UKC

NEWS: Green Gear: Can We Trust Yvon Chouinard ?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Michael Ryan 29 Apr 2008
Does a company's environmental policy influence your buying decision?

Do you actually know anything about the eco-policies of the outdoor companies that you buy from?


Many outdoor companies are making great strides to be environmentally friendly. Perhaps one of the founders of this movement is Yvon Chouinard's company, Patagonia.

Can we trust Yvon Chouinard? You decide.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/older.html?month=04&year=2008#n43939
OP Michael Ryan 29 Apr 2008
Of course I think one of the soundest environmental policies a company can have is to make gear that lasts, that is high quality rather than having inbuilt obsolescence.

One jacket for 5 years rather than 5 jackets in 5 years.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: good effort but sometimes I feel it is used by industry for marketing rather than effect or plainly the consumer is unaware of the effort - who on UKC buys FSC toilet paper? If you have to google FSC then the point is made (satori, don't spoil my fun).

G
OP Michael Ryan 29 Apr 2008
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) good effort but sometimes I feel it is used by industry for marketing rather than effect

I think we have to look very closely at companies to investigate whether they just have one product that they tout as 'recycled' or 'organic' OR whether they are green to the core and making their best effort.

Some aspects to consider:

- are there buildings 'green', do they have efficient heating?
- do they purchase alternative power offsets
- do employees get incentives for cycling to work or supporting good environmental causes
- how much renewable, recycleable, organic materials do they use
- what do they do with their waste, do they attempt to minimise waste
- is the packaging of their products minimal, and made from recycleable material, uses soy inks etc
-how much do they give to charity or what do they do to support environmental organisations
- product end of life recyclability
- do they have ISO 14000

I'm sure you can think of more.

Mick
 jl100 29 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat)
> [...]
>
> I think we have to look very closely at companies to investigate whether they just have one product that they tout as 'recycled' or 'organic' OR whether they are green to the core and making their best effort.

OR we could just buy from companies who make the best gear for the cheapest price and use the time saved not doing excess research to walk/use public transport/develop ingenius solutions to the many problems facing our world or if none of these appeal talk shite on UKC.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Mick, I can think of a great many more. The ones you list are again beneficial solely to the company for cost saving.

Efficient heating - lower variable cost
Offset power- lower variable cost
Incentives - ok, a good one
Recyclables - waste infringement cost - variable
Waste disposal - increasing costs - variable
Packaging - interesting one as alternatives are more expensive - have that one
Charity - tax deductable
Product end cycle - again interesting - recycling like FSC is a given but as said earlier - if the consumer don't know he don't act.
ISO 14000 - utter crap paper exercise. EA is putting so much pressure on conforming firms it drives prices up but those they cannot control? Farmers can pollute as they like upstream and is taken into account (policy in place to recognise the issue - duh!) but a firm with controls they clamp down hard to drive them to tighter controls - An EA employee admitted it that they can target these guys easier.

Good thread and issues Mick, maybe some on here will take note and maybe throw their empty bottle of wine in a glass bin.
 nic42 29 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

here's a video about the power of the consumer to influence business practice: vimeo.com/925729
 kevin stephens 29 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Tokenism
 Henry Iddon 29 Apr 2008
In reply to kevin stephens:

Something is better than nothing. There was a really good forum at Kendal on the Sunday morning after Yvons Saturday night show a few years ago, not many folks there but very good. His ethos seemed to me to be that if everyone did little things it could make a big difference - we're not all perfect but do what you can. Many are now jumping on the bandwagon, but does tokenism matter, its better than nowt.
 winhill 29 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I'm not sure if people re aware of the full implications or benefits of particular initiatives.

A good example is organic plastics (you mention organics).

Organic plastics are compostable so good for landfill.

But they take more energy to produce, so waste oil and increase CO2 emissions.

Biofuels - good environmentally locally but bad globally, ISO1400 doesn't present us with a gold standard. LCAs can demonstrate a huge saving while ignoring counter productive big picture implications and lead to hugely damaging changes in behaviour.

How do you distinguish between a successful company that diverts errant consumers (good) and one that actually encourages consumption (bad), adding to the problem rather than helping it?
 Will Hunt 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Another non-news article and oddly written at that. The question asks whether we can trust Chouinard and then proceeds to deliver a stream of praise towards him with no counter argument.

If you want to start a debate about environmental practices in large outdoor firms then please do so but this isnt news!
In reply to kevin stephens:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Tokenism

I don't think you can accuse Chouinard of tokenism. He has used much of the money he has made from Patagonia to buy up great swathes of land in South America which he has then donated to the government of the country concerned on condition that it is designated as a national park. It makes taking your empties to the recycling bin seem rather a feeble effort by comparison. I have seen him speak twice and I thought him inspiring.

 woolsack 30 Apr 2008
In reply to grumpybearpantsclimbinggoat:
>
> ISO 14000 - utter crap paper exercise. EA is putting so much pressure on conforming firms it drives prices up but those they cannot control? Farmers can pollute as they like upstream and is taken into account (policy in place to recognise the issue - duh!) but a firm with controls they clamp down hard to drive them to tighter controls - An EA employee admitted it that they can target these guys easier.
>
should generate a fair amount of paper
In reply to woolsack: it is
OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Will Hunt:

We are running a series of news items called GREEN GEAR and will focus on one company/product at a time.

We will present some facts and some links. The news item will have a forum thread where people can add their constructive comments, positive or negative, as we have seen on this thread.

We are not here to spoon feed. As I said in this news report: Can we trust Yvon Chouinard? You decide.

You decide. Not me. But you, if you actually care to and many people do care and are concerned.

Further reading is Chouinard's book, Let My People Go Surfing. If you haven't read it, it is recommended.

There are many companies making great strides and we will highlight these.

Also we have a bigger work in progress, A GREEN REPORT CARD for outdoor companies.

And yes Will, it is news. As important as the latest 8c flash or V15 boulder problem.

Mick
OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Stephen Reid:
> (In reply to kevin stephens)
> [...]
>
> I don't think you can accuse Chouinard of tokenism. He has used much of the money he has made from Patagonia to buy up great swathes of land in South America which he has then donated to the government of the country concerned on condition that it is designated as a national park. It makes taking your empties to the recycling bin seem rather a feeble effort by comparison. I have seen him speak twice and I thought him inspiring.

Creating a National Park in Patagonia: All a Part of the Job at Patagonia
Holiday 2007

The holidays are a time to give – and a time to give back. Thirty-odd years ago, when we borrowed the evocative name Patagonia for our new clothing company, only a few of us had been there. It seemed a faraway name, like Timbuktu, at a time when the world still had faraway places.

Now that we have come to know the planet as exceptionally small and delicately balanced, many of us from Patagonia the company have come to know Patagonia the place.

Kris Tompkins, one of our first employees and our longtime CEO, moved to Chilean Patagonia in 1993, to a farm called Fundo Renihue at the end of a fjord. Through their family foundation, The Conservation Land Trust, she and her husband Doug purchased nearly 800,000 acres of temperate rainforest and created Pumalin Park, an area nearly the size of Yosemite National Park. In 2000, Kris founded Conservación Patagónica to protect and restore critical habitat in the Patagonia region – a semi-arid and arid area heavily damaged by 100 years of overgrazing by livestock. During the last 15 years the Tompkins have put nearly two million acres of important habitat into some form of permanent protection between Chile and Argentina.

More here: http://www.patagonia.com/web/us/patagonia.go?assetid=27057

 TRJ 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: I would certainly argue that Chouinard and Patagonia have led the way in greening business practices, not only within the outdoor equipment market but across the corporate sector. You only have to read 'Let My People Go Surfing' to realise that Patagonia were thinking about issues like recycling long before these buzzwords entered the mainstream consumer conscience. Now other firms like Marmot and Osprey are jumping on the green bandwagon with recycled products, so consumers must become ever more alert to the danger of 'greenwashing' compared with genuine, deep-rooted concern for the environment. I firmly believe that Patagonia falls into the latter catgory.

On a general note, if you dig deeply enough, you'll uncover flaws in any organisation, however green it purports to be. As previous posters have argued, though, it's surely better to do something than nothing at all.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

This is really good, and I am glad UKC have taken the courage to stand up and be counted. Fundamentally we need a change of attitude by people, as Yvon Chouinard say in his book we need to “Lead an Examined life”. We are not curious enough about the impact the products we buy have on the planet and humans. I don’t think people actively go out of there way to damage the environment, I think it just becomes covenant to turn a blind eye or they just don’t question enough.

A GREEN REPORT CARD for outdoor companies is a fantastic idea, giving people an informed impartial view before they buy.

I am always curious about why some people seem to need to knock back any sort of positive attitude towards the environment. It would seem the world “environment” has become dirty word, and we need to change this.

It would just be cool, to change this attitude, it would be cool in 10 years time to turn up at the crag and see the equipment people wear did not needlessly harm the environment and the people that made it were respected. That would be cool…

“Let my people go Surfing” by Yvon Chouinard (ISBN1-59420-072-6) <Yes I know its already been mentioned, but lets shout its praises from the mountain tops>
OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
Black Diamond have partnered withj the EPA Green Power program.

Lyon Equipment recycle something like 50 tonnes of their packaging and are working with their companies like Petzl to reduce packaging at all levels.

3M/Insulate are part of Pillution Prevention Pays programme....have reduced toxic air and greenhouses emissions by 95% and solid waste between 1995 and 2006.....

Asolo have elimated consumer brochures.

Five Ten is now reclaiming 1,000 of pounds of rubber it once through away for a variety of uses.

Marmot has added lower impact fabrics to more than 40 of their products including its sleeping bags which are now made from 80 to 100% of recycled materials.

Nikwax and Grangers do a helluva lot.

Osprey's goal is 100% renewable sources by 2010.

Petzl operates on 100% wind power.

Prana's stuff is well known.

There's a lot going on and we are trying to find out more.

Mick
alix 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
I think the idea of having a Green Gear section is great. I think all of us who enjoy the outdoors want to help preserve it.
But I'm also interested in Ethical Gear - I'd like to know not only that the clothes I buy are good for the environment, but also good for the people that make them, or the fabrics that go into them. Could you include company ethics in the section too? (For instance the level of checking they perform on a source companies working standands policies - such as fair pay and good working conditions)
Removed User 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Good work Mick! This is an intersting topic and thread which will hopefully become a whole lot more. The Green Report Card sounds great in principal. Can you divulge more info?

I also agree about with the ethics point raised above. In many respects this is equally, if not more important to buyers than environmental considerations. It's important to know where products manufactured and under what conditions? How much visibility do we, as consumers, really have of this? More and more companies are using sustainability themes in their marketing and they should be accountable for their claims or, at the very least, open to public scrutiny.

Patagonia do indeed seem to be paving the way in this area and have been for some time (LMPGS tells you all you need to know) but it'll great to find out what other companies are up to.

OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Removed User:
> (In reply to Removed UserMick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Good work Mick! This is an intersting topic and thread which will hopefully become a whole lot more. The Green Report Card sounds great in principal. Can you divulge more info?

Agreed on the ethics.

Iain Whitehouse, myself and Jack are working on the Green Report Card. It's a bit of a multifaceted project. The aim is to highlight good practice not bad practice and to encourage debate amongst both us consumers of outdoor equipment and those that make it and sell it - we are even including climbing walls in the project.

We do want to avoid the superficial and we are aware of the Green Bandwagon or window washing as someone described it above.

Mick
 slacky 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Will the GREEN GEAR series of articles include some self-analysis?


* How many servers are required to host UKC?
* What is the power efficiency of the servers?
* Are the databases optimally designed to minimise CPU load (and in turn power usage)?
* How many users are there of the site daily (yes I know these are available already) and more importantly how does their use of UKC affect their use of computers, are they left on permanently so people can check the forums quickly without having to wait to boot-up?
* What is the power efficency of the UKC "Offices"
* What are UKC's own environmental policies?

Can we trust UKC? You decide

Personally I think its great the Patagonia are so transparent, allowing the consumer to make an informed choice (should they desire to do so).
 Tom Briggs 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> Black Diamond have partnered withj the EPA Green Power program.
>
> Lyon Equipment recycle something like 50 tonnes of their packaging and are working with their companies like Petzl to reduce packaging at all levels.
>
> 3M/Insulate are part of Pillution Prevention Pays programme....have reduced toxic air and greenhouses emissions by 95% and solid waste between 1995 and 2006.....
>
> Asolo have elimated consumer brochures.
>
> Five Ten is now reclaiming 1,000 of pounds of rubber it once through away for a variety of uses.
>
> Marmot has added lower impact fabrics to more than 40 of their products including its sleeping bags which are now made from 80 to 100% of recycled materials.
>
> Nikwax and Grangers do a helluva lot.
>
> Osprey's goal is 100% renewable sources by 2010.
>
> Petzl operates on 100% wind power.
>
> Prana's stuff is well known.
>
> There's a lot going on and we are trying to find out more.
>
> Mick


Buy local.

DMM & Wild Country.


OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to slacky:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> Will the GREEN GEAR series of articles include some self-analysis?

Of course.
 niggle 30 Apr 2008
As a good friend of mine who actually owned a recycling company said, it's sometimes hard to believe how many people think they're recycling just because they put their bottles in a box to be collected. If you're not buying recycled products, you're not recycling full stop.
 andybenham 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Well done UKC. Nothing wrong with jumping on the environmental bandwagon.

Too many people are desparate to prove that a reportedly envoronmental company is not quite as green as they should/could be so they can go back to living with their heads in the sand.

What ever happened to praising the efforts of those who try to make a difference instead of immediately looking for what they haven't done?

And as for the aforementioned band wagon - the end justifies the means. Apparantly to a lot of people the idea of being in business to make money is a bad one. Well unfortunately few are big hearted enough to set up in business and risk everything for nothing. Provided a "green" claim is valid then why not use it as a form of marketing? More people buy the product so they make more money but also less people buy the non-green competitor's products which forces them to make themselves more green. It's called market forces dudes and many have suggested that no real envorinmental change will happen until it becomes economically advantagous for businesses to go that route.

The important thing is that there are those of us prepared to do the leg work, look at the small print and report what they find (the examined life?) to ensure that green credentials are valid. If they are and it makes a lot of money for the company in question then kudos to them.

So I say again, well done UKC for bringing this up. Look forward to seeing your reports.

Oh and BTW I DO use recycled bog roll.

So there.
In reply to andybenham:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) Well done UKC. Nothing wrong with jumping on the environmental bandwagon.
>
> Oh and BTW I DO use recycled bog roll.
>
> So there.

Recycled toilet paper can originally come from non-controlled wood sources and so in fact contribute to the rainforest downfall. Now FSC paper is a different kettle of fish

:oP
OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to andybenham:

Nice one Andy. Cyncism can be good but as you say it is all too often used as an excuse for hiding ones head in the sand.

I like your explanation of the green 'bandwagon" like you say why not use it for marketing, but at the same time attempt to do at least something to lighten your footprint on earth.

Mick
 IainWhitehouse 30 Apr 2008
In reply to andybenham:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com) ..dudes and many have suggested that no real envorinmental change will happen until it becomes economically advantagous for businesses to go that route.

This is a sad fact but absolutely true. Although it might be more strictly accurate to say unitl it becomes 'economically advantageous in the short term' - the Stern report suggests that it could already be very advantageous in the medium and long term.
 IainWhitehouse 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Tom Briggs:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> Buy local.
>
> DMM & Wild Country.

Hi Tom,

Sadly it is not that simple. The more we have looked into this the more tangled the issues become.

We already are talking seriously with lots of several manufacturers including DMM about their environmental impacts and policies and we hope eventually to speak to as many as possible. It is going to take a long time to learn everything we want to learn but it is already clear that we are not likely to be able to idenify clear cut 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

 Tom Briggs 30 Apr 2008
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
> (In reply to Tom Briggs)
> [...]
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> Sadly it is not that simple. The more we have looked into this the more tangled the issues become.
>
> We already are talking seriously with lots of several manufacturers including DMM about their environmental impacts and policies and we hope eventually to speak to as many as possible. It is going to take a long time to learn everything we want to learn but it is already clear that we are not likely to be able to idenify clear cut 'goodies' and 'baddies'.

Sure. We've already spoken about nasty old anodising that they are all guilty of.

Just that Mick didn't mention the UK-based companies in his post.

My understanding is you can feel very good about your Patagucci jacket, but it's been shipped half way round the world (I think they have cool map thingy on their site showing this).

OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Tom Briggs:
> (In reply to IainWhitehouse)
> [...]
>


> Just that Mick didn't mention the UK-based companies in his post.

Lyon Equipment. Have talked to DMM and will be talking to Wild Country and Equip, and Aiguille and Mountain Boot and a whole list of others.

 Joyce 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I first heard of Patagonia back in 2000 when I was working on a gap year at an environmental education centre in the USA. Patagonia offered the centre staff any of their clobber at half price plus VAT. All good stuff, and most of the kit I bought then is still in service 'cos it just works and refuses to wear out.

Good on ya UK Climbing for exploring how environmentally friendly the manufacturers of climbing kit are, especially bearing in mind that we need that environment to be able to use the stuff.

Oh, and may I also add Howies to that list of environmentally friendly companies someone mentioned. This lot definitely have the right idea. Their kit works really well too and its designed in Wales - lovely.

Joyce
 Adam Long 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Lyon do very little manufacturing to be fair. They are principally a distributor.

I think Tom's point of buy local is a fair one. There is more to this than just the shipping impacts - the UK has some of the tightest environmental laws in the world and they do get enforced.
 Tom Briggs 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Adam L)
> [...]
>
> Uhhhhh most UK based outdoor companies do very little domestic UK manufacturing.

Of course, but DMM do, so that's why I mentioned them as if you buy a DMM krab it's not been shipped from China to the US and back to Europe.

OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Tom Briggs:

Sorry Tom I deleted my post.

Uhhhhh most UK based outdoor companies do very little domestic UK manufacturing.

You can buy local, but that doesn't mean to say that the stuff is actually manufactured here.

Take the computers we all use for example.

This is the type of thing we will be investigating and also looking at the reasons why most stuff is manufactured overseas.

This isn't black and white topic by any means but one we want to look at because, like many, we think it is important.

Mick
 toad 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Whilst manfacturing is a factor, the most significant environmental impact of climbing is, well ,climbers. Travelling, eating, crapping, eroding, disturbing and displacing wildlife.

On one level, buying eco-friendly gear is like buying a flensing hook with an FSC accredited rainforest-friendly handle. It isn't the product that impacts, so much as the user.
OP Michael Ryan 30 Apr 2008
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)

> It isn't the product that impacts, so much as the user.

Try both perhaps?

 toad 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: The point I was making (badly) was that environmentally friendly products aren't the answer - a better analogy might be the various plans for carbon sequestration or hybrid cars. The technology might have a place, but the root solution is to reduce emissions at source. In a climbing context this means fewer trips, trips to domestic destinations, rather than alpine or alpine rather than greater ranges. Which involves significant sacrifice. Which a lot of people (me included) find much harder to make. Certainly harder than spending an extra £20 on a fleece made from pop bottles.
 IainWhitehouse 30 Apr 2008
In reply to Tom Briggs:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
> [...]
> Of course, but DMM do, so that's why I mentioned them as if you buy a DMM krab it's not been shipped from China to the US and back to Europe.

Granted, but the aluminium may have been. And maybe it is better to ship the final product further in order to avoid shipping the materials as far. I don't know yet. It's one of the things I am trying to find out. I want this to be rigorous and fair so I can't afford to make assumptions about anyone's 'product miles' without knowing the hard facts.

This isn't going to be a quick process. Like I said inmy earlier post, the more we think about this and the more research we do, the more questions we find to ask.

Iain
 IainWhitehouse 30 Apr 2008
In reply to toad: Your point was a good one, but isn't a reason not to try to point out good practise and encourage manufacturers to improve.

Sadly many people forget the first two of the three R's (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle). It is one of the many things we have been discussing and is likely to be explored to some extent in article.
 toad 01 May 2008
In reply to IainWhitehouse:
> (In reply to toad) Your point was a good one, but isn't a reason not to try to point out good practise and encourage manufacturers to improve.
>
> Fair enough, but it's worth remembering that the main purpose of most clothing manufacturers marketing depts is to make sure we replace our gear long before it's worn out, and Patagonia as a fashionable brand are prime culprits in this respect.

But it would be a brave company that said publically that this years jacket is no different to last years apart from a slightly repositioned underarm vent zip.
 galpinos 01 May 2008
In reply to toad:

Isn't it about trying to do a bit of everything though? Buying greener products from greener companies whilst also reducing impact travelling to crags etc.

As someone said above, if everyone makes these "token" efforts that people trivialise, then they will make a difference.

Just because one change doesn't have the biggest effect, doesn't mean it's not worth doing, it just means it's worth doing as well as addressing the other issues.
Removed User 01 May 2008
In reply to toad:

"...Patagonia as a fashionable brand are prime culprits in this respect."

I think you need to read a bit more about Patagonia and examine its marketing a more carefully.

They are one of the few companies that are not actively pandering to the more fashion conscious outdoor enthusiast - depsite their kit being both fashionable and desirable - an intersting paradox.

Patagonia's advertising often promotes the quality and longevity of their gear, as well a Patagoinia's committment to environmental causes and low-impact manufacturing techniques. These are cornerstones of their product development philosophy.
toadwork 01 May 2008
In reply to Removed User: This obviousy isn't the patagonia shop in Chamonix, then. Don't get me wrong, the best base layer I have is patagonia, from said shop, but I have no illusions about the clientelle, regardless of the intentions of the firm.

I'm not singling out Pat., neither am I saying that reducing the production footprint is not important...BUT, the single biggest environmental issue related to any outdoor product is the user, and we (collectively) can't hide behind best practice in manufacturing outdoor gear if our own subsequent actions in our travelling and activity choices negate this.
Removed User 01 May 2008
In reply to toadwork:

That's a fair point.

Your example of the Pat. shop in Chamonix is interesting too. The deeper issue here is consumerism. With the example of Patagonia, people will buy stuff they don't need precisely because of envrionmental/minimal footprint policies and marketing (I'm as guilty of this as anyone!). However, can we seriously expect outdoor companies to influence that choice?

 IainWhitehouse 02 May 2008
In reply to toad:
> (In reply to IainWhitehouse)
> [...]
>
> But it would be a brave company that said publically that this years jacket is no different to last years apart from a slightly repositioned underarm vent zip.

Not necessarily. They could turn it around and say 'we don't change our products every year because we work to get it right first time. We only make a change when there is a significant advance to be made.' One manufacturer has just said pretty much exactly that to me in an interview.
Iain
 jimtitt 02 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
"Iain Whitehouse, myself and Jack are working on the Green Report Card. It's a bit of a multifaceted project. The aim is to highlight good practice not bad practice and to encourage debate amongst both us consumers of outdoor equipment and those that make it and sell it - we are even including climbing walls in the project.

We do want to avoid the superficial and we are aware of the Green Bandwagon or window washing as someone described it above."

Well Mick, as a starter I recommend you read one of the recent issues of Klettern, Germanies climbing mag. They produced an "eco" special which basically reprinted the press releases from various companies touting their "greenness". Then, in a fit of journalistic madness they filled the rest of the magazine with an account of one of the previously mentioned companies rock trip which involved flying over 20 people half way round the world to an exotic destination and taking nice photo´s of their rock athletes on specially bolted routes, including using the royal helicopter as a camera platform. Even the most hardened climber could see who was being conned.

Of course I anticipate you have higher journalistic standards than just recycling the cynical outpourings of marketing departments, though I do wonder why you only want to highlight good practice? Surely it is of more use to potential customers if they are informed of the bad as well as good so they can make an informed choice. (Or of course could it be that your jounalistic integrity doesn´t extend quite as far as upsetting potential advertisers?)

Presumably, to ensure the accuracy of your "Green Report Card" you are going to have independant audits performed on the companies in the climbing industry, in which case we await their visit to us with anticipation since my company produces only 100% recycleable products, recycles all waste material from manufacturing, uses only organic materials in its chemical processes and all of our heat, light and power is from carbon neutral, renewable resources from our on-site bio-gas power plant. Naturally I don´t publicise this, I prefer to produce an honest, quality product that doesnt need any "psuedo-green" marketing help.

Jim
 Paul Atkinson 02 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: well done, you deserve our support in this

I realise that I'm not nearly as informed as I should be on this subject whilst meaning well and trying to do all the right things, and probably (sadly) rely on the Grauniad and Economist (and various hippies amonmg family and friends) to educate me on these matters

anyone better informed care to recommend some reading matter from crusader to megacynic ends of the spectrum? Will certainly read Chouinard's book

cheers, Paul
Samu 03 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Thanks for this interesting thread Mick. I'd like to make a couple of general points on this complex problem:

1. I think that companies like Patagonia are doing the best they can within the constraints of our dependence on fossil fuels at this time. We as consumers need to pressurise governments to change that.

2. As individuals we are tied into working and making enough money to live and most of us don't have the extra time or money to do more than make minor changes to our daily use of resources. I for one feel powerless when looking at the bigger picture. As climbers we also see more than most the changes that global warming is causing. With our travelling we also see how people change the environment in which we live.

As a group of people UKClimbing has more power than the individual. Why don't we try and make some changes. One possibility would be, for example, (like Patagonia) to raise money to buy areas of rain forest to put it beyond use. I'm sure other people have better ideas. What do you think? Let's do something and make a difference.
 Joris.Roulleau 06 May 2008
In reply to alix:
good point all of that. As the focus of this post is Patagonia, the company, I think I remember a few years ago reading their catalogues(on recycled paper, but internet is now more enviromentally frinedly) and finding out that not only were they some of the first people questioning the ecological impact of cotton (thus the later use of organic cotton, you can't really go wrong with that one) or funding ecological associations, but they also produced all their stuff in California, where the factory had a kindergarden for the employee's kids etc. Well, they claimed carring for the wellbeing of everyone. Hard to verify, but I would trust them. I don't know if they still produce their stuff in countries that, say enforce decent working conditions, and even go beyond local working laws.
Other companies claimed some time ago that 70% of their products were made in EU and I haven't seen that label on their products for a while.
In term of quality (it's true that you'd rather keep a product for a long time), I haven't always been so impressed with Patagonia stuff. It depends what it is really but it was not always that long-lasting. Also I vaguely remember that in my mind Patagonia was at the top of the range in terms of price (which I put down to the assumed civilised production conditions), but after checking a product or 2 recently, found them relatively 'cheap' compared with other brands. Not sure what's the reason for that.

Just to keep people informed, there is a post on Patagonia's blog about down for the down jackets and apparently it all comes from Eastern Europe or China, from geese that are reared for food in god-knows-what conditions. All makes apparently use these geese's down, and although down is a byproduct, I'm not sure how vegetarians and animal friends will appreciate. Besides, not sure what are the work conditions in these geese factories either.

On a different note, something I have been wondering for a while: is it more environemnt friendly to order on internet and get the stuff delivered or posted, or is it better to go and shop in town? I think that's a hard one.
In reply to Joris.Roulleau: Patagonia might be hip and rad, and have a green policy but their clothes DON'T FIT. How can you call a jacket "Guide" and then fashion it around Homer Simpson?.....
 Chris F 07 May 2008
In reply to Jamie Simpson - Alpine Dragons:

> “Let my people go Surfing” by Yvon Chouinard (ISBN1-59420-072-6) <Yes I know its already been mentioned, but lets shout its praises from the mountain tops>

Indeed. I found the book fascinating. In it he makes no claims that they are perfect, but that they are continuously striving to improve their environmental impact, and considering all aspects of the industry, right from raw materials to using existing buildings for their stores and factories, rather than new builds.

 Chris F 07 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
> (In reply to Joris.Roulleau) Patagonia might be hip and rad, and have a green policy but their clothes DON'T FIT. How can you call a jacket "Guide" and then fashion it around Homer Simpson?.....

This post is so irrelevant that it hardly dignifies a reply.

CC 07 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Anyone who is motivated by this, and visits the Lakes regularly could have a look at www.ourstolookafter.co.uk We work with tourism businesses (and other businesses that want to get involved) to encourage them to look at the way they operate environmentally and to support landscape conservation.

http://www.ourstolookafter.co.uk./pages/pdf/ABCgreenguide08.pdf

This link is a directory of the businesses, and lists what they do. If you REALLY REALLY care, please contact your local tourist board or Visit Britain and ask for info about environmentally responsible accommodation. There is a perception within the (tourism) industry that its only tree hugging, sandle wearing muesli eaters that actually care about where they are spending their money. It's only by consumer pressure that we will start to make businesses respond properly to this. I do sometimes feel that I am banging my head against a brick wall.

yours, a tree hugging, sandal wearing muesli eater.
 Joris.Roulleau 07 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
really? I thought their stuff fits really well and I'm not Homer Simpson...
Maybe they refocused on the american market...
 Joris.Roulleau 07 May 2008
In reply to Chris F:
Come on don't be so harsh! A bit of female-like gossiping doesn't hurt after all that green reading.
 IainWhitehouse 07 May 2008
In reply to CC:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> yours, a tree hugging, sandal wearing muesli eater.

I prefer a hair shirt and brown lentils myself.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

"And now, these words from our sponsors..."

Sorry, Mick, but that's how it comes across.
OP Michael Ryan 07 May 2008
In reply to captain paranoia:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> "And now, these words from our sponsors..."
>
> Sorry, Mick, but that's how it comes across.

It's OK .. I'm getting used to the cynical Brit attitude - of some mind, not all. Perhaps that is why some American companies are way ahead in developing environmental policies than many Euros - not all mind (Vaude!), there are always exceptions (consider that I've lived in the US for 12 years and I do not doubt the sincerity and effort of people like Prana, Patagonia and others - and know some of the retailers who make up the http://grassrootsoutdoors.com/ .. these are very sincere people who want to make a difference and know that they can. )

It's all about reducing the use of finite resources and reducing pollution in this over-populated and greedy world we live in. We need stuff to do our stuff, but let's make an effort to reduce our impact. It could be made into a monster if we all pull together as a team.

A media has a complex relationship with its readers and advertisers, a responsibility to provide interesting content and help its advertisers to sell stuff.

I am committed to both UKC's readers and the companies who pay the bills. A balancing act but one I am good at.

Cheers,

Mick

 Enty 07 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I'll by my rockshoes and krabs from Decathlon because that's where they are cheapest. I don't mind whether they have been to the moon and back on their way to my rucksack.

Not at least whilst this place still exists.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=285657&v=1#x4235993

The Ent

OP Michael Ryan 07 May 2008
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> I'll by my rockshoes and krabs from Decathlon because that's where they are cheapest.

And who can blame you Ents?

But when people get used to paying £20 for a pair of rock shoes or £5 for a quickdraw don't expect your independent retailers to survive or climbing companies to innovate.

These boys will be busy that is for sure:

youtube.com/watch?v=sjNaUHA2KrY&


 Enty 07 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

> > These boys will be busy that is for sure:
>
> youtube.com/watch?v=sjNaUHA2KrY&

That would be speeded up in my factory.

The Ent

OP Michael Ryan 07 May 2008
In reply to Enty:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)
>
> [...]
>
> That would be speeded up in my factory.
>

Your factory is the environment Enty - it goes at its own pace - get in tune with it.

In reply to Chris F:
> (In reply to Daniel Armitage)
> [...]
>
> This post is so irrelevant that it hardly dignifies a reply.

Well not really... i am not going to invest my hard earned kroner on a jacket which i am relying on to keep me alive when it doesn't fit...

Work bought me a "Guide" softshell for use when i'm climbing trees and its like a tent! i'm 6'4 and the jacket is XL. The L is too short in the arms and the XL has about 40L of excess space where my beer belly ought to be..

To be really eco friendly we should all give up climbing, traveling and any other non subsistence level activity instead of preaching a load of pseudo eco warrior, reducing my impact whilst still doing what the chuff i like and getting rich hypocritical bull dust!
OP Michael Ryan 07 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
> (In reply to Chris F)
> [...]

> To be really eco friendly we should all give up climbing, traveling and any other non subsistence level activity instead of preaching a load of pseudo eco warrior, reducing my impact whilst still doing what the chuff i like and getting rich hypocritical bull dust!

Bollox Daniel. Some just don't get it do they. Is it really that complicated? We have to work to live, to earn a crust - but whilst we do that we try to reduce our impact and hopefully inspire others to do the same.

It's either that or Planet Earth will get recycled.....

youtube.com/watch?v=q1D6BVUZXtU&

OP Michael Ryan 07 May 2008
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Full track here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nSTT6ejCU&feature=related
 Alex Roddie 07 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
> To be really eco friendly we should all give up climbing, traveling and any other non subsistence level activity instead of preaching a load of pseudo eco warrior, reducing my impact whilst still doing what the chuff i like and getting rich hypocritical bull dust!

It would be impossible for humanity to revert to a subsistence level without an enormous reduction in global population. A civilisation based on subsistence only works if everyone has enough land to feed their family. The only way we can support the globe's current population is by intensive farming and putting most of the rest of the people in the cities.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Daniel Armitage)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Bollox Daniel. Some just don't get it do they. Is it really that complicated?

Cheers for that.

So lets say i buy a Patagonia jacket, with its healthy recycled polyester and very toxic DWR coating, and take a a transatlantic flight to Yosemite to try it out..

Should i now sit at camp whatever self satisfied and feeling secure in my environmentally aware product choices?

Some people REALLY don't get it...


In reply to Alex Roddie:
> (In reply to Daniel Armitage)
> [...]
> without an enormous reduction in global population.

The way things are, i believe that day may come!

TimS 07 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
> (In reply to Chris F)
> Work bought me a "Guide" softshell for use when i'm climbing trees and its like a tent! i'm 6'4 and the jacket is XL. The L is too short in the arms and the XL has about 40L of excess space where my beer belly ought to be..

A quick check of Patagonia's website would have allowed you to check their sizing charts without doing anything so polluting as going to the shop and trying something on
OP Michael Ryan 07 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
> (In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com)


> Should i now sit at camp whatever self satisfied and feeling secure

The rangers at Camp 4 Sunnyside don't allow anyone to be self-satisfied or feel secure. If they catch you being smug and safe they throw you in jail.

In reply to TimS: I gotta wear what they give me.. I tried both L and XL.. I'm going to get my mother in law to take it in by cutting a wedge out of the back and stitching it together again..

INSTEAD OF THROWING IT AWAY AND BUYING SOMETHING THAT FITS.
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
> (In reply to Daniel Armitage)
> [...]
>
>
> [...]
>
>If they catch you being smug and safe they throw you in jail.


They should do that with all of us....
 Chris F 08 May 2008
In reply to Daniel Armitage:
> (In reply to Chris F)
> [...]
>
> Well not really... i am not going to invest my hard earned kroner on a jacket which i am relying on to keep me alive when it doesn't fit...
>
Really actually. This is a discussion about environmetal policies of companies in general, not wether their clothes fit you personally or not.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...