dirk8037 wrote: ↑
Mon Nov 16, 2020 12:30 am
sorry for being so silent and late. I do not want to raise the impression of trolling around an the pissing of in silence. Too much work and home offic too tired.
The whole post was some kind of impulsive.
I am not really sozialized in terms of conditional understatement phrases. To some people this might appear bold an in the face but a bit of provocation must be and I am trying not backing of in discussions.
>>Bashing on Patagonia and Arcteryx isn't productive. Those companies are WAY ahead of the curve in terms of sustainability.
I have no intention on bashing anyone.
I am not calling to buy something else or boycot them. I also do not bash Duotone, as I stated, I have resentments, mostly subjective, but at the end they have to be cretited for doing the step, as I said.
Although, greenwashing is a good term, that starts the more you brag about things that are very little. And is Arcteryx so way ahead in sustainability? Maybe I am wrong (info and links are welcome – I would be happy if am wrong and would apologize)
Infact I also really respect the founder of Patagonia and I am long time user of the Arcteryx Theta Jacket. It is highly functional, fits to almost any purposes and I basically live, having maybe 3 Jackets all year, round with that one being the most versatile. I use this yery one for work, snowboarding, protection on the beach in Summer, in town on the bike with just a T underneath.
I am so used to the breathability that I hardly like to wear "classic" fashionable stuff.
I write that because in the meantime thoughts went through my mind and with all things we do we have to die at least one death and I thing true stustainability is a big thing. I starts with the individual, I do not expect from any one to do as I do. But having in the first Theta for 8 years I rate that higher than some chemicals. And then I still think they and any other company have to thrive and with the next one (in maybe 5Y) I will be probably more critical in my purchasing behaviour than 5 years ago.
Especially those companies have a big responsibility and I expect to live up to that, And the also have the power.
I just saw on Gleiten TV (sorry only german) a tech talk on ultra light wight stuff such as alula where Duotone praised themself of being approached by the fabric majorsdue to their market power. So if they say they want, they can build pressure. They also claimed quite honestly that the basic approach is straight target pricing where the try to level out inflation.
And sure, they need profits for their research, for their image. I am aware of that and can not expect them to reverse gravitation.
Thinking about sustainability I actually later thought that we are not that bad.
Kites and Boards are still an investment why most customers will care and many will purchase second hand and some probably might give it away for low because they want to have it out of their cellar.
And my intention was really not to poke on the Industry because the do not deliver but to see it as a whole.
<<Either consumer habits change to prioritize environmental, social and other factors over cost (unlikely), or we need additional government regulation.
Very well said it all leads to that point. It should be both since Politics follow teh mainstream and in many way it turned out that decisions made with teh back to the wall are not the ones we really appreciate.
I will work sequentially through the post..
<< What should Duotone or other kite manufactures do to actually reduce their footprint? Would you pay more for a more sustainable product? At least I think that's the point of this conversation....
- Those recycled fibers should be standard for all kind of bags. I do not expect that Cordura will be replaced in short time. But the demand will maybe also change the producer of Cordura and al like to proactively search for better fabrics. That canopy cloth will not be compostable is obvious.
- Boards there are also recycled high density foams, tnatural fibers and alternative resins. Nice video from the GleitenTV makers on that too.
- PVC foam, is for decades highly discussed due to chlorine based chemistry
- personally I absolutely disliked for years the extend of plastics and cushioning on the Kite bars.
- Packaging has lots of potential. Although I remember this discussion from 20Y ago in windsurfing.
Response from a vendor was that customers dislike the waste but are at the same time absolutely uncompromising with the slightest scratch when delivered - therefore no waste reduction.
- something futuristic i thought today while jogging.
We basically all agree that material is more or less a staple available to everyone and it is only for the most hardcore nerds a real purchase argument is the cloth has 2/3 or 4 ripstop. All is purchased at the same producer. So why not accept that eco is not for marketing but an essential investment into future. (I wrote that before watching the tech talk – maybe I am wrong, and its not a staple – still nice fantasy...)
The big player could team together, make pressure on the producer to have more sustainable production methods, use plastics that are better recyclable - whatever.
It will not harm their relative market positions remain the same, since emotional market position, since shape, stitching and so on remain individual.
Same with deck pads, fins or the disliked foam on the bars.
<<The things we need to worry about are disposable products which we use on a daily basis - or perhaps all of the flights we take for exotic kite holidays - not this bullshit greenwashing.
Yes, see above, also I highly agree with flights and travelling and wonder what scientific scans will till after the comming 2 years of almost grounding. You have to focus resources on the important things, and there less foodwast and meet is way more efficient.
No, focussing on trafic or food does not mean that everything else has to be ignored.
For me I came to the conclusion that a wholistic change of attitude and behaviour is needed.
if one does not care about the one thing he/she will hardly care about the other or willing hide arguing that there are more important things I can not change. And it is slow step wise process. Start and you will see its is not painfull in many cases.
If I stop eating fish because of overfishing (not only for direct consume but for fish food) you still can argue, its useless cause china will continue to clear the oceans. But it is still a position, that will trickle down in society especial regarding rip of lables like MSC. Same with meat.
Those are things that do not even have to be related to CO2 Emission % but to plain understanding that we have. They seem to be one of the crucial parts in the CO2 footprint. If anybody reduces his consume by 1/3 it is quite a lot when 100 mio do.
Runing PCs at work over night. I work at a company producing industrial compressors with a test bad that is supposed to kick out all "lights" in town if started during daytime. So many start arguing that it is useless to switch off the PC because of that excessive consumption. But on the other side, if you scale that up to a couple of million employees worldwide it makes a huge difference. So switch it off, its no effort at all.
Sick, I have search the homepage for recycling info but could not find anything.
off Topic: Brand hot topic, In germany it seams that the first generations of wind generators end their five cycle and no one has a clue what to do with them. There is supposed to be just one company still in developing mode. So they will be dumped somewhere until recycling is ready.
Souspeed thanks for the link
<<I agree with Matteo that we are fooling ourselves by exporting our environmental problems to third world countries (and in many other ways). But I don't think we are prepared/willing to deal with the consequences of not doing that, certainly not by "bringing back production to our own countries" or something like that.>>
Completely agree with that.
And it is not just because of outsourcing, there is a huge trade with garbage, such as industrial package wast, toxic wast name it. I guess its easy to blame rotten government in Africa for doing that deal.
If I see the at times snobby we are the good ones attitude in Germany or Switzerland with excepting that or even enforcing that - it is highly hypocritical. We allow on international level things that are not allowed inside the country....
And here China is for one time kind of cool by just stooping that trade.
Indo, too, as stated later.
souspeed / havre: dito
>>but this cannot be answered on a meta level, then it stays too vague.
Less CO2 for plastic versions, might be better or worse
I think that is a big point.
The whole meta discussion important up to a certain extent but it is around since ht 80s ad it it way to meta.
Also the discussions now are in a way mislead and much to narrow.
We can plant trees, buy e-cars, half our flying are we then allowed to waste everything and overfish the 7 seas?
In Germany every one is separating plastic, there is a huge "money laundry" installed by paying into a fund to have green spot on the bottle. At the end the yellow bags that were used for collection of it were found on land sinks in Africa. and still huge amounts of what not ends up there is burned or recycled to super cheap material used for park benches. There are still very few packagings that seem to have clear definitions and so can be recycled with the same quality.
<<< So paying that premium might seem like a small thing, but it isn't - for many.
In an interview with an Indian UNO counsellor on Paris treaty and general eco stuff he stated clearly that there is no way on approaching the majority of his people to make sacrifices for an abstract threat when the see that we are flying around the world for fun and disposing our wast around the world.
We are the richest, we have invented the game and are in a way the idol for bad or if we want for good.
But we have to run ahead of the pack and if we can not do that with hardshells, board bags, can we do with the important things. And by the way, there are even at home enough people that only can afford hiking shoes.
My guess is that if the true cost of it was passed on, there would be less used and more recovery/reuse/recycle going on.
Spain runs ot of water because they give it away for free to plant our tomatos.
Even more curious, there were one or two villages in Germany running out of drinking water because there were too many people buying pools during the lockdown.
<<So if you consider all of the pollution and environmental impact, burying your trash is often times a better environmental alternative. I know some people can't deal with that, but it is the truth.
Yes, and in most of the cases this is a no go discussion. I think the wides pread dogmatism is not healthy.
I think if we could institutionalise those quantifications it would be quite helpfull.
On the other side, I guess the horizon is quite important,
I had the discussion the other day on cars and batteries.
Motor machining and fuel vs e motors, batteries (esp. with view on rare materials for them) and the original source of the electricity. At the moment and possibly also for the next 10 years it will be a tight race.
But since changes are so slow and will at least open discussions for alternatives, when do you say its not worth it.
<<< 25% of the world's emissions come from cargo vessels
That much !?!?!
Private air traffic I think was at 3%, agriculture at 30% as I just read.
But the numbers are changing by what and where you read..
I just heard that there seems to be change on the way. Newest gens. of Cruise ships and also cargo come increasingly with LNG since harbours/cities raising regulations and also investors seem to build increasingly pressure.
If you withdraw all from Asia you will hold back their complete development.
But we still have an influence who the stuff we buy as cheap as possible is produced.
This was also stated by NGOs in far east after the building with a couple of hundred seamstresses burned down:
We want and need to produce for Nike and a like but we want to do that under good conditions.
And here ageing we come in to play. A friend of ours sells shoes. She raves continuously about people who spent 150€ for the news trainer that hold for a year at best. But to spend 300 for a pair of shoes that will hold 5y+ is considered as outrageous.
Here is a discussion on a public voting for a having a law to make resident companies responsible for what they do abroad. One example I read displayed how confused the whole topic is.
Holcim cement factory in Lebanon (if I remember right), really needed since no work, mining area so close to the village, on not officially flagged out ground, that they have tones of people with lung problems.
When the villagers now would want to sue Holcim based on that law there would be hardly any foundation since they adhere to local regulations (which hardly exist). Also claims to the local government get stuck in the local felt.
You could end up and wonder if such a law is worth the paper.
Wouldn´t it make more sense to tackle it from the other side and force companies to adhere to western rules when it comes to working/living safety, and environmental issues abroad.
Suggestions form politics here are as so often rules on paper and the hope in god.
Onda: yeah! see above
<<And the best part is that no one even cared about this stuff until Indonesia finally said enough!
And its over the decades well kept in silence, especially the extent.
<< How does epoxy and fiberglass burn?
Do they burn them !?!?!? if doing that with tires isn´t enough. Any links?
To be continued, its late....