A place for solarpunks working toward a world without speciesism
Rules
While I appreciate the alternative viewpoint, I'm not sure their model is accurate.
The economic incentives are causative. Nobody is raising cattle primarily to slaughter them for leather.
(Not that it changes the ethical framework fundamentally, if you have any kind of problem with the cattle industry avoiding leather is logically consistent.)
This is important because there's a tired talking point about how animal leather is more eco-friendly than synthetic leather (often of petrochemical origin). Apparently, not so.
The "synthetic leather is just shit that frails in two months" is also such an overused and misinformed point for leather enthusiasts. Because a) synthetic materials WILDLY change in quality depending on material and type of production, and b) research is always evolving and bringing up new materials (https://oleatex.com/ for example, which only uses roughly 10% of non-biocontent).
I hope it's okay to mention brands here just for the sake of argument: I personally tried vegan "pleather" shoes by Ahinsa and Feelgrounds, for example, and after a year or so they still have to show any frailing whatsoever.
Lastly, one can always make the argument that many other natural fibers will also provide a similar durability when treated well. Thinking we 'have' to use animal leather because it is the only durable product feels so misinformed.
It's of course perfectly viable to choose neither
At least when looking specifically at carbon footprint in production.
Vegan "leather"...
Instead of buying an imitation of something you are against, and which is ecologically unsound, why not use any of the million natural alternatives?
Vegan "leather" (plastic) may have a smaller co2 footprint, but it's sourced from raw materials that are at the center of most of the world's woes, and will eventually become microplastics, while the co2 can be absorbed by plants, etc.
It's the same as "vegan meats". Celebrate vegan food without glorifying fake carnivorous food.
I use Arch, BTW.
A lot of vegan leather is plant based.
Pineapple and cork are two big ones.
Cork is cork, a lovely and great material with a ton of applications, but it's not leather. It will not last as long and won't withstand the abuse that leather can.
Piñatex (Spanish pronunciation: [piɲaˈteks]) is the trade name for a non-biodegradable leather alternative made from cellulose fibres extracted from pineapple leaves, PLA (polylactic acid), and petroleum-based resin
So, basically when the fibers decompose, it leaves PLA and petroleum byproducts.
PLA, is a plastic. A bioplastic, sure, but contrary to popular belief, it will not degrade unless done under industrial composting conditions. It will not degrade in your backyard compost pile, and will break into microplastics.
Piñatex (Spanish pronunciation: [piɲaˈteks]) is the trade name for a non-biodegradable leather alternative made from cellulose fibres extracted from pineapple leaves, PLA (polylactic acid), and petroleum-based resin
Still plastic, unfortunately.
Cork is definitely a cleaner alternative, but I don't know how durable it is in "leather" form.
It's not made of plastic. That's "imitation leather", stuff like Naugahyde that has existed for decades. There are many new plant-based leathers that are exciting and interesting, including using the SCOBY from kombucha.
It's called vegan leather because it looks and acts like leather and takes the place of leather. It's a protein-based hard wearing impermeable fabric, it's fucking leather.
It's more leather than so-called "Genuine Leather" typically is.
Not trying to be insulting, just stating a fact:
It’s more leather than so-called “Genuine Leather” typically is.
Is an oxymoron.
This is a theme that comes up very frequently in my occasional discussions of veganism with non-vegans. Yeah, replacements exist. Yeah, they're expensive and complicated and sometimes also bad. So instead of trying to reproduce the aesthetics of abuse and exploitation, try just eating something different. Try wearing something different. Have some new experiences. They might feel and taste really nice and they won't be a passive billboard for the things you're trying to protest in the first place.
I too use Arch, BTW
Yeah, my sofa is fabric instead. Old leather one was bought because we thought easy wipe clean would be good. In the end it barely mattered and it doesn't feel very nice in comparison.
Both were bought from a charity shop, new sofas cost way too much.
I had a high quality leather sofa, beautiful, soft leather. It was all around great, super durable. However, when it was very hot, it was less comfortable than fabric.
It withstood my kids early years great.
What is the durability and lifetime of the alternatives?
I have vegan leather boots I bought over ten years ago that still look brand new. I imagine it's like most other products and mileage may vary, but its obviously better than animal skin.
It really depeds on the product. Something constantly rubbing on something, like a chair, will last way less then the leather counterpart. At the same time I would really not appreciate sitting on leather lmao. Vegan leather will start to loose small pieces, especially if in contact with sweat (even though it changes from person to person), so even a wallet will ruin itself earlier. Now, there are way more alternatives than leather, just doing a comparison since it was the original question
but its obviously better than animal skin.
From an ethical perspective, sure.
I have vegan leather boots I bought over ten years ago that still look brand new
I have second-hand leather clothing and shoes that are more than 30 and 20 years old respectively and still in good shape. I'm not buying any new leather these days, but I also won't buy any replacement if if isn't going to last.
Relevant section of the introduction of the paper that the article is reporting on:
In an attempt to standardize allocation methodology, the European Commission's Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) (16) for leather was published in 2018. These rules use economic fractional allocation, a standard within LCA and PCF methodology, in which the environmental impacts are allocated by the ratio in price of multiple co-products, which in this case are edible animal products and cattle hides. Specifically, the PEFCR suggests allocating 88% of farm-level impacts to dairy, and 12% to the bovine carcass based on biophysical allocation. After slaughter, the guidelines suggest 3.5% of carcass impacts should be allocated to hides based on economic value, (16) implying that only 0.42% of cattle production economic value is reflected in hide sales and purchases.
Basically the industry has just been equating economic value to estimated carbon footprint allocation, which is a fucking absurd assumption because it assumes a perfectly rational economy that aligns all activity to environmental impact instead of profit or opportunity. Sounds like the paper takes a supply-chain based view of the carbon footprint of each product. Like you'd assume they already did. The paper is very politely and verbosely saying that the industry has been massively fudging the carbon footprint estimate of leather, but if you do analysis the right way you'll see that it's much worse.
Yes, this alternative view makes leather look worse. And makes meat and milk look better.
why not use any of the million natural alternatives?
Care to elucidate us?
Idk leather is a goated material to protect from roadrash, and you would be hard pressed to find a better fabric insulator than wool. It just breaks our heart that the creatures that evolved to create these miraculous materials are being tortured and murdered for their bodies.
I should get more "vegan leather" stuff...!