I'm asking this question to vegans and those concerned with global warming. Is that contradictory?

You don't have to be concerned with global warming to realize that there are environmental concerns associated with both animal agriculture and the production of synthetics. I'm not a vegan and I am admittedly a GM skeptic, but I do have concerns over the environment and they do contribute to my decision to be a vegetarian.

While I realize that the tanning process (not to mention the raising of animals) involves putting out quite a bit of poison (poop being just one of them), I prefer leather to synthetics for a number of reasons. Leather tends to last longer in my experience. It's easier to re-use. Depending on the situation, synthetics can actually be dangerous (ask anyone who works with items at a high temperature and they'll tell you that having your fleece melt to your skin hurts a lot more than having a spark fly off of your natural fiber shirt). I believe that overall, leather does less environmental damage than plastics would. (By the way, it is not biodegradable due to the tanning process.)

I try to minimize my personal contribution to pollution, etc in a number of ways. I buy used when I can, and I try to avoid throwing away usable items. Instead, I will re-use them or pass them on to someone else who will.

But, to answer your question, a vegan would use synthetics. By definition, if you eat or wear something that comes from an animal, you're not a vegan. Hannibal also makes a great point about the "either or" problem. It's entirely possible to get by without using leather OR a synthetic, especially with clothing.

So, in short:

- You can skip both leather and leather alternatives.

- Most leather isn't biodegradable after it's been tanned (the point is to preserve it).

- Leather and synthetics both damage the environment.

- Vegans won't wear leather on principle (whether they choose to wear synthetics or not), vegetarians might or might not.

Well, SPLATT, one problem I have with many arguments is the "either or" approach. It's either you do A or B, and there's no room for middle ground. If one believed in GW and veganism, then it would make sense that they don't buy leather OR the leather substitute, right? You're assuming that all people who are concerned with GW would buy real leather, and that all vegans are fond of fake leather. What about those of us that just dress warmly and don't give a sh*t about looking like we're wearing leather? :)

And, of course, there's always the option that someone will come up with an eco-friendly, animal-free leather replacement. If someone is both worried about GW and being kind to animals and happens to have a flair for fashion, it'd only make sense.

Basically, your question is flawed because it assumes there are only two options and I've already given you two alternatives to your two options (go without or invent).

Which is more destructive to the environment, the raising of that cow (with all the feed and waste expenditure) or the production of naugahyde?

I'm not sure but I would still avoid leather, even if the other product has more of a "footprint" because my ethics on animals far outweigh my ethics on climate change.

Either way, it's not a big deal to me. I haven't bought leather OR fake leather since becoming vegan years ago.

I am no longer a vegan, however I do think that GW is the outcome of human pastime. That being mentioned,I do not suppose that making use of Vegan Leather (because of vegan ideals) is contradictory to GW ideals and to reply your query I could bear in mind making use of it. Here's why: Plastic is a by means of-made from petroleum production so if it weren't used for different matters, it could most of the time grow to be being disposed of (improperly) and harming our atmosphere much more by way of toxicity/groundwater leeching, and so on. Still, I decide on truly leather-based - that is a by means of-made from my pork intake :)

if you look at the size of carbon footprints not killing the cow is worse for the environment than letting the cow live cows produce alot of methane which leaves a very large carbon footprint so in my mind letting the cow live is worse for the gw problem than actually doing what it was put on the earth to do which is feed and clothe humans and other wild animals

See hannibals answer.

"What about those of us that just dress warmly and don't give a sh*t about looking like we're wearing leather? "

Yes.

ok what is the question. am i the only one not seeing it? the title is a question but the msg body is kind of discombobulating and answers the title. im confused.