Talkback: Sustainability - Just Make Less Stuff!

"The problem with Marxism is the proletariat isn’t going to rise up against capitalism and consumerism. The only time they’ll rise up is during a commercial break to either go to the bathroom or grab more beer."

Human nature; no easy answer.

Matt C wrote (see)

Milly. wrote (see)

I see the old Macpac Pursuit is still out and about

(though I take too many flights to stand on any moral high ground )

I've just heard  some stats-

for a family of two adults and four children living on a total benefit allowance of £630 a week and paying £230 a week rent to a housing association:-

after the total benefit cap next year, they will have their total allowance slashed to £500 per week.

that might encourage them to rise up. they won't be able to afford beer or a television.

£500 a week in benefits?!!!!

WTF am i working?

Explorer wrote (see)

Patagonia are quite good on the sustainability thing - a while ago, they produced a press release I think, asking consumers whether they actually needed to buy a new jacket.

If presented with the question of 'do I actually need a new jacket?' the answer will be 'no', but then the 'new jacket' seed is planted and the thought process evolves, and hey, presto, some weeks or months later, I want a new jacket...

Was it research, or a sneaky sales ploy?

Parky Again wrote (see)

Don't rab also have more jackets than you can throw a stick at .

Mike fae Dundee wrote (see)

£500 a week in benefits?!!!!

WTF am i working?

Given that a significant number of manufacturers provide fewer options - and thus fewer jackets - for women than for men, does that make women's outdoor clothing more environmentally friendly than men's?

Metric Kate wrote (see)

Given that a significant number of manufacturers provide fewer options - and thus fewer jackets - for women than for men, does that make women's outdoor clothing more environmentally friendly than men's?

 Nope, it costs 99 times more for the weird colours and "extra frontage" design.

   Runs away quickly.......................    VERY quickly.....................

More food for environmental thought.

But. Just. Cant. Help. Myself.  Rab, Patagonia etc, Drooool....

Well, I guess we should all buy Paramo then who only has 11 different jackets...

Clearly all manufactures have a large range to appeal to as many people as possible. If they don't make a profit they wont make any more jackets! no profit means no money for R&D so no new jackets or improvements. Ideally all companies would only make the exact number of jackets they can sell but until we actually get the crystal ball then that is pretty hard. Surely the way forward is for the products to be produced in an environmentally friendy way, sourced sustaibably and manufactured under good conditions, no?

Which companies do that!?

doesn't a large choice fly in the face of sustainability (whatever that actually means). a large choice means you are likely to buy more than one - some people know no bounds to their jacket ownership (bloody planet destroyers they are), evironmenally friendly and any other "look aren't we wonderful" label a manufacturer wants to award itself.

recycled fleece. excellent. is that cheaper than brand new nasty non-green fleece. are garments made with it any cheaper? not that i've noticed. so my cynic says you are just making yet more profit trying to play psycho games with people's consciouses.

mention of paramo makes sense - and not because i like paramo. take buffalo and like manufacturers. an unchanged design not dependent upon the latest whizz bang can you spot the difference fabric whose jackets can last forever as there is nothing that can go wrong with them. are the fabrics paramo/buffalo and the like better for the environment all round?  i don't know.

TP wrote (see)

If you can't afford to buy new gear you can always make out you're holier than thou on the sustainability front. Afterall you do have to make things last.

I agree that a large choice flies in the face of sustainability but even your beloved paramo has a large selection. Some are unbelievable though (I just counted 80 different jackets from Mammut, mind that does include softshells, vests, down jackets and all types of waterproofs) which does seem to be a rediculous amount.

I am not sure I understand the logic behind your point about recycled fleece. Surely what matters is whether or not it is sustainable and environmentally better than a new fleece, no? I think you are right that there are some marketing in the green labelling of products but I think that some brands do take it serious. Usually it is a cost to them to source greener materials and manufacturers so actually it would be in their interest to NOT do it. 

As for Paramo, sure they have a good design, but I don't think they are the best (but that is another topic). Their design may remain unchanged but that doesn't mean that they don't make a lot of them! Most people don't change their jacket because it doesnt work anymore or there is something wrong with it. They change it because they want something new or a better technology or a different fabric. Longivity I don't think is the major driver in people buying a specific brand. Are they more environmentally friendly at Buffalo and Paramo? I don't know but I do wonder how much of the Nikwax sales (and consequently flushed down the drain) and use they are responsible for. 

I think that manufacturers who make an effort should be applauded for doing it... if it is indeed genuine. 

Mike fae Dundee wrote (see)

£500 a week in benefits?!!!!

WTF am i working?