4 ms·

They literally sell oil. Oil with extra steps, which consume even more oil. All of Patagonia's profits are completely based on selling oil to people who load up

They literally sell oil. Oil with extra steps, which consume even more oil. All of Patagonia's profits are completely based on selling oil to people who load up into a huge SUV or get on a plane to go consume more oil as they wear their fashionable oil. The modern sportswear industry (and fast fashion in general) has been an absolute catastrophe for the environment, and he certainly knows it. But yeah, whatever helps you sleep at night.

avalys 4y ago
What do you do for a living, exactly?
smileysteve 4y ago
89% of their fabrics are from "preferred materials", 100% of the down is responsibly sourced, and 100% of their cotton is grown organically. Sportwear is rapidly becoming more responsible, using recycled polyester, nylon, and spandex https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ramesh31 4y ago
  >"They sell and market wool" As a tiny niche product, sure. But the entire reason Patagonia became successful in the first place is Polar Fleece [0], a product that came about as a "cheaper" (that is, where the true cost is externalized to the whole planet through emissions) wool alternative that could easily be made from hydrocarbons. >"89% of their fabrics are from "preferred materials", 100% of the down is responsibly sourced, and 100% of their cotton is grown organically." Meaningless marketing terms. The "responsibly sourced down" and "organically grown cotton" has nothing to do with their climate impact. Regardless, this isn't about social justice, or saving the penguins, or fair trade. It's just blind naked hypocrisy for a company that is 100% dependent on fossil fuels and petrochemicals to be profitable somehow acting like they are responsible environmental stewards. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_fleece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_fleece
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    This post is the living embodiment of https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som....
    - pessimizer 4y ago
      Only if you think starting and running a huge corporation is equivalent to using cellphones. Imagine the same comic, but instead of a peasant insert a socialist slaveholder.
  - snowwrestler 4y ago
    Polyester fleece did not get popular because it was cheaper than wool, in fact it was quite a bit more expensive when introduced. It gained popularity because it was lighter, far more water-resistant, and did not shrink when washed.
    - ramesh31 4y ago
      >in fact it was quite a bit more expensive when introduced. To the consumer, sure. That’s how Patagonia made their profits. But polyester is not, never has been, and never will be more expensive to produce than wool. The upcharge was a premium on what affluent consumers who wanted a better product could afford.
      - snowwrestler 4y ago
        Nope it was more expensive than wool. It’s not raw polyester; it was quite complicated to manufacture.
delecti 4y ago
Oil itself isn't the problem. Climate change is about adding the carbon from fossil fuels to the air. If we could magically convert all remaining unburned coal/oil to an enormous cube of polyester, it would more or less immediately put a cap on global warming. Of course it would also cause worldwide famine, but my point is that global warming itself isn't a directly result of the extraction/use of fossil fuels, but specifically the burning of them.

avalys 4y ago

What do you do for a living, exactly?

smileysteve 4y ago

89% of their fabrics are from "preferred materials", 100% of the down is responsibly sourced, and 100% of their cotton is grown organically. Sportwear is rapidly becoming more responsible, using recycled polyester, nylon, and spandex https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ramesh31 4y ago
>"They sell and market wool" As a tiny niche product, sure. But the entire reason Patagonia became successful in the first place is Polar Fleece [0], a product that came about as a "cheaper" (that is, where the true cost is externalized to the whole planet through emissions) wool alternative that could easily be made from hydrocarbons. >"89% of their fabrics are from "preferred materials", 100% of the down is responsibly sourced, and 100% of their cotton is grown organically." Meaningless marketing terms. The "responsibly sourced down" and "organically grown cotton" has nothing to do with their climate impact. Regardless, this isn't about social justice, or saving the penguins, or fair trade. It's just blind naked hypocrisy for a company that is 100% dependent on fossil fuels and petrochemicals to be profitable somehow acting like they are responsible environmental stewards. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_fleece https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_fleece
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  This post is the living embodiment of https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-som....
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Only if you think starting and running a huge corporation is equivalent to using cellphones. Imagine the same comic, but instead of a peasant insert a socialist slaveholder.
- snowwrestler 4y ago
  Polyester fleece did not get popular because it was cheaper than wool, in fact it was quite a bit more expensive when introduced. It gained popularity because it was lighter, far more water-resistant, and did not shrink when washed.
  - ramesh31 4y ago
    >in fact it was quite a bit more expensive when introduced. To the consumer, sure. That’s how Patagonia made their profits. But polyester is not, never has been, and never will be more expensive to produce than wool. The upcharge was a premium on what affluent consumers who wanted a better product could afford.
    - snowwrestler 4y ago
      Nope it was more expensive than wool. It’s not raw polyester; it was quite complicated to manufacture.

delecti 4y ago

Oil itself isn't the problem. Climate change is about adding the carbon from fossil fuels to the air. If we could magically convert all remaining unburned coal/oil to an enormous cube of polyester, it would more or less immediately put a cap on global warming. Of course it would also cause worldwide famine, but my point is that global warming itself isn't a directly result of the extraction/use of fossil fuels, but specifically the burning of them.