Sustainability: Fur and Leather Clothing - Assignment Example

SUSTAINABILITY: FUR AND LEATHER CLOTHING A sustainability assessment of buying fur and leather products seeks to examine the ecological, social, and economic impact of such purchases. This approach utilizes a seven-step process so as to arrive at desirable conclusions. Introduction Human activities have been shown to have undesirable effects on the environment on multiple levels. Ensuring sustainability is the only way to prevent the total depletion of life-sustaining resources from the environment. This paper aims to examine the effects of buying fur and leather items along with possible alternatives which may suffice to alleviate the problem. Desired Outcomes Buying fur and leather clothing does not satisfy the desired outcomes. The manufacture of fur and leather is a complicated and lengthy process. Fur is obtained from animal hides and skins. An animal has to undergo the excruciating process of death so as to obtain a certain quantity of fur. Leather too is obtained from industrial tanning processes. Purchasing fur and leather items creates a gap in the market. In turn, this simulates a demand for more items of fur and leather. More and more animals have to be killed so as to maintain a steady stream of fur and leather products into the consumer market (PETA, 2013). Some of the fur and leather items include clothes, handbags, belts, bags, shoes, and other common household items. From an ecological point of view, buying fur and leather items is detrimental to the environment. The negative effects on the environment are staggering. As already mentioned, animals have to suffer and experience death so that the raw materials of fur and leather manufacturing can be obtained. The high rate of depletion of animal populations presents a worrying statistic for the ecological balance (PETA, 2013). Animals are necessary in the ecosystem because they fulfill certain critical functions. The natural food chains would be rendered impracticable if some animals would not exist to fulfill their expected roles in the cycle. Animals are also necessary for aesthetic beauty and ecological purity. Furthermore, some animals have been driven to the brink of extinction due to the clamor for fur and leather. Many other animals have become endangered as a result of these activities. The effect of fur and leather processing on the environment goes far beyond the death of animal populations. The manufacturing processes also cause substantial damage to the environment. The production of fur and leather has been noted to produce various toxic wastes into the environment. In fact, it has been stated that fur and leather production causes land devastation, water contamination, pollution, and even climate change (Carter, 2008). For instance, fur production produces phosphorus which greatly pollutes streams and rivers. Some nitrates and phosphates are produced and mixed along with rainwater to create toxic pools and rivers. In some areas, fur production has been shown to cause air pollution through the remission of ammonia into the atmosphere (Gyldenkærne & Mikkelsen, 2007). In addition, most of the leather manufactured is chrome-tanned. Chromium is an extremely harmful waste product which poses multiple dangers to persons living close to leather-tanning industries. It has been shown that persons habiting in close proximity to leather-manufacturing factories have heightened likelihood of contracting leukemia and lung cancer (FIRA, 2007). This brings into focus the economic impact of buying fur and leather products. Firstly, purchasing fur and leather is always an exorbitant affair. The complexity of manufacturing processes is reflected in the costs and eventual prices charged for fur and leather products. Production of fur and leather causes an almost irreversible effect on the environment. The destruction of rich soil and the displacement of rightful residents are some of the key effects of fur and leather production (Grunsell, 1992). Close inhabitants may happen to contract deadly diseases which would force the federal government to allocate greater resources into health care. As already mentioned, the manufacturing procedures of fur and leather are complex and demanding. Huge gallons of water are used during manufacture. Other forms of complicated machinery also come in handy during the production of fur and leather. Crucial machinery has to be acquired and maintained so as to ensure a smooth production process. Therefore, buying fur and leather is not economically feasible. Buying fur and leather is a clear reflection of the different social classes. The complex production of fur and leather renders the products expensive. Therefore, only high-end buyers can be seen to own fur and leather products. On the other hand, poorer persons will be left with no choice but to purchase second-hand items. They may also be forced to but clothes made from other natural-occurring substances. Production of fur and leather also requires the killing of animals which would customarily serve as food for pastoral communities (PETA, 2013). This limits the opportunity to benefit from their flock. Large amounts of resources are dedicated to the manufacture of fur and leather times. Consequently, this denies other necessary areas of the economy the level of funds required to fulfill necessary function. As can be seen, buying of fur and leather is not a socially equitable human activity. Decision-making Protocol Decision-making Criteria Acceptability Criteria Targets Social Progress Does the alternative ensure equitable social progress? The alternative should seek to bridge the widening gap between the poor and the wealthy Provide for clothing needs of the underprivileged persons at reasonable prices. Economic Viability Does the alternative represent the best use of economic resources? The alternative should not lock up vital economic resources in unnecessary activities. Avoid an imbalance of the economic state of a country. Prudent use of Natural Resources Does the alternative ensure the least exhaustive use of natural resources such as animals? The alternative should avoid depleting the ecological resources. Natural replenishment of the environment after production of fur and leather. Alternatives It is undisputed that buying fur and leather has terrible effects on the environment, the economy, and also social life. Considering the harmful effects mentioned above, it is important to consider various alternatives which may help to allay the fears and problems caused by fur and leather production. Alternatives will also help to sustain the environment and recover the ecological balance which human activities have threatened to undermine (Grunsell, 1992). The economic situation of a country also needs to be monitored regularly so as to avoid the creation of recession and depression. Failure to control the economic and financial stability of a country can result in far-reaching effects such as inflation and a drop in living standards. Social equality must also be carefully considered to limit the scenarios whereby the poor in the society get maligned by the privileges enjoyed by the rich members of the society. The first alternative to buying fur and leather includes the promotion of cotton products. The cotton plant can thrive even in arid areas with thin soils. Cotton processing can be a very viable option in the reduction of fur and leather items. For instance, cotton processing does not result in the killing of animals. Cotton plants which are harvested for cotton can be re-planted in the same plantations. This ensures the aspect of recycling of production raw materials. Furthermore, cotton processing is relatively cheaper and less harmful to the natural environment (Cameron, 1998). Cotton items are already relatively common among poorer communities. Therefore, the increased production of other cotton products will only serve to lower the prices of cotton items. Another viable alternative concerns the reduced production of fur and leather. This step has already been adopted in many European countries. American industries have also diverted their operations from the production of fur and leather products (Uddin, 2007). Manufacture of fur and tanning of leather have been identified as damaging to the environment where they are produced. In recognition of this fact, many developed nations have stooped altogether industrial operations concerning the manufacture of fur and leather. This is done with the hope of extinguishing fur and leather products from the consumer market. Strict legislative measures can also be put in place so as to reduce the negative effects of fur and leather production. Industrial targets can be set and enforced regarding the amount of toxic wastes which are released into the environment. This serves as a benchmark for any new entrants into the market. Evaluation of Alternatives Putting an increased emphasis on production of cotton items relays some priceless advantages. First, cotton production will have less undesirable effects on the environment. The cotton plant can be grown once cotton harvesting has been undertaken. The depletion rates of animals from the ecosystem will also be regulated so as to maintain an optimum level of ecological balance. Cotton products are also cheaper to produce compared to fur and leather (Cameron, 1998). Therefore, financial resources can be freed up for use in other sensitive areas of the economy. The accumulation of cheap cotton products in the consumer market will serve the best interests of underprivileged members of the community. However, cotton production runs the risk of collapsing the economy by running many leather-tanning firms out of the market. Reduced production of fur and leather is also a viable alternative which can have desirable effects on the environment and social status of a locality. Less manufacture of fur and leather will lead to a proportional reduction of the environmental effects caused by leather-tanning. Large amounts of pollutants are let into the environment as a result of fur and leather production. It therefore follows that a reduction of fur and leather processing results in an equal decline in the depletion of natural life systems. However, the shifting of production processes to other areas can result in an overload. For instance, China is acclaimed as the highest producer of fur worldwide. The action of many European countries to curb leather and fur shifts the pressure towards China (Renfeng & Qingfen, 2004). Therefore, Chinese industries are put under strain in order to satisfy the global demand for fur and leather products. The adoption of strict legislative measures can help regulate the production of fur and leather items. Necessary legislation can set the industry quotas of production and distribution. Consequently, manufactured fur and leather products will be just enough so as to satisfy the expected demand. Furthermore, the negative effects of fur and leather production on the environment will be reduced greatly (Uddin, 2007). Enforcing punitive measures on errant companies will help to desist others from violating set standards. This approach seeks to satisfy the demand for leather and fur items while at the same time safeguarding the environment from harmful effects of the same. Preferred Alternative The best alternative among the aforementioned ones is the increased emphasis on cotton production. One of the justifications for this lies in the fact that cotton production is already in place in many areas. Therefore, it does not involve a rethink of production. More factories have to be built while greater land has to rehabilitated and set as cotton plantations (Cameron, 1998). The increased production of cotton also serves the best interests of working populations who acquire less income. Cotton production is also practical and less complex. Mitigation and Management The following measures can be taken to achieve the maximum sustainable outcome: Rehabilitating more areas affected by fur and leather items Increasing the ecological requirements of leather-tanning industries Fostering the production of cotton in larger quantities Phasing out unproductive fur and leather industries Reducing the level of funds allocated towards the manufacture of fur and leather products Increasing the prices of fur and leather products so as to discourage consumption Conclusions The adoption of aforementioned measures will ensure the reduction of fur and leather production. It will also reduce the detrimental effects of fur and leather production on the environment. Reducing the current level of fur and leather will accord the environment more time to recover from harmful processes. The increased production of alternatives such as cotton will progressively wipe out the demand for fur and leather products. References Cameron, E. (1998). Leather and Fur: Aspects of Early Medieval Trade and Technology. London: Archetype Publications for the Archaeological Leather Group. Carter, K. (2008). “Fashion: Don’t Hide from the Truth.” The Guardian. Retrieved from: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/aug/27/ethicalfashion.leathe Federal Institute for Risk Assessment. (2007). Chromium (VI) in Leather Clothing and Shoes Problematic for Allergy Sufferers. New York: FIRA. Grunsell, A. (1992). The Green Detective in the Wardrobe: Clothes and the Environment. East Sussex, England: Wayland. Gyldenkærne, S. & Mikkelsen, M. H. (2007). “Projection of the Ammonia Emission From Denmark From 2005 Until 2025.” The National Environmental Research Institute, 239 (23–9). People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2013). Wool, Fur, and Leather: Hazardous to the Environment. Retrieved from: http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/animals-used-clothing-factsheets/wool-fur-leather-hazardous-environment/ Renfeng, Z. & Qingfen, D. (2004). “Domestic Fur Demand Increases.” Business Weekly, 20 (6). Uddin K. J. (2007). “Local Tanners Eye Bright Prospect as US, EU Quitting Leather Processing.” The Daily Star, 27 (4). Read More