Maybe it's not the perfect choice of Eco-org's to donate prceeds too for eco super-insiders. I don't know. I, personally, like the work of the Nature Conservancy. In any case, I really like that Natalie is doing this. She saw a way she countribute responsibly and she's trying to. By the way, if anyone missed the special she did on tv focusing on endangered species, it was good... look it up. Natalie is gorgeous and talented and I hope she'll continue to use her spotlight, charisma and talent to bring attention to responsible living! And I hope soldiers in the eco-Revolution, like Mr. Hoffner, stick to their dedication and passion and keep making a difference! Peace.

I hope this a starting trend, for ending animal cruelty! And too all the people that buy fur! erm,,, - maybe they can understand why its better to be ethical and be fashionable!

Natalie Portman is indeed a strikingly beautiful woman.  It should not go unremarked, though, that her co-star in the last two "Star Wars" movies, Hayden Christensen, is also one of the most beautiful people on the planet.  And for that matter, Ewan McGregor has a well-deserved following too (though we were nonplussed by a shirtless scene that he did in something or other, maybe "Down With Love").

Erik,
I certainly agree that the smaller environmental organizations, as well as local chapters of the large ones, should be cultivated.  But I do not know if it is so much an issue of effectiveness (or efficiency or whatever).  Both kinds of organization can be effective, on their respective scales; and the Nature Conservancy (in which I used to keep a membership, many years ago, but no longer -- not for any fault of theirs) and the others of that size, with offices of professionals in DC and other large cities, certainly need large pots of capital for the kinds of projects that they are committed to undertaking.

But you are absolutely right, there is definitely something very appealing about helping along any of the numerous grassroots projects that you look out for.  And not just appealing: that personal contact, that establishing of serious relationships with small numbers of committed persons, is essential, IMHO, to the serene vitality of the environmentalist movement.

To get back to Natalie's pumps, though, it seems to me not altogether obvious why, if she is vegan, and interested in sparing the cattle and other animals raised for their hides, she chose TNC as the beneficiary.  Not that there is anything wrong with TNC; and what they do is of terrific benefit to wildlife and biodiversity.  But there are other organizations that work much more directly on behalf of farm animals.

And then, there is a totally different ethical issue: Even though no animal (presumably) suffered and died to produce faux-patent leather, nevertheless, if the faux-leather still looks like leather, then the wearer may still be understood to be signaling that wearing leather is cool or OK.  I am not myself saying that that must be the case, and that therefore faux-leather is no good.  But there are people involved in animal welfare who would make that argument.

Sean,
the lofty discourse of "South Park" once again soars heavenward, way above my muddled earth-bound head.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

She is hotter than most because she is a vegan. But, I have to deduct points for her being a smoker. Yuck! Too bad. (How could anyone be so conscientious/healthy as to be a vegan but then smoke cigarettes. Twisted logic.)

Something like the Farm Sanctuary, Animal Acres (or other farm animal rights advocates) -- kinda offset the slaughter of cows -- would have been a nice association.

The world would be a better place with more vaginas.  If men weren't such dicks, they'd be vaginas.  I'm just saying.

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

(See the SNL "gangsta" video, which is a gem.)

Yes, Erik, the celebrity endorsement/donation for a small group that next to no one has heard of would mean a great deal.  

E.g., the Snow Leopard Trust sounds brilliant.  It is easy enough to see how valuable it is likely to be for entire interrelated ecosystems, just to concentrate on that single charismatic species.  By the same token, maintaining the staff, providing for transportation between the US and the Himalayas, and supporting research not just on the natural-science aspects (e.g., how many leopards are there in any particular location?; are their numbers growing or shrinking?; what are they eating?) but on a number of other people-oriented subjects (economics, sociology, politics), obviously require a certain amount of steady substantial funding.

Next time I run into Natalie, I shall have to ask her why she chose the Nature Conservancy.  And of course I shall mention the snow leopards.

One suspicion I have is that she may originally have been inclining to name PETA the beneficiary, or some subsidiary of PETA, but then was dissuaded because of the not altogether fair disfavor that PETA has won for itself in the minds of many.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

And then, there is a totally different ethical issue: Even though no animal (presumably) suffered and died to produce faux-patent leather, nevertheless, if the faux-leather still looks like leather, then the wearer may still be understood to be signaling that wearing leather is cool or OK.

Your Chuck Taylor's can take you only so far. Pretty much, everything that is non-fabric looks like leather...and this is most shoes. I think that it is not quite the same as fur and faux fur, which look so distinctly like the actual animal.

www.NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

Yes, Greta; and that bit of "South Park" dialogue nicely illustrates that curious paradox in (some) male psychology, the co-existent fascination with the female body, and the horror of it.

About another part of the female body which draws the pleasurable attention of many men, some clever French thinker observed, "Men have great fondness for women's breasts; but they would never wish to have them themselves."

On organizations promoting the welfare of farm animals: I think I first heard of Farm Sanctuary not long ago, when, back in November, one of their spokespersons did a Q&A on turkeys at bestfriends.org.  They are a great group.

Have you seen the recent movie "The Year of the Dog"?  I do not recommend it; the basic idea is promising -- how a 30-something (40-something?) single woman reacts to the death of her dog (a very sweet little beagle), and to the lack of understanding of the people around her -- , but in fact they are an uninteresting collection of bubbleheads, and the movie is pretty joyless.

Anyway, the heroine "adopts" a chicken for her young niece, at some farm in southern California which gives a comfortable safe home to farm animals; and they spend a happy afternoon visiting the chicken and all the other animals.  I got the impression that it is a real place, not just made up for the movie, but I did not make note of its name.

Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.

There's been a lot of info lately about eating lower on the food chain to help fight climate change, habitat loss and pollution, as well as animal suffering, but not as much has been said about "dressing lower on the food chain", so I'm glad to see a high profile celeb launch a non-leather, non-fur line. (Yes, some designers actually put real fur trim on boots!)

The more variety and styles of vegan shoes, the better. Personally I look for affordable when I look for non-leather shoes, but I realize there are many fashionistas out there who need a good pair of fancy shoes and if there are an increasing amount of vegan versions of dress shoes, that's great.  Though I rarely buy shoes, or any new clothing item in general, I like the UK-based Vegetarian Shoes company because they're sweatshop free and fairly affordable.

I think it's great that she wants to bring her celebrity to a cause she must hold very dear after being a vegan for "several months" as she was quoted in People magazine. I have to wonder how much choice she was given regarding style and where the donated proceeds would go. I think celebrity's often lend their name to things they actually don't have much input in.

I also wonder what materials were actually used. With small exception, most non-leather shoes are made with PVC. Not exactly the most eco-friendly material. So what's more important?

Brenna

Brenna is right to point out that eco-friendly is not the same as animal-friendly, and PVC is an especially evil oil product that should be avoided whenever possible. But it's not necessarily true non-leather = PVC. In fact, many shoes marketed as vegan do not use PVC or vinyl, e.g. check out mooshoes.com.  Polyurethane is the common PVC replacement nowadays.  It's still petro-based, but not as toxic as PVC. It's also true that if you buy a leather shoe you might still be buying PVC, which may be in the sole or other components of construction.  Some of the larger shoe companies, including Nike and Reebok, no longer use vinyl or PVC in any of their shoes. But others like Saucony, New Balance, and even our old Chuck Taylor maker, Converse, among other companies, still use it. (Greenpeace has more info on this).  

Of course, even if leather shoes don't have PVC in their construction they still can have harsh environmental impacts beyond the environmental costs and oil inputs of raising the cows.  Tanning compounds, usually industrial salts, are notoriously hard to dispose of.  I heard an NPR story recently that pointed to hexavalent chromium as still being the most commonly used tanning compound because of its low price.   Sound familiar?  It's the compound that was found in the drinking water in "Erin Brokovich".  But you don't have to drink the stuff, it's also toxic when inhaled.  In "A Civil Action" it's a tannery that polluted the ground water with TCE (trichloroethylene), a common industrial solvent.   Okay, enough environmental pop culture, but seriously, tanneries are, and have been for centuries, eco-nightmares!  

Ultimately, we should be trying to reduce our overall consumption and just make do with the shoes that we have.  I suppose it's kinda nice that Natalie Portman is stumping for non-leather shoes.  But how much does a $250 pair of shoes affect the consumption habits of everyday Americans?  The most animal and planet-friendly shoes are still the ones that you wear for a really long time.  "Green" or "animal-friendly"  consumption is still consumption.  

Come on...what vegan needs a $2,000 eco-animal-friendly purse or $500 vegan shoes?  How about Natalie pushing a vegan eco-friendly shoe that you can get for $15 at Walmart?  That'll make a difference.  In case she hasn't noticed, the poor 90% of the population (that don't buy designer clothes) make up 90% of the population.  The richest 10% only make up 10% of the population...and they can screw themselves.  Wearing leather is the least of their karma problems.

Shu pas a vende.

Faux patent leather shoes in Portman's line?  Shoes of man-made materials have been around for decades. And just what are they made of? Certainly not animal skin, but chemicals galore, indeed.  I was under the impression that Portman was a proponent of the environment as a whole - not simply a proponent of animals.  Who is designing shoes with a sustainable resource in mind?

The green status "It" girl?  

How about a poll Grist?  Who are the main competitors in this arena?  Will the winner be eaten by lions?  Polar bears?

Will she pose with solar panels?  Recline on giant wind machine blades hoisted by massive cranes.  

How about Hillary?  Older women are currently in demand as sex symbols.  The shallowness of the Brittainey/Paris gene pool has left the culture flat.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The richest 10% only make up 10% of the population...and they can screw themselves.  Wearing leather is the least of their karma problems.
John, you're right, BUT:  the richest 10% also probably buy 90% of the consumer goods.  So the goods they choose matter more, in that way, than the ones everyone else buys.  I'm not saying the rich people matter more, I'm saying that influencing their choices matters more.

Amazingdrx, how about we don't treat women of any age as decorative objects and then laugh about their death and dismemberment?

Yow, the anger!  Sorry, bad joke.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I'm not actually angry.  I just think it's worth pointing out when these sorts of things are tossed out as throwaway jokes no one even thinks about.  The fact that no one thinks about them, or is very upset about them, is the problem.  I'm sorry to have made you uncomfortable when it's just one example of something I hate in society as a whole.

All in a day's bloggerel.  I'm sure I have said much more offensive things already.  It's the nature of the beast.

I too am angry as hell about pretty nearly everything in contemporary america, and I won't take it anymore!  Yah yah yah, what not soup again!  Ooops got carried away.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Christ she is hot.