Cork vs. Leather - why cork is the better leather ;-)
, by
Irene Kirchhoff
, 2 min reading time
A crisp comparison – without claiming to be exhaustive – of cork and leather.
Cork
Consists of cellulose and suberin. Suberin makes cork naturally water-repellent without further treatment.
Harvested for the first time after approx. 30 years, then approx. every 9 years. A cork oak produces approx. 200kg of cork in its lifetime.
Lives in herds, called forests, in the wild. Most cork oak forests are located in the western Mediterranean. Managed trees live to approx. 350 – 400 years old.
Cork oaks bind approx. 14,000,000 tons of CO2 annually. This is approx. 30% more than all other tree types. In Portugal alone, this corresponds to approx. 5% of the total CO2 emissions.
The wide tree crowns reduce wind speeds. The open pore structure can store water very well, counteracting soil erosion and soil desiccation.
Cork oaks transport large amounts of nutrients to the surface, which nourishes plants and animals in higher soil layers and guarantees the biodiversity of the ecosystem.
Is dyed, releases no toxins to the skin. Neither when worn nor during the dyeing process itself.
Is very light and warm
Is dimensionally stable
Is heat-resistant
Leather
Skin of dead animals, must be chemically processed. In addition, regular care is necessary.
1 animal => 1 skin. The animal is dead.
Lives in large herds in captivity. Lifespan depending on species between 5 weeks (e.g., poultry) to max. 5 years (e.g., dairy cows).
1 cow lives for approx. 4-5 years and emits approx. 8750kg of CO2 during this time. (Methane not included) With approx. 4.2 million cows in Germany, the CO2 emission is approx. 36,750,000,000kg per year!
Annually, cattle alone produce approx. 300 billion liters of liquid manure in Germany. This is equivalent to about 33 times the beer output of ALL German breweries. One consequence is an increase in nitrate and antibiotic levels in drinking water. This must be cleaned by costly countermeasures.
Leather is mostly tanned with aluminum or chrome3. Both variants are carcinogenic, both for the tanner and for the wearer. If tanned incorrectly, chrome3 becomes chrome4, which is not only carcinogenic but also genotoxic.
Vegetable tanning is an exception due to its high costs and is more commonly used for specialties.
