As someone who considers themselves a huge environmentalist this video is unfortunately sort of bullshit.
1. He claims that the entire "outdoor" movement was created by Oil and Gas which I think we know is total BS. Humans have been exploring the outdoors long before oil and gas - hunting - exploring - etc.
2. While TNF does definitely produce a ton of crap (and is really not my favourite brand in general) there is just currently no better substitute performance wise for petroleum based products in many areas. You can make a lot out of natural materials but a nice and lightweight waterproof jacket is not really one of them.
3. The original founder of the TNF (now deceased) bought tons and tons of land throughout Chile for years that people thought was for malicious ends. It turned out to be, however, that they were instead intending to donate the land to create even more natural parks (which Chile already has a ton of). Not a small amount of land here - we are talking quite a bit.
The "outdoor industry" in general has pretty much all of the problems he lists and tons of companies don't do shit in reality to help the environment. Would I prefer for all of these companies to stop making so much VOLUME of product and instead focus on quality and longevity and for consumers to focus more on buying used and second hand products? Of course. But this doesn't seem intended to really focus on that at all and is just a hit piece specifically on TNF. Who is paying for this advertisement and what is their motivation?
Why not focus instead on the problems of the outdoor industry in general?
>1. He claims that the entire "outdoor" movement was created by Oil and Gas [...]
No, he says that outdoor experiences are made possible in big part thanks to Oil and Gas, because pretty much every product you bring with you comes from Oil and Gas. I agree with this.
>2. [...] there is just currently no better substitute performance wise for petroleum based products
He states this in the video, this is pretty much the basis of the argument he's presenting.
>3. The original founder of the TNF (now deceased) bought tons and tons of land throughout Chile
No one is talking about Douglas Tompkins ... I fail to see what's the point you're trying to make. TNF was sold on 2000, that was twenty two years ago. How are you trying to link this with "the original founder" of TNF? And how does that change anything? Please explain otherwise this is just weird.
>and is just a hit piece specifically on TNF
Yes, it's literally on the URL of the website and the video.
>Who is paying for this advertisement and what is their motivation?
Oil and Gas companies?
I actually enjoyed the video as I think it balances out things and sets the record straight on how all of these "green" brands actually have a HUGE environmental footprint that they kind of push under the rug whenever they can.
You make some really good points, but it could be said in a much more cordial way.
Per the site guidelines[1]:
"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""
This whole campaign is stupid. Textiles make like (googles fervently) .8% (probably) to 5% (probably not) of all oil consumption. And this doesn't end up in the atmosphere, it's solidified.
The highlight of this video:
> TNF has PROPANE fireplaces!!!!
It literally took more energy to stream this video on the internet than it did to heat a lounge with propane. Calm down now there buddy.
> but OCEAN PLASTICS!!!!
Ok, this is a good one. First, how often are you washing your fancy TNF jacket? Probably once a year, because you don't want to ruin the water proofing treatment.
The EPA, when they're not busy buying $5k office chairs, is actually doing good work updating requirements for Wastewater Treatment plant guidelines to tackle microplastics, but this again, misses major sources.
Actually looking at the quoted sources for most of the graphs only count developed countries. They miss third world areas where rivers are used for trash disposal.
This is an enormous amount of effort targeting a minor abuse of plastics. To the above poster's point: if anything, they should be ragging on them to make their products repairable.
I still subscribe to "buy once, buy quality", which is why I don't own anything TNF. I'm on my second zipper on my 5 year old Columbia, which I bought specifically because it looked like it could be easily replaced.
My North Face Summit jacket is over 20 years old and except for the zipper runner, it feels like new. Best clothing purchase I ever made - every ski trip, bad weather hike, lots of random winter walks, camping trips - works perfectly. I don't plan to replace it, this one will last my whole adult life. I would not chose yellow a second time, though.
That's a pretty dang solid lifespan (and thank you for choosing function over staying-current-with fashion trends). I have not seen current generation TNF jackets have the same reliability (in my very unscientific study)... maybe times have changed.
In the last few years TNF has increased focus on streetwear though. I have become more hesitant to buy gear from them due to this since i suspect this has affected quality.
That's possible. I would still start with North Face for a jacket if I needed one due to great experience, possibly compare to an ArcTeryx - had great experience with them too. Both are very expensive of course.
My parents were given, as a gift, a wool blanket in 1963, and it was on our beds when we were children, and I have it on my bed now. It’s durability is like something out of a science-fiction story, an incredible substance that can take decades of use without showing signs of wear. It is not frayed or ugly; it is still in good shape. Im almost baffled how it endured. Good wool is amazing.
In 1989 my mom bought me my first real backpack, a NorthFace. Over the next 32 years, I travelled all over with it. I hiked the Appalachian Trail with it. I hiked mountains in Colorado with it. I took it on bike trips. I took it all over Europe. The quality was amazing. Finally, the zippers gave out. I gave up on it last year.
I bought another NorthFace backpack. The quality is terrible. After 1 year it is showing signs of wear. Everything about it seems cheap and badly done. I am very disappointed to see the shift in quality in NorthFace over those 32 years.
The big thing a lot of people miss about a lot of these large companies is that they build a great reputation by making high end products (like that old backpack you mention) but as they expand they also start making much more diverse product lines. I bet that 1989 backpack was also not cheap (for its day) while comparatively the one you got recently probably was quite cheap.
Most of these companies still do produce the high quality stuff but it is priced high as well. Figuring out which products are which as the consumer can be tricky.
> Finally, the zippers gave out. I gave up on it last year.
Pity that you ditched it. I recently had zipper replaced at a clothing repair shop on my quality old trusted winter jacket.. thought it would be very expensive, but it was not.
As for your experience with the new North Face jacket. That is my experience too. Brands that were known for quality are now 'just brands' and that's what you pay for: the logo.
Exactly. Like when L.L. Bean stuff was actually made in Maine it was incredible. They've gotten rid of their "lifetime replacement guarantee" supposedly because of people abusing it by buying old boots and things in yard sales and returning them for new ones, but the fact is they couldn't really do it any more because while their stuff used to last forever, now it doesn't.
It is unfortunate that we have not popularized certain newer fibers more because there have also been amazing advancements in textiles over the same period - lighter weight gear does not NEED to have crap durability - it just unfortunately does in practice.
Cuben is actually now known as DCF and not exactly the same - it is a laminate (not a woven fabric) like silpoly or silnylon. There are products that are very similar to silpoly or silnylon that are essentially woven UHWMPE fibers (dyneema is a brand of UHMWPE along with Spectra) either with a waterproof coating like the above or laminated to a layer of plastic (like Mylar) for waterproofing.
There are also lots of other woven UHWMPE products (like cut resistant gloves), etc etc etc. While these are somewhat expensive now I do not see any reason why they have to be super pricey if production was scaled up significantly. Garments made of UHWMPE would be impressively durable and resistant to heat, cold, chemicals, and other environmental hazards. As far as I know noone has yet to make woven UHMWPE with fibers as small as we get from Nylon or Polyester but if that could be innovated it could be a big game changer.
I think my gripe with the argument in this video (which is, nonetheless, interesting from an offensive marketing perspective) is that equating making clothes out of petroleum products with "being a friend of the oil and gas industry" is disingenuous. For the most part, the environmentally disastrous emissions come from _burning_ fossil fuels; I'm guessing cheap plastics are just a side-effect of a massive energy market, and not a major driver of the industry.
Pollution occurs in many ways, not just burning. The whole "microplastics" thing is largely due to apparel made from petroleum-based synthetic materials. Activewear and outdoor wear are rarely if ever made from natural materials anymore. Not to mention all the energy needed to process crude oil into those materials.
That used to be the case, but the industry is incorporating more cheap plastics to harden against future projected fossil fuel revenue loss. On that topic, this PBS Frontline episode is a good resource: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/plastic-wars/
If we turn every ounce of oil in the ground into plastic that's a problem, but a way more manageable one than burning even half that amount in our atmosphere.
It isn't enough to say we're seeing something in blood and fetuses, it has to be quantified by how it is a problem.
I find alcohol in my blood all the time, I understand the effects and manage it so it's never a problem. Alcohol in fetuses on the other hand is a well understood problem where no level is really tolerable.
From the linked article, plastics are a problem but the pollution level is probably below the threshold of harm for most people. But it's also possible that the levels have increased over the past couple of years to the point that it is harmful.
I think this is a fair concern, but if we're being honest, we know the real, present, and accelerating danger from putting more GHGs into the atmosphere. We are currently unaware of the negative impacts of traces of plastics in our bodies.
It makes a ton of sense to put the literal fire out now, and worry about what the effects of the plastics are when there is evidence of serious concern.
This is a very common argument, but I'm still waiting for the link to that and...anything else.
If we think it causes cancer (*and have some evidence) then sure, but if it's just like ' hey this stuff is here' then I will continue to be more afraid of 'ecological collapse.'
Only if you allow districts to exist that refuse to adapt anti-slapp laws. There is a solution to this problem, we've just failed to adopt it.
Edit: Just to clarify - I'm not advocating for removing state autonomy when it comes to legal legislation - but I am advocating for adopting some national anti-slapp rules.
Anti-SLAPP has nothing to do with that case. "The South Butt" was actually producing and selling clothing with a logo/slogan very similar to TNF, but even then the two parties settled until "The South Butt" violated the agreement. Anti-SLAPP is about protecting journalism/protest/speech, not for-profit competitors using another brand's branding (even if in parody).
If they had just stuck to the name, "The South Butt," I genuinely believe they would have been fine. It is the inverted logo and "Never Stop Relaxing" that caused them to lose. Parody protections have always been curtailed for commercial competition.
And not specifically discussing the South Butt case. The idea that lawsuits are just tweets with a filing fee (i.e. a way to spend money in a public forum to try and promote your idea of what's right) translates almost directly to a SLAPP suit.
You are quite accurate about the specific South Butt case - but I was trying to be more general.
It would seem to be a tautology that a rule about A will not infringe on state autonomy about B. But what if the state prefers to retain its autonomy about A?
States have been forced to surrender quite a few privileges and legal domains - the existence of state autonomy exists, by design, merely in the space not occupied by national policy. I was trying to clarify that I advocated for a specific national law with limited scope to precisely unify national policy on a particularly terrible legal loophole - as in retrospect I thought my comment could be incorrectly read as advocating for abolishing state courts and jurisdiction specific laws in general.
His arguments are straw man in nature. I think we all agree that fossil fuels have led to orders of magnitude increases in standard of living, at least for most humans. That is not really in dispute. But it is now time to move on to new sources of energy that are not so destructive for the planet and biodiversity; renewables, nuclear, and ultimately fusion. We need to look forward, not back.
"VF Corp. has purchased land at Centennial Airport where it plans to build a hangar for its fleet of private jets used by executives who travel the globe for business."
... a little something I like to refer to as: Ends disguised as means.
Isn't calling this "greenwashing" quite a bit of editorialization? This title is more flame-bait than the content it links to and that's saying something.
Pretty sure the comment was about the video narrator pronouncing it "ek setera", not "et setera" or even "et ketera" (I counted 3 instances). And I agree, just like people who say "supposably[1]", it exposes somebody who isn't well read.
Is there any evidence that North Face's actions "backfired" other than the creation of this video and the loss of a microscopic corporate customer?
This also seems similar to the actions of one of North Face's customers, Patagonia, when they stopped doing co-branding with some VC firms: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19558512 (2019).
Maybe USA is different but in EU their outdoor clothes are made predominantly of nylon and polyester. I don't think rayon have the properties needed for outdoor jackets.
Obviously, this doesn't mean the man from the video is right, but it's for plenty other reasons.
Their most expensive item [1] is 49% nylon and 33% polyester body, with some components being 90% polyester. The only recycled part is the lining, which is conveniently the least dense. Not sure what's more premium than that.
This guy misses the point - classic pro Oil & Gas rant on how they are the boogie man.
The point is that we don't want to be beholden to oil and gas going forward. Look at all the campaigns to put out misinformation about oil and gas by the Oil Majors (since the 1980s). Yes Oil and Gas is part of the economy and all of its various products, but let's not make it the lynchpin and let's decarbonize our energy systems.
Every time these guys (oil executives or proxies) open their mouths you really see how much they don't understand the landscape outside of oil and gas industry.
Also remember this a polished message, I'd be curious to see their backroom conversations...
How does one make a plastic jacket without plastic? Delivery and shipping aside, the basic raw materials for plastics come from the petrochemical industry colloquially referred to as "Oil & Gas."
Personally, I'd be in favor of banning plastics from garments as they are the single largest source of microplastic pollution and non-recyclable consumer goods on the market. But if you make plastic garments, you're part of the precipitate.
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.
Plastic can be synthesized via syngas (a mix of hydrogen and carbon monoxide), which itself can be produced through sustainable mechanisms like biofuels or hydrogen electrolysis and CO2 capture.
That process starts from a lower energy level than starting from methane or oil, and so overall its more expensive. We would have to be willing to commit to generating a "surplus" of carbon-free power (e.g. nuclear, wind, solar) to support that sort of manufacturing, but it would be possible.
Also, a great thing about running electrochemical processes off of a periodic energy source like solar or wind is that the economics are easy to load-shift -- you care about the aggregate work output, not the consistency of work output.
What is odd to me, is that they call out North Face instead of Patagonia- Patagonia is working hard to ensure their clothing is ONLY plastic, trying to completely remove all natural fibers and materials from their offerings.
North face still has plenty of cotton and wool options.
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.
The problem is that for some garments plastic really is just a far superior textile performance wise. I agree that microplastic pollution is a huge problem but I think a better method would be to find ways to minimize the shedding of plastics from a garment than completely banning it. Some "plastic" garments also shed MUCH more than others (basically the extra extra soft and fuzzy polyester fleece garments are the worst) while others shed very little and also need less washing as well (such as a waterproof shell)
I consider my primary work to be in outdoor leadership. I've built my wardrobe around sustainable wool.
Gore is working toward more sustainable waterproof/breathable materials, and the manufacturer I buy GoreTex from, Kokatat, is committed to healthy watersheds because that is where their customers play.
When your playground is the rivers and oceans, you play downstream from nearly everyone.
> Gore is working toward more sustainable waterproof/breathable materials
They are moving very slowly and it's hard to see it as more than greenwashing.
Modern Gore-Tex is effectively unrepairable (anything more than a small neat cut) and therefore unsustainable. These days it's 2 or 3 layers of plastic glued/bonded together, with extra glue/bonding along the seams, extra glue/bonding on fasteners and maybe even extra glue/bonding to other fabrics. It uses techniques requiring sophisticated manufacturing processes, which cannot be replicated at home, and Gore makes it difficult to buy Gore-Tex by the metre as a consumer even if you wanted to. Don't even think about sourcing specialist zippers if they break.
Yes, the outer face fabric may have a limited recycled content which companies like to focus on, but, like paper manufacturing, performance materials generally require some virgin material.
It is also all soaked in chemicals to prevent it actually needing to be Gore-Tex, only recently has there been a modest effort to use alternatives which don't shed fluorocarbons in use - even though they have been available for some time.
It works fairly well, but that performance relies a great deal on it not being eco-friendly.
The manufacturer downstream from Gore has a great repair service, but we've repaired GoreTex in the field with a GoreTex patch adhered with AquaSeal for larger tears and a drop of AquaSeal for pin-holes.
I agree that they could be doing a better job, as can we all.
Actually I do have to agree on the demonic entity assesment.
Oil and Gas conglomerates actively colluded in fabricating fake science to descredit the impact of GHG. As well as withheld information from the public and governments on their own data showing severe projections on climate change. [0] [1]
This is short term profit at the cost of _literally_ Human Survival.
Considering that Climate Calamity will be the major threat to Human life in large chunks of the planet by the time my children come of age, it looks pretty demonic in my book.
North Face is a classic example of neoliberalism run amok. They used to manufacture their products in a Berkeley factory, but that was shut down in 1993 as neoliberal trade deals opened up access to low-wage factories around the world. The current list of manufacturing sites is fairly broad, but Vietnam and Bangladesh appear to be among the main ones. Notably, when you hear about the crisis of homelessness around the SF Bay Area, keep in mind that in the 1980s (when there were not nearly as many homeless, like 90% less by population ratio), there were a lot more garment and electronics manufacturing jobs in the region.
Since sales are probably not that high in Vietnam/Bangaladesh etc., this requires a robust global shipping system to get product from factory to consumer (probably mostly in North America, Europe, Japan, but sales location isn't reported much). It's a safe bet that cost-of-shipping increases are more than made up for by cost-of-manufacturing decreases due to outsourcing.
As far as the raw materials going into nylon/polyester, yes those are petrochemicals but could be replaced by aerochemicals, i.e. direct capture of CO2 and conversion to butadiene, ethylene, etc. for feeding into synthetic fabric production. Such tech is currently expensive, but if all the oil & gas & coal on the planet suddenly vanished, we could still make nylon.
On the whole oil & gas issue, this article/podcast lays it out nicely. Apparently it's all about having consistent brand image management:
Not sure I would say it is specifically a case of neoliberalism but just a great example of what happens when a smaller/medium sized company with a single founder with a vision grows and gets taken over by the classic capitalistic fat cats. You can see it in many larger companies product lines and timelines - they start out and build a good reputation and give a shit about their employees and then eventually grow to a point where they just have an endless drivel of product lines and production lines.
Have not heard much about aerochemicals but that certainly sounds interesting (although probably insanely expensive). Personally I think the realistic approach is to focus (currently) on making textiles that are extra durable for better longevity so that even if the original production method is not perfect we can at least keep using it indefinitely or get it resold on the used market.
1.) North Face really really cares about image and marketing. In my opinion, there's nothing special to their product- it's all image. So, blocking O&G companies from branding their gear is somewhat understandable.
2.) They do use some eco-friendly material, and (supposedly, maybe) will have more responsibly sourced material coming by 2025 (not sure if they committed to this before, or after this debacle).
3.) It's funny to me that his best defense of oil and gas is "you live in an oil and gas society, so, gotcha!"
We all need oil and gas to sustain our modern lifestyle. To pretend otherwise it's just hypocritical. Blaming the oil companies for allowing us a comfortable and easy life is so shortsighted - we don't want to live like Tarzan...
Tarzan had a house in London, an apartment in Paris, and a large estate in Africa. He also spent time with Jane's rich relatives in Baltimore and hung out with Hollywood stars in California (Yeah, Burroughs started to get more and more silly in the later books). I wouldn't mind living like Tarzan.
That later part was because Burroughs himself bought a ranch near Hollywood in his later years which he named "Tarzana". This was later developed into a neighborhood which is named Tarzana to this day.
More like… holding the oil and gas companies responsible for knowingly trying to hide their negative environmental/social/economic impact of their industry… since the 1960’s
setting this up as a choice between accepting climate change and living in a cave is the most destructive thing one can do here. yes, there is alot of adaptation that's going to need to happen, and we should have started decades ago. can't promise that the price of coffee won't go way up. no one is going to live in a cave.
More like… holding the oil and gas companies responsible for knowingly trying to hide their negative environmental/social/economic impact of their industry… since the 1960’s
Oil is nothing but decomposed plants/plankton, a resource that is not renewable at least not in our lifetimes.
Fun fact, go to Santa Barbara CA and walk the beach, the blobs of oil that pop up occasionally are not from some man made catastrophe but naturally occurring oil that is seeping from the ground and washing up on the beaches. Try to get your head around that, a oil spill being a natural system of nature!
I think we need to wean off oil and gas and onto better and more efficient power systems but am glad I do not equate natural products as "evil".
It's not exactly bullshit, 10% of the global carbon emission is a result of the fashion industry[1], which isn't a pittance. But you are totally right that transportation is a much bigger share. The North Face's own contribution is probably a pittance.
This is one of those situations where I don't like anybody on either side, and just hope that the argument doesn't get too annoying before it goes away. I don't think oil and gas is evil (because it is amoral) but the industry certainly is destructive, both in its externalized costs, and in how it tries to prevent people from fixing the mess we've made together in order to sustain itself. The fashion industry is similar in that it depends on weaknesses in human nature, and both would happily ride our civilization into the grave rather than abandon their business models.
North Face’s contribution is probably pretty low because their stuff lasts a long time. I have several pieces of their clothing that are holding up after 20 years of use.
I would believe you if north face had the same collection every year.
I have a 17 year old jacket that I still use in the snow. But if all north face customers were like you and me they would be bankrupt.
The whole premise of these brands is fast fashion, every year, minimum of 4 collections, and millions of people throwing away good clothes to buy brand new shinny things.
Those are the customers they are making money on and that is where the carbon impact of fast fashion is.
Most of that contribution though is not the end garment breaking down but from shitty manufacturing processes. We need to stop letting chemical companies and textile manufacturers dump waste products willy nilly and really hold them accountable while researching a shitload into better manufacturing practices.
Yeah I'm going to really not take that 10% at face value from a source like BI. It links to a page that says 2-8%, which in turn links to another group, which cites a working paper that says 2%. No references for the 8%.
Clothes that use synthetic fibers are shedding microplastics whenever you wear them, wash them, etc. You shouldn't wear such garbage if you care about the environment (and your health).
You can also minimize the shedding by using special bags while washing ( I forget the name ) if you want to use them for specific outdoor pursuits. But for everyday use there are lots of natural fibers that are great alternatives to polyester, nylon, etc. Cotton of course is well known, linen is generally much better environmental wise, and if properly taken care of (and if the animals are cared for correctly) there are many animals fibers that have really great performance properties. Merino wool being the most well known of course and Alpaca being the biggest up and comer (basically has all of upsides of merino and none of the downsides)
1. He claims that the entire "outdoor" movement was created by Oil and Gas which I think we know is total BS. Humans have been exploring the outdoors long before oil and gas - hunting - exploring - etc.
2. While TNF does definitely produce a ton of crap (and is really not my favourite brand in general) there is just currently no better substitute performance wise for petroleum based products in many areas. You can make a lot out of natural materials but a nice and lightweight waterproof jacket is not really one of them.
3. The original founder of the TNF (now deceased) bought tons and tons of land throughout Chile for years that people thought was for malicious ends. It turned out to be, however, that they were instead intending to donate the land to create even more natural parks (which Chile already has a ton of). Not a small amount of land here - we are talking quite a bit.
The "outdoor industry" in general has pretty much all of the problems he lists and tons of companies don't do shit in reality to help the environment. Would I prefer for all of these companies to stop making so much VOLUME of product and instead focus on quality and longevity and for consumers to focus more on buying used and second hand products? Of course. But this doesn't seem intended to really focus on that at all and is just a hit piece specifically on TNF. Who is paying for this advertisement and what is their motivation?
Why not focus instead on the problems of the outdoor industry in general?