Yvon Chouinard once said: ‘I’m going to die with these shoes. This is the last pair of brown leather shoes I’m going to buy. That’s my attitude towards buying everything: to try to buy something that is going to last the rest of my life.’

Chouinard (pictured), the founder of outdoor clothing company Patagonia, is renowned for his stance on environmental issues. Despite owning a company
whose survival depends on sales of apparel, Chouinard publicly exhorts customers to buy outdoor clothes from secondhand sources: a search on eBay brings up more than 1,300 items of Patagonia togs for sale by private sellers. The company even has its own stores for discontinued lines and seconds (its European outlet is in Dublin).

In 1993, Patagonia became the first outdoor company to turn discarded plastic into fleece clothing: 3,700 two-litre bottles produce more than 150 items
of Synchilla fabric. This process saves 158 litres of oil and avoids releasing about 450 kilograms of toxic emissions into the air. So far, around 92 million plastic bottles have been recycled. Rather than patenting this process, Patagonia made the technique of producing garments from trash available to all. Sadly, few other manufacturers followed suit.

However, a consortium of outdoor clothing companies did join Patagonia’s next project: to find uses for the scraps of fleece that end up on the cutting-room floor. In the first five months of the scheme, enough fleece to cover three football fields in a layer of scraps as deep as the length of the page you’re reading was redirected from landfill to stuffed toys, pillows and sound insulation in vehicles.

Patagonia’s latest initiative got under way two years ago. The Common Threads Garment Recycling Programme accepts Patagonia base and mid-layers, as well as Polartec fleece from other manufacturers. The clothing is then broken down to the molecular level and purified, in order to produce raw polyester chips that are of the same quality as virgin polyester. These chips are subsequently melted and spun into new fibre, which is then used to make another item of gear.

Making polyester from old clothes rather than virgin materials results in an energy saving of 76 per cent and a CO2 emissions reduction of 71 per cent. More than 130 items in Patagonia’s current range are made from old clothes that have been put through the Common Threads process. UK retailers that support the initiative have containers in their stores where old, clean clothing can be donated.


Return and reuse

The German manufacturer Vaude has been running a similar scheme for about 12 years. Base layers with the Ecolog tag can be returned to Vaude for recycling into new garments. At one stage, the range included waterproof jackets, rucksacks and sleeping bags. Because the whole product was made from the same substance, items such as zips didn’t have to be removed before the recycling process could begin. But a decade ago, retailers were less interested in green gear, and the products were eventually phased out.

Vaude has initiated or joined several other programmes, including Bluesign, an international standard for textile production. The company has been a member since 2002. ‘Bluesign examines every aspect of the process, including raw materials, transportation and the environmental impact, ’ says Chris Davison, Vaude’s manager in the UK.

In May, Patagonia and the Canadian retailer Mountain Equipment Co-Op joined Bluesign. With global brands such as Nike and Marks & Spencer embracing the organisation, Davison hopes that in the future, products bearing the Bluesign label will become a familiar sight in stores. ‘If all our competitors joined Bluesign, that would be great,’ he says.

In the UK, eagle-eyed readers may have already spotted products containing recycled or organic material trickling onto the shelves of outdoor shops, including clothing treated with Cocona (an activated carbon derived from coconut shells that adds protection from UV light, absorbs body odours and helps to disperse sweat) and boots fitted with Vibram’s Ecostep soles, which comprise one-third scrap rubber. One of Ecostep’s champions is Timberland, which this year assembled nearly ten million pairs of shoes using less harmful water-based adhesives.


Recycled rucksacks

One of the newest ranges of outdoor equipment made from recycled materials is the ReSource line of daysacks from Osprey, which appeared in stores this summer. Somewhat frustratingly for trekkers, bikers and climbers who would prefer to carry their gear around in recycled rucksacks, ReSource is aimed at people who want to use a rucksack for more mundane activities such as carrying a laptop to work. But as Gareth Martins, Osprey’s director of marketing, explains, commuter daysacks lend themselves to being the first to be made from recycled fabrics for specific reasons.

‘One of our goals was to replace our existing urban daypack series with comparable packs at the same price,’ he says. ‘But the cost of recycled materials is significantly more than that of commonly used fabrics. If we’re paying three or four times as much for recycled materials, price is going to be an issue. We can’t bring an expedition backpack to market that’s four times the cost of what we’re currently producing because it wouldn’t sell. I suspect that if we make a larger backpack that incorporates lots of recycled materials, it would cost a bit more than what we’re charging right now. We just don’t want the price to be exorbitant.’

By contrast, daysacks use fewer materials, allowing Osprey to sell its recycled range for the same price as its other models. Each ReSource rucksack boasts 70 per cent recycled content. Some materials, such as the polyethylene terephthalate (PET) fabric that makes up the main body of the design, is made from 100 per cent recycled plastic bottles. Other fabrics used in the design have a lower percentage of recycled content.

I wondered if the stretch pockets, which are only 55 per cent recycled, could have been swapped with a non-stretch fabric containing more recycled fibres. But Martins is adamant that Osprey has an obligation to produce rucksacks to the highest standards. ‘In general terms, we don’t want to compromise our design just to be green,’ he says. ‘And I don’t think we did on the ReSource series.’

One of the biggest challenges facing Osprey, and almost every international manufacturer of environmentally sensitive products, is the carbon footprint associated with transporting goods around the planet. Martins says that efficiency in the ordering and shipping process helps, but admits that ‘the best bottles for the PET fabric are being collected and recycled in Japan. But then they have to go on a ship from Japan to Taiwan to be milled’.

‘We really have to research it very carefully, otherwise we won’t be making a difference or reducing our carbon footprint,’ he continues. ‘Sure, you can say that something is 80 per cent recycled, but if the process of milling or transporting the fabric [produces more carbon] than producing a regular fabric, such as a standard Cordura, you really haven’t done anything.’

This point has wider ramifications. Unless one lives in the country not only where the recycled materials used in an item are produced, but also where the item is stitched together, its carbon footprint is going to be significant. There is certainly some justification for suggesting that, as with food miles, something manufactured locally can also be said to have benefits to the environment.


Consumer choice

‘I’m finding out that every time we make the right decision for the environment, it ends up being more profitable – every single time,’ says Chouinard. If he’s correct (and Patagonia’s 2005–06 turnover of US$267million suggests that he is), then why have the majority of outdoor manufacturers been reticent to produce gear that has a smaller environmental footprint? And why have so many British outdoor retailers chosen not to stock products that are less damaging to the planet?

Perhaps the real reason is that, to date, we, the consumers, haven’t attempted to bring down what has become the Berlin Wall of outdoor gear. The uncomfortable truth is that most of us swathe ourselves from head to foot in the latest advances from the petrochemical industry. We want lightweight, we want fast-drying, and most us don’t seem to care very much that the very environments that we love to explore, climb, kayak, bike, hike and travel through are affected by what we purchase at the till. Inevitably, as an equipment editor, I’m more guilty than most.

To a large extent, the solution lies in our hands: we can choose to vote with our wallets by purchasing items that are durable and multi-functional; replace clothing only when it becomes necessary rather than because we want a new colour or the latest innovation; support manufacturers that are either designing products that are less damaging to the planet or having their kit produced in the country in which it’s being sold; and purchase our outdoor gear from retailers who support these suppliers.


If you eat organic, why not wear organic?

For every three kilograms of non-organic cotton produced, one kilogram of pollutants is pumped into the environment. During the mid-1990s, when Patagonia discovered just how harmful non-organic cotton is to the environment, it ceased production of its entire cotton line (which accounted for a fifth of all sales). Patagonia stated that it would begin producing a new range of cotton clothing made only from organic fibres. These would cost customers two per cent more, and if shoppers chose not to buy the new products, the company would simply stop making cotton clothing. Many of Patagonia’s customers supported the company’s initiative, and the line of organic clothing has gone on to generate more income than the previous non-organic range. Patagonia’s organic t-shirts can also be recycled through its Common Threads Garment Recycling Programme.


Green materials to look out for in 2008

Bamboo
A fast-growing plant that can be harvested and turned into fibre without recourse to chemicals
Used in: base-layer clothing
Pros: the soft textile produced from bamboo pulp is quick-drying and breathable. Natural antibacterial properties survive several washes
Cons: expensive to manufacture and import. Requires bleaching before dyes can be added to the fabric

Organic wool
Sheep and goats aren’t treated with synthetic hormones and are fed certified-organic feed. The land on which they graze is free of chemicals, and the number of animals on any given size of plot is controlled
Used in: base and mid-layers
Pros: a renewable and biodegradable product that supports sustainable farming
Cons: limited production keeps prices high

Hemp
A natural weed suppressor, hemp is often grown without the use of herbicides, pesticides or fungicides. Planting to harvest takes less than four months
Used in: travel clothing
Pros: looks like linen, feels like flannel
Cons: no internationally recognised certification. Production is banned in some countries, so the fabric usually has to be imported

Polylactic acid (PLA)
A polymer derived from 100 per cent renewable resources that are rich in starch, such as corn and wheat. Contains many properties similar to, or better than, petroleum-based materials
Used in: accessories such as socks
Pros: biodegradable and recyclable
Cons: fossil fuels are still required to power the process of
harvesting the corn


November 2007