Destructive wool: fashion industry “must take responsibility,” say researchers
A new report has challenged the commonly-held misconception that wool is one of the most sustainable materials for clothing. According to researchers, the fashion industry is at the heart of steps to reverse our dependence on destructive wool production.
Autumn in the UK this year has been worryingly mild, but with more seasonally appropriate temperatures finally setting in, many people will be wrapping themselves up in coats, hats, and jumpers made from sheep’s wool. A natural, renewable, sustainable material, as the fashion industry would have us believe. Except that wool is actually none of those things and comes with a big cost to the climate and nature, according to a new report, ‘Shear Destruction’, by the Center for Biological Diversity and the Collective Fashion Justice.
Due to the methane emitted by sheep, which are ruminant animals, and the processes of turning their wool into clothes, wool’s climate impact is three times bigger than acrylic and five times bigger than conventionally-grown cotton, which are both used to make similar items of clothing. Producing wool also uses vast swathes of land, worsening its emissions and damaging vast areas of wildlife habitat, the report says.
“Sheep grazing pastureland may seem innocent and natural, but sheep are introduced, bred and eventually slaughtered while the grazed lands are degraded and prevented from thriving,” said Emma Hakansson, Collective Fashion Justice founding director and co-author of the report.
There are more than a billion sheep on the planet being raised for their meat, milk, skins and wool. Not all sheep farmed for their meat have the right wool to be made into clothes, but many wool sheep are also slaughtered for their meat. Australia accounts for a quarter of the world’s wool production with China, the US and New Zealand all being significant producers. The UK is in the top ten, producing two per cent of the global total, though mostly as a by-product of the meat industry.
In total, farmed sheep and other small ruminant animals like goats are responsible for emitting around 474 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) a year. Using Australia as a case study, the report shows that the climate impact of wool depends on several factors, including how long the sheep live before being slaughtered. A kilogram of unprocessed or “greasy” wool from lambs used for their “prime meat” generates around 8.9kg CO2e. But for those patting themselves on the back for buying more luxury clothing products from sheep raised more for that purpose, like merino sheep in Australia, the climate impact is much worse. Because merino sheep are allowed to live for longer, a kilo of their wool generates around 30.6kg CO2e.
However, the process of turning shorn wool into wearable material makes it even more emissions-intensive. In a process called scouring, the oil and dirt in wool are cleaned using significant amounts of hot water and several chemicals, then heat processing and more chemicals. The wool may also be bleached and treated with insect-resistant chemicals afterwards. At the end of this, one lightweight knit made from Australian merino wool results in 12.81 kilograms of CO2e. For comparison, if the knit were made of Australian cotton, it would emit about 476 grams of CO2e.
Never miss an article
Stay up-to-date with the weekly Surge newsletter to never miss an article, media production or investigation. We respect your privacy.
The report also argues that “regenerative” sheep farming to produce wool is a “false promise” as a climate solution: “There is no evidence that carbon sequestration can be successful across diverse geographic ranges at current industry scale, or that it can fully offset the emissions created by the animals and the production of animal based products,” write the authors, citing both the well-known Oxford University report Grazed and Confused and the paper on the carbon opportunity cost of animal agriculture authored by two Harvard fellows.
As most sheep are also raised on pasture, rather than being farmed indoors, making wool clothing uses up far more land than cotton - in Australia, it takes up 367 times more per bale. This has serious impacts on wildlife and ecosystem health, as land is cleared to make way for grazing pasture, wild animals are displaced and compete with sheep for food and water or persecuted by farmers, and plant and soil health suffers from grazing and sheep movement across the land. In Australia, where all hoofed animals are non-native and were introduced to the country only in the past few centuries, the ecological damage from producing wool is significant.
In the UK, the livestock industry claims that 65 per cent of land is only suitable for grazing animals because it can’t produce crops that humans can eat. But this ignores the possibilities of rewilding that land instead. A study from Reading University found that a reduction of sheep numbers in Wales, if the sheep industry contracted due to Brexit, would result in a 20 per cent increase in broadleaf forest through natural regeneration. Biodiversity researchers have pointed out that the grazed landscapes that we consider to be “natural” in the UK are actually the result of land having been cleared long ago. The much-loved picturesque patchwork of Britain’s countryside, with its fields separated by stone walls and hedgerows, is in fact the result of hundreds of years of deforestation and habitat destruction to create grazing pastures. In parts of the country like Scotland, fencing out sheep as well as red deer has allowed forests to regenerate on once overgrazed hillsides.
The fashion industry has helped to promote the idea that wool is a sustainable and natural product. The Shear Destruction report cites a 2017 study that found 87 per cent of consumers surveyed believed wool was environmentally safe, and another study that found people in the UK, US and elsewhere perceived wool to be the most sustainable material along with cotton. The report highlights several companies and industry organisations that use the language of sustainability about wool clothing, without evidence to back up their claims. Many people also may not know the cruel practices that are used on wool sheep, nor that they are eventually slaughtered for their meat, topics that Surge recently wrote about.
So what is the solution to wool’s environmental impact? The report suggests that fashion brands should be honest about the harms of wool production, commit to phasing out its use, and invest in research and development of alternative materials. Crucially, new materials should not depend on fibres derived from fossil fuels such as acrylic, polyester and nylon.
“In the midst of a climate crisis and an extinction crisis,” the authors write, “the fashion industry can no longer sit on the sidelines” but “must take responsibility for its environmental impacts.”
Claire Hamlett is a freelance journalist, writer and regular contributor at Surge. Based in Oxford, UK, Claire tells stories that challenge systemic exploitation of and disregard for animals and the environment and that point to a better way of doing things.
Your support makes a huge difference to us. Supporting Surge with a monthly or one-off donation enables us to continue our work to end all animal oppression.
LATEST ARTICLES