Presumably we're killing the cows and lambs for fashion AND food? Even if we stopped using animal leather materials tomorrow, I doubt it would put much of a dent in the industry.
(For the record I'm all for eating meat, but I agree that beef is unsustainably bad for the environment compared to other animal options like poultry and eggs.)
But leather subsidises the cost of raising animals for meat so reduced demand for it should raise the price of beef. Ideally that would encourage people to eat less beef, and eat more sustainable meats (or no meat at all).
If livestock ranchers cannot sell the skins as leather, they can sell them as cracklings. Or as parchment. Or as gelatin. Or as pet food. Or as fertilizer.
As long as the demand for some product causes the animal to be raised, the undesirable parts will become by-products.
A competitor for leather would depress the price of animal leather, which would tend to raise the price of meat, probably disproportionately for the best cuts. Forelegs, brains, and chitterlings would go up a few cents a pound, while tongues and tenderloins would go up by dollars per pound.
That might encourage people to eat less meat, but it might also encourage them to substitute the cheaper cuts of meat--which include the skins. Rawhide soup, anyone?
It wouldn't put a dent in the industry at all. We raise and kill cows for their meat, not their skins. Their skins are just a handy byproduct. Eliminating the cow-leather market won't change that at all; it might make beef slightly more expensive (I imagine most of the cost of leather is in the processing, not the raw hide), but that's not going to affect beef consumption.
If we mostly eliminate beef (in favor of artificially-grown beef, for instance, which might be a reality in 10-20 years), that'll make cowhides much, much more expensive, so people simply won't be getting leather car seats, leather coats, etc., except maybe for extremely high-end markets.
Putting personal preference (taste, price, etc.) aside, I'm curious what other reasoning is behind your position of being "all for eating meat" (if any)?
I'm assuming here that by mentioning it in the same sentence as you say beef is bad for the environment, you are talking about being for meat production on a global scale, and not just for your personal preference.
yes I too would like to know the reason for being "all for eating meat". I think most reasonable people wouldn't eat meat (provided reasonable food alternatives) if they got to know the animals and how much they suffer. (just like most Americans would refuse to eat dogs or cats)
(For the record I'm all for eating meat, but I agree that beef is unsustainably bad for the environment compared to other animal options like poultry and eggs.)