CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 15years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
“It’s the ultimate irony of course that while outdoor gear companies depend upon a pristine environment for their profitability, the vast majority show a total disregard for the environmental impact of their businesses. It would be unfair to single out any one company as being the worst of the lot as they’re all as overwhelmingly poor as each other.”
Mmm, bit surprising though.
It hadn't escaped my mind that ultimately all my super wicking Berghaus and Helly Hansen stuff is made of oil. It reminds me of one of the earliest discussions on here about the ethical standards pertaining to merino wool clothes.
A lot of the REI (US co-op) and Moutain Equip (Canadian co-op) stuff is marketed as environmentally friendly on various levels. No idea how this would stand up to scrutiny, but some (North American) outdoor companies are quite aware of the issues.
The article makes a lot of vague clams, but is very short on the specifics. I would regard the whole thing with a pinch of salt until I can read the original report. I just don't trust journalism like this.
Someone sent me this -
"
The recent report on Outdoor Gear in EthicalConsumer is a welcome study, but I felt in was poorly carried out. The initial tasking of making the connection that those who enjoy the outdoor environment most should look to help preserve it by their buying habits is sensible, but the actual study by Ethical Consumer is poorly carried out. The recent report on Outdoor Gear by the group may well look at outdoor environment clothing that is often used as gear, but they missed the point with the difference that gear is vital life-saving equipment, as opposed to just making the user look good when clothed and out there.
Anyone with a choice between having product that will make their chances of survival more comfortable or not, will choose the former, yet sadly this thinking is not developed in the report. A lot of work done recently has been in creating the best gear fit for purpose. The benefit of this is that this gear will last the longest, hence reducing the demand to re-consume on a regular basis; in the overall perspective the lack of continuous consumption benefits scarce resources, both in material and production.
From an outside start point they have identified many of the main companies in the sector, but there are some noticeable exceptions: Finisterre & Innov8 in the UK, GoLite & Marmot from the USA. The former would gain positive praise from many of your categories, whilst the latter are two major companies who have started to demonstrate eco-matters in their product; if these examples had been included in the Ethical Consumer reporting then their pessimistic conclusion would not be so straightforward.
There has been massive change within the industry - especially on internal matters - that make companies more sustainable and in tune with eco-matters. Many of these traits have started because the outdoor industry has been an industry for outdoor people who do care about ethical, eco and sustainable matters. A point sorely missed in the report. The industry's main trade body, the OIA, has sponsored the last two Innovations for Extremes conferences, where there has been an over-riding sustainability theme and one demonstrated in such a way as to influence practices across the industry, through to retailing.
Many of the companies in the supply chain also belong to the European Outdoor Group, where the offshoot Association for Conservation has been instrumental in both campaigning for better working conditions and the elimination of Substances of Very High Concern.
As far as SVHC matters, the EOG seems way ahead of the regular textiles industry, a point which could - should? - have been contained within the EC report. REACH substances are similarly missing in the considerations.
So the question: are people being labelled "bad" because the current research has not yet declared how bad Nano-technology is - or not? If it gets certified as being bad, the industry will move away from it, for sure. There are a number of companies working under the guidance of Forum for the Future - but just because this fact is not boasted about, those companies seem to get criticised as much as others, in the EC report. Is that a reflection of the way the EC report is compiled?
Many practices that are followed are not preached about to the consumer (like Nuclear Power) and where choices are made, there must be an eye always kept on the overall costs. If the product becomes too expensive, then the consumer will NOT buy it, so no matter how good are the ethics - if it has no effect of appeal to the masses, then the ethical polices will remain off the radar of the majority.
Having too many avenues of investigation or marketing plans will also both raise core costs and alienate the outdoor majority who want to buy just good gear, rather than be seen as a campaigner for causes. That is all very much pertinent consideration to be commended to the report compilers.
Patagonia are widely recognised as being the lead company with the use of recycled PET to create fleeces, they have led the way over many hurdles - but their input seems to have been ignored by EC. How come the organisation can err on this? Cotton is not widely used in the industry (it is not a performance fabric), but it seems to be the most important fabric in their introduction.
Animal Rights is an area of great interest to many in the public arena, and the better companies (although not reflected in the EC survey) have policies on down and wool, whilst the conclusion about non-leather footwear is that it fails to perform even in basic outdoor applications. Really?
When a company produces great gear and the military want to buy it, then who are we to stop them acting so? If we stop selling it direct, then the military are known for buying it themselves. If the latter happens (i.e. we sell it to a regular customer, without checking that they are non-military) do we fall foul of the survey again? That is a point to be investigated.
The whole question of using petro chemical sources is avoided by the investigation. They may well be a non-sustainable draw on resources, but if they last longer and thus avoid the re-purchasing/re-manufacture cycle, then surely their overall footprint is one that is less on resources? Is it thought, said?, that using oil-derived products is good or should more sustainable solutions be found?
In some parts the survey has chosen to gauge the recycled product offered by the company, but ignored the majority of that company's output which is not recycled. Hence companies that only use the better fabrics do not fare any better than those that just dabble in it. Howies seems to fare poorly, even though they are one of the better eco-companies. Is this just because they have been bought out by Timberland? Or are they one of those "corporates" that Ethical Consumer has been "fighting since 1989", as is their masthead flash on their website?
In the part of the report about their Clean Clothes Campaign is it VERY surprising that Paramo (part of the Nikwax group - the only British outdoor company to make the recent Sunday Times Green List) does not get a look in, whilst Mammut seem to score highest.
Whilst on the price comparison there are some very strange results: Outwell being High End, whilst Arc'teryx is not. The same with Wild Country being High End, but Howies is not - in fact the latter seems almost budget? All this being stated, the overall conclusion that Outdoor Gear companies in the sector could do better is true; but today most are better than the majority of clothing suppliers getting to the High Street.
author Charles Ross is a Senior Postgraduate & Undergraduate Lecturer in Performance Sportswear Design
"
Some good points, but I am less convinced by claims to more durable kit -- if anything outdoor gear is now much more often replaced than in the days when people had 'a jacket' and 'boots' (although LLBean will still replace any of their boots which wear out - forever).
But, I would still argue that the whole industry thrives on trends, constant tweaking and 'improvement' and the now common assumptions that you need 'new and improved' gear regularly.
I've started to move into merino stuff, which is probably a bit more sustainable than petrochemical clothing.
Until you realise it was shipped over from New Zealand!
There is a lot of political troth but not a lot of hard facts there. "So the question: are people being labelled "bad" because the current research has not yet declared how bad Nano-technology is - or not?" gets closer to the nub of the issue, the objections are based on narrow political prejudice not on evidence based research. Just because a guy with flappy ears (and no understanding of science) say it is bad, doesn't mean it is, but some people believe him, because he also talks to his plants to make them grow.
"Just because a guy with flappy ears (and no understanding of science) say it is bad, doesn't mean it is, but some people believe him, because he also talks to his plants to make them grow."
I think you are in danger of making the sort of 'non fact based assumptions' that you complain about other people doing.
As you say, the man with an interest in architecture talks to plants, (it is alleged), presumably to "make them grow". I'm not sure if this has been subjected to sufficient scientific scrutiny.
"presumably to "make them grow"."
It works in Doonesbury!
Maybe he's a secret fan :)
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts