This is what makes it hard as a consumer to be conscious of our choices. Sometimes, it feels like a Dirac equation. For the sake of this example, let's say that we only have a choice between faux leather and leather coats. We can also say that suffering is a constant.
If leather were only a by-product of an already existing industry, should the environmental cost of rearing be included in the impact? If the chemicals used in tanning have a greater immediate negative environmental impact than faux leather, should that weigh heavier than the plastics' impact over time?
Let's say faux leather has a lower immediate and long-term impact. However, it's less durable, even with proper care, resulting in needing to be replaced every year instead of once every 5 to 10 years.
But then we have to take price into account. What if leather costs significantly more even with replacements factored in? Would that require more labor? Does the means of generating capital itself produce a worse environmental impact?
I sometimes struggle with choosing tomatoes.
The example was not to argue one over the other, but to explain what I meant in my initial comment. It doesn't feel like a given that recycled plastics are the best choice for the environment. My assumptions might also be completely wrong.
