|
Posted by Leafy Green
on September 22, 2008 6:49 AM
|
Filed Under: Clothes |
There is an interesting paradox in the religion of eco-friendliness when it comes to animals. Most people who care about the planet care about animals. Some love animals so much they can't bear the thought of eating them. And that works out well for the planet since a pound of beans is far less resource intensive to produce than a pound of beef is. 
But then some people love animals so much they don't want to wear animals, either. But is that environmentally friendly as well?
PETA has a list of leather and fur alternatives on their site and the descriptions read in marketing doublespeak: "synthetic leather", "pleather", "vegan leather", "nonleather", "faux leather" and straight-out "synthetic". Now I'm sure these companies all offer products that are infinitely superior to the nasty vinyl knockoff hightops I wore in the 80's, but are they eco-friendly? All that fancy marketspeak translates into words that don't sound so appealing. Words like "plastic", "polyurethane", "PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride)", and "rubber". They're all made from petro-chemicals and regardless of their improvements they still tend to fatigue far sooner than genuine leather does. To pick just one example the building block of PVC resin, vinyl chloride, is classified as a human carcinogen and on top of that Greenpeace has identified a PVC waste crisis with this nasty stuff in our water, our landfills, and messing-up our recycling programs.
Okay, so leather alternatives aren't exactly good for mother earth. So what about leather itself? We've been using animal hides practically forever, but the way we produce leather today isn't the way the cavemen did it. A lot of chemicals and heavy metals are used in the typical tanning process, but there are alternatives. More traditional tanning products derived from vegetables and waxes and new processes that save energy and minimize chemical emissions give you the option of finding leather that's been produced in the most eco-friendly way possible.
So it is possible to give leather a thumbs-up when it comes to the tanning process but what about the animals? Well, there is no clear-cut answer there. Obviously killing an animal simply for its hide is extremely wasteful and not eco-friendly. But what if your Fonzie jacket was made from the skin from an animal that was slaughtered for food? So much water, food and energy went into "growing" the cow, would it be wasteful to not make use of the hide? I don't see a clear-cut answer there.
One final thing to consider is the durability of leather clothing. Although some leather is delicate and thin, many (often less expensive) leather products are made from thicker, tougher hides. A typical pair of leather shoes will take 25-40 years to biodegrade if not conditioned. Go to a Rolling Stones concert and you'll see tons of baby boomers rocking out while wearing fringed leather jackets from the 1970's. Leather lasts and that durability means that you're making the most of the resources that went into producing the animal the hide came from. It also reduces the number of jackets, belts, gloves and shoes you'll need to purchase over the course of your lifetime. Add to that the fact that if your leather ends up in a landfill it will simply biodegrade (rot) and I think it's safe to give leather an eco-friendly stamp of approval.
» naturalMatters.net