Environmental Impact of Fur
Fur production has a significantly worse impact on the environment than the production and manufacture of both synthetic fibers and other animal fibers. See the studies here on fur farms’ adverse climate and biodiversity impact, and pollution from waste runoff and toxins.
“The carbon footprint of a mink skin is almost equal to the daily footprint of an average Finnish consumer,
and the footprint of a fox skin is approximately three days’ worth. The footprints of fur alternatives are
much smaller.””
“It’s been a real problem in the area. Not just for the businesses in the area, but the flies and the smells have
been really egregious at times.””
Climate Impact
“The climate change impact of 1 kg fur is at least 5 times higher than the highest scoring textile (wool) – due to the production of animal feed and manure emissions.”
local Pollution
“Fur farms worldwide are consistently reported to violate environmental regulations. Manure, extra feed and carcasses get thrown into wetlands while run-off from fur farms seeps into watersheds.”
biodiversity Loss
“The American Veterinary Medical Association reports that ‘non-target animals’ (or ‘trash’ animals as they are referred to by the industry) can account for up to 67% of the total catch [when trapping].”
Toxins in Fur
“Fur tanning and dressing contribute to environmental pollution, with toxins such as formaldehyde (linked to leukemia), chromium (linked to cancer), and ammonia applied to the pelt to prevent biodegradation.”
Mink fur study by the independent environmental sustainability group CE Delft
Compared with synthetic and other natural textiles, fur has a higher impact per kg in 17 of the 18 environmental categories, including climate change, impact of waste runoff, and toxic emissions. The climate change impact of real fur is at least three times higher than the least favorable faux fur alternative. In many environmental categories, fur scores 10 times worse than faux fur alternatives.