Thread by @DMDent

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer Don't forget to add in the move from livestock provided co produce such as wool leather etc to fast fashion tat not durable so massive production for stuff that doesn't last a yr, or insulate (wool/sheepskin considerable fossil fuel heat saving pp). Because its hard to calculate,

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer doesn't man it's not hugely important. So eg this coat has lasted since 1939 (fed 2k people at time) + produced 30-80 wool garments life shearings. Millions were made affordable practical & warm little cleaning if ever required, many have lasted they are not rare; ladies

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer wore them as housecoats & threw over bed in cold weather. By contrast the average life on a fast fashion store coat now is 1 yr. So if we say, the mouton coat lasts 80 yrs, that saves cost of manufacture 80 coats synthetic made from crude oil same time. This is responsible for

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer each person consuming 22kg clothing per yr UK, most of it soon binned, unlike wool/sheepskin/leather with FAR greater lifespan = less consumption. I still have most of my clothing of 20 yrs because I don't buy synthetics. This could be reduced to almost 0 researchgate.net/publication/27…

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer emissions by return to natural fibres and especially wool leather silk etc which also provide food which the others do not. 10% of global emissions & vast majority of it repeated for replacement that wool/sheepksin/leather/silk would avoid. That could be cut by AT LEAST 62.7% by

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer emissions by return to natural fibres and especially wool leather silk etc which also provide food which the others do not. 10% of global emissions & vast majority of it repeated for replacement that wool/sheepksin/leather/silk would avoid. That could be cut by AT LEAST 62.7% by

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer eradication mass produced synthetics. We managed PERFECTLY well without pre 1950s apart from nylons -easily recycled traditionally & why seldom found landfill. Home made toy & cushion stuffings one most popular but hundreds uses; bird feeders paint strainers & lavender bags main

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer but little other synthetic find such re-use. And they are not insulating, as well as being not durable. Cotton similarly when a poor weave esp mixed synth is problematic doesn't insulate & no wool ever dried an entire sea up in history, but cotton did the Aral in 20 yrs. So we

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer should only use sustainable crops, though they aren't necessarily the issue synth are. So lets look at potentially reducing production costs of fashion by cutting synth from 62.7% to 50% a yr (linings, nylon leg wear excused) which is 50% of 10% of global emissions. FAR greater

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer than giving up meat. By returning to that co produce which lasts decades longer. So then that heat saving on sheepskin/wool coats, sweaters, blankets etc too. We could reduce fossil fuel heat at LEAST 50% with return to such, across homes offices malls schools across country. So

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer this is EASILY done without discomfort. But not if people expect to wear synthetics & cotton in winter. Then of course there is potential of wool to insulate re carpets, home insulation etc. Longevity of leather sofas v synth etc to consider. But the emissions costs of heating

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer alone is estimated at 18% UK I think, so that can be reduced to 9%. And the loons want us to get rid of sheep and tax meat? This is MADNESS. The potential needs to be included in the accountancy. Old folks know it anyway they can't AFFORD central heating blasting like these

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer polyester shirted academic morons lecturing on why we should give up meat from lecture halls heating blasting in february, expect without thought. Old people sit in their wool blankets dressing gowns and jumper & scarves watching tv. Hell I do. My brother won't put heating on at

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer all unless its below freezing temps. So I sit in my crombie & scarf at his house. So that's extreme, but shows if people just cut half, and I didn't have to feel baking hot in the bank queue so some little twat can waltz round in polyester corporate suit mid winter would be good.

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer So that's another 9% of emissions nationally saved. Then there's washing: wool etc don't need a fraction as much of it and doesn't requite you shower daily like synthetics do either. WHY isn't all this being considered?

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer Then there is potential for butter tallow lanolin etc to reduce reliance on palm oil, which has been ecological horror, we again once did perfectly well without now in everything from cosmetics to cakes; both CRAP because of it compared to what were, & didn't kill 100k orangutans

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer Beggars belief people can't see it; but even more unbelievable the NERVE of scientists thinking they don't have to include all this because it's too hard to calculate, or think we won't bloody notice them CHEATING by reducing livestock to 'food systems' when they are SO much more

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer I'd go as far as saying it is the greatest scientific fraud in history to ignore this. Of course Wellcome & Gates aren't going to fund a bunch of PhDs to count up and confirm what I am saying so may take you to get a few on the job @fleroy1974 , to confirm not only are livestock

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer not a problem but sheep in particular have the potential to actually SAVE the planet from global warming ALONE if we use them instead of the mass tat, washing & heating they rely on, landfill, palm oil etc. They helped us win the last war they can win this one outright

@fleroy1974 @hairyhillfarmer @threadreaderapp unroll