Which is Greener: Wool or Fleece? (For the debate society :D)

[JAK]

JAK, are you having a debate with yourself, and who's winning?

What's your ****ing problem Two Speed?

[JAK]

Can't a guy entertain two conflicting ideas in his head at the same time?
Why does everything have to be a debate, with people only taking one side?

Is there no room today for science or philosophy, or simple thought?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ina8bao0TU

[Two Speed]

Aaaaand JAK's the winner!

[4eyedbuzzard]

Thank you. And with that, I'm hitting the sack but one more thought- Could sheep be genetically engineered to grow their wool faster? Or made to eat less?

They are already genetically engineered in a breeding sense--there are some 800 different breeds of sheep, most all due to humans breeding them for thousands of years for different attributes of meat, wool, milk, climate, etc. I'm sure DNA manipulation could probably help in some sense, and likely it has already been employed--we've already cloned Dolly.

On the greater issue:

Back in the 40's and 50's there were at peak some 50,000,000 head of sheep in the US. That number is now about 7,000,000. And there were and are issues with sheep competing for public grazing lands with other livestock, notably cattle. In the old days it got downright violent (the sheep eat the grass down below the height at which cattle can graze). There are also the issue of overgrazing(especially on marginal lands), soil compaction, fire ecology, riparian runoff, water supply for the sheep, etc (lots of 'em if you make a true list). Back around the turn of the prior century(1900) there were serious livestock overgrazing related issues(grassland degradation) throughout much of the western US which required decades to recover.

Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool would have many negative as well as positive impacts:

The raising of sheep, the raw processing, fabrication into clothing, and transportation of wool uses a lot of energy plus other "goods and services", much of it derived from consuming oil--just as the manufacture of synthetic fleece does. Simply exchanging the source of the raw fiber material doesn't solve the larger problem of all the required supporting activities derived from oil consumption. It is doubtful that in order to satisfy the demand for fiber/clothing at any reasonably competitive cost that enough sheep could be raised via open grazing methods. It would require more feed input and a production/manufacturing economy of scale than small herd open grazing methods could sustain. And I'm not even touching on the issue of "greenhouse gas" emission from livestock. Like anything else, when you start analyzing it from an economics standpoint and factor in all the real impacts that are foreseeable(never mind the ones we miss, which tend to really bite us in the @$$), the true complexity becomes rather profound.

I'm not saying reducing our use of synthetic fiber and other oil consuming activities isn't a good idea. The price of oil will go up as the supply and new sources dwindle, and as the price of extraction increases. And ultimately we may have to synthesize oil for many of our needs. But in this case the overall issue just isn't as simple as replacing one fiber source with another.

[JAK]

Aaaaand JAK's the winner!

Funny guy.

[Two Speed]

Thanks. You doing well?

[JAK]

I think we better ease it back a bit boys.
Some people are getting upset that there is some actual thought and discussion taking place.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Can't a guy entertain two conflicting ideas in his head at the same time?

Yeah, but you risk actually critically thinking...
Some folks have used Kool-Aid in the past to cure the problem.

[JAK]

the sheep eat the grass down below the height at which cattle can graze

So that's what all the fuss was about. I had heard about the animosty, from some movies mostly, but didn't know why a cattle rancher would feel threatened by a sheep raiser any more than another cattle rancher. Thanks for that.

[JAK]

They are already genetically engineered in a breeding sense--there are some 800 different breeds of sheep, most all due to humans breeding them for thousands of years for different attributes of meat, wool, milk, climate, etc. I'm sure DNA manipulation could probably help in some sense, and likely it has already been employed--we've already cloned Dolly.

On the greater issue:

Back in the 40's and 50's there were at peak some 50,000,000 head of sheep in the US. That number is now about 7,000,000. And there were and are issues with sheep competing for public grazing lands with other livestock, notably cattle. In the old days it got downright violent (the sheep eat the grass down below the height at which cattle can graze). There are also the issue of overgrazing(especially on marginal lands), soil compaction, fire ecology, riparian runoff, water supply for the sheep, etc (lots of 'em if you make a true list). Back around the turn of the prior century(1900) there were serious livestock overgrazing related issues(grassland degradation) throughout much of the western US which required decades to recover.

Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool would have many negative as well as positive impacts:

The raising of sheep, the raw processing, fabrication into clothing, and transportation of wool uses a lot of energy plus other "goods and services", much of it derived from consuming oil--just as the manufacture of synthetic fleece does. Simply exchanging the source of the raw fiber material doesn't solve the larger problem of all the required supporting activities derived from oil consumption. It is doubtful that in order to satisfy the demand for fiber/clothing at any reasonably competitive cost that enough sheep could be raised via open grazing methods. It would require more feed input and a production/manufacturing economy of scale than small herd open grazing methods could sustain. And I'm not even touching on the issue of "greenhouse gas" emission from livestock. Like anything else, when you start analyzing it from an economics standpoint and factor in all the real impacts that are foreseeable(never mind the ones we miss, which tend to really bite us in the @$$), the true complexity becomes rather profound.

I'm not saying reducing our use of synthetic fiber and other oil consuming activities isn't a good idea. The price of oil will go up as the supply and new sources dwindle, and as the price of extraction increases. And ultimately we may have to synthesize oil for many of our needs. But in this case the overall issue just isn't as simple as replacing one fiber source with another.

Good coverage of both sides of the issue.

It would be worthwhile to quantify how much land and energy needed to keep one person clothed for a year, my wool, by synthetics, and by other means. Also it would be worth knowing how much use we get out of our clothing in North American before we throw it out. 50% maybe. Not sure. I seem to have way too many t-shirt for a guy that doesn't even wear them. I think out laundring and dry cleaning is very inefficient also, and leads to premature wear and disposal in addition to the energy and impact of laundring.

I think in addition to the development of more efficient technologies and naturally changing market forces with increasing energy costs, we also have to try and change the way we compel people to act. We use too much marketing and advertising, and not enough education and unbiased knowledge. It has gotten to the point know that someone screams blody murder when they release some information or provides public information that is contrary to that paid for by advertising and commercial interests. If something isn't corporate, we call it undemocratic, even communist. That's just ****ed up if you think about it. We have to let people make choices. I don't think giving corporate marketing and advertising the only playing field is letting people make choices. I don't think the American Revolution was fought for corporate interests alone. Maybe that was a big part of it, but surely there was more to it than that eh.

[Jaybird]

Is the WOOL...SMART?
Is the FLEECE ...dumb?

And whats up with ALL the posts, JAK?

these questions answered...& MORE on the next edition of "SOAP"

[hoz]

Don't hold your breath Jax. The world economy is based on growth. If there were less marketing and advertising and more consumer education the need for goods and services would collapse. Kind of like whats happening right now.

Nowhere have I advocated "Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool", I have three or four fleece sweaters and several pants, including a couple nylon windbreakers. But I also own as many made of wool (some lots older than the fleece clothing) that I enjoy also.

I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.

[4eyedbuzzard]

... I seem to have way too many t-shirt for a guy that doesn't even wear them.

Me too. I wear them, but even so, 7 should suffice for a week. Why I have 3 times that is just dumb and wasteful, though many were "freebies"(ah, marketing evils).

I think in addition to the development of more efficient technologies and naturally changing market forces with increasing energy costs, we also have to try and change the way we compel people to act. We use too much marketing and advertising, and not enough education and unbiased knowledge.

I agree in theory. But if a transition can be made, it isn't going to be "pretty"/easy moving away from a predominantly supply/consumerism model to what may be (our opinion-not everyone's) a more efficient, less wasteful one. As for marketing, well, it's been with us since before written history. Then came the Egyptians advertising on papyrus, and the rest is history--seriously. And you have to concede the positive side of marketing in making people aware of products that meet their wants and demands and better their lives. Honestly, most marketing/advertising isn't intended to be evil(yeah, some is), it's just the nature of merchants competing for consumers in the marketplace.

I don't think the American Revolution was fought for corporate interests alone. Maybe that was a big part of it, but surely there was more to it than that eh.

There were no corporations in 1776. Merchants and businesses, yes. But they weren't near the dominant player they are today. Like anything else, the corporate model has its pluses and minuses. We've gained a lot in terms of lifespan, health, products, ease of life. We've paid a lot though in terms of wars, quality of life issues like the nuclear family, the externalities of industrialization, and others. But it's very doubtful we will return to a more agrarian life. We will not go back to "living in caves", or any harder life--it's just not in our nature. Viewed in the long term perspective and smoothing out the oscillations in getting there, life is better now than it has been in the past, and likely the future will be better than today. We definitely do have our ups and downs along the way though .

[4eyedbuzzard]

I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.

Very likely. Things will change, the earth is not a static environment. Lots of human history will happen, be it by oil depletion, war, famine, pollution, climate change induced by human activity, etc. Then again perhaps it will be by some pandemic plague, volcano, ice age, comet/meteor--you name it. Hopefully, with some wisdom and hard work--and some luck will also help, we will survive and make the best of it.

[hoz]

There were no corporations in 1776.

Not entirely true,

There were no American corporations as America wasn't in existence yet. There were however, plenty other corporations, Hudsons Bay Conpany (1670), East India Company (1600) not to mention the Stora Kopparberg, the world oldest corporation in Sweden.

The American Fur Company didn't form until 1808 in order to compete with the HBC.

[JAK]

Don't hold your breath Jax. The world economy is based on growth. If there were less marketing and advertising and more consumer education the need for goods and services would collapse. Kind of like whats happening right now.

Nowhere have I advocated "Arbitrarily replacing synthetic fabrics with wool", I have three or four fleece sweaters and several pants, including a couple nylon windbreakers. But I also own as many made of wool (some lots older than the fleece clothing) that I enjoy also.

I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.

The world economy IS based on growth. That too has to change.

The world economy must transition into one based on transition and improvement.

But yer right, I won't hold my breath.

[JAK]

Throughout this discussion and the other one I think I've advocated using both wool and fleece, but buying as little as possible, laundering less, and getting more wear out of both.

[JAK]

I have a feeling in the end change will not be "arbitrary" but imposed by outside forces made by us and suddenly beyond our control.

Very likely. Things will change, the earth is not a static environment. Lots of human history will happen, be it by oil depletion, war, famine, pollution, climate change induced by human activity, etc. Then again perhaps it will be by some pandemic plague, volcano, ice age, comet/meteor--you name it. Hopefully, with some wisdom and hard work--and some luck will also help, we will survive and make the best of it.

I agree. What we are facing is a formidable challenge. I can't see us taking it or making it without alot of major catastrophic failures along the way. I think we will make it though. I won't see it. I doubt I will even see much of the begining of the major catastrophies. I don't things will get that serious, other than economics, for another 20-50 years. The last half of this century might be bad, and the next probably worse. But that's just my crytal ball talking. Who the **** know really.

What I do know is anything short of sustainability isn't sustainable.

[Jayboflavin04]

Overall this a good debate and alot of good points have been raised.
I think we as a western society have become too disposable. Use it up throw it away!

The food we buy is overpackaged! Many items are packed for single serving in some sort or disposable container! Think about what your food packs down to for a trip after you get it home from the market.

Unless you are dumping it down the drain! The "bio-degradable" thing is a marketing ploy to make you feel better about throwing things into a landfill. THINGS DONT BIO-DEGRADE IN A LANDFILL! They are lined sealed enviroments.

JAK had metioned earlier about the amount of clothing that went into a landfill. Wool and cotton are natural fibers that utimatley may be able to be recycled into something we can dump into the ground with no effect on the environment. Example....we can recycle the resperation and urine from astronauts into potable H20. But we cannot break down natural fiber clothing into compost.

I believe there need to be national laws to require recycling. Which would force manufacturers and landfills to find solutions to what we all bury in the landfill and forget about. If everyone had to recycle. It would make them second guess picking up the disposable less durable single serving life style items. I think this would make for the best starting point for some of our current troubles. Make us into re-consumers instead of just consumers.

[hoz]

Hopefully, with some wisdom and hard work--and some luck will also help, we will survive and make the best of it.

I used to be optimistic, but lately I've swung the other way. So much we feared has come true.

When I asked my stepson (an accountant for KPMG, who travels the world counting beans for major corporations) what he thought about the possible world wide meltdown he said, "someone will come up with something".

And that just about sums it up doesn't it?