Thousands of clothing items are an insignificant usage of oil; you are emptying a swimming pool into the ocean in South Africa and looking for sea level rise in Japan. Focusing on that misses core problems, but it does make good marketing and companies _exploit the hell out of that_ to see products. Spoken in plain language: It wouldn't make a difference even if all of Patagonia's clothes were made from bamboo. This is the simple science of the situation, yet people _vacuum_ this greenwashing marketing BS up like hotcakes.
Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now: Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage.
A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental to causes that actually matter.
In terms of fossil fuel based clothing, specifically, they are a growing cause for significant harm in the environment, and clothing does cause real harm that has lasting consequences. Fossil fuel based clothing accounts for around 60% of our clothing. This isn't just a problem of "a few thousand jackets."
Microplastics regularly enter our water supply during laundering. This is a real problem that is causing real harm to our environment that will be very difficult to reverse.
In terms of how this relates to climate change; how Patagonia as a company spends it's profits will now be up to them. I hope they'll address climate change directly, especially in terms of real solutions, but who knows what they'll do?
However, I do know that if all fossil fuel based companies started re-investing all of their profits towards fixing the environment problems caused by their products, our world would be very different.
And yes, Patagonia is just a drop in the bucket in terms of overall clothing production, but that is not an argument against them taking action. I like the idea of every fossil fuel based company taking similar action, not just one company. I realize this is not realistic, but it is appealing to me, at least.
A note for all who might take issue with battery storage as too expensive, alternatives - albeit with lower efficiency - exist; hydro pumping, storing it in air turbines (8-9 hours, 95% efficiency iirc), even compressing air (this one goes to 85% efficiency iirc).
This is a pretty uncharitable reading of what they were saying, they were commenting on a general principle and how there was something about the economics of this that had potential if it were scaled up. They didn't imply that this particular instance was of particular significance; they were saying it would be if there were a general trend of this among _extraction companies_, and they conceded that this probably wouldn't happen.
There is a ton of waste generated by the clothing industry that ends up being pushed onto the third world. Endless amounts of waste through fast fashion generated by companies like Shein.. ask any young women. We can do more than one good thing at a time, and we have to, our existence depends on it.
Curbing emissions from power generation is the #1 most effective way to reduce c02 and we have the answers right now: Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and battery storage.
A few thousand jackets are a waste of time and is detrimental to causes that actually matter.