Those who follow this blog know that I have written often about why banning fur sales – as California did recently -  is a really bad idea. I have repeatedly argued that banning fur makes no sense economically, socially, ecologically, or ethically.  After more than 30 years of writing about fur, you wouldn’t think there was much to add. Then I read a remarkable new book about rare-earth elements and the dark underbelly of our much-vaunted “green transition”.

In his French-language book La Guerre des Métaux Rares* ("The Rare Metals War"), journalist Guillaume Pitron reveals the hidden face of our society’s emerging energetic and digital transformation. How is this related to fur? Well, I think it’s fair to say that the current trendiness of anti-fur rhetoric is part of a much broader rejection of all things "messy". That includes raising and killing animals, cutting trees, digging stuff out of the earth, and burning fossil fuels. Stuff produced by rural working people with calloused hands and dirt under their fingernails.

The cool kids now feel much more comfortable with the clean slickness of computer screens and iPhones, and with lightweight, throwaway fashions. Yes, these pretty things usually involve petroleum in the making of many of their parts, but they don’t look it, so why spoil a good story?

As for the energy to power our fast-paced society, its bye-bye to dirty coal-burning power-plants and smelly combustion engines; hello shiny new solar panels and whooshing wind turbines. And this is only the beginning. New digital “smart” technology will soon direct “clean” energy when and where we need it, eliminating waste, creating wealth, and improving human health. The future looks bright!

Goodbye Coal, Hello Rare Earths

Not so fast, warns Pitron. All our slick new “green” technology relies on a group of some 30 rare metals with exotic names like vanadium, cerium, gallium, and lutetium. While the Industrial Revolution of the 19th century was powered by coal, to fire steam engines, and the 20th century by petroleum, to fuel internal combustion engines, the 21st century’s “green transition” in fact depends upon vanadium, germanium, platinoids, tungsten, antimony, beryllium, rhonium, and niobium. These rare metals have extraordinary magnetic, conductive, and other properties that lie at the heart of our current digital and renewable energy revolution.

These metals are indeed rare compared to iron, copper, nickel and other metals that supported our society until now. Only 600 tonnes of gallium are produced per year compared with 15 million tonnes of copper. And only 160,000 tonnes of rare-earth elements are produced annually, compared with about 2 billion tonnes of iron.

Not only do rare metals occur in very small quantities, but considerable refining is required to extract them: eight tonnes of ore must be crushed to extract one kilogram of vanadium; 16 tonnes to produce one kilo of cerium; 50 tonnes for a single kilo of gallium ... and 1,200 tonnes of ore for one kilo of lutetium.

To put it another way, only 0.8 milligrams of lutetium can be extracted from one kilogram of ore.

And there’s the rub. To extract these remarkable minerals from their ores, huge quantities of rock must be crushed and then dissolved with strong chemicals, including sulphuric and nitric acids. And because rare-earth elements are usually closely fused with other materials, these highly-toxic and polluting operations must be repeated multiple times to refine the pure metals. This is one reason why most of the world’s rare-earth elements are produced in remote parts of China, Africa and South America - far from the prying eyes of the media and environmental protection groups.

Pitron’s research took him, at considerable personal risk, to Inner Mongolia and other parts of China where much of the world’s rare-earth elements is produced. He saw great lakes of effluent-polluted water from the refineries, and heard from local people about crop failures and shockingly high rates of cancer and other diseases. Did I mention that every tonne of ore processed requires at least 200 cubic metres of water?

Cobalt from Congo

The situation is no better in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo, an important producer of cobalt and other rare metals, where children do much of the most dangerous work. These mines too are now often owned by Chinese companies – as they are in many other countries. In fact, China has quietly achieved overwhelming dominance in the production of the rare metals upon which our new digital and electronic society increasingly depends, raising security concerns as well as economic and ecological ones.

China is now leveraging its control of rare metals both to produce and consume the new technologies they support. The Middle Kingdom already produces four-fifths of the world’s electric car batteries, and while representing only 20% of the world’s population, will soon account for 60% of electric cars. (Ironically, three-quarters of the electricity needed to run these “green” cars in China is produced by burning fossil fuels, especially coal! The same is true in India, the world’s most populous nation.)

Yes, Pitron acknowledges, rare metals could theoretically be produced with better environmental controls – while enhancing national security -- if production was ramped up in Western countries. But that would be costly - who wants to pay more for their iPhone or laptop? - and environmental groups strongly resist any attempt to increase mining activity in the West, a hypocritical stance that Pitron challenges them to confront more honestly.

Green Smokescreen

In fact, the much-touted “clean and green transition" is really a smokescreen for shifting pollution off-shore. Solar energy, wind turbines, electric cars and digital “smart” technologies are all based on the unregulated exploitation of rare metals that is trashing the environment and hurting people in faraway places we rarely talk about.

And this environmental damage will only get worse. Our “green transition" will require doubling the production of rare metals every 15 years. Over the next 30 years – in a single generation – we will rip more minerals from the Earth’s crust than we have done over the past 70,000 years of our existence on this planet!

So what are political leaders in California doing in response to the crises being generated by these new technologies? They're banning fur, a responsibly produced and truly renewable natural resource.

The new “clean" energy produced by windmills and solar panels is anything but. (Ask the people in the Baotou region of Inner Mongolia where thorium levels are 36 times higher than acceptable levels.) But even if extraction were better regulated, our “renewable” energy technologies are really based on the rapidly accelerating exploitation of rare metals – a non-renewable resource!

California as a whole, and Silicon Valley in particular, is of course the heartland of these supposedly “green” new technologies. So what are political leaders in California doing in response to the emerging environmental, social, economic and security crises being generated by these new technologies, of which their state is a major proponent and beneficiary? They're banning fur, a responsibly produced and truly renewable natural resource.

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y?

*  *  *

* La Guerre des Métaux Rares: La face cachée de la transition énergique et numérique, par Guillaume Pitron, (Éditions Les Liens qui Libèrent, Paris, 2019).

* * *

To learn more about donating to Truth About Fur, click here.

Recent proposals by Los Angeles, San Francisco, and now New York city councilors to ban fur sales should not only worry furriers who risk losing their jobs and businesses. These proposals should be a matter of grave concern to anyone who values living in a free, fair and tolerant society.

There are so many things wrong about the proposed bans on fur sales that it is hard to know where to begin, but let’s look at six of the most important problems:

SEE ALSO: New York fur ban: Furriers fight to save sustainable industry.

1. These proposals to ban fur sales are a flagrant example of arbitrary government infringement on fundamental human rights. No one is forced to wear fur, and animal activists are free to campaign against the fur trade, but this does not give them the right to impose their personal beliefs on others. After decades of anti-fur campaigning, many people still clearly want to buy fur. The activist response is to seek legislation that would take away our right to choose for ourselves. This should have alarm bells ringing on all sides of the political spectrum!

2. It is illogical and discriminatory to consider banning fur sales when 95% of Americans eat meat and wear leather. Of course, PETA and other “animal rights” groups that are lobbying to ban fur sales are equally opposed to any use of animals, even for food.  But most North Americans do not accept this extreme view; most of us believe that humans do have a right to use animals for food, clothing and other purposes, so long as these animals are treated responsibly. There is no justification for banning fur sales while hundreds of millions of cows, pigs and sheep, and several billion chickens, are killed each year for food in North America. Even philosopher Peter Singer stated in his landmark Animal Liberation – the book that launched the animal-rights movement – that it is completely hypocritical to campaign against the fur trade while most Americans continue to eat meat, eggs, fish and dairy.

3. As a society we do, of course, sometimes restrict personal choice, but only for very important reasons. To ensure that animals will be there for us in the future, for example, we ban trade in endangered species. But endangered species are never used in the fur trade; all the furs we use today are raised on farms or culled from abundant wildlife populations. This is assured by state, national and international regulations. Animal welfare must also be respected -- and decades of scientific research and government regulations ensure that fur today is produced responsibly and humanely. Trapping in North America is regulated by state (in Canada, provincial) wildlife authorities, in accordance with ISO standards and the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards. Fur farms are being inspected and certified to ensure compliance with codes of practice developed by veterinarians and animal scientists. There is simply no credible evidence that fur animals are treated less respectfully than other animals we use for food or clothing.

4. Wildlife populations often must be culled to protect property and human (and animal) health, whether or not we use their fur. Overpopulated beavers flood homes, farms and roads; raccoons and foxes spread rabies and other diseases; coyotes are the main predators of lambs and calves – and now attack pets and even people in urban areas; predators must also be managed to protect sea turtle eggs and other endangered species; and the list goes on. But if we must cull some of these animals, surely it’s more ethical to use the fur than to throw it away.

5. The fur trade supports livelihoods and cultures, especially in rural and remote regions where alternate employment may be hard to find. We all care about nature, but most of us now live in cities; indigenous and other trappers are our eyes and ears on the land, the people who monitor wildlife on a daily basis and can sound the alarm when nature is threatened. Fur farms provide employment in regions where the soil is too poor for other agriculture, helping to support rural communities. Fur artisans maintain handicraft skills that have been passed down from generation to generation. In this age of mass-production, each fur garment and accessory is still made individually, by hand. The fur trade maintains a range of remarkable skills and knowledge, a part of our human heritage that should be respected and encouraged, not persecuted with bans based on hateful and misleading propaganda.

6. Finally – and certainly not least – fur apparel is a long-lasting, natural material that is recyclable and completely biodegradable. After many decades of use, your fur can be thrown into the garden compost where it returns to the Earth. By contrast, most clothing today is made from petroleum-based synthetics that do not biodegrade. Instead, these synthetics leach thousands of plastic micro-particles into our waterways every time they are washed – plastic that is now being found in oysters and other marine life. It is bizarre at a time when we are trying to reduce our use of plastic – for example, by banning the use of plastic bags and water bottles – that some cities would even consider banning a long-lasting, recyclable and biodegradable natural material like fur!

SEE ALSO: Fur bans: Society has much more to lose than fashion.

As this quick review shows, recent proposals to ban fur sales are anything but “progressive”. They would unjustifiably usurp our right to use a sustainably produced, natural and biodegradable clothing material. They are arbitrary and discriminatory, especially in a society where most people eat meat and wear leather. They are completely unjustified because the modern fur trade is extremely well-regulated to ensure environmental sustainability and the responsible treatment of animals. And they would unfairly attack the livelihoods and cultures of thousands of people who maintain heritage craft skills and a close relationship with the land.

Again: no one is forced to wear fur. But everyone should be concerned about these misguided proposals to take away our right to make up our own minds about very personal and complex ethical choices.

********

What you can do to help! Make your voice heard at: www.ShoppersRights.org

In the fur trade we see all kinds of hypocrisy from our critics, and one that we see regularly is people who protest pipelines and also protest fur.

If you live in a country that has a real winter, you’ll need winter clothing for survival. There are really only two types of material suitable for winter clothing: animal based materials (such as fur, leather, shearling, wool, and cashmere) and synthetics. Anyone who is against fur is presumably against the use of other animal materials (if not, you are really not thinking very clearly, but that’s a story for another day), but anyone who is against pipelines should presumably be against synthetics, because most synthetics are made from petroleum by-products.

So why do we constantly hear the animal activists touting the benefits of fake fur as an alternative to the real thing? That’s a question we just can’t answer. We frequently run across anti-fur folk who promote synthetic alternatives, yet are against pipelines. Maybe someone needs to tell them that those pipelines are needed to produce the plastic clothing they want us all to wear. Most people protest pipelines because they want to protect pristine nature. So wouldn't it make sense that these people would also be against wearing clothing made from petroleum by-products, which, we are now learning, pollutes our air and water with micro-particles of plastic when washed, and then sits in a landfill for a thousand years when discarded?

SEE ALSO: Hypocrite profile: Stella McCartney

We are in a fragile situation right now on the planet – rising temperatures, oceans accumulating plastic, and a dependence on non-renewable energy. A life without fossil fuels in the near future is going to be close to impossible, but we should be looking at reducing our consumption of them. Petroleum is not easy to extract, it’s not good for the environment, and it is not renewable. Solar power, wind farms, and electric cars are all helping us move away from the use of petroleum, but this will take time. Meanwhile,  though it is hard to give up on gas or certain plastics, we can easily reduce our consumption of some petroleum-based products: notably, single-use plastics (water bottles – I’m talking to you) and synthetic clothing.

Yet we hardly hear about reduction of synthetic fibres as a viable way to reduce our dependence on petroleum products and the pollution these materials cause. And this is surprising – given that there are many animal and plant-based alternatives to synthetic fabrics that are as viable and useful as synthetics. No fabric is perfect, and everything requires energy to produce, but the materials that are sustainable, long-lasting, and biodegradable should always be the first choice. Imagine how dramatically our consumption of plastic clothing would decrease if we all pledged to wear clothing items for five years instead of one. Not only would we buy less, but we would probably buy better quality (and therefore less synthetics) in order to ensure that the garments lasted longer.

SEE ALSO: Hypocrite profile: Ricky Gervais

It’s easier to choose a leather shoe over a synthetic one, than it is to find an airline that will fly you to your holiday destination in an electric plane. And while the effect of plastic clothing may not be the most hurtful to the environment (compared with cars and industrial pollution), the damage is nonetheless scary. Microplastic particles are now being found in our food, water, and air – and the culprit is often synthetic clothing. Next time you eat an oyster burger washed down with a pint of your favourite local ale, keep in mind that you are getting a side dish of plastic particles, free of charge.

It doesn't make sense to protest pipelines and be against the use of animal products in clothing. If you are concerned about the planet and our consumption, then by all means let’s try and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and let’s encourage more renewable forms of energy. But if that’s your stance, then your wardrobe had better reflect that as well. If you are aiming to live an environmentally conscious life, then your wardrobe should include clothing made from plant-based materials and animal products, produced sustainably and ethically, made to last, and when they find themselves ready for the landfill, your wardrobe should biodegrade and return into the cycle of nature.

SEE ALSO: Hypocrite profile: Pink

But if you choose to protest pipelines while wearing synthetic clothing made from petroleum co-products, you may find yourself in a conflicting position (read: you are a hypocrite.) Fur is a natural, renewable resource and fur clothing is warm, long lasting, and biodegradable. A synthetic fleece jacket made from petroleum co-products releases plastic particles into the water and the air every time you wash and dry it, and will end up in a landfill for thousands of years, never able to fully biodegrade. How many 30-year-old fleece jackets do you find being handed down from one generation to the next? Not many. But you might find me on my way to protest pipelines wearing the 40-year-old muskrat coat my grandmother gave me a few years ago.

A few weeks ago, online retailer group Yoox Net-A-Porter made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The group’s websites – including Net-A-Porter (a leading luxury retail platform) – announced that they would not include fur in their offerings. Here are three things you need to know about the Yoox Net-A-Porter fur policy.

1. This Is Not News

The Net-A-Porter fur policy has been in effect for years, and its sister websites, Mr Porter and The Outnet, have also not sold fur for years. Net-A-Porter also doesn't want its staff wearing fur at work-related events, though we couldn’t help but notice that its editor-in-chief, Lucy Yeomans, was praising her fur-trimmed Canada Goose jacket on Instagram not long ago. So while its poorly-informed fur policy is certainly disappointing, it is not news.

2. It's Hypocritical

These websites do a huge business in accessories, notably bags and shoes. And guess what most bags and shoes are made of? Whether it’s leather, suede, lizard, snakeskin, or calfskin, these websites have no shortage of animal products.

While this isn't the first “fur-free” company to sell animal products, it’s still misinformed and hypocritical. There’s no rational reason why anyone would stop selling fur and continue to sell leather, suede, shearling, and other animal skins ... and silk, made from larvae that have been boiled alive.

If your company mandate has to do with animal welfare, then it would make sense to limit your offering to materials produced with high animal-welfare standards – and there would be plenty of fur that could meet that criterion. But the Net-A-Porter fur policy in its current form is completely misinformed and utterly hypocritical.

3. The Reasoning Is Nonsensical

Just like each of us has a right to wear or not wear fur, stores have the right to sell or not to sell it. They aren't even obliged to give a reason for such decisions. But if they do decide to explain, would it be too much to ask them to give a logical reason?

Yoox Net-A-Porter's official statement said that they "remain more focused than ever on our commitment to create a sustainable future." But avoiding a natural, renewable material that is produced responsibly and sustainably cannot logically be part of a sustainability initiative. The use of the word "sustainability" to explain this policy is absolutely absurd. The very definition of sustainability is "avoidance of the depletion of natural resources in order to maintain an ecological balance," which would mean that materials from renewable resources, such as fur, leather, and suede, could and should be central to such a policy.

Meanwhile, Net-A-Porter continues to sell fake fur, polyester, and other synthetic materials, all of which are petroleum-based and neither renewable nor sustainable at all.

SEE ALSO: THE GREAT FUR BURIAL: HOW FUR BIODEGRADES AFTER ONE YEAR

We respect any retailer's freedom of choice and we have seen hypocrisy and misinformation about fur before. But we do expect a large and respected organization such as Yoox Net-A-Porter to base its business decisions on accurate information and responsible choices.

Welcome to the fifth installment of our Hypocrites series, dedicated to exposing celebrities who use their star power to attack the fur trade – while failing to see their own glaring contradictions. Today we turn the spotlight onto brash British funnyman Ricky Gervais, who fancies himself as a defender of animals. He has spoken out strongly against the use of animals in laboratories, trophy hunting, bull-fights ... and fur.

In fact, Gervais had the dubious honor of being named PETA’s “Person of the Year” in 2013, and returned the favor by providing the voice for a skinned rabbit in a recent PETA anti-fur/anti-leather video. (Fellow celeb-hypocrite Pink played a skinned alligator.)

Interestingly, Gervais hasn’t attacked other sectors of animal agriculture or the fishing industry ... maybe because he loves a Christmas feast of "roast turkey" with "little cocktail sausages wrapped in bacon, no doubt about it." Or that he regularly eats chicken, is a cheese addict, and loves fish sticks.

“Animals are not here for us to do as we please with. We are not their superiors, we are their equals. We are their family. Be kind to them,” says Gervais. Unless, of course, we fancy them breaded and fried.

Here is the fourth installment of our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing the celebrities and professionals whose anti-fur arguments have a lot of holes in them. Today we are talking about the Senior Fashion Editor of the British edition of Cosmopolitan magazine, Sairey Stemp. An email response of hers to a fur company was recently published in the Huffington Post. She had c.c.'d her email to PETA, which she suggested as a good source of information on "this highly cruel and unnecessary industry."

“I'm afraid this email has really upset me," she told the fur company. "I think you need to be aware of the extremely barbaric practices of the fur industry. I cannot and will not tolerate an industry that sees fit to torture, skin alive, electrocute and castrate innocent animals so their pelts can be used for 'fashion'.”

Now, let’s not focus on the problem that the supposed journalist didn't bother to have her work fact-checked. We all know that animals are NOT skinned alive for their fur, and PETA has even admitted that this is not a normal practice. We also won’t focus on the fact that Cosmopolitan features tons of cheap “fast fashion” clothing on its pages, clothing made under highly questionable working conditions in the Far East, from (usually petroleum-based, synthetic) materials that are filling our landfills and polluting our waterways. That is a topic for another day. This article’s about the hypocrisy of denouncing fur while featuring lots of other animal products in your magazine.

The Hypocrite: Sairey Stemp, Senior Fashion Editor of the British edition of Cosmopolitan magazine, a publication that does not feature real fur but promotes lots of other “dead animals”.

The Hypocrisy: Stemp’s anti-fur rant, published in the Huffington Post, was one of the silliest articles we've read in a long time. Devoid of facts, she spews inflammatory (and hypocritical) garbage like this: “The fur industry is one of the most barbaric, hideous, cruel and bloody industries. The reason it continues is simply because of money. If people didn't buy and wear fur, if the fashion industry didn't use and support it, then it would cease to be a viable commercial industry and the fur farms would close.”

Stemp denounces fur, but guess what her Cosmo suggests for winter coats: leather, wool and sheepskin! “But they're by-products of the food industry!” she'll cry. Someone should tell her PETA also opposes the production and eating of meat animals!  (And, funny, now that we think about it, we’ve never seen sheep on the menu in England, only baby sheep.) So it’s OK to kill farmed cows and sheep for clothing, but not mink? And how about the bags and shoes that Cosmo features? Many of them are made of leather and suede, a.k.a. dead animals. Yup, according to Stemp’s Cosmo, it’s “obscene” to wear fur but you look “Stunning in Shearling.”

What they say:  According to HuffPost, Stemp’s article was an “epic response” to a fur company.

What we say: Her article was a load of hypocritical drivel, with lots of copy-and-paste from a PETA press release.

Sairey, we respect your decision to dislike fur, you have every right to do that. You don’t have to wear it, no one is forcing you. You also have the right, as a Fashion Editor, to decide not to put fur on the pages of your magazine. But, please, don’t write insulting articles about the fictional horrors of the fur industry while you happily promote other apparel that is also made from “dead animals”.

If your only knowledge of fur farming comes from PETA, you don’t know anything about it. (And by the way, did you check the welfare standards of the animals used by the leather brands you promote?) Please explain why fur is so terrible, but leather and sheepskin are totally fine. Last time we checked, animals died for both, so the real question should be how responsibly the animals are treated.

Bottom line, you have a choice: you can be a shallow-thinking hypocrite or you can act like a professional journalist. If you think it’s wrong to kill animals for clothing, then stop promoting leather and sheepskin too. But if you can’t do that (because the leather companies pay your salary with their ads), then at least stop parroting PETA’s hateful drivel about fur. You can’t have it both ways!

ALSO IN OUR FUR HYPOCRITES SERIES: BRIAN McFADDEN, PINK, STELLA McCARTNEY.

This is the third installment in our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing the celebrities and professionals whose anti-fur arguments are full of holes. Today we are talking about singer-songwriter and TV presenter Brian McFadden.

Your first thought is probably “Who the heck is that and why do I care?” We realize that someone who rose to fame with an Irish boy band called Westlife isn’t exactly worthy of a column here, but this was one hypocrite we just couldn’t resist, because it was TOO EASY.

The Hypocrite: Brian McFadden, ex-boy band singer, now TV presenter and singer-songwriter, who is also the star of PETA’s latest anti-fur campaign (see above).

The Hypocrisy: We’ve gotten into the habit of doing a little bit of research on PETA spokespeople, so after seeing the new campaign, we wandered over to Brian McFadden’s Instagram page, hoping to find a photo of him eating a burger or wearing leather shoes. But what we found was even better. We found a photo of him, less than a year ago, wearing fur!

You are probably thinking, as we did, what if it's fake? Well, PETA condemns wearing fake fur as well as real, so either way he'd be an odd choice for a spokesman. (PETA also believes people shouldn’t have pets, but that’s another story!) But we checked anyway.

Our lead was a tag on Brian's photo to fantastic British accessory designer Charlotte Simone, who works in both real and fake fur. So we emailed the brand and asked if the item was still available. A representative confirmed Brian's scarf is not only still available, but is made of real fox fur. And here it is!

What they say: PETA says, “Brian knows that just like dogs, minks are sensitive animals with emotions and the ability to feel pain – and they deserve better than to be killed for a frivolous fashion accessory.” (Luckily scarves aren’t frivolous fashion accessories, they play the very important role of keeping our necks warm when it's freezing cold!)

What we say: Charlotte Simone makes some seriously beautiful fur accessories, so we totally understand why Brian wears one. But it is all wrong for him to wear fur and campaign against fur at the same time!

Brian, it's time to decide. Either ditch your beloved fur, or - much better - keep it, be warm, be stylish, and ditch PETA.

This is the second installment in our Hypocrite series, aimed at exposing influential figures whose anti-fur arguments are full of holes. Today we're talking about pop singer Pink, a PETA spokesperson and meat-eating "vegan" who loves wearing leather shoes.

The Hypocrite: Pink, pop singer, "vegan", and current model in PETA’s “Rather Go Naked” anti-fur campaign.

The Hypocrisy: Pink helps the animal rights organisation PETA to campaign against fur. PETA, not coincidentally, also promotes veganism. So, depending on the day of the week, Pink describes her diet as "mostly vegan".

And what does this mean? It means she "occasionally eats chicken and fish," and can even "eat entire buckets of chicken wings." She can also eat "an entire cheesecake in one sitting." She may love wheatgrass smoothies and tofurkey, but at the end of the day, she's just an omnivore like the rest of us.

On the subject of fur, Pink entreats us in her PETA poster to "Be comfortable in your own skin, and let animals keep theirs." But she has no problem with a cow losing its skin so she can wear suede boots.

What they say: PETA says, “P!nk has become known for being super-comfortable in her own skin—so comfortable that she teamed up with PETA and photographer Ruven Afanador to make her point perfectly clear: She wants animals to keep their own skin.”

SEE ALSO: HYPOCRITE PROFILE: STELLA McCARTNEY

What we say: Pink, your suede boots are lovely, but they're made from animal skin. So stop asking the rest of us to let animals "keep their own skin" while wearing it yourself.

Also, your diet of mostly veggies, but with chicken, fish and cheesecake thrown in, sounds great, but don't call yourself "mainly vegan", or even a vegetarian, just because you think it sounds cool (or because PETA told you to). You're an omnivore.

You and PETA are clearly a mismatch, so please stop endorsing them immediately.

We’ll eat our steaks, and you can wash down your chicken with a wheatgrass smoothie.

We’ll wear our fur, and you can wear your suede boots.

And we'll all refrain from telling each other what to do and how to live our lives. Fair enough?

We encounter a lot of hypocrisy here at Truth About Fur, as it seems most anti-fur folk like bacon, wear leather, or think that synthetics don’t kill animals. (Tell that to the families of the birds that died in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill!) Today’s feature, the first in our Hypocrite series, is about one of the most hypocritical fashion designers we know: Stella McCartney.

The list of Stella McCartney’s hypocritical actions is long. Let’s not start on the fact that her company is owned by the same company that owns Gucci, best known for its leather goods. Or that she has several homes and frequently flies around the world for work. That’s not good for the environment, is it?

We also aren’t going to talk about the fact that Stella McCartney has acknowledged the popularity and beauty of fur by launching her own collection of (synthetic, tacky) fake fur pieces. She routinely uses synthetic materials that are not sustainable and are derived from petroleum by-products, whilst preaching about taking care of the environment. But that’s also not what we are talking about today.

Today we are going to focus on silk.

The hypocrite: Stella McCartney, British fashion designer, lifelong vegetarian, and occasional spokesperson for PETA.

The hypocrisy: Stella McCartney refuses to use leather or fur in her collections, and claims “the decision not to use leather or fur is not just because I don’t eat animals or that I think that millions of animals each year shouldn’t be killed for the sake of fashion. It’s because I also believe in the connection between fur and leather and the environment.”

However, Stella McCartney uses a lot of silk in her collections.

Do you know how silk is harvested? Silk worms are boiled alive in their cocoons, allowing the long fibres to be extracted. This gets less media attention than fur because larvae aren’t as cute as mink and fox.

What they say: PETA describes Stella McCartney as an “inspired and compassionate trendsetter” whose “award-winning collections are proudly free of leather, fur, and other skins.” Funny they didn’t mention that her collections include many garments made from animals that have been boiled alive.

What we say: If Stella McCartney wants to make fashion collections without leather or fur, then that is fine. But can she please spare us the preaching about how the leather and fur industries are cruel to animals and the environment, when her own web store is stocked with garments made from non-biodegradable accessories and dresses whose fabric’s production process involves boiling animals alive?

And if she doesn’t think that millions of animals should be killed “for the sake of fashion,” how does she explain all of the silk on her website? Is it because worms’ lives aren’t as valuable as minks’ or foxes’, or is it because Stella McCartney is a hypocrite? I think we all know the answer to that.