Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

Comment by JPKab | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

They are welcome to use wool and invest in new methods of producing artificial fibers without using oil.

They've had decades to work on this, never did. Let's not forget about the massive catalogs they used to ship out in the 90s, far larger than they needed to be. They were huge because they were so dedicated to putting pretty pictures of people in nature to promote their lifestyle brand. How many thousands of trees died for their catalogs?

While we're talking about how amazingly benevolent and caring they are, what about the workers in the US they laid off when they outsourced their manufacturing? What about the CO2 they introduced into the atmosphere as a result of this decision, courtesy of their products having to be shipped across the world?

This whole reminds me of my former CEO, preaching to the company about equity, meanwhile due to Colorado regulations, we all knew that his salary was 111X that of the average employee there. The movement can be summarized as this: "I'm really, really, really fucking rich, but don't focus on that. Focus on these terrible people who don't vote like you who do dirty, nasty, bad things people who vote like you don't like. Sure, they're getting screwed by the same people screwing you, but I promise you, your problems are THEIR fault. Now, please protect the planet, I gotta get on my private jet and fly to my chateau in Switzerland."

I'm done with you, clearly you have a bone to pick with Environmental activists or more likely you are a troll trying to get a rise out of people that care about. I never said they were prefect, that's not a requirement to do good now. Yes they laid of workers here but they pay living wages in those outsourced countries. Many of them FAR closer to the raw materials. If fact outsourcing manufacturing has at times been found to be a wash in terms of environmental impacts. Finished products are often much smaller and less impactful to ship than raw materials. I don't know that is the case here but unless you can so prove that it's Environmentally damaging to outsource their product your are spouting bullshit. Beyond that Patagonia sells their products all over the world so no one aside form them has any clue if it's a negative impact or not. Also how do you know they haven't invested in new methods of producing artificial fibers? Also since when do you need to be a materials scientist to care about the environment? Also they use a TON of wool in their products. I've tried to buy their products, they are normally cut in a manner that doesn't work well for me - slim and tapered, often when I wanted it was because of the wool usage as it's a great material for outdoor clothing.

I'm not a troll, and in the early 2000s I worked on renewable energy installations (off-the grid solar and microhydroelectric) and during that time I lived for a 14 months in a self-sustaining, off-the-grid community (left when it got a little cult-y). I did all sorts of green building (primarily cordwood/earth plaster) techniques, and worked for one of the authors of this book: https://www.amazon.com/Building-Green-Complete-How-Alternati...

He gifted me with a copy as a reviewer back then.

I'm a committed environmentalist, and I've grown deeply skeptical and disgusted with corporate douchebags who live in giant mansions and fly in private jets and pretend to really care about the environment. Haven't you?

It's obviously functioning as a religion-like tool for them to reclaim moral superiority due to a prevalent ideology that makes them feel guilty for their wealth. It lets them continue to keep their money and feel good again. You may disagree, but I'm not being disrespectful to you in any way. "I'm done with you" followed by ad-hominems isn't a productive response.

BTW, I take cold showers daily, keep my house at 65 in winter, turn off AC in summer and use open windows and fans. I drive a Tesla. I don't pretend to be super eco-friendly, but I'm sacrificing more than these posturing executives and board members do. I've met a few very prominent voices in this space, and been in a couple of their homes. They are gluttonous consumers of energy, raw materials, resources, and fossil fuel energy in general. People who live in 20,000 square foot homes should shut up about climate change. They tarnish the entire movement when they open their mouths.

The quip about "living wage" in those countries, paired with no apparent concern for people in your own country is exactly the rationalization made in boardrooms, when everyone knows it was driven by the bottom-line and nothing else. Your rationalization made it sound as if the intention of outsourcing was to help the environment. I think you know this is absurd. They reduced their costs and didn't lower their prices, so they could pocket the difference. Because that's what corporations are designed to do, and the posturing is serving the same purpose via emotional brand marketing for a target demographic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com