Fur: Mean, Not "Green"
Fur is mean, and not 'green', claims PETA, stating that 'more than 60 times as much energy is needed to produce fur coats from ranch-raised animals than is needed to produce fake furs'. Which might as well be true, if one excludes things such as oil-drilling and transport, refining, and such, from the polymer side of that calculation. Since they haven't bothered to actually show us how they got to the number they cite, that is probably so.
posted by Leo @ 23:00
2 Comments:
Not a very "sexy" site really. Too sensible. Thnaks for pointing out what is left out. There are no easy answers to any of this stuff. Environmental cost is especially dodgy. I looked at the cost of ethanol, for example, recently and found that for Los Angeles (in particular) to switch to 85% ethanol would require 12% of the land mass of California to be dedicated to growing ethanol corn. Remember Twain's dictum: "lies, damn lies, and statistics". All sides use them.
When it comes to 'sexiness', I'm still toying with my original idea to put a collage of slaughterhouse scenes in the background... :)
I agree. Nobody is immune to favouring the interpretations which fit their agendas. But when someone decides to base an entire system of moral superiority on dodgy interpretations...
Post a Comment
<< Home