In some, ways, it seems like Yvon's trying to undo the damage Patagonia did in its earlier days. Like... some sort of good act to absolve it and him of his "environmental sins".
But, this is too shallow, and too pessimistic, to be true. YC is a bouldering and climbing luminary. He put up some hard climbs and boulder problems, some right in LA (Chouinard's Hole at Stoney point comes to mind, but it's an easy, fun one). His attitudes have permeated down into the bones of climbing culture today. It's a "nut up or shut up" kinda sport. Maybe that's why it attracted him.
As another commenter said, he smithed his own tools and hardware. Little known fact: the company Black Diamond was created by a group of people that bought the department from YC/Patagonia as it transitioned to soft goods more.
It's awesome that he's still around, fighting the good fight, trying to save our little globe. It's awesome that he's transitioning his company to ever more sustainable practices; and pushing suppliers to do the same. I can see it in other outdoor gear companies, too. They've seen what Patagooch is doing and they're jumping on the bandwagon. Sustainability has never been sexier. Just check out REI's website. They're hardcore pushing these principles, too. Interesting, too, that the outdoor industries are rapidly growing.
I also think it's great that YC and Patagonia are unabashedly involving themselves in politics. It's great to see a company...well, "nut up or shut up" regarding climate change. Glad they're putting money where their mouth is trying to oust climate-change-obstructionist republicans.
If only they still made climbing hardware. I'd buy it just to see my money go towards good causes, like getting republicans out of office.
> In some, ways, it seems like Yvon's trying to undo the damage Patagonia did in its earlier days. Like... some sort of good act to absolve it and him of his "environmental sins".
I don't know too much outside of reading his book (which is, of course, biased), but it sounds like very early on (before Patagonia was founded) is when he had a change of heart. Wikipedia quotes, "Around 1970, he became aware that the use of steel pitons made by his company was causing significant damage to the cracks of Yosemite. These pitons comprised 70 percent of his income."
Exactly what I wanted to ask... he is super cool guy who achieved so much. Using pitons was considered normal till maybe 70s, I wouldn't cast every single climber of those times as 'sinner' since by that optic you can blame all the mankind till now for this or that.
Times have changed, camming equipment developed (which simply didn't exist before so walls would be unclimbable without pitons). They were just climbing with whatever was possible.
Actually climbers were one of the first pioneers of ecological and sustainable approach to nature, not only because they lived on shoestring. Once you get into these sports and experience it regularly, you realize how important and awesome it all is for us.
No, not talking about pitons. That was what climbing was. When climbers like Yvon realized the damage it was causing, new forms of protection were invented, like spring-loaded camming devices and metal chocks that could be removed and caused almost no damage.
Him pivoting when he learned is the only thing he could do. I was talking more about building products from petroleum based fibers and whatnot. Calling them a "sin" is a stretch, but I couldn't think of another phrase.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure if there was a specific incident where he changed, but he does seem well aware any company with millions in revenue isn't without blame. He also recognizes that preserving the environment is in the best interest of Patagonia.
In the book he contrasts the culture of US climbers with European ones back then; Europeans focused on conquering nature (climbing tall mountains), while the US had advocates like John Muir, Ansel Adams, and Robert Frost focusing on being in nature.
It does seem like his awareness of the long-term damage has been long-standing. Patagonia started with importing rugby shirts because of their durability, environmental tithing started in the 80s, and the push for more sustainable materials in the 90s (with the realization it takes heavy involvement in the supply chain to carry out and enforce). Along the way he talks about repurposing old buildings instead (and adopting their quirks) of building new and actively encouraging repairs instead of replacing garments.
Chouinard has long been something of a personal inspiration.
- Early advocate of Clean climbing
- All around dirtbag hero and hardman (numerous FAs in the valley, the bugaboos, patagonia, the gunks)
- blacksmith, who made and used his own tools to climb.
- by all appearances a bullheaded guy on ethics and best practices: “ The whole purpose of planning something like Everest is to effect some sort of spiritual and physical gain and if you compromise the process, you’re an asshole when you start out and you’re an asshole when you get back.“
As it happens, the companies he founded or was involved in make very nice gear and i’m happy to own an ethically appropriate amount of it. Preferably preowned, and repaired instead of replaced.
FC: What do you think of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pursuing interplanetary travel and Mars and moon colonies because they don’t seem to believe that we can save our home planet?
YC: [Laughs] I think it’s pretty silly. And not just silly, but it’s really a shame. The monies that are going to space exploration should be used to save our own planet right now. We’re in a triage situation. Things are so grim. It’s World War III. I lived through World War II, and I remember what the country had to do to mobilize. You couldn’t buy sugar. You couldn’t buy meat.
Good thing those companies are private, so that those of us who want to are free to pursue this venture with money earned "saving our planet right now."
1% for the Planet is an incredibly positive and powerful collective of businesses.
If you own a business, please join. If you're an employee, please share it with your leaders. It's a small cost in the grand scheme of things, especially for a crucial cause. B-Corp is another group I strongly suggest looking into.
I certainly applaud business leaders who are willing to make commitments like this - though is it just me, or is it kind of sad that in the current business environment, a 1% pledge is considered ambitious?
I think Patagonia actually still does max(10% profits, 1% revenue) which is where their 1% project came from. For a retailer, 1% of gross can be huge. I agree that in other industries with high margins, 1% (even of revenue) is pretty small.
The FAQ says that:
> Our members have given more than $225 million back to environmental nonprofits since 2002.
which I think agrees, as that’s under $15M/yr average (though I assume heavily weighted towards recent data).
Yeah, that's a fair point - for high volume/low margin industries 1% of revenue is quite a bit of profit. I'm much more impressed by a pledge to give 1% of revenue than, e.g., https://pledge1percent.org/profit.html which commits to 1% of profit.
I love Chouinard and Patagonia. Chouinard is one of the early heroes and giants behind the rock climbing scene in Yosemite.
That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it. They are surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave more than ever. Yvon has been out of Patagonia's management for a couple of years now.
> "That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."
If a company is doing good, should they be allowed to let people know about it? Do you think they're doing this for craven purposes only? Or might they be putting their money where their mouth is and are proud of it? That it might encourage others to make similar decisions in their own lives, both personal and business? I'd like to think that people (and that's what a company is, a group of people) are capable of doing things for reasons other than pure greed or profit.
Do you fault people for making purchasing decisions based on the actions of a company in addition to the products or services they provide?
Sometimes I wonder what drives people to apparently only see the most cynical view. In my more uncharitable moments I think that's because they can't imagine others doing things because they think they're they right thing to do. And if they can't extend that to others, what does that say about themselves?
But perhaps it's just that they've been burned too many times in the past. Whatever the reason, I choose to embrace actions of others that are good. I believe I'm capable of doing good, and that others can, too. There's so many things we need to do together, and cynicism gets in the way of us trusting each other to do it.
You seem to have misunderstood that I meant it as a bad thing: Not at all.
I think that Patagonia is 100% committed to being sustainable because it is in their value but also and mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business. still think it is part of a market strategy. I'm happy that they managed to combine ethics, value and business. It is of course extremely convenient for them that being so ethical is also what makes their business so lucrative.
Most companies don't have the luxury to fit a market niche where the target customer are the top 1% of the world (like Patagonia does).
In that case, I'd shy away from using language like
> "in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."
> "surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave"
and
> "It is of course extremely convenient for them"
These are all phrases often used to signal that their primary motives are something other than what you are claiming to praise them for. (Indeed, you say as much: "mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business.")
Yes, they're a business and to stay in business they to be profitable. What people choose to do to be profitable makes a difference.
Pretty sure they supply military gear, which some feel is not in line with their values (military are massive polluters), but is more profitable and less visible than cutting off the finance guys in vests.
"Greenwashing" means they're creating the appearance of being green, without actually being green. Do you have any evidence for this? It's quite the accusation.
It wouldn't surprise me--even the best-intentioned companies sometimes keep making compromises to stay profitable until they don't resemble their values any more. Money ruins everything. I just haven't heard anything indicating that money has ruined Patagonia yet.
The HN title doesn't really reflect the article, there's just one answer about Amazon but it does have some insight into how he is trying to run a business focused on sustainability over everything else to try to save the planet.
The outdoor wear companies have a micro-plastics problem. They tried to fix it by using other materials, but failed - the products were just not as dirt resistant or water repellant.
Patagonia introduced in the end a special washing bag for catching these micro-plastics. The problem seems to be currently unsolvable.
It says in the article that Patagonia is investing in companies researching making artificial fibers out of plant materials. That's probably the answer.
There’re wool and cotton that are not artificial fibers. Other companies sell fleece and other gear without artificial fibers using those. May be those fabrics are hard to scale to Patagonia numbers, but there’re alternatives.
What about using a fine screener/mesh on drained water in the wash machine (ie similar specs to that wash bag) to filter out all outgoing water? This would add a mandatory step to clean it up regularly (and ideally not with water in the sink so all of it just ends up in waterways anyway).
Or some replaceable filter in style of vacuum cleaners, that could last a year or two and wash machine would indicate the replacement time. This doesn't seem unsolvable with proper regulation.
Such a system exists, it is sold in Canada, best I recall last time the subject came up on HN. Looked at a few options, then lost interest along with any memory of the details. If you’re seriously interested, specifics should be a minor query challenge.
The company founder sounds cool, and what he says makes a lot more sense than the general corporate discourse on the same topics, yet his company ends up selling recycled plastics. Not sure how great that is, to be honest.
They have displaced a meaningful chunk of an industry that mostly sells virgin plastics. They were early pioneers in developing recycled-plastic clothing. I still have a jacket of theirs made in about 1995.
I highly recommend Chouinard's book Let My People Go Surfing. It's part autobiography, part a history of Patagonia, part an explanation of his business and management philosophy.
In some, ways, it seems like Yvon's trying to undo the damage Patagonia did in its earlier days. Like... some sort of good act to absolve it and him of his "environmental sins".
But, this is too shallow, and too pessimistic, to be true. YC is a bouldering and climbing luminary. He put up some hard climbs and boulder problems, some right in LA (Chouinard's Hole at Stoney point comes to mind, but it's an easy, fun one). His attitudes have permeated down into the bones of climbing culture today. It's a "nut up or shut up" kinda sport. Maybe that's why it attracted him.
As another commenter said, he smithed his own tools and hardware. Little known fact: the company Black Diamond was created by a group of people that bought the department from YC/Patagonia as it transitioned to soft goods more.
It's awesome that he's still around, fighting the good fight, trying to save our little globe. It's awesome that he's transitioning his company to ever more sustainable practices; and pushing suppliers to do the same. I can see it in other outdoor gear companies, too. They've seen what Patagooch is doing and they're jumping on the bandwagon. Sustainability has never been sexier. Just check out REI's website. They're hardcore pushing these principles, too. Interesting, too, that the outdoor industries are rapidly growing.
I also think it's great that YC and Patagonia are unabashedly involving themselves in politics. It's great to see a company...well, "nut up or shut up" regarding climate change. Glad they're putting money where their mouth is trying to oust climate-change-obstructionist republicans.
If only they still made climbing hardware. I'd buy it just to see my money go towards good causes, like getting republicans out of office.
> In some, ways, it seems like Yvon's trying to undo the damage Patagonia did in its earlier days. Like... some sort of good act to absolve it and him of his "environmental sins".
I don't know too much outside of reading his book (which is, of course, biased), but it sounds like very early on (before Patagonia was founded) is when he had a change of heart. Wikipedia quotes, "Around 1970, he became aware that the use of steel pitons made by his company was causing significant damage to the cracks of Yosemite. These pitons comprised 70 percent of his income."
Unless you're talking about something else?
Exactly what I wanted to ask... he is super cool guy who achieved so much. Using pitons was considered normal till maybe 70s, I wouldn't cast every single climber of those times as 'sinner' since by that optic you can blame all the mankind till now for this or that.
Times have changed, camming equipment developed (which simply didn't exist before so walls would be unclimbable without pitons). They were just climbing with whatever was possible.
Actually climbers were one of the first pioneers of ecological and sustainable approach to nature, not only because they lived on shoestring. Once you get into these sports and experience it regularly, you realize how important and awesome it all is for us.
No, not talking about pitons. That was what climbing was. When climbers like Yvon realized the damage it was causing, new forms of protection were invented, like spring-loaded camming devices and metal chocks that could be removed and caused almost no damage.
Him pivoting when he learned is the only thing he could do. I was talking more about building products from petroleum based fibers and whatnot. Calling them a "sin" is a stretch, but I couldn't think of another phrase.
Thanks for clarifying. I'm not sure if there was a specific incident where he changed, but he does seem well aware any company with millions in revenue isn't without blame. He also recognizes that preserving the environment is in the best interest of Patagonia.
In the book he contrasts the culture of US climbers with European ones back then; Europeans focused on conquering nature (climbing tall mountains), while the US had advocates like John Muir, Ansel Adams, and Robert Frost focusing on being in nature.
It does seem like his awareness of the long-term damage has been long-standing. Patagonia started with importing rugby shirts because of their durability, environmental tithing started in the 80s, and the push for more sustainable materials in the 90s (with the realization it takes heavy involvement in the supply chain to carry out and enforce). Along the way he talks about repurposing old buildings instead (and adopting their quirks) of building new and actively encouraging repairs instead of replacing garments.
Chouinard has long been something of a personal inspiration.
- Early advocate of Clean climbing
- All around dirtbag hero and hardman (numerous FAs in the valley, the bugaboos, patagonia, the gunks)
- blacksmith, who made and used his own tools to climb.
- by all appearances a bullheaded guy on ethics and best practices: “ The whole purpose of planning something like Everest is to effect some sort of spiritual and physical gain and if you compromise the process, you’re an asshole when you start out and you’re an asshole when you get back.“
As it happens, the companies he founded or was involved in make very nice gear and i’m happy to own an ethically appropriate amount of it. Preferably preowned, and repaired instead of replaced.
Also, avid fisherman and, previously, active hunter and proponent of naturally raised or wild caught meat.
Good excerpt below on interplanetary travel:
FC: What do you think of Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk pursuing interplanetary travel and Mars and moon colonies because they don’t seem to believe that we can save our home planet?
YC: [Laughs] I think it’s pretty silly. And not just silly, but it’s really a shame. The monies that are going to space exploration should be used to save our own planet right now. We’re in a triage situation. Things are so grim. It’s World War III. I lived through World War II, and I remember what the country had to do to mobilize. You couldn’t buy sugar. You couldn’t buy meat.
Good thing those companies are private, so that those of us who want to are free to pursue this venture with money earned "saving our planet right now."
They are private, but I believe SpaceX depends heavily on government contracts, so the fact that they're private isn't terribly relevant.
1% for the Planet is an incredibly positive and powerful collective of businesses.
If you own a business, please join. If you're an employee, please share it with your leaders. It's a small cost in the grand scheme of things, especially for a crucial cause. B-Corp is another group I strongly suggest looking into.
1. https://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/
2. https://bcorporation.net/
I certainly applaud business leaders who are willing to make commitments like this - though is it just me, or is it kind of sad that in the current business environment, a 1% pledge is considered ambitious?
I think Patagonia actually still does max(10% profits, 1% revenue) which is where their 1% project came from. For a retailer, 1% of gross can be huge. I agree that in other industries with high margins, 1% (even of revenue) is pretty small.
The FAQ says that:
> Our members have given more than $225 million back to environmental nonprofits since 2002.
which I think agrees, as that’s under $15M/yr average (though I assume heavily weighted towards recent data).
Yeah, that's a fair point - for high volume/low margin industries 1% of revenue is quite a bit of profit. I'm much more impressed by a pledge to give 1% of revenue than, e.g., https://pledge1percent.org/profit.html which commits to 1% of profit.
I can highly recommend NPR's How I Built This. They have an episode with Yvon, among many others, https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chou...
I love Chouinard and Patagonia. Chouinard is one of the early heroes and giants behind the rock climbing scene in Yosemite.
That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it. They are surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave more than ever. Yvon has been out of Patagonia's management for a couple of years now.
> "That being said Patagonia is as a company that manages to perfectly brand itself as a sustainable company in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."
If a company is doing good, should they be allowed to let people know about it? Do you think they're doing this for craven purposes only? Or might they be putting their money where their mouth is and are proud of it? That it might encourage others to make similar decisions in their own lives, both personal and business? I'd like to think that people (and that's what a company is, a group of people) are capable of doing things for reasons other than pure greed or profit.
Do you fault people for making purchasing decisions based on the actions of a company in addition to the products or services they provide?
Sometimes I wonder what drives people to apparently only see the most cynical view. In my more uncharitable moments I think that's because they can't imagine others doing things because they think they're they right thing to do. And if they can't extend that to others, what does that say about themselves?
But perhaps it's just that they've been burned too many times in the past. Whatever the reason, I choose to embrace actions of others that are good. I believe I'm capable of doing good, and that others can, too. There's so many things we need to do together, and cynicism gets in the way of us trusting each other to do it.
You seem to have misunderstood that I meant it as a bad thing: Not at all.
I think that Patagonia is 100% committed to being sustainable because it is in their value but also and mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business. still think it is part of a market strategy. I'm happy that they managed to combine ethics, value and business. It is of course extremely convenient for them that being so ethical is also what makes their business so lucrative.
Most companies don't have the luxury to fit a market niche where the target customer are the top 1% of the world (like Patagonia does).
In that case, I'd shy away from using language like
> "in order to get all the PR and hype coming out from it."
> "surfing on the climate change and greenwashing wave"
and
> "It is of course extremely convenient for them"
These are all phrases often used to signal that their primary motives are something other than what you are claiming to praise them for. (Indeed, you say as much: "mainly because it is their market niche and what brings them business.")
Yes, they're a business and to stay in business they to be profitable. What people choose to do to be profitable makes a difference.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/greenwashing
> "green· wash· ing ... expressions of environmentalist concerns especially as a cover for products, policies, or activities"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hype
> "hype: ...
> 1 : DECEPTION, PUT-ON
> 2 : PUBLICITY, especially : promotional publicity of an extravagant or contrived kind"
> It is of course extremely convenient for them that being so ethical is also what makes their business so lucrative.
I also find it convenient that they will repair their gear, often for free.
That means my $300 surfing wetsuit will probably be with me for a long time.
> I think that Patagonia is 100% committed to being sustainable
Then you shouldn't have accused them of greenwashing, because that's exactly the opposite of what greenwashing means.
Pretty sure they supply military gear, which some feel is not in line with their values (military are massive polluters), but is more profitable and less visible than cutting off the finance guys in vests.
Citation needed.
They sell apparel to members of the military. AFAIK they don't design or sell military specific items.
"Greenwashing" means they're creating the appearance of being green, without actually being green. Do you have any evidence for this? It's quite the accusation.
It wouldn't surprise me--even the best-intentioned companies sometimes keep making compromises to stay profitable until they don't resemble their values any more. Money ruins everything. I just haven't heard anything indicating that money has ruined Patagonia yet.
The HN title doesn't really reflect the article, there's just one answer about Amazon but it does have some insight into how he is trying to run a business focused on sustainability over everything else to try to save the planet.
We've taken that bit out of the title above.
The outdoor wear companies have a micro-plastics problem. They tried to fix it by using other materials, but failed - the products were just not as dirt resistant or water repellant.
Patagonia introduced in the end a special washing bag for catching these micro-plastics. The problem seems to be currently unsolvable.
It says in the article that Patagonia is investing in companies researching making artificial fibers out of plant materials. That's probably the answer.
There’re wool and cotton that are not artificial fibers. Other companies sell fleece and other gear without artificial fibers using those. May be those fabrics are hard to scale to Patagonia numbers, but there’re alternatives.
What about using a fine screener/mesh on drained water in the wash machine (ie similar specs to that wash bag) to filter out all outgoing water? This would add a mandatory step to clean it up regularly (and ideally not with water in the sink so all of it just ends up in waterways anyway).
Or some replaceable filter in style of vacuum cleaners, that could last a year or two and wash machine would indicate the replacement time. This doesn't seem unsolvable with proper regulation.
Such a system exists, it is sold in Canada, best I recall last time the subject came up on HN. Looked at a few options, then lost interest along with any memory of the details. If you’re seriously interested, specifics should be a minor query challenge.
I’m fairly ignorant about microplastic shedding. Is it common to all synthetic fabrics, primarily polyester...?
Podcast with him, from a few years ago: https://www.npr.org/2018/02/06/572558864/patagonia-yvon-chou...
Relevant interview with Yvon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHS2X-KoN_w
I really admire his philosophy.
The company founder sounds cool, and what he says makes a lot more sense than the general corporate discourse on the same topics, yet his company ends up selling recycled plastics. Not sure how great that is, to be honest.
They have displaced a meaningful chunk of an industry that mostly sells virgin plastics. They were early pioneers in developing recycled-plastic clothing. I still have a jacket of theirs made in about 1995.
I highly recommend Chouinard's book Let My People Go Surfing. It's part autobiography, part a history of Patagonia, part an explanation of his business and management philosophy.