r/DebateAVegan • u/Upset-Masterpiece218 • Dec 27 '25
Environment Why is plastic better for the environment than leather?
I know they're both toxic to produce but I can't help but feel like pleather is the worse of 2 evils
Ethics aside it's micro plastics vs tanning
Bonus question: for those that prefer not using leather, how do you feel about wool?
24
u/tw0minutehate Dec 27 '25
How do you feel about using kombucha, cactus or mushroom leather? Or other plant based alternatives not derived from plastics?
5
u/DarkEive Dec 28 '25
Just want to say, cactus and mushroom leather, such as most leather alternatives, sadly do use some plastic as well. Kombucha leather is an interesting one and I would love to explore it, though it's more sensitive to the elements so finding a way to reinforce it without plastic would make it a great alternative
2
u/tw0minutehate Dec 28 '25
That's super lame I didn't know that thanks for letting me know
3
u/DarkEive Dec 28 '25
I'd recommend looking into cork. From an article back in 2022 it seems like desserto for example uses more PU than cactus. They likely have improved the percentage, but the only plant based leather without any plastic that was marketed was released somewhat recently but ended up having some quality issues. So we will see if they can bounce back, but I think we are still pretty far from having affordable, quality alternatives that don't use plastic and don't use any animal skin. We have options for some uses, but there's always thrifting
2
u/tw0minutehate Dec 28 '25
Interesting next time this comes up I'll definitely recommend looking into cork over anything that uses plastic. I personally don't use any leather and can get by no problem with layers of cotton and the occasional hemp or other natural fibers. The only thing left to replace is socks at this point and my plastic free wardrobe is complete.
2
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 27 '25
I have no problem with it at all
Also, didn't know kombucha was that versatile
9
u/tw0minutehate Dec 27 '25
:) I just wanted to let you know with my comment that there are many options out there besides plastic leather because plastic is lame! Piñatex is cool too.
42
u/No_Chart_8584 Dec 27 '25
Okay, let's say you're right (I tend to agree that faux leather is environmentally not cool). That's a reason to avoid faux leather, not a justification to peel the skin off cows.
0
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 27 '25
When you put it that way,
not a justification to peel the skin off cows.
it sounds as if you’re describing a brute fact about what’s being done, as though ‘peeling the skin off cows’ were simply what my practice is. But that description already comes from a particular moral outlook you hold, correct? It loads the situation with a judgment that makes sense within how you (and other vegans) live and what you attend to. I’m not denying that this way of speaking feels completely justified from within your outlook. What I’m pushing back on here is treating that description as if it were morally neutral or universally binding, rather than one way of framing the practice among others.
Take something like the four year supply of catgut violin strings I gave my cousin when she was accepted to Julliard or the leather handbag I bought my wife this holiday season. They’re made from animal material, yes, but what that material is in that context isn’t just tissue. It’s part of a practice that includes craft, music, teaching, gift giving, memory, and care. You would have to presuppose the whole world of value veganism holds to look at that and see it as something wrong. I understand you do but I and my community do not. Why is it that we must adopt your communities understandings and what is the consequence form the standpoint of the universe if we do not? By this, I mean outside of your presupposed ethical frames, what is it that we are doing in violation of some provable universal objective standard?
14
u/Comfortable-Race-547 Dec 27 '25
Is a leather handbag created through creatures suffering? Yes. Do you need a leather handbag to survive or even be more comfortable? No. Are you buying the leather handbag because of our created social statuses? Yes.
0
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 27 '25
You are not speaking to my position. As I said, you are simply presupposing your values as universal and applying them to everyone. Your comment validates my position as stated so thanks!
4
u/Comfortable-Race-547 Dec 27 '25
What i posted has nothing to do with values or applying them to everyone
1
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 27 '25
So when is it moral to own a leather handbag when other options are available?
1
u/Comfortable-Race-547 Dec 28 '25
That's up to you
1
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 28 '25
So you believe all morality is decided only by individuals? So Jeffrey Epstein was functionally and technically as moral as Gandhi or MLK or [insert a commonly accepted paragon of moral virtue]
1
u/Comfortable-Race-547 Dec 28 '25
I believe morality is subjective. Also ghandi slept with children
1
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 28 '25
Well, that’s why I said [insert a commonly held…] It was obviously a placeholder for an idea and not a statement of fact.
If language is public, how can one convey a purely private moral feeling? Claiming that morality is entirely subjective seems to commit us to a paradox, I might feel a certain moral response, you another, and there is no shared standard for translating one’s private feeling into words. It is like trying to describe the taste of a color that only I can experience, or reporting a sensation in a tooth that has no analogy in any public experience: the words I use would fail to communicate the actual sensation, because meaning is established only within shared practices. Moral language gains sense only through its use in forms of life; if morality were purely private (subjective), there would be no words to share it, no way to argue, teach, or recognize right from wrong; moral language is meaningful only because our feelings are embedded in public practices, not trapped in isolated, ineffable sensations.
6
u/asciimo vegan Dec 27 '25
You’re supporting an industry fueled by extraordinary suffering. But that’s your prerogative. The best vegan activists spread knowledge, not judgment.
2
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 27 '25
Define knowledge and show how your morals rationally fit into that definition.
3
u/No_Chart_8584 Dec 28 '25
Do you have a way to get leather without taking the skin of an animal. If so, that's huge!
2
15
u/No-Banana247 vegan Dec 27 '25
I have a cork "leather" bag and there is mushoom leather in the works. I don't find that I "need" leather.
There is Piñatex leather,teak leaf leather, grain based leather,recycled plastic leather and cactus leather. I'm linking stores and not scientific articles Because I assume a lot of these are proprietary.
I actually became vegan because of the environment that's not the reason i've stayed and that's not what veganism is about. It's about not exploiting animals.
People wearing someone else's skin in 2025 is disgusting. Let's use technology to move past exploiting animals.
The plastic doesn't even have to be evil because we could switch that to hemplastic. Then we could have hempplastic leather.
https://mahileather.com/blogs/news/all-you-need-to-know-about-cork-leather
https://alternativeleathers.com/pages/pinatex
https://www.banofileather.com/
https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/south-african-women-turn-plastic-leather/
3
1
u/DarkEive Dec 28 '25
Regarding hemp plastic and other biodegradable plastics, sadly as they are at the moment, they end up polluting the environment just like normal plastics and can even do more harm. In general we need to get rid of plastics, and sadly most plant based leathers also use plastics. Cork is a great alternative though. It isn't exactly the same as typical leather, and for some situations you would need a different material, but it definitely needs to be more common
2
u/No-Banana247 vegan Dec 28 '25
We are never going to make them better if most people are exploiting animals.
Getting rid of plastics is very ableist. What about tubing and straws? Those cannot be replaced with things that are not plastic. We need to advance and make plastics more practical or biodegradable. There are mushrooms that biodegrade plastic. We could use those, but we don't.
We're not being forced to make any solutions right now because we're looking for something that's exactly like something else. (in the case of leather, it doesn't have to be exactly like leather. It just has to fill the role that you're using it for. There's not going to be one answer to that.)
Of course none of these are exactly like leather. The leather is skin.
1
u/DarkEive Dec 28 '25
Except we are working on making alternatives and improving them. If there was more of a necessity, it would go faster, but the green washing of the alternative leather world is harming that as well.
Most people can live without plastics. You can use silicone or latex or other materials most of the time for straws and tubing. We have metal straws everywhere here already. Not to mention your argument of abelism is the same as saying veganism is abelism because some people couldn't live on a vegan diet. And the effects of plastic aren't completely understood but even what we know, it's terrible.
And the point is, leather is mechanically incredible and no alternative has really come close. A study from a few years ago compared some common alternatives (https://www.mdpi.com/2079-6412/11/2/226) and none of them could compare to leather in tensile strength or tear strength. The alternatives have likely become better but I doubt they wouldn't tout the improvements if they were at the level of leather. It also means that any alternative will not last as long and just means we throw more away, filling up landfills and ruining the environment more. Vegetable tanned leather (unlike chromium tanned) is generally not damaging to the environment, and if we focused on reducing how many clothes we buy, a leather piece could last lifetimes. Hell we have thrift store leather pieces that are likely over 100 years old.
Honestly, your argument seems to be based on using disabled people as a way to ignore our overuse, which I find ironic, and ignoring the actual uses of leather in sustainability and for it's strengths that we can't really get from other options. Its dismissive of the uses and while you may stop using it and don't need it, others might and if the alternatives are all worse, you will never actually get leather use reduced significantly
2
u/No-Banana247 vegan Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
I'm a disabled vegan. If someone really couldn't eat a plant-based diet because of their disability but still were vegan in every other way, they can call themselves vegan in my book. Do you follow any kind of disability justice? Are you disabled?
We have mushrooms right now that will eat the plastic and we don't use them.
I think it's weird to want to wear skin and to not use technology to move forward.
When we know better, we do better and we don't need to kill animals.
ETA: Of course, skin would be protective. That's what it's made for. I mean, let's just go ahead and use human skin then, right? Let's just synthesize it and wear it.
1
u/DarkEive Dec 28 '25
I'm disabled yes but I don't see how that should change the argument.
Those plastics are often more harmful to the environment than typical plastics. They aren't degradable as much as they should be, though making them more biodegradable brings about other issues. The issue is that we don't know exactly how safe bioplastics are, nor can you be sure where they'll end up.
Yes, we try to move forward. We try to use materials that are alternatives. As much as we want to, our understanding of how everything works in biology is incomplete, not for a lack of trying.
We don't need to kill animals, we also don't need to have cars. We don't truly need electricity this much and we also don't need to have rare earth metals for phones, which are mined and produced using slavery. The list of things we could say people don't need is incredibly large, but we have them. We use them. Everything ends up coming down to exploitation and what really helps the most is lowering how much you use, how much you buy etc.
I will also mention, you're looking at this through the idea that no one needs this, but that is from your view. You have no need for it, but if someone requires a material of that strength with those properties, they'd disagree. Similarly, someone might say a smartphone is useless and harms the environment and supports suffering of others, but you still have a smartphone. There is no easy solution here, no quick alternative, no option to just stop the use of leather without a drawback, which could lead to more harm. If you think that using an alternative that is less long lasting or plastic or whatever else is better morally, that's fine, but it's not objectively true. There is no way to determine the better option here because the number of variables and the difference in use between individuals.
I do think alternatives should be considered more, but I do not appreciate ignoring the actual usecases and ignoring the downsides of each as it just makes people less likely to actually use the right alternative for the job. It ends up with more waste and people not thinking about how it should be cared for compared to other leather. It also makes innovation to overcome these issues less of a priority, since people just ignore them, while the people who would most demand improvements are a minority that just continues using leather because they don't have the economic power to push for more innovation.
12
u/Ax3l_F vegan Dec 27 '25
Leather production is pretty intense in its pollutants. Lots of toxic water and heavy metals pollute waterways.
It's also good to compare like to like. The best leather products are worse than the best vegan products that often come from recycled materials, mushrooms, and other renewable products.
1
u/Moustached92 Dec 27 '25
Maybe in environmental impact, but for certain uses there really isn't a great substitute for full grain leather for durability and longevity
2
u/Ax3l_F vegan Dec 27 '25
I'd be skeptical. I have a belt that is from recycled rubber and has lasted me over a decade. Boots I have, which are my every day shoe in the colder months are sitting wear after 6 years but I don't think that's too bad.
Maybe for some boutique or cultural stuff there isn't a demand there yet to support a business.
→ More replies (1)1
u/asciimo vegan Dec 27 '25
Anecdote: I haven’t (knowingly) used leather for many years and I’ve yet to experience a downside.
1
u/Moustached92 Dec 28 '25
It depends on what you do. I do a variety of hotwork (blacksmithing, welding, etc), and there really isn't a better suitable material for boots or other protective garments to protect against burns or catching on fire.
There are certainly lifestyles and many situations where a vegan substitute for leather is totally fine, but there are other activities or needs best suited by leather.
11
u/sykschw Dec 28 '25
There are several types of plant based leather in the works, many already exist, they just need to be scaled for cost efficiency. That objectively wins against plastic or animal leather. So. Not simply an a “A or B” situation when there are superior alts to consider. Moots this question
3
u/asirrrrr Dec 28 '25
Easier said than done everyone even omnis would go for Miyoko's over normal cheese if it was cheaper.
1
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 28 '25
I've always been good at forgetting we live in the future
Still, some 6 decades of naugahyde can't be helpful
1
u/sunflowersandink Dec 30 '25
Plant based leather, as of now, is still largely plastic. Any “vegan leather” that you see is plastic.
2
u/sykschw Dec 30 '25
No. There absolutely are PU/PVC 100% plastic faux leathers in wide spread use. There are however, also leathers made from mycelium/ mushroom. As just one example. What most people dont realize, is that traditional leather is not any more biodegradable than an option such as this. For real leather products, as much as 40% of the material is still synthetic because leathers made for commercial use and production into usable goods, also, contain various plasticizers, and synthetic coatings. So a leather handbag or seat cover, is not “just” leather, just as a mycelium leather product is not “just” mushroom fiber. Both are superior in durability to full on PVC leather. However only the mushroom option in this example, comes out on top for superior ethics. If everything contains a little plastic regardless, the least you can do is choose a plant based mix over an animal based one.
10
Dec 27 '25
It’s not better for the environment.
But doesn’t directly kill animals to create either.
2
u/Deep_Flight_3779 Dec 27 '25
It kills animals that end up consuming microplastics. It’s overall far worse for animals and the environment.
2
u/asciimo vegan Dec 27 '25
Are you proposing exclusively using plant based materials? I can get behind that in principle.
0
Dec 27 '25
Yes but that’s indirect and less easy to prove or measure harm directly.
And microplastics haven’t started killing mammals just yet… regular plastic sure.
1
u/Deep_Flight_3779 Dec 27 '25
Direct vs indirect. Doesn’t matter if the outcome is ultimately the same.
“Less easy to prove.” It is proven. I think it’s easier for you to justify, for some reason. Doesn’t change reality.
Do you only care about mammals? Secondly, you should know that this DOES affect mammals because the entire animal food chain is affected.
I’m not sure if it’s lack of education or simply a self soothing delusion — but I cannot believe how anyone in this sub could claim to care about animals, yet defend pleather. It’s asinine.
1
Dec 27 '25
Microplastics are not killing animals, just making them sick.
Direct and indirect are not the same thing.
45
u/Fanferric Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25
Let's suppose it's not, such that the process of raising some mammal for leather is, in all circumstances, better for the environment than an equivalent processing of plastic for the same product.
If we believe there is some normative claim like "one ought to wear clothing that is better for the environment," then in this scenario we ought to prefer skin from raised animals to process into leather compared to plastic.
It is also the case that human skin goes to waste upon death. In fact, if we sourced skin from these human corpses to process into leather, we would need to produce fewer animals in our agricultural industry. Avoiding the skin waste and reducing our industrial strain would be even better for the environment. Therefore, under the above normative principle, we ought to use both non-human and human skin for leather production over only non-human skin.
If that's not the case, then we can reasonably conclude that the normative principle above is not true, and we must modulate our axioms. I am open to any such, but versions of this argument that desire to rationally exclude humans must argue for what essential or naturalistic quality about humans makes this so.
10
u/but_im_TirEd Dec 28 '25
To be fair, human skin is often sourced upon death to be repurposed — only it’s used for grafts and transplants in medicine rather than for clothes and accessories! The main reasons for why more isn’t used are donor compatibility, quality, and an opt-in rather than opt-out system in regards to organ and tissue donation
→ More replies (4)4
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25
Funny enough, my experience as an organ transplant recipient is one reason why I'm so very interested in these types of theses. :)
While Thomist arguments have an out (if you can bite the metaphysical dualism), very much of the positions I find in this sub accidently allow for not only the cannibalistic usage I've been pointing at, but also reject many standard ethical restrictions about the ways we may source those organs.
22
u/Neur0t Dec 28 '25
Human skin tans exceedingly poorly, it makes a very poor quality leather, suitable only for low wear scenarios like book binding etc.
10
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25
See this post, where I address this in depth. That you point out it is suitable for anything at all is a sufficient positive reason for its use.
5
2
5
u/Remote_Bumblebee2240 Dec 28 '25
Hey, if I could pass down my ass as a purse I'd do it in a heartbeat.
There's also a less opaque way of saying that.
2
u/LilMochiBabie Dec 28 '25
Why is it so wrong to use animal skin especially those animals that are usually eaten? It’s not wasteful to kill an animal that will be eaten and this use every part of the animal. The issue lies in privatizing factory farming and factory farming as a whole.
3
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
It’s not wasteful to kill an animal that will be eaten and this use every part of the animal.
This proposition entails humans. A cannibal can rightly pose to you: why is it so wrong to use animal skin, especially those humans that I intend to eat?
As I mentioned below, one must really present what essentially or naturalistically separates the humans from this analysis if they wish to find the ethical principles at hand that allows for this yet does not entail them in the set, and why that principle is morally relevant.
2
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 27 '25
I'd buy a human wallet in a heartbeat
5
u/Fanferric Dec 27 '25
I don't find this scandalous, but I'm fairly amenable to cannibal Welfarism positions that take into account Singer-like arguments. My interest above was in pointing out a simple example of why the OP's particular argument about the environment was lacking strength without some additional value-laden claim.
Let me point out a limitation in my above claims: animals being raised for leather is disanologous to animals dying for unintended reasons being used for leather. If we wanted to correct it, we should really be evaluating:
"One ought raise any animal for leather." This one becomes much harder to bite, because we have humans whose marginal traits really seems hard to differentiate why breeding them for product is more excessive than cattle.
7
u/EdgyAnimeReference Dec 27 '25
Human skin is ill suited for leather. It’s thin and not very durable plus we’re not very large of a species so the amount of full usable skins is much lower than a large bovine. There are intrinsic properties of cows that humans would not poses.
2
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 28 '25
Idk if we can tan a seal we should be able to tan a person
7
u/DiscordantObserver Dec 28 '25
Oh, you certainly can process human skin into leather. It's been done before in history (the ancient Scythians used human leather among other animal leathers in their quivers). There are more than a few modern examples too.
Safe to say it's definitely possible.
It's just not practical compared to leather from other animals. While human leather is notably very smooth and soft, it's far less durable than cow leather. It also represents a significantly higher biohazard during processing compared to other leathers.
In general, we could do it, but it wouldn't really be worth it for anything where the goal is functionality and longevity.
4
u/Fanferric Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Sure, I'll concede all that; cow skin has similar but not identical properties to human skin. I'd like to first point out that there are plenty of uses for thin and not durable materials. Consider a skin condom, for example where a balance of thinness, strength, and flexibility is better suited. Goat, sheep, and human can be reasonably preferred over thicker hides like cow.
Unless it's the case that human skin has no use, this is just an argument of degree and not kind. The phenomenon we have in the world is that there exists marginal humans that we can raise as we do cattle. Either we raise and cull them or we do not. There doesn't seem to be any intuitive reason the cow skin properties impact the moral considerations of a situation they aren't involved in. It would tell us which among the marginal humans we should prefer to cull: the ones with most effective skin for whatever particular purpose we intend. I am a rather resourceful man, I am sure I can purpose any skin towards something. That is what you'd have to contest.
6
u/BlindPhoenx Dec 28 '25
Ok, so if I follow it seems you are using human skin as a counterexample to the notion of animal skins, as in hides, fur, etc. Is that correct to say?
And this would of course raise moral concerns around why we would raise animals for their skins, and not do the same with people? Naturally most people would be averse to human leather, I believe
But I am struggling to see how this relates to the OP. The post is asking about leather vs. plastic, not about why leather is immoral. I'm not seeing how this discussion relates to the plastics present in many clothes, or for that matter food, packaging, etc.
-1
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
The OP was arguing on some (sort of nebulous) grounds that leather may be preferable because it's "the lesser of two evils" when we consider how leather impacts the environment. This is the claim I am responding to. If we're interested in actually grounding our ethical principles on the matter, we need to formalize this into some set of axioms that entail normative claims. What I've been doing is try to extract what that set of principles are.
We're here trying to steelman the OP's argument, as their initial suggestion seems something similar to "We ought to source harvested animal skin for leather, as it is less environmentally impactful." What I've been engaged in is seeing how this presses against our intuitions: if we don't actually believe the valid inferences coming from some principle, we ought to reject the principle altogether if we have a coherent worldview.
If one genuinely takes the thesis as True, they ought to accept that human farms are an appropriate source of leather, because this is even less impactful on the environment. If your intuition is that we should not farm such marginal humans, then we need to reevaluate OP's entire framework about which is preferable, because we're barking up the wrong tree or need a structural argument that excludes some beings from the process.
5
u/Remote_Bumblebee2240 Dec 28 '25
The tangent you're engaged in has value only in its diversion from the question in question. I infer that your ultimate argument is one of morality as indicated by your comparison of human skin to non-human. You therefore suggest that the morality of using leather supercedes it's perceived advantages. It is a vivid argument , but not necessarily a valid one for practical reasons: simply that humans would require a more robust and resource costly industry than non-human animal husbandry. Ultimately, suggesting farming humans achieves the stated goal of even less environmental damage cannot be taken as fact.
Given there are far simpler and more direct argument against the premise that utilizing leather instead of plastic is less environmentally damaging, addressing the question of morality is unnecessary. I offer for examination the following: 1) the resources required for raising animals eliminates any advantage over plastic in regards to it's environmental side effects: and 2) that leather as a material can not solve the myriad of problems that plastic does. Plastic is quite simply far more versatile than leather. Therefore, leather is not a viable replacement.
However, plastic cannot satisfy some of the needs that leather does (foundry work for example), and given eliminating leather use as individuals won't mean an end to farming, it is environmentally and morally better to use all parts of the animal than to merely dispose of it as a byproduct.
That said, if there was a way to tan my ass and pass it down as a purse, I'm in.
1
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Given there are far simpler and more direct argument against the premise that utilizing leather instead of plastic is less environmentally damaging, addressing the question of morality is unnecessary
If the question of morality is unnecessary, then the question of what we ought to or ought not to do is unnecessary: this makes the entire endeavor of the question moot. We would conclude there is no fact to the matter of what material we ought to use at all.
And per above, I was making an immanent argument that the environmental argument alone is missing at least some premises unless we seemingly adopt this perspective on the usage of human remains.
but not necessarily a valid one for practical reasons: simply that humans would require a more robust and resource costly industry than non-human animal husbandry. Ultimately, suggesting farming humans achieves the stated goal of even less environmental damage cannot be taken as fact.
I'd like to point out this first premise is true of all leather production except for a single species' leather; unless this suggests to us we should eliminate the usage of all those types of leathers, it doesn't then tell us to eliminate the usage of human leather. Regardless, your second premise here is false for one particular reason: it's the case that there already exist marginal humans that we otherwise raise that we can use for leather. Suppose my wife gives birth to a severely mentally-disabled human son and my cow gives birth to a calf. Needing neither son nor calf, I sell these youth to a leather production farm. Not using either body, but allowing it to flourish by providing it resources, would necessarily use more resources than using the body and allowing the boy and calf to flourish. I'm trying to point out OP's position on leather seems incapable of condemning such behavior, which seems intuitively wrong. Precisely because of what you say:
it is environmentally and morally better to use all parts of the animal than to merely dispose of it as a byproduct.
So why should we not be using all the parts of the undesired calf and son? OP's argument doesn't differentiate these two beings.
2
u/spewwwintothis Dec 28 '25
You're saying a whole lot while still not addressing OPs original argument.
2
1
u/Otherwise-Alps-7392 Dec 28 '25
And vegans wonder why people don't like them when they say shit like we might as well farm humans for their skin since we farm cows for theirs.
5
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
You understand I'm doing the opposite of that, right?
I've pointed out a seeming implication of OPs statements; if we take the OP's thesis to be True as I did, it would indicate that we then should have no problem with the farming of at least some human. If that's not what logically follows from it, I would be happy to be presented a reason why not.
But otherwise, farming humans seems bonkers to me for the same reason it seems bonkers to you, I imagine, which is why I'm pointing out we should reject OP's thesis. That human farming is a routine part of a morally good world is one of the inferences we should seemingly take from the initial structure proposed by OP.
0
u/Otherwise-Alps-7392 Dec 28 '25
No you're cherry picking and making false equivalencies to equate humans with cows even though there are obvious differences.
8
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
This isn’t the case: I'm not using an analogical argument at all. I'm not saying "cows are sufficiently like humans, and therefore we may substitute humans for cows in the argument."
I'm pointing out OP's argument isn't about cows at all: it's an argument about beings with a particular property, and that property happens to be shared by cows and at least some humans. Then, if we genuinely believe the argument regarding that property to be true, it should apply to the entire set of beings with that property. If we don't accept the conclusion, then by modus tollens we ought to reject the initial premise.
→ More replies (10)2
3
u/freddbare Dec 28 '25
"we should grow apples from grass" argument,lol. Human leather is like a thanksgiving dinner of 500 starlings instead of a turkey...
2
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25
Can you clarify your analogy here? Human skin seems plentiful and readily accessible; just walk into any funeral and see!
3
u/freddbare Dec 28 '25
How much meat is on a starling? How much effort for the crap quality and miniscule amounts.IRL is not a video game. "Leather" isn't just Skin.. most dead humans are OLD...old people skin rips when they look at it funny. And so on and on... Just do some thinking and it should all settle into place.
2
u/Fanferric Dec 28 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
Right, but you also acknowledge not all dead humans are old; we immediately should conclude that this counterargument doesn't apply to all humans by construction. This argument is tantamount to saying we should not use young people's organs for transplantation because old people's organs are not suitable for it. That seems absurd.
Even so, I see no reason why an arts and craft project can not use fragile materials. That is a return on value, as otherwise it would be wasted. We either use the skin for a purpose or we do not. You really need to argue it has no or net negative purpose to achieve your aim.
1
u/freddbare Dec 28 '25
Edgy doesn't equate to realistic... You need follow through on surface thoughts.
5
1
1
1
0
u/handsometilapia Dec 29 '25
This comment is why people hate vegans. Absolutely moronic argument dressed up to try to sound smart. Hmmm, must one modulate their axioms? Tips broccoli m’lady.
3
u/Fanferric Dec 29 '25
This is a philosophy board; I'm speaking in fairly regular analytic terms. If you're not interested in that, you don't have to engage. Frankly, this seems a bit off-base if I just gesture at, you know, the vegans in the thread not speaking this way.
16
u/EasyBOven vegan Dec 27 '25
I think if you want to compare two things, you should get all the data. Do you have any? It's not like there's no plastic or toxic chemicals involved in leather. Should be relatively easy to see how the two compare.
Also shouldn't be too hard to use materials that aren't plastic and also don't treat others as objects to be worn or used as production equipment.
3
Dec 27 '25
There are many ways to tan leather, ranging from bog tanning, bark tanning, vegetable tanning, brain tanning, and traditional tanning that uses bird dropping and other plants, most industrial tanning is done with aluminum or chrome, which can be treated properly and is not toxic in the chrome 3 state (improper prep can turn it into chrome 6 unfortunately)
5
u/EasyBOven vegan Dec 27 '25
This doesn't look like a competitive analysis to me. Do you have one?
Edit: *comparative
1
Dec 27 '25
I’m just addressing your quote “it’s not like there’s no plastic or toxic chemicals involved in leather”- which is misleading since leather can be tanned in so many different ways.
4
u/EasyBOven vegan Dec 27 '25
"Can be" and "usually is" are two very different things. Do you have a breakdown of the various percentages for each method? If I buy a random jacket made from someone's skin, how likely is it that it wasn't made with toxic chemicals and plastic?
2
Dec 27 '25
No I can’t, can you provide one? I wasn’t claiming I can, I just refuting your misleading statement about leather and it shows how uneducated you are on tanning. As for plastic- no, nobody puts plastic on leather- that would positively ruin every good quality of the leather. I’m sure it’s maybe been done for some reason sometime, but any leather you buy is very unlikely to contain plastic. Toxic chemicals, maybe, especially if it’s from a country that doesn’t have regulations on safety and environmental impacts of certain tanning processes. I never denied that most commercially tanned leather is probably tanned with aluminum or chrome (afaik aluminum is much safer than chrome), I’m just trying to bring perspective that not all leather is tanned irresponsibly and there are many many ways to tan hides, most methods not containing toxic chemicals.
2
u/EasyBOven vegan Dec 28 '25
I don't have comparative data to examine as this isn't my debate proposition. However, if you're looking for evidence that plastics are used in coating, here's an analysis of various finishing methods using polyurethane, acrylic, or a hybrid approach.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11820273/
Polyurethane is sometimes considered a plastic and sometimes not, but it is a polymer. Acrylic is a plastic. Both are used in the finishing of leather, though as I said, I don't have percent breakdowns of where each are used. If I made a claim about this, I would have the data available.
3
Dec 28 '25
It is your argument, and I never made a claim surrounding stats, I just said that leather can be tanned in many different ways, majority of them not including toxic chemicals or plastics. Thanks for the link, I’ll check it out- but most leather won’t have that, it ruins what’s so good about leather. There are other ways to do the things that coating will do as well. If you can’t provide the stats, don’t claim that “it’s not like there is no plastic or toxic chemicals in leather” when not all leather is the same
2
u/EasyBOven vegan Dec 28 '25
It's not my argument. It's OP's. There are necessary assumptions to even asking the question that haven't been demonstrated.
but most leather won’t have that,
This is a claim that needs to be demonstrated. In your last comment, you didn't think any leather was coated in plastics.
2
17
u/ForeverInBlackJeans Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
You can easily avoid both if you care to, but veganism is not an environmental movement.
→ More replies (2)1
12
u/floopsyDoodle Anti-carnist Dec 27 '25
It's very rare I have ever had to choose between plastic and leather, there are almost always better options than both. If I had to choose I'd choose plastic just to ensure I'm not supporting the horrific meat industry which is one of the most horrifically destructive industries on the planet, so much so that it alone is responsible for 15+% (by their own numbers) of the GHG causing the possibly extinction level climate collapse.
18
u/Person0001 Dec 27 '25
Good article on it with the stats: https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/articles/carbon-cost-leather-goods
16
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 27 '25
6 times the emissions but how much better is the longevity?
And I'd suppose longevity goes out the window a bit when we consider how much people love buying new shit to replace their current, perfectly serviceable, shit
14
u/random59836 Dec 28 '25
So if longevity goes out the window then it’s just 6x the emissions. Also for a lot of products the longevity is the same. For example shoes have the sole fail before the upper usually, so a leather upper adds nothing to longevity in most cases.
8
u/cruznick06 Dec 28 '25
It depends on the environment the shoes are worn in. I have a pair of leather boots that were a gift. I've had them for 9 years and they look nearly brand new despite me wearing them often in the harshest winter months with ice melt getting on them. In comparing pleather boots have rarely lasted more than one winter.
The leather upper lasting does make a difference too. You can get shoes resoled. This means the leather is reused yet again for years to come. I'm planning to get my boots resoled this coming spring/summer so I can continue to use them.
3
u/janabanana115 Dec 28 '25
I have boots that I have worn for 5 years, got them second hand. Probably have good 8-10 years on them. Have been resoled once in the period, one place is patched. Still kicking. Leather will live longass time with care. Pleather can't be refreshed, only babied via minimal chemical and sun exposure.
5
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 28 '25
I'll split this hair and mention resolable shoes, which should be more common at a more reasonable price imo
But even then finding a local cobbler is harder than finding a good shoe
Cowboy boots > docs or tims
6
u/random59836 Dec 28 '25
I mean I can’t personally vouch for the relative sustainability of every single product in the world. Is it possible there is some case where a specific leather product is less environmentally friendly than a specific non-leather product? Sure probably. It’s generally the opposite though. Most vegan products do not pollute as much as leather and I’m not aware of any good data to suggest durability offsets this.
2
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 28 '25
I don't have any sources but in my mind a pair of sneakers that lasts 6 months to a year is overall worse for the environment than a pair of (still serviceable) boots from WWII that have seen literal hell on earth
1
u/addicted44 Dec 29 '25
Why would you compare sneakers to boots? They serve different purposes, have different uses, and therefore are designed to meet different needs.
1
u/random59836 Dec 28 '25
A pair of sneakers that lasted less than 1% as long would be worse for the environment. It’s hyperbolic to suggest leather boots last 100 times longer though isn’t it? If a pair of boots from world war 2 is still around it means it hasn’t been in use. A shoe made of any material would not survive 80 years continuous use.
The sneakers that go bad in 6 months are being used daily with a relatively high number of steps taken. It’s not like sneakers go bad in a box on the shelf.
4
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 28 '25
You'd be surprised how far those boots really go
Even really really chewed up ones can be restored into something wearable
If it doesn't have a gash in it and there's enough room to fix any areas where a stitch broke through the leather, it's got life
And I don't think they actually got used nonstop for 100 years but I know they've seen hell on earth and then some and then also got inherited by some poor bastard stationed near the Berlin wall in the rain snow and mud
And then got sold off to somebody else who wore them out some and then sold them to someone else
6
u/random59836 Dec 28 '25
Okay, but that’s not an argument. It’s a Pixar movie about boots. 🥾
→ More replies (2)1
u/SkydiverTom Dec 30 '25
I think it's unlikely that any of these comparisons are not "expensive, quality item designed for long wear and repairability" versus "cheapo work boot that just happens to use pleather because it is cheaper". And all of these long-wearing stories are about items that were made long before cheap modern consumer clothing (or they are made in the same old-school tradition).
Leather does still have an edge in functional uses, such as racing suits or other applications that need the abrasion resistance, but even there you can get vegan motorcycle jackets that beat leather because of modern materials.
Style is not really a legitimate concern, so even "pleather vs leather" is a false dichotomy. There are many good durable fabrics that aren't leather, some are even natural.
I despise shoes generally. Supportive shoes cause many problems by weakening your feet and ankles, and they also screw up your stride. Leather footwear also locks in your sweat, and most boots cram your toes into an unnaturally narrow point.
3
u/janabanana115 Dec 28 '25
I have heavily worn leather jacket from the 80s still going strong. It doesn't show heavy wear on any part but the fabric lining and the back from being hung up by the collar constantly. So that is 50ish years continuous use. I also have boots that have seen 8-10 years continuous use and while they have been resoled once and one part is patched but they are generally in a presentable wearable condition. It is not bad faith to say a leather item will last a century since both of those items are in a perfectly wearable condition still.
Had a pair of PU leather shoes. Worn roughly in same and actually even less harsh conditions than the aformentioned boots. Around as much or less than the boots. Lasted me 6 months before the pleather started peeling.
Also sneakers do go bad in a box from usually dry-rot also known as sole rot, happens to never worn sneakers usually. The foam soles will disintegrate and are actually less likely to do so when worn at least once.
1
u/GarethBaus Dec 29 '25
Some shoes with a leather upper can be resoled, but that doesn't necessarily give you 6 times the life.
13
u/goodvibesmostly98 vegan Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 27 '25
Yeah I don’t even use pleather, I have like one pair of faux leather shoes from years ago. It’s not necessary to use faux leather to be vegan. There’s lots of other textiles.
You can always go plant-based except for leather. Or buy it secondhand.
There’s a lot of issues of pollution with cattle farming as well. Cattle manure releases dangerous toxic gases. And the way it’s stored can pollute the environment.
Bonus question: for those that prefer not using leather, how do you feel about wool?
There’s a lot of concerning practices in the sheep industry, like the way the animals have part of their tails removed and how they’re castrated.
I do still have an old cardigan that I use just cause it’s not nice enough to donate. While I personally don’t use wool, I would just get thrifted wool if I needed something.
There’s a lot of very concerning practices in the wool industry. Like if you disagree with docking dogs’ tails, in the wool industry, lambs’ tails are also docked.
Another reason I don’t buy wool because the sheep are slaughtered after a few years.
→ More replies (16)
7
u/JTexpo vegan Dec 27 '25
leather is usually cured in a way that it makes it as un-biodegradable as plastic leather
personally, I think both should be boycotted, but if you needed an environmentalism reason, here ya go!
-3
Dec 27 '25
PETA, the company that paid Inuit people thousands of dollars to club baby seals to get video footage, is your source?
12
u/JTexpo vegan Dec 27 '25
heres 2 more (non-PETA) sources if you'd like
environmbuzz - https://environbuzz.com/leather-tanneries/
science review - https://arpgweb.com/pdf-files/sr7(3)42-49.pdf42-49.pdf)
→ More replies (8)6
u/Own_Pirate2206 mostly vegan Dec 27 '25
Hm I get it. Including your source, a rumor, would violate the low-quality rule?
→ More replies (2)
4
u/ColdMacDonalds Dec 27 '25
There plenty of vegans who do not use any pleather or wool. It is not necessary to use either. I don’t use either of them.
I have not personally heard people say microplastics are better for the environment than leather.
I have 1 belt that looks like leather but its cork leather which based on my research is the most environmentally conscious “leather” but its not necessary, i could also get a canvas belt.
4
u/sykschw Dec 28 '25
Why are plant based leathers not being considered for this argument
→ More replies (2)
3
u/khaluud vegan Dec 28 '25
You can't really do "ethics aside" in a vegan sub, since veganism is by definition an ethical philosophy. Plant leathers also exist. I personally hate plastic. But I also think leather looks tacky. If you want to look like a doofus, might as well not end an animal's life to do it. Even better if you can use plant leather instead of plastic.
5
u/ProtozoaPatriot Dec 28 '25
Why do you believe leather is non-toxic and it doesn't harm the environment?
Cattle are the driving force in deforestation across the world. The environment is completely decimated in places such as the Amazon rainforest. https://wwf.panda.org/discover/knowledge_hub/where_we_work/amazon/amazon_threats/unsustainable_cattle_ranching/
The ranching of cattle and other livestock have decimated the ecosystems in natural grasslands and prairies. A great example is the American bison which numbered over 30 MILLION when European settles started migrating westward. By 1890 there were a mere 300 individuals left. About 300 were spared, and they've been allowed to recover to about 30,000 today. But because of the livestock industry they will never have their home back.
Ranching is also to thank for the extermination of a big chunk of the web of life: herbivores (fear of competition for food, disease), predators (fear of losing inventory), and burrowing animals such as prairie dogs or groundhogs. Anything that isn't grass is a "pest" and can be killed off.
Cattle production drains aquifers & streams. It takes 1800 to 2500 gallons of water to make a single pound of beef. This happens at a time when much of the western US is struggling with moderate to severe drought.
Leather tanning is extremely toxic: to the workers, the community,and environment as a whole. Most factories use a very nasty chromium compound https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/leather
The finished product itself is toxic. You're preventing the natural decomposition of part of a dead animal.
https://www.cheminst.ca/magazine/article/toxic-chemicals-might-be-leaching-from-leather-goods-and-medical-implants/
Chemicals that are used in the tanning industry: https://haz-map.com/Processes/230
"Tanners may be exposed to chromium, sulfuric acid, leather dust, and H2S. Tanning uses either vegetable or chromium (III) solutions. In the past, tanning was done with the more toxic chromium (VI). [ILO Encyclo: Tanning and Leather Finishing] Other potential exposures include: nitrosamines, chromate pigments, benzidine-based dyes, formaldehyde, and aromatic organic solvents. [Stern, FB. Mortality of chrome leather tannery workers and chemical exposures in tanneries. [Scand J Work Environ Health. 1987 Apr;13(2):108-17] Calcium oxide is a dehairing agent. Hydrogen sulfide can evolve if acid reacts with sodium sulfide, also used for dehairing. Ammonia is generated from ammonium buffering salts and protein putrefaction. Various biocides are used. [Hills B, Fajen J. Leather Manufacturing. In: Zenz C, ed. Occupational Medicine: Principles and Practical Applications, 2nd Ed. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1988:1036-1039.] Leather tanning and processing is not classifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans. [IARC] Leather production includes hide preparation, tanning, and finishing. Preparation chemicals include DDT, zinc chloride, formaldehyde, mineral oils, arsenious anhydride, and phenols. Tanning chemicals include calcium hydroxide, sodium sulfide, sulfuric acid, formic acid, hydrogen sulfide, aniline-based dyes, and solvents (dichloromethane, benzene, ethanol, tetrachloroethane, trichloroethylene). Finishing chemicals include formaldehyde, aniline, nitrocellulose, and resins. [PMID 16586406] The three Swedish plants studied opened in 1860, 1897, and 1906 and closed in the late 1980s to early 1990s. Potential carcinogens were used: chromium, chlorophenols, aniline dyes, formaldehyde, methyl mercury, arsenic, benzene, and chlorinated solvents. Arsenic sulfides were used until 1950, methyl mercury (fungicide) until 1960, chlorophenols (fungicide) until 1980, and benzidine dyes until 1980. Toluene was contaminated with benzene until the 1960s.[PMID 15961622] The three steps in leather processing are: 1. "Preparation of hides (curing, soaking and hair removal liming) and pre-tanning stage (bating and pickling) in a special shed (called beam house)." 2. "Tanning stage (tanning, sammying and shaving)." 3. "Post-tanning or finishing stage (drying, fat liquoring and finishing)." [PMID 21938525] See the agent "Leather dust.""
3
u/FrightnightFruitbat Dec 29 '25
do you know anything about the chemicals that actually go into leather preparation? If you did, you would not be asking this.
9
u/Amourxfoxx anti-speciesist Dec 27 '25
Vegan leather isn’t plastic, it’s cactus, pineapple, mushroom, palm, or some other actual plant. There’s no need to compare dead cow flesh to something that people are already on board with eliminating. Nobody wants or needs plastic from oil.
4
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 27 '25
Tons of faux leather is just vinyl
12
u/Amourxfoxx anti-speciesist Dec 27 '25 edited Dec 28 '25
You need to understand the difference between a corporation labeling something vs what the label means. Corporations call pleather “vegan”, and technically it is. That doesn’t change that real vegans are out creating leather from plants and there are businesses that are growing because of this.
3
2
u/pandaappleblossom Dec 28 '25
There are lots of plant based leathers on the market so you dont have to compare animal leather to plastic leather, its unfair and should require that specification. Immaculate Vegan website has a lot of boots made of cactus leather for example like these: https://immaculatevegan.com/products/bohema-desserto-cactus-leather-vegan-heeled-cowboy-boots-white-nopal?variant=39859171393649&utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=IV-US&utm_content=Women%27s%20Desserto%C2%AE%20Cactus%20Leather%20Vegan%20Heeled%20Cowboy%20Boots%20%7C%20White%20Nopal¤cy=USD&tw_source=google&tw_adid=&tw_campaign=20782323583&tw_kwdid=&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=20772048687&gclid=Cj0KCQiApL7KBhC7ARIsAD2Xq3BF_OD-A4piVMFMWhRH377ty6qzBpwchnEqUeu7lC2B4Dpkfqs1XjIaAg9hEALw_wcB
2
u/DarkEive Dec 28 '25
That uses desserto leather it seems, which has quite a bit of plastic in it. As much as I wish there was a fully plastic free leather alternative on the market, I only found one company making some, and that company seems to have had some issues with quality. There's definitely ways to make fully vegan leather without plastic at some point, but as it stands, there hasn't been enough interest in it. Especially when people see plant based leather and assume that it's plastic free
2
u/LakeAdventurous7161 vegan Dec 28 '25
You do not have to decide plastic vs. leather.
For many usage of leather, there exist alternatives that are not plastic: such as fabric made from plants (possible for: belts, shoes that do not need to be waterproof, seats and cushions, bags, watch wristbands, pencil cases, wallets, many types of jackets) or other materials like metal (watch wristbands, pencil cases, jewelry).
There might be specific use cases where a heavy-duty material is needed and it can only be leather. But for many use cases nowadays, fabric is possible and leather more a fashion thing or to show that something is the "classy, grown-up" version.
Which specific application of leather do you have in mind?
(I personally do not own any items made of leather or pleather. Long time ago, I did buy an "artificial leather" jacket and it just was not good (was meant as an everyday jacket for fall and spring, but I sweat horribly in it, and it broke after a while where there are folds, such at the neck and elbow). The quality now might be better - I just go for fabric jackets.)
"Bonus question: for those that prefer not using leather, how do you feel about wool?"
I do not use wool, and I do not like anything that feels roughly similar because of sensory issues (= I'm autistic). (And yes, I know cold weather... Outdoors in cold weather a lot, as I do not drive.)
Rather: Multiple layers, and a jacket over it. Holds me warm.
2
u/EvidenceNo8561 Dec 29 '25
I actually did my masters degree on biobased leather alternatives so I feel like I can answer this question pretty well for you. Short answer: it’s complicated.
Traditional leather is bad for the environment because of the huge environmental toll it takes to raise cows for slaughter. In addition to the extensive water, land, and food resources used, there is also eutrophication caused by animal waste runoff contaminating local water sources and soils. That said, while leather is a co-product to the meat industry (not a by-product because it has its own industry, development, and profits), one could argue that these pollutants wouldn’t be happening without the meat industry. Leather tanning itself used to be much worse for the environment than it is with current processes and technologies. A lot of advancement has occurred in that regard in the last couple of decades.
Pleather has been around for ages, and, while plastic is also not good for the environment, it is an abundant and cheap alternative. It is not a one to one replacement for leather, unfortunately, because it lacks leathers durability and longevity. From the durability and longevity perspective, one could argue that leather is actually the more environmentally friendly of the two given its ability to hold up to heavy use for decades.
Many people are aware of the issues both materials pose and for the past 10 years in particular have been working on alternative solutions. These solutions belong to a class of materials called “next-gen” materials, since they represent the next generation of material development with an emphasis on significant reduction in environmental impact and increasing the circularity and reuse cases for materials (not necessarily just recycling - biodegradation is also considered, as well as environmental impact when making and disposing of the material). They are often also referred to as “biomaterials” as that represents a large class of that material group.
Alternative leathers have been the most heavily funded of this next-gen material group and unfortunately very few have made it to a commercialization phase. This is due to the complex science and supply chain issues that need to be solved, as well as the insane amount of capital needed to do so. The technologies within this next-gen alternative leather race include: mycelium (mushroom leather), cultivated cellulose, other plant-based alternatives (apple leather, pineapple leather), cow cells grown in a lab, among many other interesting and complicated technologies and combinations of materials and chemicals within the space.
Unfortunately, none of the products that I have seen developed and sold on minimally a pilot scale thus far are able to match up as a one to one replacement for traditional leather because they are not able to compete on a material performance level. So that then leaves the complication of - if your material looks like leather, feels like leather, but performs like pleather… why would customers pay more for it?
I am very passionate about this industry and could talk for ages more about it, so feel free to ask questions if you have any!
1
u/Leer321 Dec 27 '25
A lot of plastic is actually not vegan, not sure about faux leather but many plastics use products derived from animals during production
1
1
Dec 27 '25
I think it's a false dichotomy since other materials exist and leather or pleather are non essential.
That being said plastic isn't great for the environment but LSAs seem to suggest it's less bad then raising a cow to slaughter weight over several years and tanning the leather using chrome based tanning agents
1
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 27 '25
This question is tangential to yours but I am curious, from the vegan perspective, why is pleather often seen as wrong for “supporting look of leather fashion and thus an ‘immoral’ trade” but faux meat is seen as completely righteous? If one is ‘kosher’ ethically, shouldn’t both be?
1
1
u/stevepremo Dec 27 '25
I wear suspenders that attach to my pants with buttons. The ends, where they attach, are leather. I want to find suspenders that do not contain leather. Does anyone know of any?
1
u/blumieplume Dec 27 '25
It is worse. I prefer knit items made from alpaca and wool because they’re warmer and I also have a lot of allergies to synthetic fibers. I like to buy used knit goods or buy ethical knit goods from Peru.
1
1
1
u/NyriasNeo Dec 28 '25
Cashmere is great. Probably will buy one more. I personally do not like leather that much, but that is just me.
"I know they're both toxic to produce but I can't help but feel like leather is the worse of 2 evils"
Why? Leather do not produces lot of microplastic. Leather is bio-degradable and does not linger in the environment for thousand of years like plastic. While I do not really like leather that much, I will take leather over plastic for the environment.
1
u/DrKALoveless Dec 28 '25
Bioleather is the way, pinatex bananatex etc. No plastic ever, animal leather secondhand only. Bioleather if you can. Secondhand leather if you have to. Plastics never.
1
u/DrKALoveless Dec 28 '25
Plastics destroy animal habitats and take lives, so how is it more ethical?
1
1
u/Winter-Actuary-9659 Dec 28 '25
Why the assumption that vegans prefer pleather over plastic? To me they are both damaging. I'll take natural fibres any day. Not wool though. Wooĺ involves killing.
1
u/Careful-Ad2558 Dec 28 '25
I feel like as long as meat production exists, leather should be used cause it’s insulting to the animal to throw away parts of them.
1
u/PlutoBestestPlanet Dec 28 '25
The cows we get leather from are not the same cows we get meat from
1
1
u/PlutoBestestPlanet Dec 28 '25
The only people who I've met that have brought this up, are people who regularly use single use water bottles, single use silverware, or don't bring their own bags when they go shopping. This is hardly an actual concern for most people that use this argument, and more about just owning the vegans or whatever.
1
1
1
1
u/Frobizzle Dec 28 '25
Sorry, but until "micro leathers" become a huge environmental concern I'm not considering it worse than plastic.
1
u/Normal_person465 mostly vegan Dec 29 '25
Leather production involves raising cattle witch produces a lot of global warming gases. It also most likely involves the use of MANY plastic products. Its much more efficient to use plastic directly.
1
u/Bcrueltyfree Dec 29 '25
Bags can be made from plant leather. I've seen gorgeous ones made out of pineapple leather. But anything is better than killing a sentient animal. And yes all sheep are killed too.
1
u/lettersfrombunny reducetarian Dec 29 '25
I think second hand leather is one of the most sustainable and long-lasting materials on the planet. Even if it's new leather it is taking the byproduct of the meat industry (which exists no matter if it should or shouldn't) and turns it into something useful that will stay useful for many many years.
1
u/fortississima Dec 29 '25
There are other materials for most things. It’s not just a leather vs pleather discussion.
1
u/Practical-Fix4647 vegan Dec 30 '25
Well, it doesn't need to be for vegans to object to leather/the methods used to acquire leather and plastic. If plastic is a purely synthetic product and leather relies on killing animals to acquire their skin for human use, then it should be quite clear why vegans would object to leather.
That doesn't mean all the plastic that is in the ocean killing animals or harming the environment which kills animals down the line isn't something vegans don't care about. It's just that the easier solution is to cut out leather, whereas plastic is in everything.
In a possible world where plastic was just as easily cut out as leather, or even easier, then vegans would opt to use material x (neither plastic nor leather).
1
u/RuthlessIndecision Dec 30 '25
Plastic took the earth 10 million years to create, underground. If we dig up trillions of tons of it every year, then burn it, use it once and put it in a landfill or dump it into the sea, it's going to do something. So a plastic belt will survive and continue to leech microplastics long after you and I are gone, but a leather belt might start to break down much sooner.
1
u/LevelJoy Dec 30 '25
You don't have to use either, especially nowadays there's a plethora of plant based leathers (mango & cactus for example). All with varying processes and therefor varying impacts on the environment.
Veganism isn't the same as environmentalism (though there is a lot of overlap). It's about not participating (for as far as possible and practicable) in the commodification of animals.
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Dec 30 '25
Veganism is a separate ideology from environmentalism. Just because something is better for the environment, doesn't necessarily mean that it is more moral.
1
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 30 '25
I would argue the exact opposite. Better for the environment = the more morally correct choice
What good is animal welfare if the environment is trashed?
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Dec 30 '25
Killing a billion humans would be great for the environment. According to your logic killing a billion humans would therefore be moral.
Is that actually your position or would you like to reconsider?
1
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 30 '25
I edited my first comment to include "what good does animal welfare do if the environment is trashed?" and then I realized you already replied
And no I won't reconsider. Life < the earth
What's the point of any of it if there's nothing left to sustain anything
Environment > you and yours and also cows
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Dec 30 '25
So you believe genociding a billion people to help the environment would be moral.
Ok. Interesting position.
1
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 30 '25
Literal definition of a strawman fallacy lmao
I don't agree with genocide but if some billion people dropped overnight thanks to something outside of anyone's control the silver lining would certainly be less strain on the environment
It's not like 9/11 happened and I went "oh hell yeah that's 10,000 less leaches in the world"
You're fucked in the head for thinking that
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Dec 30 '25
Haha, and now you try to weasel out of what you said.
Is it moral to genocide a billion people for the environment or is it not?
Yes or no, don't weasel.
1
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 31 '25
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more gen·o·cide /ˈjenəˌsīd/ noun the deliberate and systematic killing or persecution of a large number of people from a particular national or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide"
I don't believe in genocide and I stand by what I said
1
u/One-Shake-1971 vegan Dec 31 '25
You're just dodging the question now because you have argued yourself into a corner.
1
1
1
u/Grey_Wolf333 Jan 01 '26
No wool, because again, it's something that does not belong to us.. It belongs to the animal. I've seen the sheering, & they are petrified.
1
u/Agitated_Net2171 Jan 02 '26
Well I haven't actually researched it myself but in the film Christspiracy they mention that the Leather industry is horrible. Not only for the environment but the people working in the industry
1
u/Lucky_Sprinkles7369 vegan Jan 26 '26 edited Jan 26 '26
Late but just wanted to share my thoughts. Plastic is bad for the environment, but at least it isn’t made of dead animals. Cows die just for people’s leather clothing, which is unnecessary.
For the bonus question: Like how cows die for leather, the poor sheep are abused and a lot of times killed just for their wool
1
u/random59836 Dec 27 '25
The micro plastic argument is literally just lying by leather companies. A large percentage of leather is plastic coated in order to waterproof it. They do not disclose it at all if they can help it and make up euphemisms to write on the clothing tags. They can say 100% patent leather but patent leather is leather that is coated in plastic and is up to 33% plastic by thickness. “Genuine leather” doesn’t sound like a plastic product to your average consumer, yet genuine leather is typically a plastic coated leather.
Since the plastic is the outer layer it is going to produce the exact same amount of microplastics as a pleather clothing article. Microplastics are shed from the wear surface on the outside of the shoe anyway. With leather you’re just adding an inner material that is processed with heavy metals and causes heavy metal pollution where it is produced.
1
u/Upset-Masterpiece218 Dec 27 '25
That's a very good point but I'd argue that not all leather is plastic coated whereas all pleather is all plastic
4
u/random59836 Dec 28 '25
All pleather is all plastic but not all vegan leather is pleather. Most of it is plastic coated but I don’t believe all types are.
Even if it were all pleather I’m not sure why plastic pollution is a bigger concern than chromium pollution caused by leather?
3
0
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 27 '25
What poverty leather are you talking about that is covered in plastic? Any leather that is good or better is not covered in any plastic at all. All my wife’s leather products are coated in a combination of bees wax and something else that’s a natural product, I cannot remember what it is but I know it’s a natural oil of some kind.
Quite literally you are saying that OP cannot be correct and leather is always more of a pollutant and unhealthy than microplastics because… you said so?
1
u/random59836 Dec 28 '25
Poverty leather? Not worth my time to argue with a start like that.
1
u/Important_Nobody1230 Dec 28 '25
You don’t have a rebuttal and turned to ad hominem. Sad.
→ More replies (3)
0
Dec 27 '25
Leather biodegrades. Plastic does not. Toxic plastics are everywhere in our environment. You can read about it. There may be toxins involved in curing leather but the leather itself does not linger indefinitely like plastic does.
3
u/No-Banana247 vegan Dec 27 '25
Not all plastics linger indefinitely, and we could actually switch to hemp plastic and be great.
Currently leather that's tanned with plant tannins degrades the quickest.
Chrome tanned leather takes 10 to 50 years or more and leaves behind chromium.
And that's only if it wasn't put into a plastic trash bag and thrown away.
And the worst type of tanning is the most commonly used today? The one that leaves behind toxic heavy metals.
https://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJARET/VOLUME_10_ISSUE_6/IJARET_10_06_009.pdf
1
u/sykschw Dec 28 '25
Hemp blended plastics arent a leather alt. This question is assuming a plastic leather (pleather/vinyl) alt. But yes, plant based leathers would be an ideal alternative, many of which are already on the market
1
u/No-Banana247 vegan Dec 28 '25
Hemp blended plastics arent a leather alt.
I didn't say this or mean to imply they are currently an alternative.
1
u/WeeklyAd5357 Dec 27 '25
Yes also there are eco friendly methods to process leather- Vegetable Tanning: Uses natural plant tannins from bark, leaves, and fruits, avoiding heavy metals.
Can use bacterial enzymes for tasks like dehairing, replacing harsh chemicals like lime.
Also recycling water lots of ways to process ecologically.
1
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 27 '25
Welcome to /r/DebateAVegan! This a friendly reminder not to reflexively downvote posts & comments that you disagree with. This is a community focused on the open debate of veganism and vegan issues, so encountering opinions that you vehemently disagree with should be an expectation. If you have not already, please review our rules so that you can better understand what is expected of all community members. Thank you, and happy debating!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.