These 5 types of fabric are examples of materials that do less bad and more good for the world we live in.

When it comes to pursuing an eco-friendly lifestyle, your actions are meaningful beyond what you choose to eat and drink, your choice of transportation and the extent of your use of electronics and appliances that contribute to global warming. Environment-conscious living can get as subtle and not obvious as the seemingly innocent and simple cotton shirt you are wearing right now. “Eco-fashion”, as I will refer to it in this piece, is a growing sector in the fashion world, shining light on how the industry exploits the world’s resources for the sake of vanity and keeping up with the demands and trends inherent in fast fashion. And it’s largely defined by the types of fabric used in garments.

Did you know that cotton utilizes 22.5 percent of all the insecticides and 10 percent of all pesticides used globally, on just 2.5 percent of agricultural land? Moreover, were you aware that producing just one T-shirt requires the use of 257 gallons of water?

Insecticides and pesticides are used to prevent living organisms from growing on the cotton and interfering with its growth. However, these chemicals don’t just stop the growth of pests – they stick around the entire life cycle of the cotton. Between 25 million and 77 million agricultural workers suffer from pesticide poisoning each year, with 1 million requiring hospitalization. The chemicals used also affect the water stream applied to cotton, which can make its way into the water supply of indigenous populations. In 2004, a study detected chemicals in cotton clothing that can negatively affect those who wear them. Ultimately, 7 of the 15 most prevalent chemicals used in conventionally grown cotton have been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency as suspected carcinogens (read: cancer-causing).

Additionally, dyes that are applied to fabrics have been shown to retain cancerous substances, which have only recently been banned by the EU. Formaldehyde, which is limited but allowed, is a chemical that irritates the skin and can contribute to cancer. Rayon, another common material used to make clothing, is often linked to the depletion of the worlds rain forests. Polyester products’ main raw material is oil. Yes, you read that right: oil. Petroleum-based fabrics continue to damage and exploit the world’s resources and are non-sustainable in the long run. Polyester is also non-biodegradable and simply stress landfill capacity.

With this in mind, it begs the question: what’s the alternative? Here are 5 eco-friendlier fabrics with which we should all acquaint ourselves.

1. Bamboo

Bamboo fabric comes from bamboo grass pulp. It doesn’t require pesticides to grown nor other chemicals during irrigation. It biodegrades quickly. It is often spun into bamboo rayon for a more durable shape and texture. Bamboo matures in two years and in a close-loop system. It can take on more than 3-times its own weight in water and works well in both hot and cold climates by trapping warm air in its fibers in the winter and absorbing perspiration in summer to keep you cool. Bamboo fabric is soft, quick-drying, and smooth, having a silk or soft-cotton-like texture. It also has a 99.8 percent antibacterial rate, which means it kills odors and keeps you smelling fresher for longer.

2. Hemp

Hemp fabric is considered among the most eco-friendly types of fabric around the world. It grows without pesticides, crowds out weeds on its own, produces oxygen and controls topsoil erosion. It is cultivated quickly – in less than 100 days – and produces more fiber per acre than cotton or flax. It is also extraordinarily versatile. Its versatility derives from the fact that it has incredible strength: 8-times more than that of cotton. Furthermore, it is hypo-allergenic and does not irritate the skin. Studies have shown that it stops the spread of bacteria. It has the texture of flannel and wrinkles easily. For some, it may have a scratchy feeling.

3. Organic cotton

Organic cotton is grown without the use of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides or other chemicals. It has all the benefits of conventional cotton, only it is less toxic to your body and the environment.

4. Tencel

Man-made fiber tencel is also referred to as lyocell. It is derived from wood pulp of sustainable farm trees. The fabric is versatile and can take on the texture of suede or silk. It is gentle, lightweight, and absorbent (50-percent more moisture absorption than cotton), and thus good for those with sensitive skin. Despite these qualities, tencel is quite durable. It even has anti-bacterial properties due to its efficient moisture management.  Tencel textiles utilize nanotechnologies in a closed-loop process recovering and decomposing all solvent and emissions. Certified by the international Forest Stewardship Council and 100-percent biodegradable, tencel fabric is a huge victory among eco-fashion enthusiasts. While it is on the expensive side relative to other eco-friendly fabrics, it is well worth it!

5. Soy

Soy fabric is made from soybean hulls that come from food production waste. It has been dubbed the “vegetable cashmere” due to its soft texture, and it has just a bit of stretch to it. It also absorbs dyes quickly, meaning it requires less of it, and is relatively easy to take care of. Its ability to absorb well makes soy fabric fitting for those who perspire a lot or are at the mercy of hot weather. Soy fabric biodegrades quickly and has little environmental impact. It is also UV-resistant and anti-bacterial.

Related on EcoSalon

What Exactly Is Eco-Friendly Fashion?

Natalie Chanin: Pound for Pound

Why Hemp Fabric Makes Sustainable, Durable, Fabulous Fashion: Fiber Watch

Photo Credit: Bethan

The post 5 Eco-Friendly Types of Fabric for Feel-Good Fashion (Inside and Out) appeared first on EcoSalon.

VideoThink it’s all about biodynamic wine? Think again.

You opt for free range, organic whenever possible and your favorite restaurant has an in house garden. But how ethical of an eater are you really? Only 13.5% of food workers earn a living wage, and as this video from Behind the Kitchen Door shows us, there are reminders right in front of us that it’s not just about what we’re eating.

Learn more about Behind the Kitchen Door here.

The post How Ethical of an Eater Are You? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Looking at the costs of making modern design accessible.

In 1999, while on a trip to London, Rob Forbes bemoaned the fact that authentic modern design was only available to architects, decorators and people in a certain strata of society. Forbes made it his mission to make design accessible to the every day home shopper, and a new type of furnishings store, Design Within Reach, was born.

Thirteen years and more than 40 retail locations later, Design Within Reach’s message has certainly resonated. But in recent years, DWR has experienced significant financial difficulties and been accused of knocking off popular designs from lesser known brands. This week’s Behind the Label looks at the costs of bringing modern design to the masses.

Design Within Reach’s launch came at a time when pocketbooks were full and respect for design was starting to flourish in the United States. In its early years, DWR enjoyed healthy profits, entering the stock market in July 2004 with a $211 million valuation. But then, partly due to a series of recessions and partly due to poor management, the company started to slip.

Fast Company, in a December 2009 article dramatically titled The Rise and Fall of Design Within Reach, points the finger at former CEO Dave Brunner, who held the reins from 2006 to 2009. The article describes Brunner’s many shortcomings as a leader, from his dismissive attitude toward plagiarism to his impractical long-term vision for the company’s expansion. Under Brunner, management was “mean, dictatorial and mercurial,” said his successor, John Edelman, in a later Fast Company piece. “The people are hand-shy, like a dog that’s been hit. It’s almost like I have to put a piece of food in my hand to let them know I’m a friend.”

Since Edelman came on board in early 2010, he has worked to turn things around for Design Within Reach. Here, a rundown of the good, the bad, and the questionable, especially as it relates to company ethics.

The Good

One of Design Within Reach’s original goals was to educate the American public about modern design. Among the designers it highlights are masters like Charles and Ray Eames, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and Philippe Starck. Though most of its furnishings are still “out of reach” for many consumers, DWR has certainly shown that appreciation for modern design transcends socioeconomic status.

Under Edelman’s leadership, Design Within Reach also went back to showcasing lesser known designers, including a handful who work with eco-friendly materials. Among these brands are Loll Designs, which creates outdoor furniture collections from recycled high-density polyethylene, and Jesús Gasca, whose mission is “to improve the habitat in which we live, by refining our designs, and [using] recyclable components and environmentally friendly manufacturing processes.”

DWR takes pride in its manufacturers, most of whom are top-quality, well-respected and based in the United States or Europe. “Behind every great designer is a dedicated manufacturer that strives to transform concepts into highly engineered, sustainable and beautiful pieces,” the website reads. These manufacturers are highlighted alongside the designers.

The Bad

From the start, Design Within Reach has had a funny relationship with borrowed designs, selling a mix of licensed and unlicensed items in its first stores, including an “inspired” version of Mies van der Rohe’s famous Barcelona chair, which DWR called “the Pavilion.”

But in 2007, the company started copying designs in a much more blatant way. The Fast Company article reported:

At least a dozen of the company’s current offerings are essentially unauthorized reproductions of a foreign design. “Rather than saying, ‘Let’s come up with something better to replace it,’ they said, ‘Let’s come up with something similar to what people liked,'”says a former DWR employee.

The article continues:

(Former CEO) Brunner saw DWR’s strategy as ‘completely legal. We’re not doing anything wrong.’ In every case, he said, DWR’s product-development team improved on the original design. In most instances, the tweaks were small and not obviously better.

Around that time, two companies sued DWR for trademark infringement: Heller, who claims that DWR ripped off its Bellini chair and called it the Alonzo, and Blu Dot, who says that DWR duplicated its Strut table and called it the Metric. Blu Dot says that DWR even went so far as to use Blu Dot’s own photograph of the Strut table in its advertising. Both lawsuits were settled out of court, and neither brand is sold at Design Within Reach today.

The Questionable

When Edelman took the reins from Brunner in early 2010, he immediately instituted a “no-knockoffs” policy and got to work mending DWR’s tattered reputation within the design community. While the company continues to sell licensed classics like the Eames Lounge Chair for Herman Miller and Phillip Starck’s Louis Ghost Armchair, the focus moving forward is on collaborations with new and upcoming designers.

The community has taken notice, and Edelman was included in House Beautiful’s list of “12 Design Visionaries to Watch” for 2012 and named a 2012 Game Changer by design-focused Metropolis Magazine.

Despite its previous transgressions, we have to admire Design Within Reach’s commitment to turning itself around, as well as its emphasis on supporting upcoming designers and working with reputable manufacturers to create high-quality products that last.

We do see, however, a lot of potential in DWR’s ability to promote not just great design, but also environmentally responsible practices. DWR has already proven that it can reclaim its position as a thought leader in the design world. Hopefully the next step is to use this prominence to promote a green design revolution.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: H&M’s Conscious Collection

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Behind the Label: Levi Strauss’ E-Valuate Program

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Behind the Label: West Elm Green

Behind the Label: TOMS’ One for One Campaign

The post Behind the Label: Design Within Reach appeared first on EcoSalon.

Why the sustainable path may not lead to veganism.

For nearly a decade, I was an evangelical vegan – a born-again, plant-powered fundamentalist, resplendent in my animal-rights halo and heavenly faux-fur robes. I fiercely guarded my inflexible morality, never daring to reexamine the orthodoxy’s most illogical presuppositions. Yes, meat is still murder and factory farms still cause animal cruelty and suffering – none of that has changed. Somewhere along the way, however, veganism stopped being synonymous with ethical treatment of animals and people.

Over the past six months, I’ve come to believe that strict dogma is a drag. Conscientious consumption means eating and living ethically, not religiously. As Slate’s Christopher Cox says, “Eating ethically is not a purity pissing contest, and the more vegans or vegetarians pretend that it is, the more their diets start to resemble mere fashion—and thus risk being dismissed as such.”

Below are eight instances where mainstream-vegan doctrine doesn’t stand up to scrutiny:

SAD: The Standard American Diet: with its 100-calorie, reduced-fat, Omega-3-fortified, fiber-added, high-protein, low-carb, soybean- and corn-based, triple plastic-wrapped snack-packs – is the cause of this country’s obesity, heart-disease, cancer, and diabetes epidemics. This industrial diet requires industrial farming – with all the pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified crops, and exploited farm workers therein. If veganism is about eating ethically, soy-based ice cream, frozen, faux-cheese pizza, and meatless buffalo wings don’t cut it. Sure, it’s cool that cows and chickens aren’t directly harmed in the process, but what about the farm workers’ daily exposure to pesticides and fertilizers, the degradation of the environment, and our population’s chronic sickness? If there were ever a fail-safe argument for eating local, sustainable, fresh, slow-foods, this is it.

Oysters: These bivalves aren’t technically part of the Plant Kingdom, but eating oysters is ethically equivalent to downing a big bowl of kale chips. Not buying it? Remember that the primary tenet of veganism is minimizing suffering – for other animals and the planet. An oyster doesn’t have a central nervous-system; the pain it experiences when farmed from the sea is indistinguishable from that experienced by a potato when removed from the soil. What’s more, oyster farming is one of the world’s few sustainable aquacultures; environmental groups even cultivate oysters to boost marine-water quality. Unfortunately, the seabed dredging required to harvest similar bivalves, like clams and muscles, ruins underwater ecosystems – it’s best to stay away from them. But with oysters, go ahead and shuck ‘em and suck ‘em.

Faux-Flesh Faux-Pas: “Bacon” crisps, fried “chicken,” Teriyaki “beef,” pulled “pork:” I could go on. It would be easy to enumerate reasons to eschew faux flesh, but that seems silly in the face of one, summarizing thesis: Who wants to eat food that requires quotation marks to describe what it is? I mean, would you eat “apples” or “corn” on the cob? Processed food is processed food, even if it is “vegan.”

Wool: Aversion to wool from confined, miserable sheep is sensible and ethical. But not all sheep farmers are bad, and mainstream veganism’s blanket prohibition against wool fails to account for exceptions to the rule. Being vegan is about being mindful, and conscious consumerism isn’t so hard to come by that we should prejudge all wool. Is all cotton harvested sustainably? Are all synthetic fibers better than all wool? A quick Internet search yields scores of results for ethically-sourced wool transformed into hand-woven, lovingly-designed scarves, mittens, winter hats, and more.

Backyard, Egg-Laying Chickens: Flax seeds and fresh bugs, a nice plot of green grass for scratching and pecking, room to roost, and cruelty-free living in a halcyon idyll. Wouldn’t it be tragic to deny a chicken such luxury? That she happens to lay eggs only solidifies the relationship as mutual, reciprocal, and equal. Plus, a fried egg on whole-wheat toast with a side of steamed collard greens is a heaven unto itself – just don’t forget the hot sauce!

Honey: I buy local honey from bees that pollinated the urban gardens where I buy my produce. No bees means no fruits or veggies. Yes, I’m taking the honey against the bees’ will and, sure, it probably stresses them out to have it taken away. But in this case, I choose to prioritize sustainable and fresh instead of imported, cash-crop sugar or agave nectar that’s technically vegan. Because these sweeteners come from abroad, I don’t know if the sugar-plantation farm-workers receive fair hours, fair pay, and safe working conditions (reality check – they probably don’t). Whereas with honey, I actually know the San Francisco beekeeper from whom I sustain my sweet tooth.

Milk-Producing Pet Goats: Goats are even cooler than chickens, because they’re mammals, and thus a lot more fun to have around because they’re furry, good communicators, and nibble your fingers. Any critter that is loved and cared for as a pet – in vegan parlance, a companion animal – is non-exploitative. Humans’ relationships with other animals provide a sense of well-being and increased happiness, which is why we love our cats and dogs so much. Goats are cool and enjoy being milked – it’s physically pleasurable and relieves their udders; fresh, unpasteurized, pet-goat milk is delicious, mindful, and non-harming. I know the anti-dairy camp says humans are the only animals to drink the milk of other species, which is true. But that argument, for me, no longer holds up. We’re also the only species to eat high-fructose corn syrup and partially-hydrogenated oil, and we’re no better for it. I’d much rather get my fats, calcium, and protein from clover field-grazed goat’s milk. Yum, yum!

Vintage Leather: Vegans balk at thrift-store purchases, such as a faded pair of bonafide Mexican boots or a gorgeous Italian book-bag from the Fellini-era – because the leather came from a cow slaughtered decades ago. I used to think this way too – right along as I purchased some cheap, pleather jacket or some-such slave-labor shoes from Forever 21. Reclaiming worn leather endows a discarded garment with new life that respectfully and mindfully acknowledges the animal’s sacrifice. Consider it a vote-with-your-dollar political purchase. You support re-use, rather than contributing to a modern-day economy of mass-consumerism – whether it’s built on the backs of farm-animals or underage wage-slaves in developing countries.

What are your thoughts?

Images: Keith011764, Leafy Green, Allerina & Glen MacLarty,  BONGURI,  Nick Smarto, BrockVicky, Martin Cathrae, Xelcise

The post The Conscious Case Against Veganism appeared first on EcoSalon.

Vanity Fair once got its color chart done, and for a few years, it looked very becoming in green. In May 2006, it birthed the first of three star-studded eco issues. The book’s cover featured four Hollywood power players shot by Annie Leibowitz and was entirely devoted to the environment. Julia Roberts as Mother Earth? No wonder Annie went for a mythological imagery. It sells. And so does green.

See the pretty green phat-pack celeb spread? I’m not sure Angelina’s neon wig is even a color found in nature. But this addition was needed to break up all the wonky talk. It sells. Maybe more than green.

But after three years, Conde Nast killed the annual green edition, arguing the eco movement is so ingrained in the news that a dedicated issue wasn’t really needed. A fair weather friend is Vanity, indeed.

“It’s so last year,” is how the UK’s Independent dismissed the move, pointing to slipping coverage of climate change and other concerns on the media’s agenda as the economy takes center stage. The economy is surely front and center at Conde, since it folded four of its magazines, and is at risk to lose more in a climate of social media, e-readers and emerging blogs.

Green Trend Still on the Shelves

Despite Vanity Fair’s retreat, newsstand shelves remain remarkably heavy on eco covers, from hard news weeklies like Newsweek and Time to business journals like Fortune and flatten-your-belly titles Elle and Glamour. But cynics and media insiders highlight the irony between the pages, arguing the magazines are more about making green than protecting it.

As Dan Gainor, director of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute points out: “Fortune has a 10-page special advertising feature. Newsweek, Time and others turn thoughts of climate change into climate dollars with environmentally friendly ads.”

It all begs the question: Are green issues just marketing greenwash aimed at saving the dying rags?

Apart from design magazines that are home on green turf, such as Dwell and the recently bedded Metropolitan Home, reader reaction to the trend has been largely negative. We are most suspect of the fashion journals, which have always been sympathetic to fur, waste and digital make-overs. Regarding the Vogue green issue, Jezebel observed: “Despite its Style Ethics page and photo shoot of Cameron Diaz in organic hemps and cottons, the green this month’s Vogue really cares about comes from a wallet, not a tree.”

A Jezebel “Cover Lies” graphic.

Besides editorial, there is the business of green practices, and print magazines fall short here, as well.

In its feature, Deconstructing Vanity Fair’s Annual Green issue, Mother Jones (which prints on recycled paper) hammered at the inconsistencies in the 2007 issue: These included the estimated CO2 emissions from flying Leonardo DiCaprio, Annie Liebowitz and an entourage to Iceland and Germany to shoot the polar cover (89 tons); Features printed on glossy paper (2,35o tons of pulp emitting 2, 300 tons of CO2); Actual green content (117 pages), ads (150 pages; 7 for SUVs, 4 for hybrids).

Can magazines by their very nature avoid these inconsistencies in an effort to do good? Well, dozens of magazines hailed as “paper heroes” by Green America Today have converted to recycled or post-consumer paper. But by checking them out (here), you will find the majority are green in nature: Adbusters, Sierra, The Herb Companion, Yoga Journal and Vegetarian Times.

It boils down to putting your money where your mouth is, and prioritizing living things over corporate dollars. It figures neocons like The National Review write opinion pieces such as It’s Not Easy Reading Green. It’s also not so easy being insured and changing our health care system. But guess what? For both print media and our planet, these kind of real changes are do or die. Read all about it on the web.

Images: Mannobhai, Business Insider, Treeugger, Vanity Fair, Environmentalleader, Jezebel, Mother Jones

The post Green: The Color of the Month for Doomed Print Publications? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Free range and grass fed at Morton’s, Ruth’s Chris and BLT Steak House? Sadly, that’s a tall order, one that appears too rare for the tastes of these popular dining destinations.

You have to wonder why when considering the health of  loyal customers lapping up ten ounces of beef in one sitting, washing down the seared flesh of a hormone-induced, antibiotic injected feed lot animal with a glass of bold Cabernet.

Most of the high priced U.S. haunts of meat connoisseurs cite several excuses for not making the shift to ethically raised, drug-free, grass fed cattle, which scientists tell us are much healthier animals at market, and healthier food on our plates and in our bodies.

For Morton’s, the rationale in selling Midwest grain-fed prime is widespread availability and consistency of flavor. It’s the wonderful flavor, it says, which has famous athletes and businesspeople seeking out the ritzy restaurants in the towns they visit.

Morton’s The Steak House, 76 Restaurants in the U.S. and abroad

“We have to have a consistent product because we ship all over the world to 76 owned and operated steak houses,” explains Roger Drake, Chief Communications Officer. “Beef is 80 percent of what we sell and we have to have the availability. With organic I know you don’t always have that availability. ”

Drake describes the meat as aged prime, the top two percent of all beef available in the U.S., and says it is purchased from two purveyors in Chicago whom the company has partnered with for more than 30 years.

“Its the best of the best as far as beef goes,” he says. “In order to supply all the Mortons, including Singapore and Hong Kong, we need a large supply.”

He says they have tried different types of beef, such as grass fed, but the public company, led by co-founder Klaus Fritsch, prefers the good old grain fed. And how do they know the beef they buy is from cattle raised ethically?

“We go by USDA requirements, rules and regulations,” he explains. “Our two purveyors in Chicago have stringent rules.”

Still, those trusty, longtime partnerships can be broken if discerning customers start making a fuss, according to Dr. Michael Greger, Director of Public Health and Agriculture of the Humane Society International.

A leading world authority on the link between inhumane conditions for farm animals and human health, Greger argues most consumers don’t know what they are eating. He points out that the reason cattle are fed grain is to marbleize the flesh with saturated fat, which is the number one contributor to the top killer in the United States: heart disease.

“For people who have grown up eating that fatty beef, switching to grass fed is like going from whole milk to two percent and it doesn’t have the same feel,” observes Greger, a specialist in Zoonotic diseases. He adds that three-quarters of all emerging diseases come from the animal kingdom, including Swine Flu, Bird Flu, Monkey Pox, SARS and West Nile.

Greger says education is key to help consumers understand that their health is more important than the taste they are used to – and that grass fed can be just as appealing.

He cites additional risks involved with eating grain-fed factory beef, even those aged prime fillets that run $60 to $100 a slab, that go beyond heart disease. The cows spend the first six to 12 months of their lives in a calm existence doing what comes naturally, grazing in the field. But once they are carted off to the feedlots in crowded, hot conditions and castrated, branded and de-horned without anesthesia, the real risk begins: The mass feeding of an unnatural daily diet and preventative drugs.

“When you feed them a high concentration of starches and cereal grains, they get an acid build-up and it disrupts the function of the rumen, the first stomach, and this leads to a long list of disorders like liver abscesses, hoof ailments and acidosis,” explains Greger. “The reduction of the pH of the rumen because of fermentation acids from the grains causes cows to become clinically ill, suffer intestinal damage, dehydration, loss of appetite and even death. The foot ailments also result, causing lameness or for animals to be either euthanized or dragged to slaughter.”

This is where the drugs come in, and do they come. Greger says 70% of all antibiotics given in the U.S. go to farm animals to prevent disease or promote growth in a stressful environment. The mass feeding to cattle may allow them to grow two percent quicker, but it also fosters the development of resistance to many of the same pathogens that cause inborn illness in people.

As Greger sees it: “The problem is these are human antibiotics, and this is why humans are running out of good resistant antibiotics. When you start treating cattle with antibiotics, human health problems come in, particularly because of liver abscesses. Five human antibiotics are widely administered as a prophylactic specifically to prevent the abscesses they know will develop from feeding them grain.”

So what about the argument that organic grass fed meat is too hard to get? The Humane Society boasts huge strides in the cage free industry working with producers and suppliers, even getting the Compass Group – the world’s largest food service provider – to pass and implement a monumental cage-free shell egg policy in 2007, effecting nearly 50 million eggs annually.

This move clearly improved the welfare and conditions of farm animals while protecting human health from disease caused by inhumane conditions wherein chickens spend their entire lives not being able to sit up and turn around in their metal stalls.

“If there is a demand, supply will be set up,” says Greger, reminding us how Chipotle fast food chains have had great success accessing Niman Ranch pork and meat for its dishes. The chain has been getting some criticism lately for its tomatoes from Florida where slave labor may farm them, but it still serves as a nationwide example that grassfed suppliers want to make money just like everyone else.

“If someone from one of these restaurants contacted the coops of producers and said they wanted to buy the grassfed organic beef, they could do it,” insists Greger. “It’s a business and producers will meet any demand out there.”

Main Image: Celesteh

Images: Humane Society

The post America’s Priciest Steak Houses Still Serving Factory Beef appeared first on EcoSalon.

Confession: On a trip to Venice some years back, I literally slept naked in an ankle-length black mink coat a Republican friend had lent me for the week-long trip. Diddy hasn’t had it so good. Talk about texture porn.

There’s a reasonable explanation for how this happened. I accidentally nodded off in the thing the first night, as I am wont to do, and what can I say? I never slept so well, and decided to keep it up for the whole vacation. Why we don’t sleep naked in fur as a matter of nightly course is beyond me. Just try it sometime. No? Oh, well. One woman’s decadent is my yes, please.

Before you comment in horror, consider, my eco babes: why is the knee-jerk reaction to fur one of disgust, while the vast majority of us are rocking leather boots this winter?

Like most people, I can deftly rationalize just about anything if it fills an ego need. As a teen I read Diet for a New America, by John Robbins, and promptly gave up meat/began lecturing my parents daily. Only, I still wore leather all through high school and college, knowing full well that my Steve Maddens were not exactly “making use” of the byproducts of the meat industry, but rather fueling its factory-farming splendor.

Another confession: Possibly the most ironic point in the failure known as my vegetarian career was attending the Farm Sanctuary in Orland, Calif. in the early Noughties with my much more carnivorously pure friend, Dori, an actress who had the sense not to show up to the event in leather clogs. Unlike a certain green editor we won’t mention. Oops!

All this is to say, wearing fur may be more viscerally offensive, but I don’t think it’s any worse than strapping yourself into a leather belt. In fact, it’s possibly better. True, much of the fur industry raises animals in appalling conditions. But do CAFO cows have it any better? Not a chance. It’s completely reasonable to argue that the business of ethically raised animals turned out as fall’s new fur vest still has the moral high ground over a hue-du-jour downer beef belt bought on sale at Nordstrom Rack.

Going further, it’s nearly impossible to separate the issue of animal welfare from environmental principles. Even if you think, as I do, that it’s perfectly acceptable to raise animals for human use (if done in a way that is certifiably humane), there’s still the fact that animal products of any kind – from fur caps to leather bombers to tonight’s dinner – suck the earth’s resources harder than a Hoover.

Ethically, the choices are either vegan products made from synthetic goods, or animal products produced in a way that is deemed to be humane. Environmentally, neither vegan nor animal products are ideal. Nothing is.

When we first started EcoSalon, I was contacted by a woman selling “vegan”, “eco” faux fur rugs. The vegan claim didn’t bother me, since it was true, but her eco claim got my attention – mainly because the rugs actually used “eco” in the brand name. I asked her what could possibly be eco about her petroleum-based rugs, and after a slightly heated exchange, she acknowledged she should probably change the name altogether.

Nothing annoys me more than a vegan…product trying to cop some green cred. Vegan is often touted as being eco-friendly, simply because it sounds more ethical and less energy-intensive than using animals, but sounding all nice ‘n stuff doesn’t make it so. A lot of vegan goods are little more than plastic. Marketing much?

I’d personally rather have recycled leather, which has had years to off-gas those nasty preservatives, sidling up to my skin than plastic, recycled or otherwise, which will never, ever biodegrade and is far more energy-intensive to recycle or reuse than an animal-based good.

I love to tell the fur in Venice story for the reaction it gets, but the bittersweet part of this is that no one ever says a thing about my closet full of giant leather handbags and gussy shoes. Fur is like veal, I guess. It’s off the list – if you’re a good person, you just don’t do it. But crusted fish filets and suede D’orsays are A-OK.

When vegetarianism first garnered Western mainstream notice in the 70s, meat-eaters loved to point out the hypocrisy of vegheads showing up to protests sporting leather loafers. And if we’re being honest, they had a point.

But if we’re still being honest, maybe fur isn’t necessarily so bad. (The fur industry would sure like us to believe so: check out Fur Is Green.)

Let’s be real. Should we only ever wear recycled, vegan products?

More questions:

Would you rather wear recycled or vintage – and therefore eco-friendly – vegan products, or recycled or vintage leather and fur?

How many times have you (privately or openly) judged a woman in fur, while ignoring the hordes of both leather and plastic boots, bags and belts parading past you daily? I know there have been times that I have.

And, do you wear leather but not fur?

Let me have it, ladies.

Image: lanuiop

The post We Won’t Wear Fur, But We Will Wear Leather. Are We Hypocrites? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Can we trust our banks?

If you work in the banking industry, you’re really taking it on the chin at the moment. In the wake of a deep worldwide economic recession, people are blaming bankers for everything – in angry accusations on the radio, damning Letters To The Editor, demands for pay cuts and bonus freezes. A deluge of condemnation, followed closely by politicians and media alike.

Over it all, the question hangs: how were certain financial institutions allowed to get away with such reckless and ultimately catastrophic speculation?

One simple answer is a lack of ethical guidelines. Money-making is informed risk-taking, and when ethics are lifted out, it can so easily become gambling with people’s lives without their consent or knowledge.

Customers left in the dark are a blank check for banks to take any risk they deem necessary to reap profits, based on their own ethical criteria which may or may not coincide with ours – not that we would have any idea, of course. Blind trust is risky. Would you trust the former chairman of the NASDAQ? If so, you’d have become yet another victim of the biggest investment fraud ever committed by an individual, representing $65 billion in fictitious stock. Meanwhile, prominent financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford (would you trust a Sir? Me too) is under investigation for an $8 billion investment scheme fraud. All this, in a recession.

And there’s a second danger: that banks may invest in businesses we find morally objectionable. Guns. Tobacco. Casinos. These pay out spectacularly well, so chasing profits is a slippery slope that even the most pious of banks can tumble down. The Vatican Bank, established “for works of religion or charity”, has also been led astray in the search for profits, as when it took the advice of Michele Sindona and used money linked to heroin manufacture.

So you want your savings to be clean and green and be put to good use? You’ll want the SRI route  – Socially Responsible Investing.

It’s not a new thing (John Wesley was a supporter) but it’s never been bigger. You put your savings into an SRI-guided financial body such as a credit union, and not only will it promise to avoid investing in ethically dubious activities, it also puts your money towards business with a proven human rights and environmental record, and to influence the way businesses do business.

A powerful example is how investors successfully pushed pharmaceutical companies to drop their legal protest against a South African law lowering the price of AIDS drugs in 2001. SRI banking uses your money to make a difference – but it also tells you about it. That’s the guiding principle. It’s capitalism sharpened.

But there’s a downside. Your interest rate returns will take a hit – expect a few percentage points lower than a standard current or savings account. If you prefer giving money directly to worthy causes (i.e. Razoo) you might have less to donate at the end of the year through an SRI. Interest excepting, this will probably look like business as usual for you: expect cards, checkbooks, online statements and all the trappings of a financial giant.

The biggest difference? The one thing money can’t buy – trust.

Useful Links:

“Going Green: Ethical Banking” at FinanceDaily.

“Socially Responsible Investing Facts” from the Social Investment Forum.

Social Funds: a major SRI advice site.

Image: cmpalmer

The post Trust Issues: Holding Banks Socially Responsible appeared first on EcoSalon.

I don’t know if it’s irony or hypocrisy that best describes that fact that Prince Charles is heading to South America next month to focus on environmental sustainability and climate change issues but is getting there on a private jet, leaving a massive 322 ton carbon footprint. I’m going to go with hypocrisy. Perhaps the Prince should consider leaving some of his 14-person entourage behind and just hopping on an ordinary plane like the rest of us.

Apparently the Prince does plan on offsetting his carbon emissions. But still, it irks me that he doesn’t see that having his own jet to transport 14 people is ethically incompatible with his “green” stance.

It turns out that this isn’t the first time that Prince Charles has been in the firing line over his mode of transport when traveling in the name of environmental issues. In 2007, he flew first class to the United States…to pick up an environmental award. Well, I suppose video conferencing wasn’t available.

Of course, the Prince isn’t the only one that seems not to notice the hypocrisy of leaving such a massive carbon footprint with his travelling. Other well known people to be tagged for private jet flying include former Vice President Al Gore and California Governor Arnold Schwarznegger. What do you think about this, readers? Is the occasional “Oops, I pumped out more greenhouse gases than the cattle of Brazil last weekend!” something to be overlooked in the grander scheme of saving the planet…and avoiding the hoi polloi?

Image: versageek

The post Private Jets & Going Green: All in a Day's Work for Prince Charles appeared first on EcoSalon.