣服并偿还，单程排放20千克碳脚印。运送急件排放的碳脚印可高达50千克。比较之下，一条在实体店直接买下的牛仔裤清洗后在家穿戴所排放的碳脚印为33.4千克。”
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, a carcinogenic air pollutant that's still used by 70 percent of US dry cleaners, with 'hydrocarbon alternatives', although these aren't great either.
并且还有清洗的担负，每一件租借的衣服偿还时都要清洗，不管是否穿过。关于大都租借服务而言，这一般意味着干洗，干洗的进程会发生污染，对环境影响大。克莱因查询的一切租借服务商都现已用碳氢化合物替代了全氯乙烯来干洗衣服，不过碳氢化合物也不是很环保。美国七成干洗店仍然在运用致癌的空气污染物全氯乙烯作为干洗剂。
"They can produce hazardous waste and air pollution if not handled correctly, and they’re often paired with stain removers that are more toxic than the solvents themselves."
“假设没有正确处理这些化合物，就会发生有害废物，形成空气污染，并且这些干洗剂一般和去污产品一同运用，而去污产品比干洗剂更有毒。”
Le Tote is the only service that uses 'wet cleaning' for 80 percent of its items and strives to avoid dry cleaning unless absolutely necessary.
托特衣箱是仅有一个“水洗”80%衣物的租借服务商，除非肯定必要，不然托特衣箱都会极力防止干洗。
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 perceived as more eco-friendly. Uber is one example of this, advertised as "a way to share rides and curb car ownership," and yet "it has been proven to discourage walking, bicycling, and public transportation use."
最终，克莱因忧虑租借服务会滋长咱们对快时髦的愿望，只是是由于得到新衣服太简单了。“同享洗衣”服务让人们更糟蹋，正是由于人们认为同享的产品或服务更环保。优步便是一个比如，它被吹捧为“经过拼车来按捺买车的方法”，可是“优步已被证明会阻止人们走路、骑车和运用公共交通工具”。
Renting clothes is still preferable to buying them cheap and pitching them in the trash after a few wears, but we shouldn't let the availability of these services make us complacent. There's an even better step – and that's wearing what is already in the closet.
比较用廉价的价格买下新衣，穿了几回就扔进废物桶，租衣服仍是更好的挑选。可是咱们不应该由于这些服务垂手而得而骄傲。更好的做法是——穿自己衣柜里的衣服。
