Home Environment So That's Sustainable Fabrics Buggered Then

So That’s Sustainable Fabrics Buggered Then



As we all know – for we can observe this – we have ever more fools trying to work out what is sustainable and then to impose their vision of this upon the rest of us. The foolery is partly because their definitions of sustainable aren’t in fact correct. They worry about entirely renewable economic resources like water – we have a recycling system, it’s called clouds – and not about entirely unrecyclable items like human labour. We don’t, despite Hindu beliefs, get a mulligan on the time wasted in some activity designed to worship Mother Gaia like ripping the plastic windows out of envelopes.

But there’s another problem, one that wouldn’t in fact be solved by correct definitions. This one courtesy of our old friend Freddy Hayek. The information to know what is, or is not, done in a particular manner isn’t available:

This is in part because polyester manufacturers can afford to fund more studies, something Storey and his peers are trying to rectify by providing technical papers to the European Commission. But it is also because nuances in agriculture are difficult to account for.

Climate expert Professor Mark Howden says the sustainability of wool farming can come down to the “management that’s used in a particular farm, or even a particular paddock”. This variation means, in many ways, using the Higg Index to measure the environmental impact of global wool production is like asking for the length of a piece of string.

As Freddy went to great pains to point out. It’s simply not possible to gather the information about something as complex as an entire economy to make decisions at this level of granularity.

So, we shouldn’t do so.

The only thing we do have which can process all this information is the economy itself. So, that’s what we need to use to process the information. Prices tell us what works, nothing else. So, use prices then.

If wool from Oz makes clothing at a price acceptable then use wool from Oz. If it doesn’t then don’t. You know, exactly the same test we use about wool from Greenland and Mali. That test that wool from Oz passes and wool from Greenland and Mali doesn’t….



  1. Well yes. I was a bureaucrat, though admittedly an extremely petty one. However I did come to same conclusion as Adam Smith. Regulations should always be minimised

    Of course you might say that’s about as obvious as one and one is two.

    • You, I, Tim and most of the readers on here would come to that conclusion, but not the leftists who are also now claiming that maths, itself, is racist.

      In their word view one and one does not equal two, it equals “reeeeeeeeeeee”.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

The Bit That Robert Lighthizer Doesn’t Get

It's right here in the opening sentence of his piece in the New York Times: The Senate recently passed a bill intended to bolster America’s...

Brexit Brings Us Cheap Wine

There's a long way to go on this but this is indeed a start: The U.K. government said it will scrap a piece of planned...

Some At The Post Office Should Be Facing Significant Jail Time

Whether it's just a few or the many still remains to be worked out but there are definitely those at the Post Office who...

Another Beautiful Theory Destroyed By A Mere Fact

Apparently, so we're told, crime is soaring in the United States. But that's OK, we know the reason why. We even know what to...

Idiots – US Life Expectancy Hasn’t Fallen In The Slightest

It's important - actually, vital in both meanings here - to know what is being measured and how in order to understand what the...

Recent comments