10 ms·

Here's the note from Yvon https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/ https://www.patagonia.com/ownership/ One of the most interesting parts of this is the choice to

• gowld 4y ago
  It's a bit sad to think that 0.5% tax is "staggering", and also to feel that it's important to not exclude government when making charitable donations.
• hammock 4y ago
  Thanks for sharing the actual letter. Contrary to what the New York Times report (OP) would have you believe, Yvon's note doesn't say anything about climate change. Rather, it emphasizes "the environmental crisis," "defending nature," "the health and vitality of the natural world," and the Earth’s finite resources. There is so much more to environmental conservation than just "climate change," and Patagonia has done much more around e.g. removing dams, minimizing PFCs in their products, recycling and increasing longevity of materials, and other actions that protect air, land, forests, rivers and oceans, and which encourage sustainable energy production. Dear NYT and fellow readers, please don't throw this diversely interested company into some politically expedient climate change bucket. Their view on the environment is so much more.
  • xmonkee 4y ago
    That's interesting, I wouldn't have made the distinction. I'm not even sure there is a distinction (climate change is by far the greatest threat to the environment). What are your personal views on climate change, if you don't mind me asking?
    • oliwary 4y ago
      Not OP, but I think there are very important environmental impacts that are not related to climate change. Take, for example, plastic in the sea - clearly a big issue for the environment, but addressing climate change will not impact this at all. Other examples include destruction of habitats, NO2 in the air, dumping waste in nature and rivers, lead that gets into nature etc.
      • rch 4y ago
        I've found that 'climate change' activism leads with wealth redistribution, social justice, and even socialism in a general sense. Biodiversity activism, on the other hand, tends to organize around reducing anthropogenic sources of CO2/CH4, establishing wildlife corridors, protecting watersheds, and so forth. Both are valid and there's obviously a lot of welcome, positive alignment.
      • zeckalpha 4y ago
        How are sea microplastics and climate change not related? Both involve fossil fuel materials being left somewhere they shouldn't when we are "done" with them.
        • Ma8ee 4y ago
          In one case the fossil fuels contribute to climate change, in the other case it doesn’t.
          • stuaxo 4y ago
            They are both under a broader banner of pollution.
            • Ma8ee 4y ago
              And?
          • zeckalpha 4y ago
  • test098 4y ago
    Quite literally references climate change in the third sentence of the letter? > "As we began to witness the extent of global warming and ecological destruction, and our own contribution to it, Patagonia committed to using our company to change the way business was done."
  • subsubzero 4y ago
    Despite some of my issues with the company, they have a few really cool environmentally friendly programs. The "worn well" program is incredible, basically if you have a piece of patagonia clothing and return it through that program, they clean it up or recycle it and you get a free credit towards anything patagonia sells. For kids clothes this is a boon, I would buy my daughter a patagonia jacket from the patagonia outlet at 40% off, she grows out if it and I trade it in for a new jacket and get $20-$30 off of the new jacket. Her old jacket gets cleaned and sold to some other kid who can use it(they have a worn well portal where you can buy used gear), great for peoples pocketbooks, great for the environment - win all around.
    • bmj 4y ago
      Yeah, I don't agree with 100% of their political positions (though, to be fair, it is rare that I agree with 100% of anyone's political positions, including my own), but they are really trying to change the way people consume their products. And, many of their products are truly built to last. I have two jackets (one insulated, one a fleece) that are 15+ years old and have been dragged through the dirt, mud, rain, and snow all over the U.S.
      • Stratoscope 4y ago
        > it is rare that I agree with 100% of anyone's political positions, including my own This is my favorite political comment of the year! I hope you won't mind my stealing it when one of my friends is shocked that we disagree on some political position or another.
        • patcon 4y ago
          Ha! I was just about to comment saying the same thing! I like it a whole lot :)
        • dismalpedigree 4y ago
          Do you 100% agree with that statement? It can be seen as political.
      • 4y ago
  • exysle 4y ago
    I like how "global warming" became "climate change." My favorite trick of the mind.
    • orwin 4y ago
      I dislike "climate change" too, because it carries the idea that we can change it back. I think "global warming" was fine, but if i had to pick something, it would be "climate drift" i think.
      • e9 4y ago
        I disagree. Climate always changes. Constantly. Warming is just one part of the climate change. Many other things change too so climate change is a lot broader term for this.
        • strbean 4y ago
          "Anthropogenic climate change at a rate that humans and/or natural systems can't cope with" just isn't as catchy.
        • hmlongco 4y ago
          Weather changes. It's when enough weather changes that the overall climate changes where we begin to have issues.
          • e9 4y ago
            Too subjective. Objectively climate has always been changing and will always be changing. Earth has seen much warmer climate and much colder climate and everything in between since formation. Your definition of issues don’t really make sense unless it’s subjective because objectively climate change is just is, not good not bad, just fact and consequence of complicated system. Even in the past many centuries, if you look at history, plenty of empires fell because of climate change(floods, droughts, etc). We are accelerating the change but it would still be changing even if we didn’t exist.
  • cma 4y ago
    Read it again, it does mention climate change. Reflexive ctrl-f won't work because it words it: "global warming." It's in the very first paragraph: > As we began to witness the extent of global warming and ecological destruction, and our own contribution to it, Patagonia committed to using our company to change the way business was done. The New York Times didn't slip this in to mislead everyone.
  • aydyn 4y ago
    I think you are reading too much into it. The letter doesn't say the words "climate change" but that's clearly what they are talking about. Instead, they do mention "global warming" which is part of what is referenced by "environmental crisis". I don't think "global warming" is more or less politicized than the phrase "climate change". Maybe because "global warming" is slightly antiquated, it's less likely to produce knee jerk reactions? I agree that the letter is trying its best to be politically inclusive, and I appreciate it.
    • stuaxo 4y ago
      From what I heard it was the polluters who pushed us from "global warming" to "climate change" as the second is less emotive and less likely to be linked to them by people (especially after they paid so much for people to obscure things).
  • collegeburner 4y ago
    I really like environmental causes around preserving natural wild places for future generations to enjoy and appreciate that patagonia (a brand that caters a lot to outdoorsy types) is backing this. Makes me want to support them.
  • renewiltord 4y ago
    Bro "global warming" is "climate change". You gotta read, no Cmd-F. Second sentence, my dude. Gotta read before you dunk, homie.
  • emptyfile 4y ago
    >Yvon's note doesn't say anything about climate change. So this is the standard level of reading comprehension on HN these days? LITERALLY the third sentence in the first paragraph. >I never wanted to be a businessman. I started as a craftsman, making climbing gear for my friends and myself, then got into apparel. As we began to witness the extent of ***global warming***...
  • hef19898 4y ago
    Personally, I don't own any items from Patagonia. As company so, it is model to strive for. A pitty tgat not more companies can resist the worst incentives in capitalism.
• jaquer_1 4y ago
• snowwrestler 4y ago
  501c3 organizations have to be careful about the language they use when commenting on any government policy, even if they stay out of elections. It’s just hard to be overtly opinionated about things as a c3. The Sierra Club found this out the hard way when fighting a dam across the Grand Canyon. They converted to a c4 as well back then (well, the IRS forced them to).
• yieldcrv 4y ago
  I think it’s fine because non profits even under C4 grow tax free with a tiny excise tax on investment income (1.39% on realized gains and dividends, I think?) so for a company with profits being the primary asset, itll grow even quicker, since there are no income taxable shareholders
• Arainach 4y ago
  It says a lot about America that doing things the right way and paying a whopping 0.5% in tax is a "staggering amount of savings" and "least effective". Imagine the things we could do if more companies cared about giving back to the public good that enabled them to become what they are rather than using legal trickery to ignore the intent of the law.
  • zem 4y ago
    also that climate change is somehow "political"!
    • ARandomerDude 4y ago
      Fill in the blanks: "We need to fight climate change. I voted for ____." "I don't think climate change is caused by humans. I voted for ____." If you could perform the above task easily, then yes it's political.
      • fahrradflucht 4y ago
        Sure, but I think what OP was saying is that this says a lot about the US. For example in Germany, denying man made climate change is a fringe position. We just fight about how to stop it and at what cost.
        • refurb 4y ago
          You mean by shutting down nuclear plans and calling natural gas "green"?
      • pjc50 4y ago
        With enough media firepower, anything can be made political, regardless of the underlying reality.
        • Fargren 4y ago
          Everything that happens or is done in public is political, and the more it affects the public the more political it is. C̶l̶i̶m̶a̶t̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶a̶n̶g̶e̶ The climate emergency is a deeply political topic as it affects basically everyone.
• refurb 4y ago
  You get a tax deduction by applying a donation against other income. If they are giving away everything, then there is nothing to offset the donation (except the $17B). So it kind of makes sense? If own a single asset worth $1B and donate it all, I have no tax write off because I have no money.
  • Thorrez 4y ago
    I think you mean $17M, not $17B.
  • mikeryan 4y ago
    They are not giving “everything” away presumably they have taken many millions of dollars out of the company over the years, enough to have built likely generational wealth outside of their Patagonia holding. If own a single asset worth $1B and donate it all, I have no tax write off because I have no money Write offs carry forward to future years - you still get the write off even if you do t apply it. They don’t get a write off here because the organization (that they created for this) is a 501c4 non-profit. Donations to those are not considered tax deductible.
• lostlogin 4y ago
  > Probably the least effective estate planning from a raw $ perspective in history. For a very well planned change of ownership of an estate, see the UK royal family. The recent inheritance had zero death duties paid.
• stefanve 4y ago
  I think the 17m is only for the 2% of the voting shares the rest is political donation and thus taxfree