So reading about Patagonia today. They are apparently famous for donating 1% of their revenues to environmental causes.

Now Patagonia makes some nice stuff. But so does North Face, Marmot, and for that matter REI and LL Bean. You pay a 5-20% premium to get the environmentally-conscious Patagonia brand name compared to comparable products from their competitors.

So, say, Patagonia only collects a 5% premium and donates 1% to charity, that's a 4:1 profit bonus. That's at a minimum. Gotta be millions of dollars a year they make off their well-meaning customers.

If you really want environmentally friendly gear, you would do much better to buy TNF or Outdoor Research or whatever and cut a check for 5% of the price to your favorite charity.

I think that what you're not taking into account is that Patagonia attempts to make their clothing/gear in an environmentally-friendly way. It's not just what is being donated, but also how they make their products. Granted, I know very little about how closely they follow this motto, but that's the theory at least.

Also, in my experience, Patagonia makes superior clothing/gear to the other brands you mentioned, so I think that also contributes to the price differences.

"Patagonia makes superior clothing/gear to the other brands you mentioned, so I think that also contributes to the price differences"

+1 Sure; go buy NorthFace: the World's Best One-Time-Use Products. No thanks; Patagonia is pricey, but it's top notch manufacturing. So which is better for the planet, buying three or four inferior products that wear out and fall apart, or one overpriced version?

sharperblue wrote:"Patagonia makes superior clothing/gear to the other brands you mentioned, so I think that also contributes to the price differences"

+1 Sure; go buy NorthFace: the World's Best One-Time-Use Products. No thanks; Patagonia is pricey, but it's top notch manufacturing. So which is better for the planet, buying three or four inferior products that wear out and fall apart, or one overpriced version?

I've only ever had one Patagonia item: a cotton shirt that wore out faster than most. I haven't seen anything superior about Patagonia. Hard to see anything lasting three or four times as long as TNF or MH.

Buz, one shirt is a pretty small sample size, and I think that Patagonia excels in their performance clothing, but maybe not so much in the cotton shirt department. I've had several items of Patagonia clothing that have taken some serious abuse and held up well.

I've got a pair of Patagonia Capilene pants that have lasted through about 7 ice seasons now and been up quite a few mountains too. I pay the premium because I know the Patagonia label means that the fabric will perform. But I also pay hefty prices for Rab and Mammut clothing. I'm not going to mess around with inferior gear when I'm going out in the cold.

I've been wearing Patagonia clothing since they first came on the market in the early 70s. Still have an original pile jacket. Also have several pieces of Synchilla when that came out in the mid-80s. All with lots of wear. Hard wearing stuff, cutting edge materials. These examples show that Patagonia is a leader in the industry, and actually doing R&D costs money.
In my book (or on my body) their clothes tend to fit well and function (Y-joint sleeves, etc.). Not always... sometimes you make mistakes when you are out front, as opposed to following. And there are other good brands as well.
As for China (or Vietnam, or Honduras, or wherever), no, that's not US made. But even in China you still have options in how your stuff is made. You can get down and dirty with your choice of factory or do it with a conscience. Patagonia has a conscience, and again is an industry leader. There aren't many any other clothing companies talking about (and actually doing something about) saving the planet, removing dams, etc.

But I'm not saying YOU should buy Patagonia. But I still do and will continue to for all the reasons above.

The Chief wrote:

As for China (or Vietnam, or Honduras, or wherever), no, that's not US made. But even in China you still have options in how your stuff is made.

2011 C02 Emissions

Country Emission per capita

World 33,376,327

1. China 9,700,000

2. United States 5,420,000

3. India 1,970,000


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... _emissions


Oh, I do not see nor hear of YC going over to China and telling them to break down their dams or to cease their C02 emissions etc. The Chinese having the most and biggest Dams on the planet and the worst C02 emitters, btw.

I think you need to make a choice about what it is that you don't want: CO2 emissions or dams. We've got to allow for some method of producing electricity.

Those numbers aren't per Capita. The US emits approximately 3 times more CO2 per capita than China, however China has about 4.5 times as many people, so their total emissions are greater by a factor of 1.5.

"break down their dams or to cease their C02 emissions etc. The Chinese having the most and biggest Dams on the planet and the worst C02 emitters"

Yeah; as Buz said though, how do you want to generate your electricity? Hydro is bad, but better than coal. Who knows how long those dams will last, though - my fav line from a program on the 3 Gorges Dam came when one of its engineers had his calculations questioned, and his response was "our math is better than your math." Ummm...

I just returned from Guangzhou/Shenzen - the massive industrial cities in China's south and let me tell you, the heavy industry - aluminum smelting plants, rubber plants, electronics and dildo manufacturing facilities - is so incredibly vast and unregulated that I have a sense of hopelessness for the planet as never before. All I see in stores here is junk junk junk - the for-sale remnants of severe pollution that we are temporarily shielded from. Every time I get some useless bauble in the mail i just want to scream at that aspect of our f-ed up culture.

~pause~ perhaps i just ranted off topic - ? hahahaha! sorry! f-ing liberal hippe pinko!

The Chief wrote:

Yeah; as Buz said though, how do you want to generate your electricity? Hydro is bad, but better than coal.

Woooo Wooo Wooo...

Not according to YC here in the U.S.

So why is it OK there in China and not ok here?

YC says that hydro is worse than coal - ? not a chance. Didn't mean to imply that it was better off in China; pollution doesn't respect international borders lately. But I'm a hillbilly from the West Virginia coal fields; believe me, I'd rather have my rivers dammed than my mountains torn down and the remnants pouring chemicals into the rivers. Spend a few minutes on Google Earth looking at southern WV (or at Oregon for the scale of de-forestation)

Regarding OP, let me see, original pile jacket and pants, H2NO parka (cc 1980s), alpine bibs, mid weight polypro, expedition weight polypro, featherweight capilene top and bottoms, thick capilene top and bottoms, backbowl parka, backbowl pants, duckbill hats (several), Goretex parka, alpine gloves and mitts, R1 zip sweater, Guide pants (two pairs), ton of socks and glove liners and that is just what I can quickly remember as hanging in my climbing room and is to this day used by me. I would gladly pay a bit more for something that really works.

There are a few companies that can equal Patagonia's 40 year output of innovative gear. Let's not forget, they ruled the alpine clothing arena for years. Easy to knock them, much harder for other manufacturers to match what they have been doing including their invironmental stance. And, bottom line, most (not all) of their gear is bomber.

let us all now caress our beloved R1 Hoodies (5+ years and counting)

Hydro is worse than coal? I live in West Virginia and we love clean coal! We don't mind having our mountains stripped away. We love having our river vallies filled in with mountaintop removal.



Anyone who says that hydro is worse than coal has never lived in an area where the streams are all poisoned with acid mine drainage.

This is Lick Run, a typical small creek in my area. It feeds into the Cheat River, which is also a dead river. This is the reality of "clean coal" for those of us who live in "clean coal" country.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyPTIOJuWws

The runoff from abandoned coal mine tailings is very acidic and contains a lot of iron. As the pH drops in the creeks and streams, the iron precipitates out as an orange iron oxide solid. As a results, all of the streams in coal country are contaminated with this acidic runoff and orange staining.

Attempts to clean up this mess generally include collection ponds lined with crushed limestone to neutralize the acid and precipitate the iron before it flow into the streams.

The coal companies have found it cheaper to just abandon coal mines, pay the fines, and write off the loss rather than spend the money to reclaim the land - as required by law.

The government collects a coal tax in order to clean up such toxic wastes from abandoned coal mines. But the tax is so low that -- like the Superfund -- the abandoned coal mine clean-up funds are only about 20% funded by the current tax structure. And so most abandoned coal mines sit untreated and poison the surrounding communities and rivers.

So private groups - like Friends of the Cheat River and the West Virginia Rivers Coalition - have stepped in to start mine reclaimation with privately-donated funds.

Gotta love "clean coal!"