時下，租衣服穿已經成為越來越多年輕人的新選擇。買衣服和租衣服，哪個更環保？你可能想當然地認為租衣服更環保，但是事實並沒有那麼簡單。
Photo by Marcus Loke on Unsplash
Sustainable fashion expert Elizabeth Cline isn't convinced.
可持續時尚專家伊莉莎白·克萊因不相信租衣服比買衣服更環保。
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.
服裝租賃是一個熱門的新行業，為了吸引環保意識甦醒的消費者，零售商們爭先恐後地想躋身這一行業。僅在剛剛過去的這個夏天，Urban Outfitters、梅西百貨、布魯明戴爾百貨、美國鷹牌服飾和香蕉共和國品牌都宣布推出租賃服務——這絕對是時代改變的一個信號。
conscientious[kɑniens]: adj. 盡責的；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衣服更環保，如果是真的，能有多環保呢？記者、作家伊莉莎白·克萊因在為《ELLE》雜誌寫的一篇專題文章中探究了這一問題，她得出結論說，租衣服並沒有表面看起來的那麼可持續。
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.
以運輸為例，租賃衣服需要運輸兩次——收到和返還各一次。克萊因寫道，由於我們的集體時尚消費習慣，消費運輸留下的碳足跡僅次於服裝製造。
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."
她寫道：「根據2015年李維斯委託開展的一項研究，在網上租賃一件衣服並歸還，單程排放20千克碳足跡。運輸急件排放的碳足跡可高達50千克。相比之下，一條在實體店直接買下的牛仔褲清洗後在家穿著所排放的碳足跡為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.
而且還有清洗的負擔，每一件租賃的衣服歸還時都要清洗，無論是否穿過。對於多數租賃服務而言，這通常意味著乾洗，乾洗的過程會產生汙染，對環境影響大。克萊因調查的所有租賃服務商都已經用碳氫化合物代替了全氯乙烯來乾洗衣服，不過碳氫化合物也不是很環保。美國七成乾洗店仍然在使用致癌的空氣汙染物全氯乙烯作為乾洗劑。
"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."
「如果沒有正確處理這些化合物，就會產生有害垃圾，造成空氣汙染，而且這些乾洗劑通常和去汙產品一起使用，而去汙產品比乾洗劑更有毒。」
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.
託特衣箱是唯一一個「水洗」80%衣物的租賃服務商，除非絕對必要，否則託特衣箱都會盡力避免乾洗。
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."
最後，克萊因擔心租賃服務會助長我們對快時尚的欲望，僅僅是因為得到新衣服太容易了。「共享洗衣」服務讓人們更浪費，正是因為人們認為共享的產品或服務更環保。優步就是一個例子，它被吹捧為「通過拼車來抑制買車的方式」，然而「優步已被證實會阻礙人們走路、騎車和使用公共運輸工具」。
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.
相比用便宜的價格買下新衣，穿了幾次就扔進垃圾桶，租衣服還是更好的選擇。但是我們不應該因為這些服務唾手可得而自滿。更好的做法是——穿自己衣櫃裡的衣服。
英文來源：Tree Hugger
翻譯&編輯：丹妮
來源：中國日報網