From: tms@cs.umd.edu (Tom Swiss (not Swift, not Suiss, Swiss!))
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg
Subject: Re: Artifical Fur Manufacturers - Request for Info.
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:47:08 GMT
Organization: The Reality Liberation Front (pixels to the people!)

andy@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Andy Michael USGS Guest) writes:
>
>A strange side question that occurred to me recently is: Do the
>synthetics contain a lot of petroleum products and/or are they
>made with a process that includes toxic chemicals (not that tanning
>leather is so clean)?  While one may not be wearing an animal one
>could still be killing some by polluting ground water and destroying
>areas for oil drilling.  Life can be very complicated and it may not
>always be clear how to reduce ones impact on the planet.  Anyway its
>just a strange question bred by reading up on global climate change
>and starting to understand all of the linked systems that make up
>earth system science.

     From my leather alternatives FAQ list:


===== Environmental Considerations =====

     Some claim that using leather alternatives is harmful to the 
environment, as these alternatives usually use plastics which are derived 
from petrochemicals, or fabrics like cotton whose production often involves 
the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. However, the production of 
leather is also damaging to the environment.

     From the Nov/Dec 1991 issue of the Vegetarian Journal: (much of the 
other information presented here is from the same issue.)

<begin quote>

Environmentally, turing animal hides into leather is an energy intensive 
and polluting practice. The Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology
states, "On the basis of quantity of energy consumed per unit of product
produced, the leather-manufacturing industry would be categorized with the
aluminum, paper, steel, cement, and petroleum-manufacturing industries as a 
gross consumer of energy." Production of leather basically involves soaking
(beamhouse), tanning, dyeing, drying, and finishing. Over 95% of all 
leather produced in the U.S. is chrome tanned. The effluent that must be 
treated is primarily related to the beamhouse and tanning operations. The 
most difficult to treat is effulent from the tanning process. All wastes 
containing chromium are considered hazardous by the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA). Many other pollutants involved in the processing 
of leather are associated with environmental and health risks. In terms of 
disposal, one would think that leather products would be biodegradable, but 
the primary function for a tanning agent is to stabilize the collagen or 
protein fibers so that they are no longer biodegradable.

Evaluating the relative environmental and health costs of leather versus 
non-leather products is difficult to do. It is apparent that they all 
involve practices that can adversely affect public health and the 
environment. Since leather is intimately related to the exploitation of 
animals, it seems most desirable to buy canvas, limit purchases, go 
barefoot, and encourage companies to develop more ecologically sound 
alternatives.

<end quote>




     I don't know what processing is necessary for fur, but I'd guess
it's similar.

===============================================================================
Tom Swiss/tms@cs.umd.edu  |  "Born to die"   |   Keep your laws off my brain!
     "What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?" - Nick Lowe 
                     Keep your values off my family.
   "All men dream: but not equally.  Those who dream by night in the dusty
    recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but
    the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream
    with open eyes, to make it possible."
    -- T. E. Lawrence _The Seven Pillars of Wisdom_
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg