Comments on: Green Fur? Green Wash!

By: Joshua Katcher

Joshua Katcher — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:52:00 +0000

Hi John – synthetic fur can now be manufactured from recycled PET (soda & water bottles) then recycled again and again, or vegetable-based PETs that are renewable and biodegradable (*http://tinyurl.com/6ltddq4*). Even if that weren’t the case, there are even “furs” made from hemp! You seem to have a dated prejudice against anything with the word “synthetic” attached to it. Maybe if this were 1960 and toxic PVC was the latest development, you’d have a point. But science is not on your side in this case.

Nor is science on your side in the case of what actually goes into tanning. Just consider the amount of energy alone that goes into refrigerating furs so they don’t rot. The fur industry has been proven liars when it comes to saying what is actually used to stop pelts from rotting off of people’s backs.That’s why it’s illegal to say “Fur is Green” in Belgium after the JEP called the claims “*misleading”*. People who needed fur to survive used to tan the pelts of creatures they would eat with urine, feces, salt and brains. But now, it’s a bath of toxic chemicals and heavy metals that are dangerous to people who treat the pelts. Since you claim to care so much about people, are you even aware of the human rights disaster associated with the tanning industry in places like Bangladesh? * http://tinyurl.com/734d4pw*

Please don’t take my word for it, read the science yourself: http://www.vier-pfoten.org/website/uploads/Report_PoisonsInFur_summary_ENG.pdf http://www.cedelft.eu/?go=home.downloadPub&id=1131&file=2220_Summary.pdf

Lastly, I clearly state (and even make a special note for people like you
who might have trouble deciphering the point) that I am comparing styles of
rationalization, not holocaust victims to foxes. I find that people who
make claims like yours never actually do anything to help people in need,
but they love to exploit those people even further to suit their own
puerile argument. On the other hand, most of the animal advocates I know
are also human rights, social justice and environmental advocates. Why?
Because compassion is not exclusive. Because people are capable of caring
about more than one thing at a time. But if writing me off based on your
own fear of a dreaded comparison suits you, go for it.

And just on an entertaining side-note, you can thank the fur industry for
introducing invasive species like Nutria to sensitive coastal wetlands, and
now they want to spin it around and claim Nutria fur is “green” because
they’re killing an invasive species and saving the wetlands! Ha!

By: John C Edgar

John C Edgar — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 08:20:00 +0000

Fur IS green. The chemicals used in the tanning process are nearly harmless, and faux fur is a petrochemical derivitave, meaning it doesn’t fucking degrade. It’ll still be lying in a landfill in a thousand years, as opposed to the vrai fur that will naturally decompose and return to the earth without proper care.

But besides all of that, you compared a bunch of animals to holocaust victims. You’re the worst kind of animal-rights fucktard. The kind who puts animals above humans.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 03:05:00 +0000

Numbers don’t prove anything either. If 77% of environmentalists jumped off a bridge, would you do it too? Or would you try to inform yourself of the consequences by doing some research on the subject?

By: Lesley Fox

Lesley Fox — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:28:56 +0000

Thank you for writing about this bogus campaign!

By: The Discerning Brute » Blog Archive » Pride and Luxury

The Discerning Brute » Blog Archive » Pride and Luxury — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:47:16 +0000

[...] George Monibiot suggests? My fear is that greenwashing will prevail, not unlike the “Fur is Green” and Diesel’s “Global Warming Ready” campaign, and they will attempt to [...]

By: Cybergrunt

Cybergrunt — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 05:30:01 +0000

Really? Who is this ‘we’? I get hassled at least 2-3 times every single month for being vegan sometimes to the point where I almost feel I should apologise for being compassionate and free-thinking. I say almost because I will never apologise for it as I will never understand how you could possibly write those words without some little light turning on in your brain to enlighten you. An animal doesn’t have a pelt, it has skin and/or fur. How would you like it if I referred to your skin as a pelt? Some people do; they are called serial killers. Any illumination in that bulb yet?

By: TheDiscerningBrute

TheDiscerningBrute — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:14:40 +0000

Personal choice? What choice do the animals have who are the ones having their skin ripped off for something so frivolous? I wish it were only about "me and my choice vs. you and your choice", but unfortunately there is a third-party that you are totally leaving out of the equation; the animal - who like you and I, has a will to live and has interests and it's own value beyond what people can use it for. Your perspective is selfish and narrow, and if you were able to see for a second that the animals used for their skins are not a product or property, but individuals with their own perspectives, you would agree.

By: Juan

Juan — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 14:15:17 +0000

What one chooses to wear is a matter of personal choice. People should have the right to wear a fur garment free of harrasment. Just as we respect the decision of an individual to be a vegan or a vegeterian, we must respect the choice of how a person chooses to wear. It’s a matter of common sense. PETA and the HSUS appeal to emotional statements not based on fact. The fur industry is extremely regulated, and animals must be well-cared for if you want a good pelt. People should be more informed before insulting or demeaning a person or an industry.