Green Daily

This could become one of those discussions that involves those who think that nature is everything but us and we are evil, and those who think that we are part of nature and need to use it to survive. I am part of the second group, however, there is a big difference between using and ABusing nature.

Animals kill and eat each other in rather unpleasant ways; we do not have to use similar methods. If you are willing to pay more all animals can be treated better. We have brains and can choose. Harvesting more than can be regrown with organic methods is short-sighted, polluting, and dumb. Buying fur for fashion is disrespectful to life since your purchase will be unfashionable much before your coat breaks down. Unless it is made badly, which makes it worse. Fashionable fur clothing is a waste of resources.

Additionally, much fur clothing is not designed to take advantage of the insulating properties of fur. The fur needs to go on the inside, but that is not seen as desirable. And of course almost any thick fur works. It does not have to be mink, fox, or whatever. Sheep pelt will already be a big improvement to plastic clothing that just wastes resources, energy, and may be rather unhealthy.

Also, it would be great if we ate the animals we use. There is not good reason to throw away an animal after you take its skin. You do not want to eat mink? Well, don't use mink fur!

Clothing made from natural materials, harvested in the most humane fashion, transformed in ways that result in functional, strong, long-lasting clothing or products, that are actually used for a long time, makes more environmental sense than fur for fashion or multi-plastic never-to-be-used-for-anything-else-ever-again clothing.

Let us look a bit further than just protecting cute animals from horrible humans. We are part of the natural world. Without it we will die. Using it is natural and necessary. We can choose better ways, but we cannot disconnect from nature. Unfortunately (re)connecting is difficult for some "environmentalists".

If pointing out that fur is "green" is getting on the environmental bandwagon, I would like to get off this particular bandwagon. I have read here some pretty shallow reviews of products that were considered green even though they were unnecessary, polluting, wasting resources, encouraging consumption, etc. Being green does not mean buying products that are advertised as green by the manufacturer. It means rationally analyzing any product from beginning to end for its benefits and disadvantages for the environment and acting according to this data.

Could it be another inconvenient truth to learn that, even cruelly produced/harvested fur (which I object to for ethical, not rational reasons), is environmentally more reasonable than using petrochemical products?

By the way, real wool works often just as well as fur and does not kill the animal. Watch out for wool from countries with less tough animal protection regulations.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Reply

Why is fur always compared to fake fur or "synthetic materials"? The alternative to a cruel product is any and every fabric there is. Why not compare fur with cotton? Is fur greener than cotton?

If we must compare fur with fake fur, a 1979 study by the Scientific Research Lab-oratory at Ford Motor Company compared the amount of energy required to produce real versus synthetic fur coats. A synthetic fur coat was found to require 120,300 BTU (British ThermalUnits), which is approximately equal to the amount of useful energy in one gallon of gasoline(128,000 BTU). A coat made from trapped animals required 433,000 BTU, and a coat made from cage-raised animals required a staggering 7,965,800 BTU—66 times more energy than what is needed for a fake fur. This study took into consideration the feed required for cage-raised animals and the transportation, skinning, scraping, drying, tanning, and dyeing of pelts.

The production of a wild caught fur coat uses 3 times more energy than the production of a synthetic jacket, and studies have found that the production of a fur coat uses 20 times more fossil fuels than the production of a synthetic product, primarily because of the processing of the pelts, feed production, transporting of the pelts to the processor to the auction house to the wholesaler and retailer.

Reply

It's just one of the fur trade's gimmicks to divert people's attention away from the cruelty. An ecological product helps protect and conserve Canada’s treasured wildlife, NOT kill them for needless fur fashion.

Sandy Parker Report, one of the fur trade’s own publications, states that China is considering adding pollution tax on fur imported for processing because fur is highly polluting and energy consuming.

According to International Labour Organization, chemicals commonly used to process fur include acids, hydrogen peroxide, chromium, formaldehyde, bleaching agents, and various types of dyes.

Canadian consumers should question just how green it is to trap and kill every year a million of our treasured wildlife? How green are the indiscriminate traps that could injure or kill endangered species? How green are the wastes from millions of caged animals?

How green is cruelty?

Reply

I have read that in 1992 the Dutch Advertising Standards Authority ruled that fur apparel advertised as “ecological” was improperly and misleadingly labeled.

In 1991 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined 6 firms $2.2 million for the pollution they caused. The EPA stated that the waste from fur processing plants "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens."

Reply

Now, this is exactly the information we need to have to make up our minds.

It seems to me that the energy required for fur is (at least if considering wild animals) renewable to a certain extend (food) or COULD become independent from fossil fuel resources. Many artificial fibers need petrochemicals. Many plant fibers need human-made fertilizers and pesticides if they are to be grown in the same amounts as now.

Cotton, if grown organically, is a good option to replace human-made fibers for certain situations. It is however completely useless if you want to stay warm. Once it is wet or even humid (from your body's perspiration) it loses its insulating properties.

Fur does not HAVE to be cruel. It is cruel because fur production is a business and it is about profits. And I do not wear fur, because I have not found suppliers of cruelty -free fur. Actually not true. I should ask a person I know. He processes his own deer hides by brain tanning the traditional way.

It sure seems difficult to supply so many humans with natural clothing that is warm enough to protect (rather than decorate) people where it gets really cold.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Reply

What does "cruelty" have to do with "green"? Is a cat cruel to a mouse? Are lions and hyenas cruel? Are they "green"? Is squishing bugs that threaten your crops cruel? What makes animal wastes not "green"? What is unfriendly to the environment about a trap? It is unfriendly to the animal, but not to the environment compared with any natural death that might happen to the same animal.

How is this connected???? How can these two terms be discussed together? One is science, the other ethics. One is a social convention (animal abuse) the other just the law of nature.

Karsten
--
http://www.polluteless.com
Practical Advice to Pollute Less

Reply

Allow me to sidetrack a bit...

If fur coat exists - should it be worn?
For instance, suppose my mother who has inherited several fur coats from her mother someday wishes to give one of these coats to my fiance or one of my three brother's girlfriends/wives...

Most certainly, wearing that fur coat out and about means that there's the possibility of paint/whatever being thrown onto it (and the wearer) - but that risk aside, wouldn't it be more green to continue wearing that coat instead of purchasing a nice jacket (regardless of whether or not the could would be made of faux fur)?

It seems to me to be awfully disrespectful of the animals and the craftsmanship of these coats to simply toss them into the trash or squirrel them away in a closet instead of being worn.

Reply

I thought I'd just comment on how "traps" are not "green".

Our wildlife is an important part of our eco-system. There is no question how environmentally damaging it is to trap and kill a MILLION of Canada's selected few species that happen to have nice, thick fur off our eco-system for fashion EVERY year.

Traps are indiscriminate. Traps cannot distinguish endangered species from the other animals. Species at risk do get caught and die in these traps.

And I wish if one was to wear a fur coat passed on from his/her mother, the killing would stop there. But the issue is when one wears fur clothing out and about, profit-driven people see it as an opportunity to make money. This "opportunity" then leads to massive, commercial killing of millions of our wildlife. When you weaken an important component of the eco-system in addition to the pollution and the global warming, our eco-system will soon all fall apart.

So who really gets hurt at the end? It's us, our children, and our grand children.

Reply

First of all, my emotional side: I hate most traps, the way it is done, and strongly dislike people who support most current methods.

Nevertheless, traps are a useful tool if you want to catch or kill animals while you are not present or need to survive in the wild. They are set by trappers in certain locations to catch certain animals. They sometimes catch animals uninjured and what is done to the animal is a choice. Some traps catch climbing animals, some underwater animals, some large land animals. They generally catch only one and need to be reset. All this, as well as the traps design, are human choices.

Of course trapping (like hunting) removes animals from the eco-system. There is nothing wrong with that. That is natural. The problem is overdoing it or not doing it enough. We have thrown the ecosystem our of balance. Predators are reduced to a point where we have to manage the wildlife. We may not be very good at it because we continue to remove predators. Never mind that we currently trap tiny soft animals or only use certain parts. We could DECIDE to wear deer coats, or more moose. All these are human choices.

The use of animals or animal products does not NECESSARILY have to be cruel. It is the METHOD that matters. Saying that all trapping is bad because too many of the wrong animals are killed is like saying eating tomato sauce is bad because it ruins to many white shirts.

I think, wearing an old fur coat is acceptable. You may want to get it reworked by your local tailor to make it more classic and less fashionable. Make sure you avoid making a fashion statement that results in imitation by others who may buy a NEW fur coat. Wearing an old, functional, and not fashionable real fur coat may be better than supporting fashion with wearing a very modern fake fur coat, which is viewed by many as the cheap solution to the same look. Put the fur on the inside, no one will admire your coat. Where it when it is REALLY cold, not just nippy. No one cares what you wear when it is 10 below.

Karsten

Reply

I have heard from former trappers that trapping has a high rate of non-target catches. Obviously, the endangered species or even pets can't read a sign that says, "protected animals, please do not step here."

If commercial and recreational trapping hurt endangered species, it will further decrease the number of certain species left to play certain roles in the eco-system. Once the eco-system is off balance, the natural habitats will be negatively affected, which will further impact other animals who depend on the natural habitats and so on.

For example, when the wolves were being exterminated in the US Yellowstone Park in the early 20th century, soaring elk population leads to the decline of aspen, cottonwood and willow trees that are crucial components of natural habitats for birds, beavers, and other animals. Coyote population also skyrocketed. The number of coyote prey such as deers and ground squirrels plummeted. This negatively impacted the middle level predators like foxes, hawks, owls and pine martens. The downward spiral of the ecological balance within Yellowstone Park persisted until the successful re-introduction of Canadian grey wolves in 1995.

I think Nee and Fur-Bearer Defenders are not talking about subsistence trapping. They are talking about massive commercial trapping of a MILLION fur-bearing animals every year in Canada for "fashion" and "profit". Removing a million of selected few species that happen to have nice, thick fur from the eco-system sounds like A LOT to me. Way too much I might add.

Karsten also said "traps are a useful tool if you ... need to survive in the wild." Time has changed. How many people need to SURVIVE in the wild nowadays? I think there are way more homeless people who need to survive on the streets than in the wild. Even if there are a few individuals at this day of age, who do not watch TV and choose to live far away in the woods without any material comfort, the trapping done by these few individuals would be qualified as subsistence trapping (just enough for shelter, clothing, and food) rather than massive commercial trapping?

Wastes from random animal dropping and carcass in the woods is fine. Wastes from MILLIONS of caged animals and their carcasses in one small area that have to be discharged or dumped repeatedly in the nearby landscape pollute the water in the area. We have enough pollution from human sewage, we don't need to add even more from millions of caged animals for fur fashion.

Also, just because a tiger is cruel to a coyote doesn't make it right for humans (intelligent beings who have many alternative choices) to be cruel to our wildlife. Just because some creatures cannot avoid being harmed doesn't mean we should just kill them all.

Karsten is right that it's human choice. And what is sad is that many people are unaware that the government has made this choice for everyone by funding Fur Council of Canada regularly. If I remember correctly, $350,000 alone since February 2007. $200,000 of our hard earned tax money goes specifically towards this ridiculous "eco-fashion" advertisement. In my opinion, money I'd rather spend on helping homeless people than for "fashion". Simply ridiculous!

The government also allows the fur trade to create trapping standards FOR ALL CANADIANS, which are so scandalously low that the same cruel devices are still the norm today.

Reply

A recent study of environmental claims involving more than 1,000 products found virtually all of them were either false or misleading.

Scot Case, with the environmental marketing firm TerraChoice states that the biggest sin was the sin of the hidden tradeoff - products that promote a single issue, such as recycled content. "That's important, but there are a wide variety of additional environmental considerations: Was there any pollution during the manufacturing phase? What are the aspects of the product that aren't made of recycled content - are they also environmentally friendly?" (NPR, Dec. 7, 2007)

This seems quite fitting in describing FCC's advertisement.

Reply