Patagonia

[Jon Frohlich]

Patagonia's profit margin is higher than all the other competitors and has only been growing. So is this just a marketing gimmick? If it's not, then they take the credit for these initiatives by overcharging their customers? One could argue, "who cares if they are doing the right thing?" Well, maybe I am just a cynical misathrope, but I hate the feeling of being manipulated.

I think in this case it's a marketing gimmick and they are doing the right thing (at least some of the time). They donate lots of money to various causes so they are doing some good. It's clearly manipulative. After all Yvon Chouinard is a billionaire so he's not exactly hurting or donating all of his money to charitable causes either.

I guess it's up to us whether we are ok with being manipulated by a corporation that actually does a bit of good versus one that doesn't.

[Chicago Transplant]

Just chiming in to note two things

1. If you buy anything, you are being manipulated. Companies at least disclosing they are manipulating you is better than nothing, I guess.

2. The only way to reduce your carbon footprint is to consume less. Changing your energy source to renewable is nice and all, but as Lure points out, comes with its own set of problems. Using less is always the better course of action. That is why the mantra is "reduce, reuse, recycle", its in that order for a reason because it is that order that has the most positive impact. Reduction should always be strategy #1.

[highpilgrim]

we should be filling our urban areas that already destroyed habitat and environment with backyard wind turbines and rooftop solar panels

Urban or even suburban areas are often not suited to wind turbines. It's all in the airflow. That's why huge wind farms happen on ridgelines along patterns of prevailing wind flow; it maximizes the ROI.

[ker0uac]

Just chiming in to note two things

1. If you buy anything, you are being manipulated. Companies at least disclosing they are manipulating you is better than nothing, I guess.

2. The only way to reduce your carbon footprint is to consume less. Changing your energy source to renewable is nice and all, but as Lure points out, comes with its own set of problems. Using less is always the better course of action. That is why the mantra is "reduce, reuse, recycle", its in that order for a reason because it is that order that has the most positive impact. Reduction should always be strategy #1.

Yep, I agree with you and with Jon Frohlich.

The catch-22 is that Patagonia needs to encourage consumerism in order to have the funds to sponsor all of these causes, but by doing so, it increases carbon footprint, thus defeating the original purpose. I am a fan of secondhand outdoor apparel stores, mostly because I am cheap though. I think being cheap helps the environment. I turn off the water when I'm soaping up, I turn off the lights when I leave the room, I turn off the A/C when I leave home, I don't buy bottled water. The funny thing is I don't do those things for the environment lol.

[LURE]

we should be filling our urban areas that already destroyed habitat and environment with backyard wind turbines and rooftop solar panels

Urban or even suburban areas are often not suited to wind turbines. It's all in the airflow. That's why huge wind farms happen on ridgelines along patterns of prevailing wind flow; it maximizes the ROI.

i knowwwwww

gotta go where there is flow

while it's not totally on topic to the thread, my only point is that wind and solar should receive as much public land scrutiny as any other public land energy or extraction. not just be given the ol go ahead and subsequent adoration because it's "green"

if public land leasing was more competitive this would be less of an issue. which is where you gotta follow the problem back to washington

[justiner]

Patagonia has run campaigns telling you to literally not buy something of theirs, if you don't need to and instead to Reduce, Repair, Reuse, and Recycle.

They go so far as to do the repairs themselves at events. They even sell their own used products.

[dwoodward13]

The catch-22 is that Patagonia needs to encourage consumerism in order to have the funds to sponsor all of these causes, but by doing so, it increases carbon footprint, thus defeating the original purpose. I am a fan of secondhand outdoor apparel stores, mostly because I am cheap though.

At least to a certain extent this isn't really true. They famously took out a full page NYT telling people specifically not to buy their jackets new, and outlined their reduce-reuse-recycle processes. This was back in 2011 (!), so they've been at this for a while and aren't just jumping on the bandwagon regardless of what you might think of their stance. Their stores also frequently have classes on how to repair gear, and provide all the tools and materials to repair that ripped jacket and you walk out with it all fixed. Didn't they used to have a used gear store in Boulder too? I know they sell used stuff online as well.

Whatever anyone thinks of their stance, they certainly aren't hiding being super PACs.

Edit: What justiner said

[justiner]

Patagonia has also been at the cutting edge of what really does matter and that's the supply chain to find more sustainable materials (sustainable in a lot of ways). This has been extremely influential for companies in the same industries as them. And they're a privately held company, so instead of worrying about stock prices and dividends, they give millions away yearly to environmental activism projects.

For a for-profit capitalistic business, I think they're doing alright. Not above criticism, but they also seem to listen to that too. That seems to be working for them, on a business level.

[cedica]

No wonder they are not publicly traded company, otherwise they wouldn't be able to even try anything that they accomplished so far. Launching cars into space is way sexier than sourcing ethically plucked feathers or saving Bosnian rivers. Just take a look at what NASDAQ is doing recently.

musk.jpg (18.74 KiB) Viewed 2888 times

And yea, it's total marketing promiscuity, nice 'n' sleazy does it every time.

[dubsho3000]

2. The only way to reduce your carbon footprint is to consume less. Changing your energy source to renewable is nice and all, but as Lure points out, comes with its own set of problems. Using less is always the better course of action. That is why the mantra is "reduce, reuse, recycle", its in that order for a reason because it is that order that has the most positive impact. Reduction should always be strategy #1.

I disagree that "changing your energy source to renewable" wouldn't reduce your carbon footprint (maybe that's not what you meant to imply). In the hypothetical example where one could disconnect from the grid and go 100% solar, one's carbon footprint would be smaller, at least from the narrow perspective of carbon produced in the generation of electricity. Even if you factor in the carbon used in manufacturing solar panels and transporting and installing them, that would still be about even with the ongoing maintenance of coals plants, transportation of coal, etc. It's more than "nice" if your goal is to reduce your carbon footprint - it's fantastic!

More importantly, voting for politicians who write and implement legislation (like Colorado's Renewable Energy Standard for instance) that require or support the expansion of renewable energy should be a top priority for any environmentally-minded voter. Federal tax credits and state renewable mandates have dramatically reduced the size of our national carbon-footprint (compared to where we'd be with the "base case" of no such legislation). So much so that people are now reasonably turning their attention to the transportation sector as the next target for carbon-reduction.

My thought is (somewhat cynically I'll admit) that my individual reduction of consumption is irrelevant. Too many people like LURE (who's a troll, right, who doesn't actually climb 14ers?) don't care about carbon consumption, and even seek out ways to burn superfluous carbon to "own the libs". Without large scale change brought on by governments and large corporations, I might as well just enjoy my life while I watch California burn and Florida flood. Progressive efforts to persuade people to consume less have failed. s**t - I learned "reduce, reuse, recycle" 30 years ago! We need to change the financial incentives.

Thus, vote the Republicans out.

[dubsho3000]

2. The only way to reduce your carbon footprint is to consume less. Changing your energy source to renewable is nice and all, but as Lure points out, comes with its own set of problems. Using less is always the better course of action. That is why the mantra is "reduce, reuse, recycle", its in that order for a reason because it is that order that has the most positive impact. Reduction should always be strategy #1.

I disagree that "changing your energy source to renewable" wouldn't reduce your carbon footprint (maybe that's not what you meant to imply). In the hypothetical example where one could disconnect from the grid and go 100% solar, one's carbon footprint would be smaller, at least from the narrow perspective of carbon produced in the generation of electricity. Even if you factor in the carbon used in manufacturing solar panels and transporting and installing them, that would still be about even with the ongoing maintenance of coals plants, transportation of coal, etc. It's more than "nice" if your goal is to reduce your carbon footprint - it's fantastic!

More importantly, voting for politicians who write and implement legislation (like Colorado's Renewable Energy Standard for instance) that require or support the expansion of renewable energy should be a top priority for any environmentally-minded voter. Federal tax credits and state renewable mandates have dramatically reduced the size of our national carbon-footprint (compared to where we'd be with the "base case" of no such legislation). So much so that people are now reasonably turning their attention to the transportation sector as the next target for carbon-reduction.

My thought is (somewhat cynically I'll admit) that my individual reduction of consumption is irrelevant. Too many people like LURE (who's a troll, right, who doesn't actually climb 14ers?) don't care about carbon consumption, and even seek out ways to burn superfluous carbon to "own the libs". Without large scale change brought on by governments and large corporations, I might as well just enjoy my life while I watch California burn and Florida flood. Progressive efforts to persuade people to consume less have failed. s**t - I learned "reduce, reuse, recycle" 30 years ago! We need to change the financial incentives.

Thus, vote the Republicans out.

[dpage]

Oh good, even the clothing manufacturers are politicizing their products.

I dread the day we have to pick between liberal and conservative toothpastes, clothing, etc.

I wonder how many members of antifa use My pillow?