時(shí)下，租衣服穿已經(jīng)成為越來(lái)越多年輕人的新選擇。買(mǎi)衣服和租衣服，哪個(gè)更環(huán)保？你可能想當(dāng)然地認(rèn)為租衣服更環(huán)保，但是事實(shí)并沒(méi)有那么簡(jiǎn)單。

Sustainable fashion expert Elizabeth Cline isn't convinced.

可持續(xù)時(shí)尚專(zhuān)家伊麗莎白·克萊因不相信租衣服比買(mǎi)衣服更環(huán)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.

服裝租賃是一個(gè)熱門(mén)的新行業(yè)，為了吸引環(huán)保意識(shí)蘇醒的消費(fèi)者，零售商們爭(zhēng)先恐后地想躋身這一行業(yè)。僅在剛剛過(guò)去的這個(gè)夏天，Urban Outfitters、梅西百貨、布魯明戴爾百貨、美國(guó)鷹牌服飾和香蕉共和國(guó)品牌都宣布推出租賃服務(wù)——這絕對(duì)是時(shí)代改變的一個(gè)信號(hào)。

conscientious[?kɑ?n?i?en??s]: adj. 盡責(zé)的；本著良心的

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買(mǎi)衣服更環(huán)保，如果是真的，能有多環(huán)保呢？記者、作家伊麗莎白·克萊因在為《ELLE》雜志寫(xiě)的一篇專(zhuān)題文章中探究了這一問(wèn)題，她得出結(jié)論說(shuō)，租衣服并沒(méi)有表面看起來(lái)的那么可持續(xù)。

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.

以運(yùn)輸為例，租賃衣服需要運(yùn)輸兩次——收到和返還各一次。克萊因?qū)懙?，由于我們的集體時(shí)尚消費(fèi)習(xí)慣，消費(fèi)運(yùn)輸留下的碳足跡僅次于服裝制造。

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."

她寫(xiě)道：“根據(jù)2015年李維斯委托開(kāi)展的一項(xiàng)研究，在網(wǎng)上租賃一件衣服并歸還，單程排放20千克碳足跡。運(yùn)輸急件排放的碳足跡可高達(dá)50千克。相比之下，一條在實(shí)體店直接買(mǎi)下的牛仔褲清洗后在家穿著所排放的碳足跡為33.4千克?！?/p>

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.

而且還有清洗的負(fù)擔(dān)，每一件租賃的衣服歸還時(shí)都要清洗，無(wú)論是否穿過(guò)。對(duì)于多數(shù)租賃服務(wù)而言，這通常意味著干洗，干洗的過(guò)程會(huì)產(chǎn)生污染，對(duì)環(huán)境影響大?？巳R因調(diào)查的所有租賃服務(wù)商都已經(jīng)用碳?xì)浠衔锎媪巳纫蚁﹣?lái)干洗衣服，不過(guò)碳?xì)浠衔镆膊皇呛墉h(huán)保。美國(guó)七成干洗店仍然在使用致癌的空氣污染物全氯乙烯作為干洗劑。

"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."

“如果沒(méi)有正確處理這些化合物，就會(huì)產(chǎn)生有害垃圾，造成空氣污染，而且這些干洗劑通常和去污產(chǎn)品一起使用，而去污產(chǎn)品比干洗劑更有毒。”

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.

托特衣箱是唯一一個(gè)“水洗”80%衣物的租賃服務(wù)商，除非絕對(duì)必要，否則托特衣箱都會(huì)盡力避免干洗。

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."

最后，克萊因擔(dān)心租賃服務(wù)會(huì)助長(zhǎng)我們對(duì)快時(shí)尚的欲望，僅僅是因?yàn)榈玫叫乱路菀琢?。“共享洗衣”服?wù)讓人們更浪費(fèi)，正是因?yàn)槿藗冋J(rèn)為共享的產(chǎn)品或服務(wù)更環(huán)保。優(yōu)步就是一個(gè)例子，它被吹捧為“通過(guò)拼車(chē)來(lái)抑制買(mǎi)車(chē)的方式”，然而“優(yōu)步已被證實(shí)會(huì)阻礙人們走路、騎車(chē)和使用公共交通工具”。

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.

相比用便宜的價(jià)格買(mǎi)下新衣，穿了幾次就扔進(jìn)垃圾桶，租衣服還是更好的選擇。但是我們不應(yīng)該因?yàn)檫@些服務(wù)唾手可得而自滿(mǎn)。更好的做法是——穿自己衣柜里的衣服。

英文來(lái)源：Tree Hugger

翻譯&編輯：丹妮