10 ms·

I try to buy from Patagonia. They were one of the first major brands to popularize the environmental impact of their clothing, especially cotton. They made a m

I try to buy from Patagonia. They were one of the first major brands to popularize the environmental impact of their clothing, especially cotton. They made a major push 25 years ago to educate consumers on the impacts of cotton, and switched to entirely organic cotton to help reduce those impacts. They also helped create 1% For The Planet, were an early adopter of Bluesign, early adopters of recycled polyester for their clothing, and most recently have been promoting reselling and repairing used clothing. I don't think its hyperbole to say that Patagonia was one of the very first companies that started the line of thinking you see in this QZ article. On a personal note, most of my Patagonia clothing has been very durable. I have Patagonia stuff that is 20+ years old that I still use every year.

grzm 9y ago
Patagonia is also known for its use of recycled bottles to make its polyester fleece jackets, which has expanded to many of its products. Their warranty and repair program is fantastic as well. I brought in a shirt that I had worn the elbow out of and they first offered a replacement from one in the store. They didn't have the same pattern (the shirt is probably 5 or 6 years old), so they sent it in for repair for free. A couple of years ago they sent out a repair-mobile. They not only repaired Patagonia gear, they repaired items regardless of brand. Pretty damn cool. http://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ar-patagonia-launches-crosscountry-mobile-repair-tour-20150403-story.html http://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ar-patagonia-la...
gt_ 9y ago
Sorry but let’s not forget the “fashion” in “fast fashion”.
aphextron 9y ago
Patagonia is the same cheap polyester crap made in Vietnam you get from Wal-Mart, with slightly tougher welds and reinforced seams. It's the bougie male equivalent of Lululemon. Carhartt is where it's at for quality durable outdoor clothing made in the US.
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  The Patagonia / Carhartt divide in the U.S. is essentially cultural. But when it comes to the environmental impact of their clothing, Patagonia objectively puts in more effort than Carhartt. It's one of the reasons (but not the only one) that Patagonia is more expensive than Carhartt.
soared 9y ago
Patagonia is great but obscenely expensive - a solution that does not scale at all. $300 sweater jacket http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84674.html?dwvar_84674_color=RGBY&cgid=mens-jackets-vests#tile-3=&start=1&sz=24 http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84...
- mulmen 9y ago
  But if they sold in larger volumes would the price go down with economies of scale? Maybe not as far as the cheapest stuff on the market but it could become attainable. or maybe parts of their approach could be used to build a cheaper line of clothing that is still environmentally responsible.
  - user5994461 9y ago
    Yes and no. The costs of manufacturing may go down but it doesn't mean that it will be passed down to the consumers. Generally speaking, selling cheaper is a bad business decision. It will increase costs and decrease earnings, you don't want to do that as a business. Prices should go up, not down. In this specific case, we're talking about a niche brand appealing to an affluent audience. They milk their customers to give them good conscience. The price can't go down, that's against the business model.
- m_mueller 9y ago
  Isn't that inflation adjusted pretty much a normal price for a down jacket 30 years ago? Something that you'd buy once every 3-4 years or so? At least that's how I'm still treating this. Also, I'm Swiss, so my sense of pricing may be off here. But winter shoes and winter jackets for us is something expensive that one doesn't buy often.
  - Avshalom 9y ago
    300$ USD is ~25% of a entry level workers monthly pay (net) in the US. Housing frequently hits between 50-30%, transportation another ~20%. Which means buy a 300$ anything means not eating that month for a large % of the US. Obviously Patagonia is still running which means there are enough people who can spare that but it's not universal (see the Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Inequality). ETA: 300$ = 25% => 1200 a month net => 1500 gross (if no state taxes) => 9.38 an hour IF we assume the completely unrealistic 40/week

grzm 9y ago

Patagonia is also known for its use of recycled bottles to make its polyester fleece jackets, which has expanded to many of its products. Their warranty and repair program is fantastic as well. I brought in a shirt that I had worn the elbow out of and they first offered a replacement from one in the store. They didn't have the same pattern (the shirt is probably 5 or 6 years old), so they sent it in for repair for free. A couple of years ago they sent out a repair-mobile. They not only repaired Patagonia gear, they repaired items regardless of brand. Pretty damn cool. http://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ar-patagonia-launches-crosscountry-mobile-repair-tour-20150403-story.html http://www.latimes.com/fashion/alltherage/la-ar-patagonia-la...

gt_ 9y ago

Sorry but let’s not forget the “fashion” in “fast fashion”.

aphextron 9y ago

Patagonia is the same cheap polyester crap made in Vietnam you get from Wal-Mart, with slightly tougher welds and reinforced seams. It's the bougie male equivalent of Lululemon. Carhartt is where it's at for quality durable outdoor clothing made in the US.

snowwrestler 9y ago
The Patagonia / Carhartt divide in the U.S. is essentially cultural. But when it comes to the environmental impact of their clothing, Patagonia objectively puts in more effort than Carhartt. It's one of the reasons (but not the only one) that Patagonia is more expensive than Carhartt.

soared 9y ago

Patagonia is great but obscenely expensive - a solution that does not scale at all. $300 sweater jacket http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84674.html?dwvar_84674_color=RGBY&cgid=mens-jackets-vests#tile-3=&start=1&sz=24 http://www.patagonia.com/product/mens-down-sweater-jacket/84...

mulmen 9y ago
But if they sold in larger volumes would the price go down with economies of scale? Maybe not as far as the cheapest stuff on the market but it could become attainable. or maybe parts of their approach could be used to build a cheaper line of clothing that is still environmentally responsible.
- user5994461 9y ago
  Yes and no. The costs of manufacturing may go down but it doesn't mean that it will be passed down to the consumers. Generally speaking, selling cheaper is a bad business decision. It will increase costs and decrease earnings, you don't want to do that as a business. Prices should go up, not down. In this specific case, we're talking about a niche brand appealing to an affluent audience. They milk their customers to give them good conscience. The price can't go down, that's against the business model.
m_mueller 9y ago
Isn't that inflation adjusted pretty much a normal price for a down jacket 30 years ago? Something that you'd buy once every 3-4 years or so? At least that's how I'm still treating this. Also, I'm Swiss, so my sense of pricing may be off here. But winter shoes and winter jackets for us is something expensive that one doesn't buy often.
- Avshalom 9y ago
  300$ USD is ~25% of a entry level workers monthly pay (net) in the US. Housing frequently hits between 50-30%, transportation another ~20%. Which means buy a 300$ anything means not eating that month for a large % of the US. Obviously Patagonia is still running which means there are enough people who can spare that but it's not universal (see the Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Inequality). ETA: 300$ = 25% => 1200 a month net => 1500 gross (if no state taxes) => 9.38 an hour IF we assume the completely unrealistic 40/week