"less controlled for ethical treatment of animals and cleanliness than factory-farmed chicken, beef...anything"

While the cleanliness part may be true, there are NO protections of any kind for chickens in the U.S. This is why there was an effort not to long ago to get the USDA to reclassify rabbits as "poultry"—poultry are excluded from all animal welfare protections (what few there are).

Fur is Murder!

I don't believe this for one minute - nice try Chie you aren't winning this fashion fan over with your eco-twisted philosophy.

And this, my friends, is the reason why our precious words like "organic" or "ethical" are getting washed down to a meaningless nothing.

Fur is green, though the process may not be, like so many natural resources. The only problem is a lot of "green" folks don't like slaughtering animals. But then again, I don't like to eat vegetables, so different strokes for different folks I guess...

I've never heard anything more ridiculous than the fur trade's “green” fur. The fur trade’s known image is red for blood and raw carcasses after the animals' skins and fur have been ripped off.

Our wildlife is a very important part of the eco-system. Trapping and killing millions of fur-bearing animals EVERY year from the eco-system, in the name of “fashion”, causes untold, potentially serious damage to our environment.

Consumers should be critical of so-called “green” claims. We need to question just how green it is to unnaturally rip the skins off millions of animals in our eco-system and soak them in chemical bath to prevent decaying and growing of bugs.

Cruelty is NOT green.

Fur is far from green. The toxins used to tan the hide so it doesn't rot off your back are cyanide, arsenic and formaldehyde. There has to be a water source for these chemicals to flow into. There are many studies that people who live near tanneries of any kind suffer higher incidences of leukemia and lung cancer.

Furthermore, the tanned hide does NOT biodegrade. Even full fur coats are lined with satin or some other type of polyester. Fur trim is on jackets and coats made with petroleum.

Most any coat can be worn for generations.

So no, I do not believe that fur is "green" in any way, and it's criminal that they are allowed to get away with this campaign.

For more than 10 years, the fur industry has tried to "green" its image by claiming that real fur garments are more environmentally friendly than fake furs. It takes nearly three times more energy, however, to produce a fur coat from animals as it does to produce a synthetic fur, according to a study by Gregory Smith, a transportation research engineer at the University of Michigan. Included in Smith's calculations were the energy costs of skinning, pelt drying, transportation, processing, nd manufacture o real fur garments.

Much of this energy is derived from petroleum products. Environmentally harmful chemicals, including chromium and formaldehyde, are used in the processing of real fur garments to keep them from rotting (as mentioned in a previous comment). In 1991, six New Jersey processors were fined more than $2 million for releasing toxic waste into the environment.

Far from being "natural, renewable resources," real fur products consumer signficantly more of our precious irreplaceable energy resources than to those made from synthetic materials.

To echo the comment from above, fur is NOT green.

Fur is not green! This is disgusting to think that people would think killing animals for their fur is environmentally sound. In order to use fur, you are shortening an animal's life to provide a garment for people. There is nothing green about raising animals only to kill them when they are very young.
Processing pollutes the planet with toxic chemicals which is just another reason that no one can justify this horrific practice.

I cant believe chie is saying this! How can someone do that to animals! How can they sleep at night! Im not getting how real fur is ecofriendly if you kill an animal for its skin......defininitly not ecofriendly!