5 ms·

Patagonia mostly sells fossil fuel based products (polyester, etc). The idea of reserving all profits from such a company towards fighting climate change just m

Patagonia mostly sells fossil fuel based products (polyester, etc). The idea of reserving all profits from such a company towards fighting climate change just makes sense to me. We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense. I doubt more companies will follow suit, but if they do, that would be a sign of hope for the world. (Imagine, for example, if all the major oil extraction companies dedicated most of their profits to genuinely fighting climate change.) edit: I've never gotten downvotes so quickly on a post. I don't mind downvotes, but would appreciate a thoughtful reply in response. Thank you. :)

nickff 4y ago
>"We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense." These sentences seem like a non-sequitur to me, I'm not sure you're wrong, but why? Is it because transitioning away from fossil fuels is your top priority? If so, why?
- andrewxdiamond 4y ago
  A large issue with fossil fuels is the externalities that companies can ignore when using them. OP means that companies who are benefiting from these externalities should instead pay the cost
- maxbond 4y ago
  Not GP but what makes sense about it for me is that it's a negative feedback loop that stabilizes in a desirable place. If we took the profits generated from a harmful activity, and used invested them into alternatives, than there's a self-correcting nature to it that's appealing. As those alternatives are realized, the pot of money becomes smaller and smaller, and vanishes altogether when the goal has been achieved. I don't know how well this would work in practice, but it seems like something people could tinker with and possibly get to work.
  - chrsig 4y ago
    honestly, this is why it's been a bit bizarre to me that oil companies haven't heavily invested in renewable energy. the move away from oil is inevitable - they'd probably stand to make more money by being at the forefront of the change than they will by dragging it out.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I have noticed this as well. My conclusion is that they value power more than they value money. Sustainable energy is necessarily not a one-size-fits-all solution, but adapted to the local needs & opportunities of each community. It's necessarily more complex and less well suited to economies of scale; it doesn't favor a handful of gigantic multinationals, and probably would look more like hundreds of large regional corporations. I think they're probably waiting for some kind of silver bullet that lets us transition to a sustainable source of very similar chemicals, derived from biomass or directly from the air, without fundamentally changing society or changing how our power structures function, and that they think they're gunnuh do it in just the nick of time. Sort of a greater fool theory of climate brinksmanship, passing on each solution in the hope you'll find the perfect one before time runs out, but you're in a research lab where the clocks have no hands. I fear that it may be worse, and that they may think they can actually just push through ecosystem collapse with technological solutions, and just never transition off of fossil fuels.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- tshaddox 4y ago
  I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that statement completely, but the sentiment makes sense when you consider that some portion of the profits from fossil fuel consumption is associated with costs to unrelated third parties, i.e. externalities.
exabrial 4y ago
Thousands of clothing items are an insignificant usage of oil; you are emptying a swimming pool into the ocean in South Africa and looking for sea level rise in Japan. Focusing on that misses core problems, but it does make good marketing and companies _exploit the hell out of that_ to see products. Spoken in plain language: It wouldn't make a difference even if all of Patagonia's clothes were made from bamboo. This is the simple science of the situation, yet people _vacuum_ this greenwashing marketing BS up like hotcakes. Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now: Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage. A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental to causes that actually matter.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  > and battery storage. A note for all who might take issue with battery storage as too expensive, alternatives - albeit with lower efficiency - exist; hydro pumping, storing it in air turbines (8-9 hours, 95% efficiency iirc), even compressing air (this one goes to 85% efficiency iirc). http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/08/no-sun-no-wind-now-what-renewable.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/08/no-sun-no-wind-now-...
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- maxbond 4y ago
  This is a pretty uncharitable reading of what they were saying, they were commenting on a general principle and how there was something about the economics of this that had potential if it were scaled up. They didn't imply that this particular instance was of particular significance; they were saying it would be if there were a general trend of this among _extraction companies_, and they conceded that this probably wouldn't happen.
- boplicity 4y ago
  Thank you for the thoughtful reply. In terms of fossil fuel based clothing, specifically, they are a growing cause for significant harm in the environment, and clothing does cause real harm that has lasting consequences. Fossil fuel based clothing accounts for around 60% of our clothing. This isn't just a problem of "a few thousand jackets." Microplastics regularly enter our water supply during laundering. This is a real problem that is causing real harm to our environment that will be very difficult to reverse. In terms of how this relates to climate change; how Patagonia as a company spends it's profits will now be up to them. I hope they'll address climate change directly, especially in terms of real solutions, but who knows what they'll do? However, I do know that if all fossil fuel based companies started re-investing all of their profits towards fixing the environment problems caused by their products, our world would be very different. And yes, Patagonia is just a drop in the bucket in terms of overall clothing production, but that is not an argument against them taking action. I like the idea of every fossil fuel based company taking similar action, not just one company. I realize this is not realistic, but it is appealing to me, at least.
hellohowareu 4y ago
I'm more concerned about plastic fibers getting into the air via laundering (or simply regular activity of wearing them and little bits of plastic occasionally coming loose) than I am about the use of oil in the clothing. I believe there should be more restrictions on the use of plastic in society, seeing as "Plastic Fibers Are Found in 83% of the World's Tap Water, a New Study Reveals"[1] [1] https://time.com/4928759/plastic-fiber-tap-water-study/ https://time.com/4928759/plastic-fiber-tap-water-study/
ISL 4y ago
https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/recycled-polyester.html https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/recycled-polyester.h...
- boplicity 4y ago
  Fossil fuel based clothing is one of the primary sources of microplastics in the environment, which harms our health, and the health of the environment. This is true whether or not the fossil fuel based clothing is from recycled materials. Unfortunately, 60% of human clothing is now fossil fuel based. This is a growth area for the fossil fuel industry; actively participating in it only perpetuates the cycle of harm caused by these materials.
JeremyNT 4y ago
Maybe the plastic garments are somehow more visible or well known, but I can assure you that they sell plenty of natural fiber clothing as well. Their hemp cotton blend is second to none in the summer heat.
missedthecue 4y ago
Polyester products sequester oil that might otherwise be burned, releasing carbon. Disposing of them appropriately is important, but that holds true for any article of clothing -- sea turtles don't like to choke on rubber or wool either!

nickff 4y ago

>"We live in a fossil fuel based economy; the profit from fossil fuel based companies should be reinvested towards transitioning away from fossil fuels. This just makes sense." These sentences seem like a non-sequitur to me, I'm not sure you're wrong, but why? Is it because transitioning away from fossil fuels is your top priority? If so, why?

andrewxdiamond 4y ago
A large issue with fossil fuels is the externalities that companies can ignore when using them. OP means that companies who are benefiting from these externalities should instead pay the cost
maxbond 4y ago
Not GP but what makes sense about it for me is that it's a negative feedback loop that stabilizes in a desirable place. If we took the profits generated from a harmful activity, and used invested them into alternatives, than there's a self-correcting nature to it that's appealing. As those alternatives are realized, the pot of money becomes smaller and smaller, and vanishes altogether when the goal has been achieved. I don't know how well this would work in practice, but it seems like something people could tinker with and possibly get to work.
- chrsig 4y ago
  honestly, this is why it's been a bit bizarre to me that oil companies haven't heavily invested in renewable energy. the move away from oil is inevitable - they'd probably stand to make more money by being at the forefront of the change than they will by dragging it out.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I have noticed this as well. My conclusion is that they value power more than they value money. Sustainable energy is necessarily not a one-size-fits-all solution, but adapted to the local needs & opportunities of each community. It's necessarily more complex and less well suited to economies of scale; it doesn't favor a handful of gigantic multinationals, and probably would look more like hundreds of large regional corporations. I think they're probably waiting for some kind of silver bullet that lets us transition to a sustainable source of very similar chemicals, derived from biomass or directly from the air, without fundamentally changing society or changing how our power structures function, and that they think they're gunnuh do it in just the nick of time. Sort of a greater fool theory of climate brinksmanship, passing on each solution in the hope you'll find the perfect one before time runs out, but you're in a research lab where the clocks have no hands. I fear that it may be worse, and that they may think they can actually just push through ecosystem collapse with technological solutions, and just never transition off of fossil fuels.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
tshaddox 4y ago
I'm not sure if I necessarily agree with that statement completely, but the sentiment makes sense when you consider that some portion of the profits from fossil fuel consumption is associated with costs to unrelated third parties, i.e. externalities.

exabrial 4y ago

Thousands of clothing items are an insignificant usage of oil; you are emptying a swimming pool into the ocean in South Africa and looking for sea level rise in Japan. Focusing on that misses core problems, but it does make good marketing and companies _exploit the hell out of that_ to see products. Spoken in plain language: It wouldn't make a difference even if all of Patagonia's clothes were made from bamboo. This is the simple science of the situation, yet people _vacuum_ this greenwashing marketing BS up like hotcakes. Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now: Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage. A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental to causes that actually matter.

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
> and battery storage. A note for all who might take issue with battery storage as too expensive, alternatives - albeit with lower efficiency - exist; hydro pumping, storing it in air turbines (8-9 hours, 95% efficiency iirc), even compressing air (this one goes to 85% efficiency iirc). http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/08/no-sun-no-wind-now-what-renewable.html http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2022/08/no-sun-no-wind-now-...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
maxbond 4y ago
This is a pretty uncharitable reading of what they were saying, they were commenting on a general principle and how there was something about the economics of this that had potential if it were scaled up. They didn't imply that this particular instance was of particular significance; they were saying it would be if there were a general trend of this among _extraction companies_, and they conceded that this probably wouldn't happen.
boplicity 4y ago
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. In terms of fossil fuel based clothing, specifically, they are a growing cause for significant harm in the environment, and clothing does cause real harm that has lasting consequences. Fossil fuel based clothing accounts for around 60% of our clothing. This isn't just a problem of "a few thousand jackets." Microplastics regularly enter our water supply during laundering. This is a real problem that is causing real harm to our environment that will be very difficult to reverse. In terms of how this relates to climate change; how Patagonia as a company spends it's profits will now be up to them. I hope they'll address climate change directly, especially in terms of real solutions, but who knows what they'll do? However, I do know that if all fossil fuel based companies started re-investing all of their profits towards fixing the environment problems caused by their products, our world would be very different. And yes, Patagonia is just a drop in the bucket in terms of overall clothing production, but that is not an argument against them taking action. I like the idea of every fossil fuel based company taking similar action, not just one company. I realize this is not realistic, but it is appealing to me, at least.

hellohowareu 4y ago

I'm more concerned about plastic fibers getting into the air via laundering (or simply regular activity of wearing them and little bits of plastic occasionally coming loose) than I am about the use of oil in the clothing. I believe there should be more restrictions on the use of plastic in society, seeing as "Plastic Fibers Are Found in 83% of the World's Tap Water, a New Study Reveals"[1] [1] https://time.com/4928759/plastic-fiber-tap-water-study/ https://time.com/4928759/plastic-fiber-tap-water-study/

ISL 4y ago

https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/recycled-polyester.html https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/recycled-polyester.h...

boplicity 4y ago
Fossil fuel based clothing is one of the primary sources of microplastics in the environment, which harms our health, and the health of the environment. This is true whether or not the fossil fuel based clothing is from recycled materials. Unfortunately, 60% of human clothing is now fossil fuel based. This is a growth area for the fossil fuel industry; actively participating in it only perpetuates the cycle of harm caused by these materials.

JeremyNT 4y ago

Maybe the plastic garments are somehow more visible or well known, but I can assure you that they sell plenty of natural fiber clothing as well. Their hemp cotton blend is second to none in the summer heat.

missedthecue 4y ago

Polyester products sequester oil that might otherwise be burned, releasing carbon. Disposing of them appropriately is important, but that holds true for any article of clothing -- sea turtles don't like to choke on rubber or wool either!