Albion Winter Socks

Secret_squirrel wrote:

I was about to say the same - though its worth noting that the majority of Merino socks are not pure wool as Merino's not great in high wear areas.  Unless they are mulesed the sheep are generally treated pretty well as HP notes.  They are generally bred & farmed in highland areas so the land clearance issues are less too.

Obviously nothing involving global scale human consumption is zero impact to the planet but I think the intent of the Proaper0's post whilst it could have been phrased better doesnt warrant the giant dogpiling that seems to have followed.   Are we twitter now?

I don't think there is a great deal of dogpiling here. I haven't seen any abuse, or even direct criticism of Prosper0 themselves, but there is clearly disagreement. Neither is Prosper0 alone in their view - Rich also seems to be happy to provide a spirited support

I would have thought any article is up for discussion, and therefore any comment up for disagreement

hawkinspeter wrote:

I don't think Merino comes from sheep used in the meat industry as they're a bit smaller and apparently not as tasty. As far as I know, industrial meat production uses lambs rather than older mutton so I guess that Merino sheep are happy to get shorn every so often rather than getting eaten.

Not sure that they are able to make that choice, or that option has ever been presented to them in the first place. Not quite "cake or death" is it?

Yes the vast majority of meat from sheep is lamb. The ewes are kept to breed until they are worn out, and then sent to the same place as the vast majority of their offspring, and as you point out is generally not consumed by humans (scant comfort as that may be). Apart from paying lipsevice to the publicity gods welfare isn't even a consideration, let alone a driver to farming policy.

Actually as an interesting titbit that I just picked up, there is only one Merino farmer in the UK, according to the Make it British website. And quite a mess of contradictions that "source" is

Captain Badger wrote:

Is it? Isn't wool a by-product of the meat industry? in which case it isn't all of those things.

Let's just break some stuff down

100% natural - this is pretty much meaningless when it comes to any consumer product. In this case the sheep providing the wool have been farmed over millennia involving intensive selective breeding (AKA GM old skool), and wide-scale clearing of forest and subsequent supression of the same.

100% biodegradable - that's a plus. Or rather not a minus at least.

100% sustainable. for this you'd have to define what you mean by both 100%, and sustainable. As mentioned before it is a by-product of the meat industry - ie shearing lambs before they go to slaughter, and ewes throughout their useful (to humans) life before they go for dog food. As wool is so cheap in this country it is barely worth selling, and some producers are throwing it away

100% UK - AS UK wool output is in the low single digits percentage of the world market I'd say that is likely to depend entirely on what you buy.

Outstanding performance - Another plus, but  of subjective value and of no consequence to the environment

I don't know what the answer is here, but wool is certainly not a panacea

So it seems that if people are buying UK wool they are essentially buying what whould otherwise be waste, and the product is biodegradable. Surely this is preferable to plastic fibres?

If/when meat consumption drops to the point where there is not enough meat to match demand then it would be a different situation. I think it's unfair to lay the environmental degradation of emat farming at use of wool (form sheep which would exist in the food supply chain anyway)

Generally anything that is grown is more sustainble than anything which is dug out of the ground. (there is a limited amount of material underground to be extracted, while what is grown can be grown again the following year) Provided growing the resource is not so energy intensive it results in fuel being dug out of the ground. Or does not degrade the land used over time to the point wher it can no longer be used for agriculture.

Merino sheep do not do so well in the UK as I undertand it, so merino wool is less likely to be a uk product and the resultant fabric miles are likely not to be sustainable.

In order to meet climate emissions targets I'd like to see a reduction in globalised supply chains to only obtaining what cannot be sourced locally, rather than what can be bought for less with large amounts of transport. 

wycombewheeler wrote:

Merino sheep do not do so well in the UK as I undertand it, so merino wool is less likely to be a uk product and the resultant fabric miles are likely not to be sustainable.

In order to meet climate emissions targets I'd like to see a reduction in globalised supply chains to only obtaining what cannot be sourced locally, rather than what can be bought for less with large amounts of transport. 

From a quick search, there is Merino wool production in the UK (and exported to the EU). I believe they use Australian sheep (bred for extremely fine wool) and harden them up a bit to deal with our conditions (presumably by selective breeding - I don't think they import each individual sheep).

I recently read that almost 40% of global shipping is to transport fossil fuels around to be burnt:  https://billmckibben.substack.com/p/the-happiest-number-ive-heard-in.

wycombewheeler wrote:

.

So it seems that if people are buying UK wool they are essentially buying what whould otherwise be waste, and the product is biodegradable. Surely this is preferable to plastic fibres?

I made no comment on that, however it's only waste if it's discarded. if it's sold it is supporting the meat industry. Sadly you can't separate teh two.

wycombewheeler wrote:

If/when meat consumption drops to the point where there is not enough meat to match demand then it would be a different situation. I think it's unfair to lay the environmental degradation of emat farming at use of wool (form sheep which would exist in the food supply chain anyway)

You don't farm meat, you farm sheep. Sheep farming is damaging, no matter how you use the product. Those that produce wool are also selling teh sheep for meat and vice versa (that is if they don't just discard the wool)

wycombewheeler wrote:

Generally anything that is grown is more sustainble than anything which is dug out of the ground. (there is a limited amount of material underground to be extracted, while what is grown can be grown again the following year) Provided growing the resource is not so energy intensive it results in fuel being dug out of the ground. Or does not degrade the land used over time to the point wher it can no longer be used for agriculture.

That generalisation doesn't really add up. The majority of teh British country side has been deforrested for agriculture of one kind or another.

Abroad is no better, degradation of rain forest for livestock, palm oil, bananas etc. Mining is bad ≠ farming is good

wycombewheeler wrote:

Merino sheep do not do so well in the UK as I undertand it, so merino wool is less likely to be a uk product and the resultant fabric miles are likely not to be sustainable.

In order to meet climate emissions targets I'd like to see a reduction in globalised supply chains to only obtaining what cannot be sourced locally, rather than what can be bought for less with large amounts of transport. 

Agreed this should certainly be part of an integrated environmental policy

Actually some research has claimed that wool production is in fact more environmentally damaging than many artificially produced fibres. This is due to a number of considerations, including the contribution to global warming created by livestock, both from directly emitted methane and manure degradation (farting and shitting, if you prefer), the deforestation of significant areas in order to provide grazing, the chemical treatments necessary in production both in situ (sheep dip et cetera) and in wool treatment (mothproofing et cetera). It's a complex picture and certainly not as clearcut as natural good synthetic bad.

Really? Do you know where the majority of merino wool comes from? It's not local, that's for sure.

And that's not getting into the ethical side of things. Unlike synthetics, there's a direct cost that comes in the form of animal exploitation.

You think sheep have a wonderful life making your socks?? Think again.

https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-industry/

There's no direct cost to the oil industry?

That's before you get into micro plastics and the current dearth of recycling options for mixed synthetic fabrics.

It's possible to buy high welfare merino, it's not possible to avoid all of the above issues with any oil based material.

Alternatively don't use either plastic based or animal based products. Simple really.

https://plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/8-eco-friendly-vegan-fabrics-replac...

And if you still think wool is some magical material that is good for the planet, think again: https://plantbasednews.org/news/environment/report-eco-friendly-wool/

If you were reviewing a product made of hemp or linen then that link may have been relevant.

As it was you reviewed a product made out of oil and noted that feature as a positive.

I don't think there's a single metric by which oil production can be considered superior to wool production so if you're going to praise non recyclable, non degradable products made from fossil fuels you're going to need to provide some better evidence to back up that position.

Point of order: it wasn't noted as a positive - it was just noted.

Quote:

Overall, the Albions are a great option if you dislike the feel that merino socks offer and you prefer to steer clear of products that use anything animal in them.

It doesn't make any value judgement as to whether that should be a consideration for you.

(Although I do have one quibble with that - that 'and' should be an 'or'...)

I thought the inference was pretty clear and given the later comments by the author it appears I inferred correctly.

But, in fairness, it wasn't explicitly stated as being a positive feature so point taken.

Rich_cb wrote:

There's no direct cost to the oil industry?

Not so much in the form of animal exploitation, which I believe is the context of HollisJ's comment

Rich_cb wrote:

That's before you get into micro plastics and the current dearth of recycling options for mixed synthetic fabrics.

That is one factor of pollution, however wool is not non-polluting by any stretch of the imagination.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's possible to buy high welfare merino,

No it's not. The welfare of the animal is (aside from where it can have a monetisable effect on the quality or volume of the end product) is not even a consideration. In that environment "high welfare" is meaningless from the perspective of the animal. It is about making us feel good, not the animal.

Rich_cb wrote:

it's not possible to avoid all of the above issues with any oil based material.

It's not possible to avoid these issues with anything we as humans do. All we can do is look at the least worst option - which is in most cases plant-based fabrics.

Captain Badger wrote:

It's not possible to avoid these issues with anything we as humans do. All we can do is look at the least worst option - which is in most cases plant-based fabrics.

Nope - grey squirrel fur has to be the best material. As far as plant-based fabrics go, isn't cotton fairly bad with its high water requirement?

There's also the genocidal slave labour aspect of Chinese cotton (20% of world supply).

Whilst we're debating welfare standards for sheep it may be worth acknowledging how our fellow humans are being treated.

Rich_cb wrote:

There's also the genocidal slave labour aspect of Chinese cotton (20% of world supply). Whilst we're debating welfare standards for sheep it may be worth acknowledging how our fellow humans are being treated.

If you really need it acknowledging consider it acknowledged. 

Cracking piece of whataboutery though. 

Whataboutery?

If we're discussing the ethical pros and cons of various materials I would have thought the fact that a huge amount of the global cotton supply is produced by genocidal slave labour would have been pertinent information?

Rich_cb wrote:

Whataboutery? If we're discussing the ethical pros and cons of various materials I would have thought the fact that a huge amount of the global cotton supply is produced by genocidal slave labour would have been pertinent information?

You had your acknowledgement.

If genocidal slave labour was inextricable from cotton production you would rightly have a point. I would have thought though we didn't need to tag "genocidal slave labour of any product is bad, kids" to our comments.

It currently is inextricable for the vast majority of cotton and likely will be for some time.

The global supply chains for cotton are so complex that it is incredibly difficult to guarantee that a garment does not contain Chinese cotton.

With recycled cotton it is impossible.

If you're looking for the most ethical material available cotton has to be pretty far down the list right now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-56535822

Rich_cb wrote:

It currently is inextricable for the vast majority of cotton and likely will be for some time. The global supply chains for cotton are so complex that it is incredibly difficult to guarantee that a garment does not contain Chinese cotton.

But not to cotton production intrinsically - you tacitly acknowledge that cotton is producible without slave labour. Wool however is not producible without animal exploitation (although as china has a growing Merino industry, and with a nod to your valid point about global supply chains, neither is this likely to be untainted by slave labour....).

Rich_cb wrote:

 With recycled cotton it is impossible. If you're looking for the most ethical material available cotton has to be pretty far down the list right now. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-56535822

As that cotton is already in the environment, you raise a valid question - should we just discard it (burn it, landfill it etc) or is it ethically acceptable to recycle it.

I would say yes to the latter, with the proviso that we aggressively pursue a (political) mechanism to prevent unethical sources tainting the supply chain of new materials. This would require a complex solution the details of which I believe to be  out of the scope of this discussion. However what is clear is that it would take vision, will, commitment, resource, and close collaboration with our international partners - at least one of which would be highly reluctant to cooperate.

Which leaves us with the knotty question of what pair of socks to buy. It seems clear that whatever choice we elect, in terms of quantity the best option would be "as few as absolutely possible"

IT's been quite a while since we last conversed Rich, but I must confess it has been fun, and hopefully as thought-provoking for you as for me. Have a great day.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Captain Badger wrote:

It's not possible to avoid these issues with anything we as humans do. All we can do is look at the least worst option - which is in most cases plant-based fabrics.

Nope - grey squirrel fur has to be the best material. As far as plant-based fabrics go, isn't cotton fairly bad with its high water requirement?

Yes. The least damaging textile is probably recycled cotton.

The case doesn't look good for consumerism. It will (likely) be the death of us, one way or another.

It seems any material and any motorised form of getting around will bring about the downfall of civilisation / further abasement of the shoddy living conditions of most people on earth. If only we could just get by without, somehow?

chrisonatrike wrote:

It seems any material and any motorised form of getting around will bring about the downfall of civilisation / further abasement of the shoddy living conditions of most people on earth. If only we could just get by without, somehow?

Maybe not right now. But come May will be sure to see you on teh beach!

If you're worried about animal welfare it's absolutely possible to get wool from sustainable, happy, uk based, organic sheep.
The same cannot be said for single use plastics made from oil dug out of the ground in Saudi Arabia, transported to the UK and manufactured. Is this a hill to die on?

Cool. So tell me - is your life free of single use plastic and oil based products? Or do you only wave that flag when it comes to cycle clothing?

No animal is ever 'happy' having their freedom taken away and exploited. Do you think human slaves living in good conditions were ever happy?

HollisJ wrote:

Cool. So tell me - is your life free of single use plastic and oil based products? Or do you only wave that flag when it comes to cycle clothing?

No animal is ever 'happy' having their freedom taken away and exploited. Do you think human slaves living in good conditions were ever happy?

Not cool.

This is a harsh and, I'd say, counter-productive. We mostly try to make the right choices based on the information we have and our understanding of impacts. But it's pointless to reject ideas from others due to insufficient purity.

Did Desmond Tutu ever have a violent thought in the anti apartheid struggle? If he had, would that diminish his moral authority? Has Jonathan Porritt or David Attenborough ever used a cotton bud? Does that mean that they have nothing to say? Have you, Hollis, ever used an animal product, such as a beer that used a fish-based fining agent? Have you ever swatted a fly or crushed an ant? Does anything in your personal food chain impact on animal welfare? How about animal protein in vaccines?

Environmental issues are difficult to get simple answers on. Which is better, polyester, merino, other wool, or plant based fabrics like cotton or bamboo? How can you balance sheep burps against bamboo transport or forest destruction?

This has been a pile on and it's unworthy of the site, especially from one of the reviewers. We should be able to stick to respect for opinions and polite counter-argument.

TheBillder wrote:

This has been a pile on and it's unworthy of the site, especially from one of the reviewers. We should be able to stick to respect for opinions and polite counter-argument.

Respectfully TB I can't see a pileon here, just some different opinions being discussed and argued perfectly civilly.Have I missed something?

Rendel Harris wrote:

TheBillder wrote:

This has been a pile on and it's unworthy of the site, especially from one of the reviewers. We should be able to stick to respect for opinions and polite counter-argument.

Respectfully TB I can't see a pileon here, just some different opinions being discussed and argued perfectly civilly.Have I missed something?

"HollisJ wrote:
Cool. So tell me - is your life free of single use plastic and oil based products? Or do you only wave that flag when it comes to cycle clothing?"

That, I think, isn't good. The waving a flag selectively suggestion, along with the implied "you can't make your point unless you can show your own purity from birth".

Some people think you can have happy farm animals (e.g. Prosper0, who I've not read much of), and hence ethical animal products, and some don't (e.g. Capt Badger, whom I hold in high regard). But I think the debate should stay dispassionate.

Life is full of compromise, and none of us has perfect information. We all decide what weight we attach to given factors - animal welfare vs shipping emissions vs use of oil vs use of water (cotton in the dock there) vs unknowns - many of these on my current favourite material (bamboo). And I can discuss that with you without you asking if I've ever worn shoes made of Australian leather or me insinuating that your concerns are irrelevant because you once drank fizzy water from a plastic bottle and binned it in general waste.

Have I become over-sensitive?

TheBillder wrote:

Have I become over-sensitive?

Wee bit maybe, I entirely take your points but that doesn't seem a particularly egregious example - a bit silly rather than out and out aggressiveness?

TheBillder wrote:

bamboo

You might want to read up on viscose rayon, which is the fabric green-washed as bamboo.

Here's Patagonia on why they don't use it:

https://eu.patagonia.com/gb/en/stories/why-dont-you-use/story-19681.html

The TL;DR is that the viscose process is the major source of carbon disulphide, a neurotoxin, in the environment.