Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. They acknowledge there are always trade offs and costs. Their goal is to find the option that does the least harm.
Patagonia's stated mission is to save the earth and microplastics entering the oceans is a major environmental concern. However, it is also true that many of Patagonia's clothes are made from synthetic materials such as plastic. The use of synthetic materials in clothing (and each washing) greatly contribute to the problem of microplastics in the oceans.
I’m I missing something? Is the above wrong? Or is Patagonia lying about their mission driven approach?
They make clothes out of plastic in order to recycle. It is a conscious choice they make. (I read the book by the founder.) Patagonia may be the only company I trust.
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.
I don't think Patagonia is lying, why do you think this ?
They make very high quality clothing which lasts a long time, mostly out of recycled polyester, which is of course better than making more sources of microplastics ?
On the other hand, I purchased a "synchilla" top, it was absolutely ridiculous how much polyester fiber it shed, like absolutely crazy, I was vacuuming my house constantly. In the end it did stop, but it was ridiculously bad. I should've sent it back.
Their statement sounds and looks good at first, but the actions amount to: you should keep buying our products, you should buy a new washing machine, you should buy a filter and we will keep thinking about it.
Patagonia do make high performance plastic products for activities where performance matters and in a better way than most, but have not been a performance focused company for decades. The original breakthrough of using plastic fleece in the wilderness due to it's non water absorbing properties doesn't really justify the size of their production with those materials today. They make most of their money selling plastic fleeces for people to wear to coffee shops. This segment of the market didn't realy exist before brands like Patagonia so they while they may offer a better alternative today, they are helped to create this particular problem.
And if you've ever seen their clearance lists, they're as bad as other fashion companies for overproduction - new colours every season which need to make way the following season.
Replacing plastics in their casual ranges and extending the lifecycles of the colours alone would make a bigger difference than a couple of research grants, but is risky for sales and less sexy. So take those statements with a pinch of salt.
Saving the earth is a complex aim with so many different areas to prioritise. Synthetics may produce micro plastics, but then natural fibers like cotton require huge amounts of pesticides and water, viscose or bamboo requires a shit load of chemicals. Carbon footprints for almost all textiles are big. Recycled plastic is a low carbon, no pesticide, low impact material with one downside - micro plastics.
Polyester is one of the few success stories around recycled plastic. It’s not like the alternative is to turn your old plastic bottle into a new plastic bottle, plastic recycling is almost always downcycling the material into a lower grade product.
Like most things around conservation and the environment, it is complicated and there are loads of stakeholders - biodiversity, micro plastics, chemical accumulation, CO2 and greenhouse gases, deforestation, waste management, just to name a few.
One thing we can be sure of is the best thing is to not buying new clothes. In fact this philosophy should be applied to every consumer good. Making things is extremely bad for the environment. Patagonia have been pretty consistent around this point, for example as far back as 2001 they had their “don’t buy this jacket” ad: https://blog.yorksj.ac.uk/jovanalleshi/patagonia-sustainabil...
This is the elephant in the room that most consumer goods companies don’t want to talk about. They can make things out of bamboo or produce paper straws or have recyclable packaging, but fundamentally even environmentally friendly products have a huge environmental impact.
Ultimately Patagonia’s mission statement is at odds with the reason it or any company exists. Saving the earth isn’t profitable.
Is this a criticism of Patagonia in particular? They've done a lot to be environmentally aware. They've been using recycled polyester in their clothing for years. I also doubt that Patagonia-produced polyester clothing contributes even 0.01% of the polyester refuse in the ocean.
If you have specific criticisms of Patagonia, I would be very interested to learn more about them. Please share.
I'm pretty sure that by targeting recycled materials for many decades, Patagonia has been doing its best to separate itself from petrochemicals. I have a fleece that was given to me in the late 90s that was made from recycled plastic. Still works great.
It is a PR strategy from Patagonia, but not necessarily for sales. For as long as Chouinard is steering the ship, Patagonia's goals are much broader than financial success.
The short of it is that all product manufacturing has an impact on the environment, and they are investing in minimizing their impact over time.
Something they note is that the biggest way to reduce impact is to create longer lasting and high quality products, because the less frequently you need to buy something the less pollution you create.
Pretty sure Patagonia is trying to make their clothing only plastic so that it's easier to recycle - recycling a homogeneous material is not too hard, but recycling a blend of polyester and cotton (or whatever) is uneconomical.
I wish they'd use less plastic. It's hard to find anything from Patagonia that uses environmentally-friendly materials.
Perhaps they can research a way to make performance fabrics that are better for the earth.
Allbirds has been a real pioneer in this space, and they've shown that you can use natural, sustainable materials and produce a product just as good as the others.
These are made of recycled materials, exclusively, IIRC. The environmental impact of their synthetic fibers is either 0 or negative. I could be wrong, since it's been a little while since I looked into it, but Patagonia's commitment to sustainable manufacturing is insanely inspiring.
Also: not a Patagonia shill, I just respect the company deeply. I don't even own any Patagonia (unfortunately)
Patagonia is pushing polyester with its associated micro-plastics, instead of the renewable natural fibers that they were using before like wool. Good, evil, depends on who is counting.
In the long run, there’s really no reason plastics can’t be made directly from recent organic matter. Starting with oil gives you an energetic boost, but if you’ve got clean energy to spare, in theory you don’t need it. In practice though, it’s hard and there is a long way to go.
It’s hard to imagine how one would get similar performance from non-plastic garments. Before plastic, top-notch outer wear was oiled cotton canvas. But you are right about microplastic pollution.
Not a perfect company, I mean almost all of their iconic garments are plastic, but they're doing far more than other technical outerwear companies.
reply