The path to reducing methane in fashion leads via leather, wool and cashmere

The non-profit organization Collective Fashion Justice, together with American universities, has calculated the effects of methane in global clothing and shoe production. The results are summarized in a white paper. This seriously questions the sustainability of animal materials. In the first place are cashmere, wool and leather.

The fashion industry produces 8.3 million tons of methane

For the first time, the study provides a scientific measurement of the methane quantity output by the fashion industry. This amounts to 8.3 million tons. Animal fibers prove to be the largest causes because sheep, goats and cattle release methane in their digestion. Their volume content of clothing and shoes on the market is only four percent. Nevertheless, they cause 75 percent of methane emissions. The proportion of wool is 16.8 percent and that of leather is 54.1 percent.

The proportion of cotton is eleven percent. It makes up a fifth of the fabrics on the market. Synthetic fabrics are the most important category with a share of two thirds. They do the best with 3.4 percent. When calculating the methane intensity, i.e. emissions per kilogram of material, another large cause is shown. This is the cashmere goat, followed by leather and wool.

The measurements are based on the entire production chain of clothing and shoes. They range from raw material extraction to landfill, the so-called “Cradle-to-Grave” approach. In the case of methane, however, the raw material phase is particularly relevant. This is the time when brands make their material decisions. Only a small part of the emissions, namely eleven percent, will be released later. This happens, for example, in wet processes such as coloring or the aftercare of the fibers with a coating. During gas production, which includes drilling, transport and processing, methane leaks can occur. As a result, the impact over the entire process can be higher than expected. The author want to draw attention to such nuances: inside the report.

Lack of insight and tunnel view of CO₂

The reason for the study was the poor insight into the own ecological footprint of the fashion industry. The industry is often satisfied with simplifications, some of which are incorrect. One example is the use of the term “carbon” as a collective term for all greenhouse gases. “This leads to a tunnel view,” explains the initiator and author of the report, Emma Håkansson. She is also the founder of the non -profit organization Collective Fashion Justice. A research team from Cornell University and New York University joined the calculations and analysis.

The methane emissions of materials have been measured along the entire production chain to the landfill (“Cradle-to-Grave”), since clothing is rarely recycled into new textile fibers. The production figures relate to the global clothing and shoe industry and come from the textile Exchange 2024 Materials Market Report. Numbers from the leather industry were used for leather, for wool special research results that were subjected to a peer review. In animal materials (wool and leather), the emission values ​​are based on the actual use of the sheep for wool production.

The footprint of textile chains is usually measured in CO₂ equivalents. This is a collective term for the emissions of different greenhouse gases. This helps sustainability managers: interior and buyer: to compare inside, environmental ratings. However, important components come out of view from which this “single score” is made up of. Methan is such a gas. According to global warm, its greenhouse potential is 84 times larger than that of carbon dioxide.

CO₂ remains in the atmosphere longer. In view of the urgency of the climate crisis, however, it is advisable to focus on short -term reductions. This applies in particular because the fashion industry is expected to achieve its goals in good time. This can be done, for example, by choosing Methane -Lean production processes.

Avoid methane

With the report, Håkansson wants to illustrate a point that she already addressed at the Global Fashion Summit 2024 and in her manifesto “Total Ethics Fashion”: For every animal material, you automatically get the environmental impact of cattle breeding.

For their non -profit organization, Håkansson regularly speaks to brand representatives: inside who deal with urgent climate issues. Nevertheless: “You do not yet see sufficiently how important it is to distance yourself from animal materials, especially leather, to reduce methane emissions in fashion.”

Brands are looking for a conversation with her to tackle their own methane footprint. One of these brands is the Danish company Ganni. Ganni has now set the use of new animal leather. The company was able to reduce its absolute emissions by 24 percent by 2024 compared to 2021. No loss of profit had to be accepted. “All this thanks to investments in recycled leather and materials of the next generation,” said Håkansson. On behalf of Collective Fashion Justice, she also worked with the Swiss watch brand Breitling. Shortly afterwards, a new promise appeared in the ESG report of the brand: the use of animal leather is to be reduced.

Håkansson: “The fashion industry is far less investing in research and development than other industries. As long as it stays that way, crucial material innovations will, for example, to replace leather, not implement on a large scale. By investing together or ordering large quantities, brands can accelerate this development. We hope that this publication shakes it up.”

Three ways to reduce methane

The researchers: Inside, outline three ways with which the industry could achieve the desired methane reduction by 30 percent compared to 2020. This target comes from the IPCC. The most realistic scenario provides 25 percent more innovative leather imitations and 63 percent more recycled wool on the market. The latter is particularly ambitious. There are only a few initiatives that deal with the processing of local wool at all. In the best case, these percentages are higher. In addition, the processes are driven by green energy.

The call is clear: brands have to search for alternatives for cashmere, wool and animal leather. Some promising candidates have already been identified for the report. This includes mycel from Mycowork, organic leather from uncaged innovation or polyurethane. However, even synthetic leather cannot be viewed without reservations.

Fair, one has to mention that natural fibers such as wool also offer advantages. These are not taken into account in the study. This includes the potential for recycling and biological degradation at the end of the life cycle. The contribution to biodiversity at the beginning of the chain is also an advantage. These advantages are intuitively logical, but difficult to quantify. Therefore, you often do not find an input in sustainability reports and methods such as life cycle analyzes, also known as life cycle assessments (LCAS). At the same time, the environmental advantages of new materials are often overestimated or shown too positively. This also affects new leather alternatives that have not yet proven themselves on the market.