Artificial fur is more harmful than natural
Twenty years ago, supermodels like Naomi Campbell, Cindy Crawford and Claudia Schiffer beat themselves in the chest, declaring that they would rather walk naked than wear fur. It is understandable: at that time, celebrities wearing fur coats were severely criticized by the public (and, consequently, a decrease in the number of digits in fees). Today, in spite of the campaigns against cruelty to animals, things seem to be much easier. Take the same Kim Kardashian or Rihanna, quietly fasting photos with fur accessories on Instagram, or Cara Delevingne and Bella Hadid, walking around on the catwalk in furs like in silks. Even Anna Wintour, editor-in-chief of American Vogue, states indisputably that he will die earlier than he stops wearing fur. Why?
Publication from Vogue (@voguemagazine)Oct 19 2017 at 8:10 pdt
Publication by Gisele Bündchen (@gisele)Jul 8 2017 at 7:22 am PDT
Publication from Kim Kardashian West (@kimkardashian)Oct 23 2017 at 12:28 pm PDT
If we ignore poaching and other illegal actions, the answer is quite simple: artificial fur causes much more harm to the environment than natural.The fact is that for the manufacture of the first one acrylic and polyacrylic polymers are used, which include water, coal, limestone and oil products - hard chemical processing is indispensable, and this is already bad. In addition, due to a more durable pile, artificial products decompose over the centuries, while the usual fur coat will decay in the ground in a couple of years. A recent study by environmentalists from the University of Berkeley, California, aims to convince animal advocates to slow down: the alternative they offer is not at all as good as it seems. Agree two opposing camps with each other or not - a big question. In the meantime, this has not happened, PETA activists will launch puff pastry into Anna Wintour more than once.
How to increase sales
Natural Air Freshener
Easter basket with eggs
We sculpt an elephant from polymer clay in the style of biomechanics