<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Fur, sigh......

January 14 2008 at 11:04 AM
CatherineB  (Premier Login Brocksopp)
Forum Owner

Again, not really on-topic but couple of interesting articles....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23024713-5013450,00.html

Climate change cure is warm and fuzzy

Janet Albrechtsen | January 09, 2008

CANADA: I am starting to warm to this whole climate change business.
Arrived in
Vancouver for a night just before 2007 drew to a close. With barely a few
hours
remaining before the stores closed, I raced out and bought a fur coat. A
long coat
cascading down to my ankles, light as a feather and as warm as a ... well
... fur.

A few days later, despite sub-zero mountain temperatures, I am still
positively
glowing with warmth from my new fur. Not just because animal skins protect
from the
cold. No, there is the unexpected, more cerebral, inner-warmth that comes
from
learning that by buying a fur, I have done the right green thing. According
to the
Fur Council of Canada's new ad campaign, fur is now eco-fashion. Thats
right.
Wrapping yourself in a fur is a guilt-free pleasure. More than that, it's
positively good for the planet.

Barely 10 days in, I am loving 2008. It holds the promise of lots more
surprises
from green politics as the climate change juggernaut continues to head in
the most
unlikely directions.

Let me explain. At the weekend, Canada's National Post reported on an
advertising
campaign launched at the end of last year by the Fur Council of Canada,
which
represents 70,000 of the nation's fur traders. These sassy new ads feature
gorgeous
women draped in fur, one under the heading "Environmental activist". The
ads
explain that buying a fur coat is the ecologically correct thing to do
because fox
stoles and mink coats are natural, renewable and sustainable. By contrast,
synthetic furs are no more than by-products of the petro-chemical industry.
Making
a single faux fur coat can chew up 19 litres of petroleum, a non-renewable
resource, says the council. Ergo, buying a fur coat is good for the planet.

Welcome to the brave new world of climate change politics. The Fur
Council's
campaign has been so successful that even comedians are sending out the
"fur is
green" message. Picked up by a Canadian comedy show, a camp-looking guy who
resembles Borat in a fur coat gets off some great lines assuring us that a
genuine
fur coat creates less pollution than synthetic textiles and uses no child
labour.
"So say auf Wiedersehen to faux fur," he smiles into the camera. "You
wouldn't wear
a barrel of oil, so why would you wear a coat that is made from one?"

You can find it on YouTube. And if you're worried about being sprayed with
paint by
those nasty PETA people, funny fur boy has some advice: "Well, you just
turn around
and tell them that every spray can produces enough fluorocarbons to drown
three
polar bears. Who's the killer now, PETA?" Fur boy's advice if you want to
do
something good for the environment: "Kill a small animal and slap it on
your
noggin."

Alan Herscovici, the council's executive vice-president, told me by phone
from
Montreal that the global warming issue provided the perfect opportunity for
the fur
industry to tackle the animal rights industry. He described these groups as
the new
politically correct hate groups and lamented that the media rarely exposes
the
intimidation they use to pillory legitimate industries such as fur.

So if you are in the business of producing and selling natural products
such as
furs why wouldn't you jump aboard the natural, sustainable, renewable
bandwagon?
Long derided as the brutish killers of innocent animals who satisfy the
hedonistic
vanity of callous consumers, now animal trappers and hunters are, according
to the
Fur Council of Canada, the new heroes of global warming. And those buying
and
wearing the fur coats can hold their heads high in the knowledge that they
are
doing the socially responsible thing.

The fur industry is fighting back using the sort of emotional blackmail
that the
animal rights industry mastered long ago. All these years the anti-fur
brigade has
assumed the high moral ground when extolling the virtues of synthetic, faux
fur
coats over the real thing. Now we learn that their motto can be reduced to
"Save a
beaver. Kill the planet."

Climate change has snatched the moral high ground. Now the inference is
that the
animal rights industry would rather you line the pockets of Big Oil by
buying
petroleum by-products such as synthetic coats, rather than support the
fur-farming
and hunting families of the Cree people in the James Bay area or the Dene
nation
north of British Columbia.

Maybe the Fur Council's campaign is just a case of green-washing, as some
warn. But
theirs is a more legitimate claim compared to the shonks trading on climate
change.
Take the booming industry of offsets. When you next jump aboard a
fuel-guzzling
aeroplane you can soothe your conscience by throwing a few more dollars at
the
airline company that promises to send your money on to some green
initiative such
as planting trees or investing in wind power in India.

But as Mark Jaccard, a professor at the school of resource and
environmental
management at Simon Fraser University, told the National Post: "Was the
tree
planted in Guatemala truly an additional investment in reducing greenhouses
gases
or would another tree have sprouted in that spot eventually? Has the Indian
wind
generator actually helped prevent or delay the construction of a coal-fired
power
station, or was it simply a wealth transfer to one region in India while
the
expansion of coal stations has continued at the same pace? We cannot know
because
future actions are unknowable."

Even for those who accept climate change is a major threat to the planet,
there are
plenty of reasons to remain suspicious about how companies and industries
move to
rebrand themselves as environmental friends. Any new industry - and make no
mistake, greenwashing looks like the boom industry of the early 21st
century - will
attract a rich collection of snake oil salesmen, hypocrites and downright
crooks in
its early years. And separating the rogues from the saints can often only
be done
in retrospect.

For the moment, I'm prepared to back the Fur Council. Why? Because I kind
of like
this novel feeling. Finally, I get around to buying a full-length fur coat
and it
turns out to be the politically correct thing to do. There I was recently
mocking a
friend in the advertising industry for ending his email with a pro forma
"Have a
low carbon day". Now I'm looking forward to the bumper stickers that will
soon
start appearing on the back of the small hybrid cars driven by our
green-minded
friends. "Buy a fur. Save the planet."




 
 Respond to this message   
AuthorReply
CatherineB
(Premier Login Brocksopp)
Forum Owner

Re: Fur, sigh......

January 14 2008, 11:04 AM 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=380778&in_page_id=1879

There are times when I feel ashamed to be part of the fashion industry,
and this is one of them. Having just seen four weeks of ready-to-wear
shows in New York, London, Milan and Paris, it seems that come next
winter, we will not be able to escape wearing fur.

There were collars made of red fox at Burberry Prorsum, chinchilla
blouson jackets at Julien Macdonald, chinchilla trims to bags and even a
chinchilla blouse at Celine, fur hoods on cardies at D&G, fur pockets
and panels and even a fur motorcycle helmet at Prada. Nobody seemed to
bat an eye.

Certainly not the fashion editors of the glossies sat in the front row,
many of whom were sporting fur Cossack hats and collars ("But there's a
blizzard out there!" objected one when I challenged her in New York).

Not the models, who clearly were all too young to remember the "I'd
rather go naked than wear fur" campaign waged by their predecessors back
in 1992.

And not even John Galliano at Dior, who told me last year he was going
to rethink his use of animal pelts, having just received a video he
could "hardly bear to watch' from fellow designer and animal lover
Stella McCartney, but who showed just as many pieces made from real fur
as ever.

Only Stella McCartney, who showed her collection in Paris, was a fur and
leather-free zone. "It's barbaric," McCartney says.

"Fur looks much better on animals than on humans."

Now, it seems, fur has become not only acceptable but deeply desirable
again, and not just on the streets of Manhattan and Paris, where
full-length minks never really went away.

I see fur everywhere: Prince William's girlfriend Kate Middleton wore
what appeared to be a fur hat at Cheltenham last week, I spotted
Victoria Beckham shopping in Paris last month in a fur-collared jacket,
and I also see it on ordinary girls on the street.

I bumped into a vegetarian fashion assistant in Kensington High Street
the other day, and she, too, was about to waver: "I have fur envy," she
said. "Does vintage fur really count?"

Although most of our High Street stores are scrupulous about not
stocking fur (it is barred from TopShop, H&M, French Connection, Marks
and Spencer, Gap, Zara and Selfridges), it was so ubiquitous in the
designer collections I worry that, very soon, we won't be able to avoid
it.

Why was there so much fur on the catwalk? Well, next winter's
collections are all about luxury and conspicuous consumption not seen
since the Eighties.

But now that most of us can afford if not a Louis Vuitton bag or Jimmy
Choo shoes, then at least a good High Street imitation, then fur seems,
to designers at least, the only option to render their work special.

I also blame the "Carrie Bradshaw effect" for normalising the flaunting
of pelts from dead animals. Sarah Jessica Parker's character in Sex And
The City wore fur so often, and looked so, well, "now", that I - a
vegetarian animal lover - started to think: "Perhaps fur is OK ..."
before coming to my senses.

Even wearing vintage fur, as Carrie Bradshaw did, is still endorsing the
premise that an animal's pelt can be beautiful. Far better to donate old
fur coats to Peta, which has already shipped hundreds to victims of the
Pakistan earthquake.

But why is fur so deplorable? Why is wearing it worse than wearing
sheepskin, astrakhan (the black, wrinkly fur from unborn lamb foetuses),
swakara (a type of lamb skin), python or even Australian merino wool?
(Merino has, in fact, been deemed inhumane and banned by the likes of
Benetton, New Look, George at Asda and Timberland because of the
practice of "mulesing", when blow-fly infested sheep have chunks of
their flesh cut off without anaesthetic.)

Well, as someone who doesn't wear leather, I would put all of the above
in the same category, but I understand that I have to be reasonable.

I know that Julien Macdonald does not use monkey fur, or pelts from
endangered species or from farms that mistreat animals.

His spokeswoman assured me that his pelts are approved by North American
Fur Auctions, a U.S. organisation that ensures animals are treated
humanely, and Saga Furs, a similar organisation in Norway, Finland and
Sweden that supplies mink, fox and raccoon to Roberto Cavalli, Marc
Jacobs and many others.

But in most of the world, fur farms are unregulated, so chinchillas,
foxes, minks, rabbits and raccoons are kept in cramped, over- crowded
wire cages, amid their own filth.

Stressed by such conditions they often go mad, turning to cannibalism
and self-mutilation before they are killed, often by having their necks
broken while conscious, or through genital or anal electrocution. In
China, cats are skinned alive while being restrained with a noose around
their necks.

Peta insist that if you wear any fur, you are responsible for supporting
one of the most gruesome industries on the planet.

Tomorrow, the annual seal hunt (it is legal to kill pups when they are
12 days old) begins on the ice floes off Canada, supplying a huge demand
for cheap pelts. Although sealers claim the fur is a by-product,
carcasses are more often than not left out on the ice.

No one would want to eat food that came from heinous practices - hence
the rise in sales of organic meat, eggs and dairy products - yet people
wear fur as though its ethical dimension were irrelevant.

I don't expect everyone to adopt my position, but all decent people
would agree unnecessary suffering is intolerable in a humane society.
Cruelty for the sake of an extravagance, a gaudy piece of "bling", is
obnoxious.

I have sympathy for the Cree Indians in North America, who rely on the
fur trade for their livelihood, and with furriers who see theirs as a
legitimate business. But I still do not believe the industry is doing
enough to stop the trade in illegal skins.

And if you don't believe me about the inhumane slaughter of cats in
China, and you have the stomach for it, watch the video at www.peta.org.
If you don't have the stomach for it, you shouldn't even be thinking
about wearing fur.


 
 
Anonymous
(Login rmgwing)

Re: Fur, sigh......

January 15 2008, 1:17 PM 

Despair..........

 
 
Current Topic - Fur, sigh......  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index