Every day I take my bike to school, and every day I pass by Stureplan,
where I every day have to stop at the red traffic light. Yesterday at this very
traffic light I saw a lady in a long mink fur coat, which got me thinking.
I
know that fur coats and leather jackets are banned by the animal rights activists,
but what if you consider this from an environmental perspective? If mankind
will continue to eat meat, which I am sure a lot of people will, and if you know
that the fur or leather is made from 100% meat-bi-products, wouldn't it be more
environmentally sustainable to wear leather jackets and fur coats rather than Gore-Tex
jackets? I assume that the market value of mink meat is not that great, which
would have to disqualify the lady’s mink fur coat from this particular discussion.
What do you think, is it time to re-evaluate the fur coats?
You have a point - but as you yourself say - mainly if the clothes are made from bi-products, that is. Of course, it's not like minks are raised for meat first hand, and then happens to be skinned and made into coats. The sole purpose of their existence is to be made into clothes - and the fact that the meat can be made for crab fishing is just a bonus.
ReplyDeleteLeather - in comparison to fur - is slightly better in the sense that the primary purpose for killing the animal is to get meat. Looking cool in your leather jacket and Doctor Martens shoes is just a positive side effect.
This reasoning does seem somewhat sketchy, but could be viable. At least as long as the demand for leather clothes does not exceed the demand for meat, so that the clothes is a biproduct.
But speaking of the environment - I'm sure leather (cows/pigs) is worse than fur (minks).
The meat industry is the single largest emitter of CO2. It is 17% of the worldwide total and that is with the transportation of the meat/dairy-industry excluded (according to the UN climate panel). The industry of killing non-human animals is not viable whether or not you use all parts of the slaughtered animal.
ReplyDelete