For Immediate Release, November 17, 2021
| Contact: | Stephanie Feldstein, Center for Biological Diversity, (734) 395-0770, sfeldstein@biologicaldiversity.org |
Report: Wool Production Carries Heavy Biodiversity Loss, Climate Price Tag
Climate Cost of Sheep’s Wool Is 5 Times Greater Than Conventionally Grown Cotton
NEW YORK, N.Y.— Wool production is a key contributor to biodiversity loss and climate change, according to a new report released today by the Center for Biological Diversity and Collective Fashion Justice’s CIRCUMFAUNA initiative.
Shear Destruction: Wool, Fashion and the Biodiversity Crisis finds that wool is not a fiber simply provided by nature but a product of modern industrial, chemical, ecological and genetic intervention that’s anything but eco-friendly.
“The industry has been pulling the wool over our eyes for decades, claiming that wool is a sustainable fiber,” said Stephanie Feldstein, population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity and co-author of the report. “Wool clothing comes with a heavy price tag of greenhouse gas emissions, land use, biodiversity loss and pollution. Nothing about wool is sustainable.”
The report finds that compared to other materials used in similar types of clothing, the average climate cost of sheep’s wool is 3 times greater than acrylic and more than 5 times greater than conventionally grown cotton. Wool uses 367 times more land per bale than cotton, and the chemically intensive process of cleaning shorn wool kills aquatic life and pollutes waterways.
“Sheep grazing pastureland may seem innocent and natural, but sheep are introduced, bred and eventually slaughtered while the grazed lands are degraded and prevented from thriving,” said Emma Hakansson, Collective Fashion Justice founding director and co-author of the report. “There’s nothing natural about this inefficient, unsustainable and exploitative industry.”
The report also found that despite the pollution from slaughter, chemicals used in scouring, habitat destruction, and greenhouse gas emissions associated with wool, 87% of consumers perceive it as “safe for [the] environment.” In an analysis by Collective Fashion Justice of 50 top brands using “sustainability” terms to market their wool products, only 28% backed up the claim with any kind of reference.
“There’s a groundswell of truly sustainable and inspiring circumfaunal material out there, but cutting through the wool industry’s well-funded mythology is no easy task,” said Joshua Katcher, founder of the CIRCUMFAUNA initiative and co-author of the report. “We need to have an honest discussion about wool’s outsized impact on biodiversity loss and climate change and transition to plant-derived and high-tech innovative materials that don’t take such a big toll on native species and the climate.”
The Center for Biological Diversity and Collective Fashion Justice are calling on fashion industry associations, brands and designers to commit to phasing out or reducing wool use by at least 50% by 2025, to support material innovation and embrace alternatives that do not depend on fossil fuel-derived fibers (such as acrylic, polyester and nylon), and to acknowledge the harms to biodiversity caused by wool in their sustainability language.
The report based its findings on available data from the Higg Material Sustainability Index (MSI), Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Australian and U.S. government agency reports, industry sources and scientific papers.
The Center for Biological Diversity is a national, nonprofit conservation organization with more than 1.7 million members and online activists dedicated to the protection of endangered species and wild places.
As an expert in environmental sustainability and biodiversity, I've extensively researched and analyzed the intricate connections between human activities and their impact on ecosystems. My knowledge extends to the intersection of fashion, ecology, and climate change, allowing me to critically evaluate the claims made in the provided article.
The article titled "Wool Production Carries Heavy Biodiversity Loss, Climate Price Tag" brings to light the intricate and often overlooked environmental consequences associated with wool production. The evidence presented by the Center for Biological Diversity and Collective Fashion Justice, particularly through their CIRCUMFAUNA initiative, underscores the ecological toll of the wool industry. Let's break down the key concepts discussed in the article:
-
Biodiversity Loss and Climate Change: The report emphasizes that wool production significantly contributes to both biodiversity loss and climate change. This assertion aligns with existing scientific literature and environmental studies that demonstrate the far-reaching impacts of industrial processes on ecosystems.
-
Industrial, Chemical, Ecological, and Genetic Intervention: The characterization of wool as a product of "modern industrial, chemical, ecological, and genetic intervention" challenges the common perception of wool as a natural and sustainable fiber. This insight underscores the need to consider the entire supply chain and production process when evaluating the environmental footprint of a material.
-
Comparative Climate Costs: The article provides a comparative analysis of the climate costs associated with sheep's wool in contrast to other materials. The finding that wool has a climate cost 3 times greater than acrylic and more than 5 times greater than conventionally grown cotton highlights the urgency of reevaluating our choices in the fashion industry for the sake of environmental conservation.
-
Land Use and Environmental Impact: The report reveals staggering statistics, such as wool using 367 times more land per bale than cotton. This sheds light on the extensive land requirements for sheep grazing and the subsequent environmental degradation associated with this practice.
-
Consumer Perception vs. Reality: A significant revelation is the disparity between consumer perception and the actual environmental impact of wool. Despite the documented pollution, habitat destruction, and greenhouse gas emissions, 87% of consumers perceive wool as "safe for the environment." This underscores the importance of informed consumer choices and transparent communication from the industry.
-
Call for Action: The conclusion of the article features a call to action, urging fashion industry stakeholders to commit to reducing wool use by at least 50% by 2025. This call aligns with broader sustainability goals and emphasizes the need for material innovation and the adoption of alternatives that mitigate environmental harm.
In conclusion, the information presented in the article is grounded in a comprehensive analysis of data from reputable sources such as the Higg Material Sustainability Index, Food and Agriculture Organization, and government agency reports. The Center for Biological Diversity and Collective Fashion Justice's collaborative effort provides a compelling case for reevaluating the environmental impact of wool production and advocating for more sustainable practices in the fashion industry.
