Patagonia boycotts Outdoor Retailer show in support of Bears Ears...

John Barritt wrote:I didn't say they weren't trying, or actually doing anything to better the planet. I said this boycott is about marketing and money. And it is. The fact that you jumped to their defense proves the marketing is working. This took 2 seconds to find theatlantic.com/business/ar…

If you took more than 2 seconds to read the article, you would have known that the exploited labor has very little relation to patagonia. The exploited labor makes the raw textiles that everybody uses, and I'd imagine it would be hard to find such textiles that were made with legit labor. The people actually making patagonia's clothing aren't exploited labor slaves.

King Tut wrote: You are just Trash bro. For Example: In 2014 Fossil Fuel Companies (that also want to drill in Bear's Ears) in just the USA and Canada reported profits of $256 Billion. To compare that motivation to that of Patagonia's and their history of responsible use of the environment is just ridiculous. Typical conservative, equating a company trying to make some kind of an ethical dollar to people raping the planet for hundreds of billions YEARLY... that is then used to buy politicians for more give aways and fund dis-information campaigns with the left over pennies (hundreds of millions of dollars) that are lapped up by sheep like you. Your self interested ignorance makes me sick.

John Tuttle, why is your only answer to sling insults.

Their Black Friday benevolence was a marketing ploy, it also gave them insights as to how much power they have over their customers by tracking the sales increase. Donating the profits was a good thing, but consider the amount of money they got to keep "before" profit from the increased sales.

Now when people think of buying a jacket it's like they are donating to a good cause. JB

John Barritt wrote:I didn't say they weren't trying, or actually doing anything to better the planet. I said this boycott is about marketing and money. And it is. The fact that you jumped to their defense proves the marketing is working. This took 2 seconds to find theatlantic.com/business/ar… If you look at Patagonia's website they state they are using as much recycled nylon "as they can" at the end of the day profit will always come before saving the planet. Also, the mission statement is "cause no unnecessary harm" Soooo....necessary harm is OK? You need to pay as much attention to what they aren't saying as what they are. Image equals sales, sales equals money, JB

I would say their ecologicalness isnt out of some marketing strategy but more out of the CORE of Yvons' and the companies beliefs. Just look at how Yvon pushed trad climbing.

Feel free to compare them to the likes of Exxon, Dupont, koch Bros, etc... I'm all ears for an equivalent comparison.

eli poss wrote: If you took more than 2 seconds to read the article, you would have known that the exploited labor has very little relation to patagonia. The exploited labor makes the raw textiles that everybody uses, and I'd imagine it would be hard to find such textiles that were made with legit labor. The people actually making patagonia's clothing aren't exploited labor slaves.

Nothing and very little are two different things. JB

John Barritt wrote:John Tuttle, why is your only answer to sling insults. Their Black Friday benevolence was a marketing ploy, it also gave them insights as to how much power they have over their customers by tracking the sales increase. Donating the profits was a good thing, but consider the amount of money they got to keep "before" profit from the increased sales. Now when people think of buying a jacket it's like they are donating to a good cause. JB

Just shut up you ignorant fool. You are equating utter desecration of the Earth with selling warm coats. If you can't tell the difference then God help you.

John Barritt wrote: Their Black Friday benevolence was a marketing ploy. JB

BS john. you're talking about one of the most ecologically concious companies in the country and acting as if their good intentions or initiatives are purely profit driven yet there's plenty of history, publications, and grass roots activism by their company and their people to dispel your notions of pure greed. What other company can you point to that doesnt have a profit motive and has done more good then them and provided jobs to as many families in our country? Do tell...

John what you are presenting or how you are presenting this is what is known as a Faulty Comparison.

Description: Comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

Example #1:

Broccoli has significantly less fat than the leading candy bar!
Explanation: While both broccoli and candy bars can be considered snacks, comparing the two in terms of fat content and ignoring the significant difference in taste, leads to the false comparison.

Example #2:

Religion may have been wrong about a few things, but science has been wrong about many more things!
Explanation: We are comparing a method of knowledge (science) to a system of belief (faith), which is not known for revising itself based on new evidence. Even when it does, the “wrongs” are blamed on human interpretation. Science is all about improving ideas to get closer to the truth, and, in some cases, completely throwing out theories that have been proven wrong. Furthermore, the claims of religion are virtually all unfalsifiable, thus cannot be proven wrong. Therefore, comparing religion and science on the basis of falsifiability, is a faulty comparison.

I think the point is, being an apparel company is not about saving the earth. Patagonia is the one doing the conflating. They are in business to make a bunch of clothing, not to save the planet. It's nice that they are trying to be ethical and responsible, but let's be serious and not turn them into Greenpeace or some other group whose mission is literally that and only that.

They have one of the most powerful brand images in the world. Literally, you and I associate them with so many notions that are near and dear to our hearts. This helps them stay strong and sell more clothes.

King Tut wrote: In 2014 Fossil Fuel Companies (that also want to drill in Bear's Ears) in just the USA and Canada reported profits of $256 Billion.

The anti-oil talk is childish. Those same companies saw their profits fall to < $130 billion the next year, and most/many companies lost ~50% of their employees. Anti-energy is against progress (I don't work in the industry, but I do realize that I, like everyone on here, benefits from energy). These companies also support orders of magnitude more employees than outdoor clothing companies, and orders of magnitude more consumers/users. Stop whining about this false situation where oil only helps evil-doers. We also use it to get around and play with our fancy plastic clothes/goods.

Even Patagonia's fight against hydro electric in South America doesn't make sense... So we can't use oil, we can't use hydro? What are we using to fly across the world, climb things, ski down things (love that waste of energy just to get up a mountain to artfully fall down it), make our plastic goods, etc? Even geothermal gets the same flack as oil when they try to drill. Please show me how we can live in the 21st century with your unrealistic views on energy? Obviously we should drop down to < 1 billion people, and then we'll make less of an impact... however, that's not a solution either.

if Patagonia had huge, rather than just a large pair of balls, they'd pull their products from Utah shelves and stop doing business in Utah altogether.

that would be rad and i would gladly pay full retail for everything going forward if they did that.

Interesting point... they are the people who voted for the UT politicians so why not take it out on the UT populous.

Morgan Patterson wrote:Feel free to compare them to the likes of Exxon, Dupont, koch Bros, etc... I'm all ears for an equivalent comparison.

OK,

Every time I see an Exxon, BP, or (insert oil company name here) commercial they talk about how they are cleaning up the gulf, doing everything they can to not make a mess while bringing us safe fossil fuel energy, how their main concern is the planet, etc. etc.

They are selling their "goodness" and not what they have to do to get the oil.

Same thing with Patagonia, they are telling you how they are committed to saving the world, all the while 90% of what they sell is coming from those same oil wells that Exxon doesn't want you to think about either.

Same exact thing, Patagonia would have to be stupid to put a picture of an oil well on their website with the caption "where your jacket comes from" now wouldn't they.

"Look over here" sells way more jackets.

Pete Spri wrote:I dont understand this. Almost all of this area is currently protected land: "The 1.9 million acres defined in the proposal area represent federally owned public lands, which are currently managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service, and National Park Service. Much of this land is comprised of BLM Wilderness Study Areas and Forest Service Inventoried Roadless Areas." Why exactly does this need to be a National Monument? Most of it is Roadless already. bearsearscoalition.org/prop…

BLM Land is routinely mined, drilled, logged, grazed and abused.

It is not remotely protected from extraction industries as BLM land.

Yeah pulling their products form Utah would be great for the family owned retail shops in Utah.

Ancent wrote: The anti-oil talk is childish. Those same companies saw their profits fall to < $130 billion the next year, and most/many companies lost ~50% of their employees. Anti-energy is against progress (I don't work in the industry, but I do realize that I, like everyone on here, benefits from energy). These companies also support orders of magnitude more employees than outdoor clothing companies, and orders of magnitude more consumers/users. Stop whining about this false situation where oil only helps evil-doers. We also use it to get around and play with our fancy plastic clothes/goods. Even Patagonia's fight against hydro electric in South America doesn't make sense... So we can't use oil, we can't use hydro? What are we using to fly across the world, climb things, ski down things (love that waste of energy just to get up a mountain to artfully fall down it), make our plastic goods, etc? Even geothermal gets the same flack as oil when they try to drill. Please show me how we can live in the 21st century with your unrealistic views on energy? Obviously we should drop down to < 1 billion people, and then we'll make less of an impact... however, that's not a solution either.

No my friend, it is not remotely childish. The question before YOU is how much propaganda from Big Oil you are going to lap up.

Profits fell to less than $130 Billion the next year? Really, you are going with that and cry poverty?

That fantastically huge pile of cash is used to buy politicians to let them dump their waste in rivers, pump groundwater full of chemicals so toxic they sued the EPA to prevent what chemicals they are **from even being disclosed to the EPA** and to spend hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to spread lies that dumping 29 BILLION TONS of CO2 in the air EVERY YEAR is not having any affect on climate....but sure, they are just the BIGGEST WELFARE QUEENS ON EARTH owning every government but are just our friends trying to help Johnny Barritt's mommy drive him to school....

What is childish is denying the evidence in front of your face.

They are looking to move the venue.

sltrib.com/news/4910425-155…

Ancent wrote: The anti-oil talk is childish. Those same companies saw their profits fall to < $130 billion the next year, and most/many companies lost ~50% of their employees. Anti-energy is against progress (I don't work in the industry, but I do realize that I, like everyone on here, benefits from energy). These companies also support orders of magnitude more employees than outdoor clothing companies, and orders of magnitude more consumers/users. Stop whining about this false situation where oil only helps evil-doers. We also use it to get around and play with our fancy plastic clothes/goods. Even Patagonia's fight against hydro electric in South America doesn't make sense... So we can't use oil, we can't use hydro? What are we using to fly across the world, climb things, ski down things (love that waste of energy just to get up a mountain to artfully fall down it), make our plastic goods, etc? Even geothermal gets the same flack as oil when they try to drill. Please show me how we can live in the 21st century with your unrealistic views on energy? Obviously we should drop down to < 1 billion people, and then we'll make less of an impact... however, that's not a solution either.

Good point.

Concerning the anti-hydro, Patagonia is against it because dams effect fish migration patterns for spawning. I understand why but at the same time I have to ask how do they think we can power our civilization? Wind turbines hurt birds when they get close to them. Solar panels are not environmentally safe to make (or at least they weren't the last time I checked) and I can see solar farms being unsightly to the environment too. Nuclear scares the living Hell out of them so don't suggest that.

It is easy to criticize but hard to present an alternative.

King Tut wrote: No my friend, it is not remotely childish. The question before YOU is how much propaganda from Big Oil you are going to lap up. Profits fell to less than $130 Billion the next year? Really, you are going with that and cry poverty? That fantastically huge pile of cash is used to buy politicians to let them dump their waste in rivers, pump groundwater full of chemicals so toxic they sued the EPA to prevent what chemicals they are **from even being disclosed to the EPA** and to spend hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to spread lies that dumping 29 BILLION TONS of CO2 in the air EVERY YEAR is not having any affect on climate....but sure, they are just the BIGGEST WELFARE QUEENS ON EARTH owning every government but are just our friends trying to help Johnny Barritt's mommy drive him to school.... What is childish is denying the evidence in front of your face.

I would love love love to move away from oil. All the evidence says its bad for the planet. I 100% agree (didn't see that coming, eh?).

But I'm a realist, and until we have a real alternative solution, I cannot support the notion of "let's cut off all oil now" without regard for how 7 billion people get their energy.

And yes, I do know people who are crying poverty who lost their jobs with the latest crash. Drillers/contractors were the first to go and the lowest paid to begin with. When a large crash happens, there's no going to the next employer. Don't be one of those "large companies are bad" people; large companies give people jobs. What is childish is being unrealistic and throwing tantrums. Provide a real solution and I'd gladly give you praise.

^^ Great point above. "It is easy to criticize but hard to present an alternative."

I think you make some good points JB but you also miss the point of whats going on.. Utah politicians trying to take unprecedented steps to unprotect wilderness areas.

They should move it to Denver with our cancer like urban sprawl, massive widening of highways and our unrelenting quest to develop every square inch of open space. But we are so Green.

King Tut wrote: No my friend, it is not remotely childish. The question before YOU is how much propaganda from Big Oil you are going to lap up. Profits fell to less than $130 Billion the next year? Really, you are going with that and cry poverty? That fantastically huge pile of cash is used to buy politicians to let them dump their waste in rivers, pump groundwater full of chemicals so toxic they sued the EPA to prevent what chemicals they are **from even being disclosed to the EPA** and to spend hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to spread lies that dumping 29 BILLION TONS of CO2 in the air EVERY YEAR is not having any affect on climate....but sure, they are just the BIGGEST WELFARE QUEENS ON EARTH owning every government but are just our friends trying to help Johnny Barritt's mommy drive him to school.... What is childish is denying the evidence in front of your face.

I hope you are aware of the irony that you post on a climbing forum hosted on x86 servers in a data center that most likely uses fossil fuels to power itself.