5 ms·

Probably not great for the environment though, with plastic microfibers washing into our oceans and DWR coatings being toxic and leaching into waterways. Compa

Probably not great for the environment though, with plastic microfibers washing into our oceans and DWR coatings being toxic and leaching into waterways. Compared to, say, what they climbed Everest with originally, yeah, our gear today is lighter, cheaper, more effective, but also more environmentally impactful and much less degradable. It's all just byproducts of the oil industry. We're a lot more comfortable now, but it didn't come free.

cinntaile 2y ago
Most of the new gear also doesn't last nearly as long.
- ghaff 2y ago
  There's certainly a tradeoff in some cases. I've had things break/wear out in ways that wouldn't have happened with heavier/thicker gear in years past. Also, much as I love merino wool, it wears out/gets eaten by moths in ways that wouldn't have been nearly the issue with synthetics in years past.
fragmede 2y ago
It's cheaper and doesn't last as long, but wouldn't that translate into being more degradable, not less? There are fewer atoms there, and the whole microplastics problem is it losing atoms.
- cinntaile 2y ago
  Degradability is a function of how chemically stable a molecule is, not the number of atoms. Sure, plastics break down in smaller particles but the issue is that some of these smaller particles or microplastics are incredibly stable.
nmadden 2y ago
I agree with the thrust of your argument, but I just want to point out that wool is not environmentally neutral. Sheep are incredibly destructive and have historical caused a lot of degradation of habitats. https://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/30/sheepwrecked/ https://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/30/sheepwrecked/
- 123yawaworht456 2y ago
  breathing is also not carbon neutral
- solardev 2y ago
  That's more a matter of scale, I think, than material? Whether it's wool or leather or plastic or cotton or hemp or flax, if you need millions or billions of units of something, it's going to incur large scale habitat loss somewhere in the world. I guess then it's a question of land use (converting ecosystems into rangeland) vs pollution (from fossil fuels and plastics).
  - nmadden 2y ago
    Well, wool is particularly bad, emitting way more greenhouse gases than most other textiles for equivalent fabric output. And sheep farming has quite a shocking impact on biodiversity. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-environment-sustainable-claims-sheep-animal-cruelty-fast-fashion# https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-e...
    - solardev 2y ago
      This is interesting, thank you for sharing. Would you happen to know where the data for this table comes from? https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25176566/Screenshot_2023_12_20_at_10.35.47_AM.png https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/u... Vox cites a LCA database but not a particular study or metastudy. I tried to look for it but couldn't find the exact one. It seems to me like the kind of thing where the numbers could be drastically different depending on where you draw the boundaries (for plastics, does oil extraction and refining count?) and the sorts of impacts you consider (not just CO2E but as you mentioned, biodiversity, water, waste stream, etc.). I'm inclined to believe the overall point of that post (sheep make a lot of methane, as any ruminant). But I'm not sure that banning wool outright would have the desirable outcome. I don't think cotton can replace wool in many situations, especially in wet outdoor environments. Would replacing it with (new) synthetics, which is the most common substitute, really be a net positive across all the impacts? I appreciate the information, regardless!
tim333 2y ago
Modern Everest climbing clothing is mostly goose down, although with a thin polyester like layer over the top, so still fairly natural.
- solardev 2y ago
  Not just the clothes, but the tents, ropes, shoes, bags, gloves, etc have all improved (and gotten more plastic). There's a bunch of metal waste too (oxygen cans etc) from what I understand, but at least that's mostly metal. And lots and lots of frozen poop and corpses, I suppose. It'll be interesting when it all melts...
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Real expedition mountaineering is definitely not a lightweight endeavor even if there's more high fill down and other better warmth/weight ratio clothing. It's more about trimming a few pounds off the weekend (or longer) hiker/camper's weight budget.
    - solardev 2y ago
      Don't they usually also have Sherpas pre-hauling a lot of equipment up, installing ropes and ladders, setting up base camps, etc.? In some ways it seems more like a military operation than a sport (in terms of the logistical complexities).
      - ghaff 2y ago
        I've only done lower (6K meter) peaks. Yes. Sherpas/porters carry a lot up to base camp and beyond. But you're still carrying a lot of gear. There's a certain narrative that clients basically get carried up the mountain and it really isn't true.

cinntaile 2y ago

Most of the new gear also doesn't last nearly as long.

ghaff 2y ago
There's certainly a tradeoff in some cases. I've had things break/wear out in ways that wouldn't have happened with heavier/thicker gear in years past. Also, much as I love merino wool, it wears out/gets eaten by moths in ways that wouldn't have been nearly the issue with synthetics in years past.

fragmede 2y ago

It's cheaper and doesn't last as long, but wouldn't that translate into being more degradable, not less? There are fewer atoms there, and the whole microplastics problem is it losing atoms.

cinntaile 2y ago
Degradability is a function of how chemically stable a molecule is, not the number of atoms. Sure, plastics break down in smaller particles but the issue is that some of these smaller particles or microplastics are incredibly stable.

nmadden 2y ago

I agree with the thrust of your argument, but I just want to point out that wool is not environmentally neutral. Sheep are incredibly destructive and have historical caused a lot of degradation of habitats. https://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/30/sheepwrecked/ https://www.monbiot.com/2013/05/30/sheepwrecked/

123yawaworht456 2y ago
breathing is also not carbon neutral
solardev 2y ago
That's more a matter of scale, I think, than material? Whether it's wool or leather or plastic or cotton or hemp or flax, if you need millions or billions of units of something, it's going to incur large scale habitat loss somewhere in the world. I guess then it's a question of land use (converting ecosystems into rangeland) vs pollution (from fossil fuels and plastics).
- nmadden 2y ago
  Well, wool is particularly bad, emitting way more greenhouse gases than most other textiles for equivalent fabric output. And sheep farming has quite a shocking impact on biodiversity. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-environment-sustainable-claims-sheep-animal-cruelty-fast-fashion# https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/24008053/wool-marketing-e...
  - solardev 2y ago
    This is interesting, thank you for sharing. Would you happen to know where the data for this table comes from? https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/uploads/chorus_asset/file/25176566/Screenshot_2023_12_20_at_10.35.47_AM.png https://platform.vox.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/chorus/u... Vox cites a LCA database but not a particular study or metastudy. I tried to look for it but couldn't find the exact one. It seems to me like the kind of thing where the numbers could be drastically different depending on where you draw the boundaries (for plastics, does oil extraction and refining count?) and the sorts of impacts you consider (not just CO2E but as you mentioned, biodiversity, water, waste stream, etc.). I'm inclined to believe the overall point of that post (sheep make a lot of methane, as any ruminant). But I'm not sure that banning wool outright would have the desirable outcome. I don't think cotton can replace wool in many situations, especially in wet outdoor environments. Would replacing it with (new) synthetics, which is the most common substitute, really be a net positive across all the impacts? I appreciate the information, regardless!

tim333 2y ago

Modern Everest climbing clothing is mostly goose down, although with a thin polyester like layer over the top, so still fairly natural.

solardev 2y ago
Not just the clothes, but the tents, ropes, shoes, bags, gloves, etc have all improved (and gotten more plastic). There's a bunch of metal waste too (oxygen cans etc) from what I understand, but at least that's mostly metal. And lots and lots of frozen poop and corpses, I suppose. It'll be interesting when it all melts...
- ghaff 2y ago
  Real expedition mountaineering is definitely not a lightweight endeavor even if there's more high fill down and other better warmth/weight ratio clothing. It's more about trimming a few pounds off the weekend (or longer) hiker/camper's weight budget.
  - solardev 2y ago
    Don't they usually also have Sherpas pre-hauling a lot of equipment up, installing ropes and ladders, setting up base camps, etc.? In some ways it seems more like a military operation than a sport (in terms of the logistical complexities).
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I've only done lower (6K meter) peaks. Yes. Sherpas/porters carry a lot up to base camp and beyond. But you're still carrying a lot of gear. There's a certain narrative that clients basically get carried up the mountain and it really isn't true.