Many people avoid leather because of it's obvious ties to industrial farming. While the production of leather is profitable for the industry, many additionally claim that it's a driving force, that it's a co-product, even that it's 'equally profitable' to the industry as meat is. With so much discourse going on, it's important to understand the reality of these issues. I did a deep dive on the research and industry statistics to get a better understanding on how leather production interacts with industrial farming, and as a result, the downstream effects it has.

Industrial farming is a controversial issue for many, including myself. The industry has massive environmental impacts, primarily through soil depletion, water pollution from runoff, greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, air pollution from animal waste, and excessive water usage for irrigation, all of which contribute to climate change and ecosystem degradation. There are also incredibly valid ethical concerns - most are based on the treatment of the animals throughout their lives - but there is also a small portion of the population that believe farming animals for any reason is inherently wrong.
It's usually helpful to consider the source when taking in information; I'm a leather worker, and it's fair to consider that fact especially when discussing this topic. I'm a complex, empathetic human being however, just like most people, so I'll share a bit more about myself, to provide some context for those who are interested. I've put this information in italics, so that you can easily skip over it if you'd like.
While I respect the values and personal choices of vegans, I disagree on the core belief that farming animals is morally wrong. I grew up in rural Vermont; I was surrounded by farms and many of my classmates were from the farming community, typically they worked on their family farms alongside their parents. My best friend growing up lived on a farm; her family kept horses for recreation and companionship. I spent a good portion of my childhood at her home, and helped care for the horses whenever I was there.
At age 15, I became a vegetarian, exclusively due to my discomfort about consuming animals. I have never believed that farming or consuming animals is morally wrong, it was simply a personal decision I made for myself. I was a strict vegetarian until around the time I graduated from college (which I began as a pre-vet student, but ultimately studied General Animal Science). In the years since, my meat consumption has varied a lot; today, I am essentially an ovo-lacto vegetarian. However, I don't like to live according to labels, and I'm not strict in adhering to this diet. I eat meat a handful of times each year. I don't avoid meat because I believe it's morally correct to do so, it's just not something that's necessary to eat frequently, and so I don't.
If you're someone who cares a lot about the environment and climate change, to the point where you want to make lifestyle changes as a result, there is no denying that eating a vegan diet is one of the most effective changes you can make. But it's not necessary to adhere to strict rules to drive positive change through your actions. As I said, I have a lot of respect for people who choose a vegan lifestyle, but I think that the 'all or nothing' approach many vegans take in their communication with others is ultimately harmful for their objectives. Real change occurs over time and typically through compromise and steady improvement. No one likes to be judged or talked down to, nor do people like to be told what to do. We all hold different beliefs, and the backlash many people feel toward the majority of vegan discourse is the inherent implication that their belief is correct - and any conflicting belief is wrong.
This is not only an ineffective, polarizing stance from which to hold meaningful discussion, it's also lacking in perspective and nuance. Many products that vegans consume are also highly damaging to the environment and to animal lives - and unlike cattle, many instances involve threatened species, some in grave danger of extinction. Palm oil, as one example, is found in an estimated 50% of the packaged products found in major supermarkets, including food products like pizza, doughnuts and chocolate, as well as in products like deodorant, shampoo, toothpaste, and lipstick. Palm oil is a major driver of deforestation, in some of the world’s most biodiverse forests, destroying the habitat of already endangered species like the orangutan, pygmy elephant, and Sumatran rhino. Tropical forests in places like Indonesia are burned to make more farming land available for the production of palm oil. **Please refer to my note at the end of the article.

Many vegans and anti-leather advocates claim that demand for meat AND leather drives deforestation, environmental harm, and climate change. But leather is a by-product of the meat industry....so is it statistically accurate to assert that demand for leather is a major driving force behind these important issues?
In my extensive research, I've not found any evidence that supports such a claim. To start, hide has historically made up roughly 4-6% of the value for the cattle industry, while meat makes up roughly 94-96%. Furthermore, the demand for leather has been steadily decreasing over the past decade, primarily due to changing fashion trends favoring more casual clothing (athleisure), growing concerns about the environmental impact of leather production, the rise of vegan leather alternatives, and a shift towards cheaper synthetic materials,.

In a 2021 study from Montana State University, which used 25 years of government price data for premium US steer hides (used to produce some of the most valuable leather in the world), in recent years, hide value averaged $36 per piece, or 2.2% of the total value (which on average is roughly $1300-1400 total). This information alone lands a heavy blow to the claim that anti-leather advocates often make: that cattle are raised in large part for their hide. While the meat industry operates on sometimes razor thin margins, not only is no farmer raising cattle - investing land, resources, veterinary care, time, and labor, for $36, that $36 profit per steer is also not going to be a major driving force behind the number of cattle produced each year. And from an economical standpoint, we're indeed seeing a different story: hide prices have dropped 50% over the past 25 years in the US, while dairy and beef cattle values have remained similar.
So while demand for leather has been on the decline for about a decade, demand for meat has been increasing steadily, year over year. You don't have to be an economist to appreciate that these trends don't support the claim that leather is a driving force in cattle production. That's because the driving force behind cattle production is meat; Americans keep buying beef, even as they shun real leather.
In fact, the Montana State University study referenced above was specifically studying the topic of this post; titled 'Quantifying the Relationship between U.S. Cattle Hide Prices/Value and U.S. Cattle Production', it sought to determine what effect hide value had on cattle production overall. The conclusion of the study states: "In summary, we find that cattle hide prices do not directly affect cattle production and have only a small indirect effect."

So what would happen if we stopped producing leather? Based on everything I've read and understand, we would create an environmental catastrophe. This is primarily due to two factors:
1) Emissions from by-product waste. According to research done in 2021, the burning or disposal via landfills of 33 million unused US hides would generate more than 750,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions every year. Globally, it would be 300 million hides wasted and 6.6 million tons of surplus emissions each year. All US landfill sites would be filled within four years. This would be especially significant for climate change, since cow hides that end up rotting in landfills release potent greenhouse gases like methane, which is far more impactful than carbon dioxide.

2) Increased production of plastic based alternatives. The products that are currently produced with leather would not disappear, and there's no indication that consumerism would decline if real leather were removed from new product production. They would largely just be made with leather alternatives. These materials are fossil fuel based (derived from petrochemicals , producing PU and PVC plastics), a non-renewable resource, and have similar production emissions as tanning leather produces (PU leather produces 15.8kg of CO2e per square meter, tanning leather produces an average of 17kg for the same). But unlike real leather, plastic based alternatives are not durable or long lasting. In the best conditions, with the gentlest of wear, these materials last an average of 2-5 years -