than natural fibers? I am not so sure that the cultivation of cotton or the culturing of wool is any better for the environment. Consider cotton: it usesa LOT of water, fertilizers, and requires a big expenditure of energy to harvest. The runoff from cotton fields is also polluting to rivers and lakes. or take wool-you need to feed the sheep, and the sheep produce manure 9grounwater contamination0, and pollute the air with their farts.
In contrast, syntheitic fibers are very efficiently made, and pollution from the factories can be contained and dealt with.
So, should we all ditch the natural fibers?
Ultimately we will because manufacturing techniques for everything will be considering things on the molecular level, and be so efficient that natural fibers won’t be competitive. If we get into a self-contained economy where we work entirely from recycled molecules then it’ll be more green, sort of. The thing is we could apply modern organizational systems to old methods to make them more efficient in a localized sense, but as long as we require a global market, then yes it probably is greener. The least green aspect of any manufacture is the transport of the goods anyway.
We already have machines for manufacturing fibers on the molecular level. They’re called cotton plants.
Perhaps the OP knows more than me about the creation of synthetic fabrics, but I mean just because something is synthetic doesn’t mean it isn’t ultimately made out of something that’s farmed or mined. And I don’t know any reason to think that mining would be particularly more friendly than farming.
I mean I’m saying this as a WAG, but I’d want to see something about the process of creating synthetic fabrics before I’d assume that they are somehow made in a fashion other than farming or mining, or processed in any worse/better way than cloth.
Which has essentially no environmental impact whatsoever. If sheep weren’t eating the grass something else would be, or it would just burn.
I really hope this was a joke.
Which has approximately zero environmental impact.
How are you defining efficient?
The pollution form anything can be confined and delat with. The question is whether it actually is confined and dealt with.
Go swimming in the Yangtse sometime and then tell us all about how the pollution fom those textile factories is being confined and dealt with.
The EPA lists livestock enteric fermentation (from all ruminant animals, which definitely *includes *sheep) and manure management as two of the major sources (115 and 39 tons/year) of methane pollution. I would not call that “approximately zero environmental impact.”
Synthetic polymers fall into two primary categories–a) modified from organic compounds that were grown biologically, & b) modified from organic compounds that were extracted from wells (petroleum)–and a metamorphic category–c) made from recycled materials.
The first category (a) has every drawback of natural organics, plus the expense of adding additional non-renewable chemicals (usually chlorine) & then it may be non-compostable due to its new composition, creating much greater waste-stream difficulties. The second category (b) is made of a non-renewable resource, & may still have waste-stream issues. The third category © has its own resource limitations, as it’s dependent on a given amount of recycled material in the waste-stream; I didn’t even think of it at first.
To this we might add d) garments made entirely of extracted & refined non-organic material, such as metals. These are non-renewable, & often have huge energy costs to process.
So, not so much. Organisms are damn good at polymer synthesis. Don’t knock 'em.
…but what percentage is sheep, vs cows? That’s important.
Here, most wool sheep are run on marginal land - natural vegetation, semi-arid conditions, so not exactly needing feeding, AFAIK.
And cotton can be grown by so-called organic farming, which cuts down on a lot of the side effects like pollution. I try and buy 100% organic cotton exclusively nowadays, as well as organic hemp and linen. As for the energy expenditure, do you really think cotton farming is more energy-intensive than drilling, refining & converting the petrochemicals that go into say nylon or polyester?
I don’t think you quite understand a few vital points:
- Ruminant is not a synonym for sheep
- Enteric fermentation is not a synonym for fart
- Methane pollution is not a synonym for groundwater pollution.
- No, it is not. It is a *hypernym *of sheep. Not all ruminants are sheep, but all sheep are ruminants.
- Enteric fermentation is not a synonym for fart, it is, however, one of the processes that causes them. Fermentation creates methane in the paunch of the ruminant. Do you think this methane just sits there until the ruminant explodes violently? As awesome as that would be, this doesn’t happen. It is passed safely out of the digestive tract either in manure or through eructation or flatulence.
- I’ll grant you that groundwater pollution is not caused by manure. I wasn’t arguing that it was. I was quoting my source WRT your attack on the quote “and pollute the air with their farts.”
- If you are arguing that only a small amount of the methane is passed as gas and more of it is passed through eructation, you are being pretty pedantic about the entire thing. Then again, that is what dopers are infamous for…
ETA: WRT "What percentage are sheep vs cows!
I am not trying to argue that natural fibers are less green than synthetic ones. In fact, having grown up on a sheep farm, I have a preference for wool products. I am merely bringing up the point that livestock do, in fact, contribute significantly to greenhouse gases. Whether those livestock are sheep or cows doesn’t really make much difference. Cows are going to produce more because they are larger and in greater quantity in the US, but that doesn’t make sheep any better or worse.
All moose are ruminants as well. Are you seriously suggetsing that moose are a major cause of methane emmisions? Because if you aren;t I can’t quite see what your argumant is
Then why did you quote my response to the comment about groundwater contamination?
No, I’m not, I’m being accurate. As opposed to esposuing ignorance.
More importantly, while ruminants do indeed produce methane they cause no detactable increase in atmospheric methane, which makes the effects of ruminant “farts” of approximately no environmental impact whatsoever.
So we can dismiss that particular concern out of hand.
Since the contamination of groundwater claim was so ludicrous that nobody at all seems to want defend it that leaves the ill defined concern that you have to feed sheep.
So what if you have t feed sheep?
If that is the case then how do you explain that the total lack of correlation between livestock numbers and atmospheric methane levels?
I don’t think anyone working in the field actually believes that livesrock make a significant contribution to greenhouse gases, but feel free to provide evidence to the contrary.
Moose are not raised by humans en masse. We don’t artificially support massive moose herds.
An accident that wasn’t caught before editing time had expired. My apologies.
The EPA continues to disagree with that point. However, I admit that the EPA is not a particularly biased source.
We feed them what we have always fed them. I am not saying that we stop using them. I support wool over synthetic fibers. We could, however, consider things like vaccines which have been introduced to lower the greenhouse emissions of livestock.
Offhand, and by reading the article you supplied, I would say that some of the methods already in place have been effective. Your article mentions improved animal husbandry as a possible cause. On top of that is the aforementioned vaccine, as well as improved diets. The latter two measures were both implemented specifically to reduce the effect of livestock on global methane emissions. That being said, it is still possible that livestock do not have as significant of an effect as previously believed, but, until more research is done, it seems, the EPA and other organizations appear to disagree.
The government of New Zealand, a major wool exporter, seems to put a great deal of stock into this belief.
That being said, certainly, it’s possible that livestock have next to no effect on greenhouse gases. If so, that’s wonderful news. It means I can continue to wear wool and eat beef without feeling any guiltier.
ETA:
Looking at the US EPA’s site on emissions… it would appear that methane emissions have been significantly reduced in several areas, including the largest source, landfills (from 172TgCO2 to 131TgCO2). It is quite possible that the methane leveled off is simply because we’ve taken care to reduce methane levels in general.
Isnt there a particularly stupid thread called “What’s a Muslim Funeral Without bombs?” that you need to reply to Ralf ?
Ah yes here it is
In places like thye Netherlands, where pigs are intensively raised, groundwater pollution is a serious issue. I understand that nitrates (produced by the decompostition of animal manure) have rendered much of the groundwater unfit for human consumption.
I wonder if you added up the energy inputs in the production of “natural” fibers, you might find synthetic to be more energy efficient.
Am I only posting in my imagination?
As I said in post #7, Synthetic fibers are made from existing organic polymers–either petroleum or bio-polymers. You have to grow the wood (in the case of rayon) or extract the petroleum, & then modify it. Of course it’s more energy expenditure!
Now, there can be durability gains. In theory. But these can create waste-stream headaches when the article finally does wear out. Any complete judgment of “greener” has to look at eventual disposal & renewability. Chlorinated organics fail, horribly, on the disposal criterion.
Now, if you genetically engineer an organism to create a usable polymer from seawater, congratulations, you now have a new biologically created polymer. But that’s not a synthetic as such.
At present technology levels, building special facilities to grow silkworms locally, & dotting civilized areas with them, about every 100km - 1000km, would probably give us the greatest payoff for energy used.
[quote=“seodoa, post:12, topic:475403”]
That being said, certainly, it’s possible that livestock have next to no effect on greenhouse gases. If so, that’s wonderful news. It means I can continue to wear wool and eat beef without feeling any guiltier./QUOTE]
Wheh! Load off my mind. Except for that wool. Itchy stuff that is. And rack of lamb? Ackkkkk!!
Moderator’s Note: That thread has nothing to do with this thread. Don’t drag disputes in the Pit into Great Debates.
Maybe there’s a question of definition. I understand “synthetics” to be materials man-made from a combination (synthesis) of other (source) materials. Of course, a self-sustaining nanotechnology that just creates a fiber from air & water might be highly efficient. But the only such technologies we have now are living organisms.
I agree with this.
With the technology we have today, right now, natural fibers are more efficient and definitely more renewable. Polyester, a true synthetic fiber, uses crude oil and other petroleum products in its production. Rayon, AFAIK, does not use petroleum products and is based on cellulose, which is renewable, but I don’t know what chemicals are used in its production, nor how renewable they are. Also, rayon is not a true synthetic fiber.
I don’t agree with this. Lamb is about the most delicious meat ever and nothing makes me happier than a snuggly wool blanket. Wool jackets and sweaters and wool-backed ties are also wonderful things and not itchy at all. Especially when compared to, say, acrylics.
Heathen. 
I don’t know about that… I’m currently wearing a 100% acrylic shirt, and I’ve never had itching problems with it. It does produce static comparable to a small thundercloud whenever I take it off, but that’s a completely different issue.