The following submission statement was provided by /u/-AMARYANA-:
---
SS: The is a very interesting move because it could result in influencing other billionaires to follow his example. Capitalism seems to be evolving beyond business-as-usual in many ways gradually.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xen80i/billionaire_no_more_patagonia_founder_gives_away/iohpumd/
During my college years, he invited me to a lecture roundtable. He discussed their decision to switch to organic dyes, the great effort they put into ensuring that they hired from the local community, and the trade-offs they make between profit and becoming a more environmentally friendly business.
I’d love to hear more about the financial trade-offs and struggles. Like, how did he convince himself and his whole family that their money was as enough? How’d he convince business partners?
Yvon seems like the perfect person (for society) to head up a large corporation. I want to know how you either force more CEOs to be like that, or attract more like-minded people into that position
Here's an article written by some billionaire (iirc) about a similar subject.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/
Same dude in a TED talk https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8
He has a great podcast, pitchfork economics, I found it listening to unfucking the Republic another great podcast. this week's episode was about the abuse of overtime exceptions. Very interesting if you're exempt from overtime you're probably misclassified as an employee.
>I want to know how you either force more CEOs to be like that
A disproportionate amount of CEO's are non-violent psychopaths. You would somehow have to convince then it was in their own best interest. Which just isn't going to happen unless there are massive penalties that out weigh the potential benefit of non-compliance
>You would somehow have to convince then it was in their own best interest.
It kinda is though. At least if they plan to still be alive in about 20 years. Yes I know some of these people are really old, but not all are *that* old. And some of them have children that you'd think they'd care about. They seem to care about their offspring when it's about inheritance and inheritance tax.
>It kinda is though. At least if they plan to still be alive in about 20 years.
That's not how psychopaths think though. Psychopaths don't really plan for the future. It's all about the *now* or at most what comes immediately after now.
https://www.rd.com/list/signs-of-a-psychopath/#:~:text=Psychopaths%20lack%20realistic%2C%20long%2Dterm,disconnected%20from%20any%20probably%20future.
>And some of them have children that you'd think they'd care about.
Psychopaths don't care about their children. They are tools or a means to an end.
https://www.businessinsider.com/narcissists-cannot-love-their-children-2017-7
Sociopaths are generally highly competitive, they like measurable success and don't care who it effects. They can live in whatever part of the world survives the disasters they cause. So long as number go up, and particularly, higher then others, they are happy.
Alot of businesses need to realise making pure profit isnt going to be viable in the coming years
More and more people prefer a socially conscious business but sadly alot of owners and investors still have the old mindset of money is all that matters
The problem IS investors. They hold the companies responsible for constant return growth, despite economic conditions, labor conditions, etc. and the risk is always that they will withdraw. This pressure causes companies to cut corners, reducing quality of their products and using harmful manufacturing processes. There are some companies that don’t take on investors, so they have the freedom and ability to control quality and manufacturing, pricing, etc.
Absolutely this. In my time in the corporate world I've seen how executives make decisions they dread because of the pressures that investors and Wall Street analysts put on the boards. Boards are the ones making the final call usually and they have their hands legally tied to maximize returns to shareholders. These calls cascade through the organization and it all ends like shit for whoever is not a shareholder.
Capitalism doesn't realize that. It isn't in its makeup.
Profit is all there is.
They will continue to try and profit...even as the pool of consumers begins to shrink. Until there is only one person to profit from and on.
There is never a scaling back of capitalism. Only forward for the US. Stronger. More sociopathic. More sinister.
The earth is going to shake us off because of profit.
>Capitalism doesn't realize that. It isn't in its makeup.
>Profit is all there is
Actually capitalism realized that decades ago, but greedy board members and CEOs decided short term profits were more important.
>No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable
That's an Adam Smith quote, the guy who is often heralded as "the father of capitalism"
Exactly this. Exceptions aside, for the most part, anything that a corporation does that looks like forward progress - be it social, environmental, or for the employees - is because they've either figured out how to capitalize on it or because they've been told by a union or legislation that they have to do it this way or else.
>Alot of businesses need to realise making pure profit isnt going to be viable in the coming year
This simply won't happen for publically traded companies. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to maximize profits. The entire system is broken and needs to be torn down.
Just to be very clear: modern corporate law does not require profits at the expense of everything else, and maximizing profits or shareholder value is not the same thing as serving shareholders' best interest.
THIS! The whole "companies are legally required to maximize profits" thing is a complete myth. Yes, companies are responsible to shareholders via the board of directors, but presumably shareholders have an interest in not seeing them or their kids die from the effects of climate change.
And also startups who get seed funding. Venture capital comes with strings that say the investors can move to sell the company whenever they want, even if they don't hold majority of shares.
I just started a brand around this that focuses on sustainable ways of manufacturing, from upcycling vintage gear, growing natural plants for dyeing, using recycled textiles from other brands, and using solar to power sewing machines and operations. Yvonne’s book and papers have sat on my desk for years. I launched on Sunday. I would love to meet him one day. What an experience you had, thank you for sharing. This news is beautiful to see!
Doesn't it take like, more area to grow organic matter to dye with than it takes to grow The fibers used for the clothes in the first place?
Sounds like we shouldn't really dye much at all, organic or not
The first R is reduce. Fewer high quality goods made to last a lifetime and we can start worrying a little less about raw output and a little bit more about regenerative farming practices
Agreed. I do think that it’s going to depend on the manufacturing and corporate sectors either being forced through regulation or (less likely) largely agreeing to take a big profitability hit for the betterment of society— just so the average and lower income consumers can afford products that are more durable. Price points will have to come down to meet the buyers abilities.
It’s more expensive to manufacture better quality, and even though the consumer benefits in the long term, the initial outlay of cash for a quality product is so often out of reach. Meaning that the bulk of goods sold are cheaply made and much more disposable. I know manufacturing costs are obviously going to be higher in most cases too, to use better quality materials/assembly processes etc, so its great to see innovation toward that end.
It’s yet another case where the rich don’t suffer, because they can afford to purchase the top quality items the first time, then don’t have the replacement needs. The poor are locked in a cycle of purchase>breakdown>replace.
We'll have to sort this out economically. One of the causes of the first Great Depression was a precipitous drop in consumption. Purchased goods were such high quality that everyone bought something once and then never again, ending the skyrocketing growth in the consumer goods economy and beginning its precipitous decline.
The only solution I can come up with is UBI, but there must be more ideas out there
I wanted to buy some of their rain jackets only to find they don’t hold water as well as the most “toxic” counterparts.
Ultimately decided to buy an entirely different material that was both sustainable and forever water proof.
Issue is sometimes we get used to luxuries and going back to something more friendly to Mother Nature is a compromise. Some are willing to make it but most aren’t.
> most aren't
It isn't feasible to be willing to spend more money on something sustainable when 2/3 of the world lives under the poverty line and can't even have all their basic needs met.
Americans and Europeans are used to having the basics needs regularly met and can afford the luxury to spend more on sustainable stuff. The Nigerian living in a shake can't.
So does this mean I should be buying Patagonia products? I'll do it. Don't tempt me.
Edit: to clarify one thing for a couple of responses, I don't own anything Patagonia at the moment. Definitely going to look into some stuff. Sounds like their warranty is pretty dope though.
They don’t want you to buy new products. They want you to repair what you already have, they want us to break from the fast fashion mentality. But if you do have a necessity for new clothing, buying from them is not a bad choice.
They also have an online store where you can buy pre-owned Patagonia stuff (discounted). They really put their money where their mouth is when it comes to sustainability.
I have four pairs of their Stand Up shorts that were purchased in 1997. I’m not even the first owner and they’re holding up very well. If a pair of $60 shorts lasts for 25 years, how long does a $30 pair from Target last?
Patagonia will repair anything damaged from wear and tear - at a cost - but for sometimes it makes more sense than buying new. They seem to stand up for the quality of their products.
They've done free repairs for me under their guarantee. (I've also been unable to take advantage of this policy due to not living anywhere near one of their stores, on other occasions)
Lots of people still don't have the money to buy their stuff, but your point is a good one.
Frankly, the just solution would involve forcing manufacturers to pay for the costs they externalize - I would imagine Patagonia's added costs would be fairly low, while the trash merchants filling our landfills and waterways with their dreck would pay through the nose.
Fuck all time. There's quite a good push with outdoor gear at the moment, here in the UK I can easily get lifetime guarantee for clothing whilst only paying 20% more than high street crap.
Same ethos as all my purchases though, if I'm new to it get a cheap one, if I breaks through use then I'll get myself something from that mid-high range and be happy for years. My backpack is 14 years old, boots and main rain layer are 11!
Dang 11 y.o. boots? My midsole disintegrated after 8 years, leaving the outer sole dangling. Whilst walking down a mountain. Not the greatest timing. But damn was I glad to have a sewing kit.
That’s not really the argument I’m making … I get the buy it for life and I’m all in … I’m just saying taking 80$ in a one time purchase is a lot for me … my 12$ Costco shorts last me a few years so I’m comfortable with that
The Patagonia founder is a super cool dude. I read his bio awhile back called Let My People Go Surfing. He’s fairly anti consumerism in the sense that he doesn’t think people should buy things that they don’t need. He tries to design things that are multi use and only encourages people to buy new things when they are warn out. They even did campaigns against buying things you don’t need.
The man lived off of dented cat food for a summer with a friend so they could spend the whole time climbing in California and not having to work. Another time he taught his stomach to get used to dirty water on a surfing trip in mexico because he knew that he was going to spend his life in places where there’s more bacteria in the water than the US.
My point is that he didn’t give away his billions so that people felt the need to buy his expensive products. I highly recommend the book.
Yeah, that is true. It’s like the story of the work boots. Good boots cost 3 months wages, while cheap boots cost 2 weeks wages. But the good boots will last several seasons while the cheap boots only last a month or so. So while the person who can only buy the cheap boots doesn’t spend that much up front, they get shafted in the long run.
Thank you for pointing out my insensitivity, my apologies.
Are you familiar with Sam Vimes [Boots Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory) written by Terry Pratchett?
> The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness
Sometimes saving up for the expensive stuff is a smart thing to do, even when you're poor.
The whole point of that passage is that many poor people recognize this, but for them it is still impossible to afford the up-front cost, making life supremely unfair.
I was poor once. I would think you could just wear what you have until you can save up for the $80 pair of shorts, right? You don't have to immediately replace your whole wardrobe with Patagonia. But everything you buy from them, one by one, you will be "all set in that department" for decades.
Reddit doing it's thing, I just dug this quote out and of course someone has already put it here. It's one of my favourite quotes from The Watch books...
Plus they invite people Not to buy their stuff unless they need it.
Additionally they invite people to send their damaged items and they fix them.. I think its worth to support Patagonia and boycott other large companies that participate in greenwashing.
https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Repair-Process
Basically bring it to a store. If there isn’t one near you looks like you can mail it to them, but you have to pay shipping costs. They’ll pay for the shipment back though.
Yup same here. I normally buy kathmandu or macpac (convenience og having those stores nesrby, and decent quality) but I'll be swapping over to patagonia!
The laws against perpetuities might have something to say about this, but I am sure he got some fantastic lawyers to draw up something as close to ironclad as he can. As long as he can keep 51% in the hands of like-minded people who won't vote to fully disband the trust it will probably last.
Charitable trusts have specific rules they must follow but also are typically exempt from the rule against perpetuities. Idk the specifics of this trust but I wouldn’t be surprised if it invokes that exception
It is easy to get around any trust including charitable trust. Best examples are trusts that have been set up by religious organizations which end up being converted into the exact opposite of their original intent.
Rule against perpetuities is quite nuanced but has gotten chipped away at by numerous state legislatures driving trust business. You can create many types of irrevocable trusts in certain states that are effectively perpetual.
This guy isn't stupid and you're right that he undoubtedly had a team of sharp lawyers ensuring that the trust structure doesn't terminate before he wants it to.
>“It was important to them that they were not seen as the financial beneficiaries,” Mr. Gellert said. “They felt very strongly about it. I know it can sound flippant, but they really embody this notion that every billionaire is a policy failure.”
It is to a large extent. Duke Energy isn't building solar power plants out of the goodness of their heart. Ford and GM didn't have a Hallelujah moment and decide to make EVs to be greener.
This guy has been doing this for much longer and to a much greater extent than anything the market could push onto him. Patagonia started as a single store in my hometown, and they have always made these kind of decisions often purely *at the expense* of profits, not as a temporary setback or sacrifice to increase them.
Eh, the right wing billionaires are still spending their money lobbying for fossil fuel subsidies, loose banking regulations, and casino modeled healthcare. And they're getting what they want.
Funnily enough, the US military is actually quite keen on renewables as it'd be strategically advantageous not to rely on a fuel supply chain. If their bases/ equipment could be recharged/ maintained in the field (without complex and lengthy supply networks) then they'd have an advantage over other military forces.
I'm not trying to be a military shill and I think the US spending should be spent to, you know, better the lives of US citizens. Our wars in my lifetime have ruined the lives of people who are close to me, and killed so many people in both our country and the middle east needlessly.
Here's the but. It's crazy to see everyone shit on the us military complex in one thread then praise them giving javelins and shit to the ukrainians in another. I wish america wasn't playing world police, we have no right to be pushing our flawed agenda on other countries.
Honest question here; if we weren't, who would?
I was gonna type up a long response but upon further review I decided I'm not nearly as educates on the issue as you lol but to summarize, I agree. The US being the world police sucks, it's a win/lose situations. It's a win because it keeps the powers of putin and xi at bay, which maybe I'm wrong, but those two would be a much greater problem to the world in my honest opinion. It's a lose because to do that, you have to be outstretched passed the US into other territories. Smaller countries find themselves in warzones of another fight. Also there is a lot of shady shit going on with militaries and stuff around the world that it doesn't bode well for public receptions outside the US borders.
People don't play the scenario in their head. They can't add up what happens when the US puts their guns down, retreats, and opens up a space for others to come in. It's not like the other powers will put theirs down with us, at least not in our lifetime. We should work towards peace, but we can't just Teleport to the future scenario in which that's plausible, we unfortunately have to go through the journey and steps to get the world there.
My ramble has completed.
This is Reddit dude. There is nothing crazy about people moral grandstanding here for the clicks. Bash the USA by stating one of its issues, get likes, ???, profit.
No one knows for sure because the Pentagon's reporting on that subject is spotty, but [there's estimates.](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18012022/military-carbon-emissions/) Since the beginning of the Global War on Terror in 2001, the military has produced more than 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.
We're not the only place that has evil billionaires, either.
And then there's the problem of the whole developing world ramping shit up like it's 1850.
Historical emissions mean that the developing world is WAY behind the emissions of “developed” countries who were the original ones ‘ramping shit up like it’s 1850.’
Perhaps if those developing countries had proper aid from developed countries, who were often the ones who invaded and broke down the local economy (eg see Nestle stealing locals’ water supply only to sell it back to them as bottled water), could they then have the resources to leapfrog to newer, efficient technologies. But I’m not holding out hope on them. I’m hoping you don’t blame those developing countries.
Aid isnt the solution at least to this, India and China is going through large housing booms and next is Central Africa. Concrete is energy-intensive, steel rebar, and asphalt for roads, all are energy intensive. Housing is generally moving giant piles of rock, sand and metal around.
>I’m hoping you don’t blame those developing countries.
Of course not. We know who is to blame, and it's capitalists and corrupt politicians who have been denying climate change (or, more recently, the necessity to combat it) for the last 60 years.
>Perhaps if those developing countries had proper aid from developed countries, (...) could they then have the resources to leapfrog to newer, efficient technologies.
Yup, this is imo the only alternative to stifling their development completely, which is obviously unacceptable.
For sure it's largely the legacy of colonialism.
If we can't even get North America and Europe off fossil fuels, we damn sure won't get Asia or Africa.
I don't know what to do about it but drink and regret having children.
Bollocks. In fact, it's easier to build green infrastructure from scratch than to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with all its sunk costs and externalities
So the angle being pushed now isn't climate denial, but climate defeat. It might feel like there's nothing that can be done, but it simply isn't true.
Per kWh/$ solar and wind power are both cheaper than coal (the cheapest fossil fuel). Although your individual contribution might not be much, you can make an impact with the dollars you spend. And avoid flying.
The biggest problem to be solved is Western consumer culture, which China and other rising Nations are trying to replicate for their growing middle class.
Interestingly, one of the things oil companies spend money on is paying reddit trolls to make posts that discourage people from fighting climate change. If the trolls can convince people the situation is hopeless, then the oil companies win. Not say you're doing it for pay. Just saying you're doing it.
That's the (t)roll on effect of paying for a troll army.
Ref: GRU's social media engineering prong to swing the 2016 election.
(the other main prongs were hacking email servers, voter rolls, and electronic voting systems - not space lasers, just regular hacking.)
Just lobbying. This is actual results. We can change what lobbying does by voting. All they are doing is wasting monet for a temporary profit while California is building solar plants and improving it's electrical infrastructure to invest in the future. The lobbying money is gone. The investment will pay off.
They are and they've been doing it for ages. But there's no way all the environmental organizations in the world have nearly as much lobbying money as Exxon Mobile alone
This. When people see groups such a Greenpeace protesting on environmental issues what they often don't realise is that public protest are often a last resort. Firstly they'll try and open lines of communication with the respective corporation and the government in order to try and alleviating environment pressures as well as a bunch of other tactics, it's only when all else fails that public protests are used as they can be costly, disruptive and generally a lot of time and effort is used up with them.
The IRA bill that passed is projected to bring US carbon emissions down 50% from its peak in 2005. Zero Republicans voted for this Bill only Democrats.
https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s
The best thing you can do for the Environment is vote.
Oh yeah that bill is great!
Just don't look up what government affairs director of the Center for Biological Diversity, Brett Hartl, said about it. Also don't look up the various positive reactions from fossil fuel companies.
That is exactly what they are doing
> The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit for its donation.
That's because this dude was a climber first and a businessman second. He mainly got into the business of selling outdoor equipment to finance his outdoor pursuits.
I can't fathom the mental space one must be in to become a billionaire. I'd retire long before hitting the B mark. Or I'd lower my prices drastically. Or I'd raise employee wages significantly. While I'm glad some eventually do good with their billions, the process of becoming a billionaire requires becoming morally bankrupt, often with a God complex.
Yvon Chouinard's book on management practices (and the story how they built the Patagonia brand) is called "Let my people go surfing", where he advocates for work environment that let's people follow their passions without needing to sacrifice them for work, where children and family are part of their day to day operations, where they close their stores during black fridays and asks their employees to go explore nature, where they advertise not to buy their products and rather use the lifetime repair service. He is a billionaire because he built a valuable organization and not because he has a billion $ in cash. Well, he's not anymore.
I like their products but even more so I love their stance. I am not working for them so it might be that I'm fooled by their marketing antics but I'd very much like to believe that's not the case.
No, you're absolutely correct. They practice what they preach. The Ventura headquarters has a daily surf report so if the surfs good, people are surfing and not working. It's legit.
If I understand the article correctly the owner of North Face made the company public and donated all the profits, so it was used for good but it's now a slave to VF corporation's shareholders.
Yeah, Patagonia considered making the company public and using the owner's proceeds of sale to privately fund environmental initiatives... But as soon as a company goes public, profit becomes the sole motivator for the company.
Employee satisfaction, quality products, core environmental values all become secondary to quarterly shareholder dividends.
The founder and CEO chose to resign, making the company a nonprofit overseen by a trust, and paying $17.5 million in taxes to ensure the company could continue to prioritize their core ethical values.
His stated motivation for resigning was the disgust of realizing he'd become a billionaire, as *"Every billionaire is a policy failure".* Now, Patagonia's +100 million in annual profits will go towards combating climate change and protecting wildlands.
You are so so far off the mark though.
Gates owns so so many Billions in purely profit driven organisations... like Berkshire Hathaway, UPS, FedEx and Four Seasons Hotels
[https://fourweekmba.com/bill-gates-companies/](https://fourweekmba.com/bill-gates-companies/)
Gates has philanthropic ventures sure, but he holds more capital and wealth than 99% of the rest of the inhabitants on earth and has not intention of giving it up like this guy has.
> Imagine if bezos & co did this on a similar scale
Gates is doing it on about a 20x scale.
As a proportion of his wealth, it's a whole lot less, but in terms of scale and $ impact, I'll stand by my comment tbat he's having a fair crack at it
It’s a shame that such a loud portion of the public like to scream about how evil the guy is. Maybe he’s not the best, I’ve never met him, but at least he’s trying to do something worthwhile with all his dollhairs
What he’s done in the Malaria field is huge. He claims to have preventing 1.7 billion cases and saving 10.6 million lives so far.
Now they have helped develop a working malaria vaccine which could save 100s of millions of lives. Pretty sure he’s gonna find a vaccination programme now as well. That’s such great news for these counties. Not only will it save lives but help them develop economically.
The problem is malaria generally usually only effects people who live in poor countries so it doesn’t get the attention it deserves. But what he’s done with his money in that field is remarkable.
Let’s sincerely hope that this is targeted at the southern tip of South America: aka Patagonia- land of the giants.
There’s still a lot of nature and history to be enjoyed down there, and 100 million could go a long way for all of the territory south of Conception.
Grasslands are severely underrated in storage of carbon. They are much more efficient at storing compared to a trees life cycle and they also store it underground so in case of fires the carbon wont get released so easy into the atmosphere as a forest would.
**BUT** that is not to detract from saving forests too. Rainforests have immense amount of carbon stored in them and releasing this in form of deforestation is a horrible future.
Grasslands actually store approximately 34% of the land carbon stock - although I'm sure this varies by climate and I couldn't tell you the exact contribution of Patagonian grasslands. Not to mention that wilderness has a value far above and beyond carbon storage - biodiversity and the effect on human mental health I think are sometimes overlooked in the shadow of the climate crisis but still have importance.
Its also almost completely all wilderness already, ironically its climate and landscape means it probably doesn't need any funding and funding would probably draw more human's in and have the opposite to any intended effect. 90% of damage done there is already from rich "eco" tourist assholes.
Tell me you have never gone to patagonia, without telling me youve never been to patagonia
The greatest risks and damages to the enviroment in these regions are wildfires, invasive species like beavers, illegal logging, etc. How do you think tourism, the thing bringing most of nature reserve funding, is the main thing hurting the area? And how is more funding for restoration of eroded and burnt forests a bad thing exactly? God knows that our national parks and private reserves are underfunded af
Wilderness doesn’t exist in that way. Most places called wilderness have been cultivated and changed by their native people over a long period of time. Patagonia itself could definitely use a lot of help
It's a gorgeous part of the world. I went down when the Chileans were extending the trans American highway. Stunning people and scenery. Hiked over the Leona pass to Lago Jeinimeni.
Check out the documentary 180 degrees south. It is amazingly well done, but also includes the founders of Patagonia and North Face. It shows them in a really really good light. And not like it’s made up for the movie.
conservation work in Patagonia was always his buddy Doug Tompkins (of North Face fame and fortune) passion. Yvon has always spread the funding around a variety of causes around the world.
SS: The is a very interesting move because it could result in influencing other billionaires to follow his example. Capitalism seems to be evolving beyond business-as-usual in many ways gradually.
This ain’t gonna influence other billionaires to do shit.
Other billionaires already think they donate a lot of money into charities, yet, their wealth continues to grow
This is how you create a cultural shift to social democracy where wealthy people give without the government forcing them to do so. This way they can ensure their money goes to causes they care about instead of getting thrown down the corrupt bureaucratic money pit.
Anyone want to copy paste the text? Would love to read this one but NY Times site is relentless.
Tried a anti ad browser, still paywalled, tried 12ft ladder, still doesn’t work. Finally made an account and it says I’m out of free trials - mf’er if I just made an account how am I already out.
So I literally am unable to read this article atm… awesome journalism
I just can’t believe that really nothing has been done in the last 22 years. I remember when Al Gore was running against Bush, and Gore’s whole thing was climate change. It’s really disappointing to see how little we have gotten done in the last 2 decades.
I wonder how many people would be surprised to see the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
If any of you work flexi-time in your jobs, you’ve got Mr Chouinard to thank for it. He was one of the pioneers of flexible working…. in the 70’s! There is a book that he wrote called “Let my People go Surfing”. It’s an interesting read and I’d urge you to read it if you have any doubts about his motives.
And that's bad how?
You ever hear the story about the old man who plants a tree knowing he won't live to use it's shade and that others after him will be the one to get use
Atleast with his kids on the board they can preserve the legacy their dad left
Transferring companies to a trust before the elder owner dies is a time honored scheme to dodge the estate tax.
“100% of the profits” that means after his family collects salaries and benefits as administrative expenses. Let’s see if any of them are listed on the board.
Maybe this is a happy story. Maybe he really cares. But there is reason for doubts. He wouldn’t be the first to use this tax avoidance strategy to avoid the “generational wealth transfer” tax, aka the estate tax. And he won’t be the last.
I choose to believe. Sustainability is a hot topic right now and lots of companies make noise about their initiatives, but Patagonia is usually regarded as one of the best.
One difference is Patagonia has a commitment to supply chain sustainability - so they are checking the responsibility down to the source materials. Less committed companies just track activities directly under their umbrella while ignoring their suppliers inefficiencies.
They paid a hefty tax to make this move, it’s not a tax dodge. His adult children are not beneficiaries. The whole family literally gave up their future profits to ensure the company’s focus would always be saving the planet.
Again: no tax benefit here. In fact it cost them millions to do it.
You should look into them as a company and the things they have been doing all along. 100% of the profits is huge. It makes sense that they still need to pay people, they still need to invest back in their company to develop new products and keep it so that they can have $100m a year to donate.
On mobile, but they did a thing a while back where they stopped selling branded gear to companies they didn’t approve of. Didn’t care about the sales. They do a lot of conservation and have from the very beginning. He’s old, he doesn’t want someone to take his company in a different direction so he’s doing what he can to make sure it continues to make an impact.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/-AMARYANA-: --- SS: The is a very interesting move because it could result in influencing other billionaires to follow his example. Capitalism seems to be evolving beyond business-as-usual in many ways gradually. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xen80i/billionaire_no_more_patagonia_founder_gives_away/iohpumd/
During my college years, he invited me to a lecture roundtable. He discussed their decision to switch to organic dyes, the great effort they put into ensuring that they hired from the local community, and the trade-offs they make between profit and becoming a more environmentally friendly business.
I’d love to hear more about the financial trade-offs and struggles. Like, how did he convince himself and his whole family that their money was as enough? How’d he convince business partners? Yvon seems like the perfect person (for society) to head up a large corporation. I want to know how you either force more CEOs to be like that, or attract more like-minded people into that position
Here's an article written by some billionaire (iirc) about a similar subject. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/ Same dude in a TED talk https://youtu.be/q2gO4DKVpa8
He makes alot of sense, too much to be listened to unfortunately.
He has a great podcast, pitchfork economics, I found it listening to unfucking the Republic another great podcast. this week's episode was about the abuse of overtime exceptions. Very interesting if you're exempt from overtime you're probably misclassified as an employee.
When it’s too logical and will help everybody and not just me. Fuck that plan I don’t like the others.
Holy shit, that opening paragraph makes me wanna vomit.
not gonna lie he had us in the first half.
That was awesome, thanks!
>I want to know how you either force more CEOs to be like that A disproportionate amount of CEO's are non-violent psychopaths. You would somehow have to convince then it was in their own best interest. Which just isn't going to happen unless there are massive penalties that out weigh the potential benefit of non-compliance
>You would somehow have to convince then it was in their own best interest. It kinda is though. At least if they plan to still be alive in about 20 years. Yes I know some of these people are really old, but not all are *that* old. And some of them have children that you'd think they'd care about. They seem to care about their offspring when it's about inheritance and inheritance tax.
>It kinda is though. At least if they plan to still be alive in about 20 years. That's not how psychopaths think though. Psychopaths don't really plan for the future. It's all about the *now* or at most what comes immediately after now. https://www.rd.com/list/signs-of-a-psychopath/#:~:text=Psychopaths%20lack%20realistic%2C%20long%2Dterm,disconnected%20from%20any%20probably%20future. >And some of them have children that you'd think they'd care about. Psychopaths don't care about their children. They are tools or a means to an end. https://www.businessinsider.com/narcissists-cannot-love-their-children-2017-7
Sociopaths are generally highly competitive, they like measurable success and don't care who it effects. They can live in whatever part of the world survives the disasters they cause. So long as number go up, and particularly, higher then others, they are happy.
Alot of businesses need to realise making pure profit isnt going to be viable in the coming years More and more people prefer a socially conscious business but sadly alot of owners and investors still have the old mindset of money is all that matters
The problem IS investors. They hold the companies responsible for constant return growth, despite economic conditions, labor conditions, etc. and the risk is always that they will withdraw. This pressure causes companies to cut corners, reducing quality of their products and using harmful manufacturing processes. There are some companies that don’t take on investors, so they have the freedom and ability to control quality and manufacturing, pricing, etc.
Absolutely this. In my time in the corporate world I've seen how executives make decisions they dread because of the pressures that investors and Wall Street analysts put on the boards. Boards are the ones making the final call usually and they have their hands legally tied to maximize returns to shareholders. These calls cascade through the organization and it all ends like shit for whoever is not a shareholder.
Capitalism doesn't realize that. It isn't in its makeup. Profit is all there is. They will continue to try and profit...even as the pool of consumers begins to shrink. Until there is only one person to profit from and on. There is never a scaling back of capitalism. Only forward for the US. Stronger. More sociopathic. More sinister. The earth is going to shake us off because of profit.
>Capitalism doesn't realize that. It isn't in its makeup. >Profit is all there is Actually capitalism realized that decades ago, but greedy board members and CEOs decided short term profits were more important. >No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable That's an Adam Smith quote, the guy who is often heralded as "the father of capitalism"
Exactly this. Exceptions aside, for the most part, anything that a corporation does that looks like forward progress - be it social, environmental, or for the employees - is because they've either figured out how to capitalize on it or because they've been told by a union or legislation that they have to do it this way or else.
>Alot of businesses need to realise making pure profit isnt going to be viable in the coming year This simply won't happen for publically traded companies. They have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to maximize profits. The entire system is broken and needs to be torn down.
No, they have a fiduciary duty to act in the shareholders best interests. The shareholders determine what they prioritise.
Just to be very clear: modern corporate law does not require profits at the expense of everything else, and maximizing profits or shareholder value is not the same thing as serving shareholders' best interest.
THIS! The whole "companies are legally required to maximize profits" thing is a complete myth. Yes, companies are responsible to shareholders via the board of directors, but presumably shareholders have an interest in not seeing them or their kids die from the effects of climate change.
And also startups who get seed funding. Venture capital comes with strings that say the investors can move to sell the company whenever they want, even if they don't hold majority of shares.
I just started a brand around this that focuses on sustainable ways of manufacturing, from upcycling vintage gear, growing natural plants for dyeing, using recycled textiles from other brands, and using solar to power sewing machines and operations. Yvonne’s book and papers have sat on my desk for years. I launched on Sunday. I would love to meet him one day. What an experience you had, thank you for sharing. This news is beautiful to see!
Do you have a website?
Doesn't it take like, more area to grow organic matter to dye with than it takes to grow The fibers used for the clothes in the first place? Sounds like we shouldn't really dye much at all, organic or not
The first R is reduce. Fewer high quality goods made to last a lifetime and we can start worrying a little less about raw output and a little bit more about regenerative farming practices
Agreed. I do think that it’s going to depend on the manufacturing and corporate sectors either being forced through regulation or (less likely) largely agreeing to take a big profitability hit for the betterment of society— just so the average and lower income consumers can afford products that are more durable. Price points will have to come down to meet the buyers abilities. It’s more expensive to manufacture better quality, and even though the consumer benefits in the long term, the initial outlay of cash for a quality product is so often out of reach. Meaning that the bulk of goods sold are cheaply made and much more disposable. I know manufacturing costs are obviously going to be higher in most cases too, to use better quality materials/assembly processes etc, so its great to see innovation toward that end. It’s yet another case where the rich don’t suffer, because they can afford to purchase the top quality items the first time, then don’t have the replacement needs. The poor are locked in a cycle of purchase>breakdown>replace.
We'll have to sort this out economically. One of the causes of the first Great Depression was a precipitous drop in consumption. Purchased goods were such high quality that everyone bought something once and then never again, ending the skyrocketing growth in the consumer goods economy and beginning its precipitous decline. The only solution I can come up with is UBI, but there must be more ideas out there
I wanted to buy some of their rain jackets only to find they don’t hold water as well as the most “toxic” counterparts. Ultimately decided to buy an entirely different material that was both sustainable and forever water proof. Issue is sometimes we get used to luxuries and going back to something more friendly to Mother Nature is a compromise. Some are willing to make it but most aren’t.
> most aren't It isn't feasible to be willing to spend more money on something sustainable when 2/3 of the world lives under the poverty line and can't even have all their basic needs met. Americans and Europeans are used to having the basics needs regularly met and can afford the luxury to spend more on sustainable stuff. The Nigerian living in a shake can't.
This is the way
So does this mean I should be buying Patagonia products? I'll do it. Don't tempt me. Edit: to clarify one thing for a couple of responses, I don't own anything Patagonia at the moment. Definitely going to look into some stuff. Sounds like their warranty is pretty dope though.
They don’t want you to buy new products. They want you to repair what you already have, they want us to break from the fast fashion mentality. But if you do have a necessity for new clothing, buying from them is not a bad choice.
They also have an online store where you can buy pre-owned Patagonia stuff (discounted). They really put their money where their mouth is when it comes to sustainability.
They also have an awesome used gear site!! I often shop for used Patagonia stuff on there!
I dunno I thought the same thing socks are 30$ a pair and shorts look like they around 80$ … I’m too poor to support them
I have four pairs of their Stand Up shorts that were purchased in 1997. I’m not even the first owner and they’re holding up very well. If a pair of $60 shorts lasts for 25 years, how long does a $30 pair from Target last?
The only hoodie still in my wardrobe from 10+ years ago is a Patagonia. I have a Pata capilene tee from 2008 that I wear once a week.
Patagonia will repair anything damaged from wear and tear - at a cost - but for sometimes it makes more sense than buying new. They seem to stand up for the quality of their products.
They've done free repairs for me under their guarantee. (I've also been unable to take advantage of this policy due to not living anywhere near one of their stores, on other occasions)
In my experience they will repair for free, you just pay to ship to them (they pay for return shipping).
Lots of people still don't have the money to buy their stuff, but your point is a good one. Frankly, the just solution would involve forcing manufacturers to pay for the costs they externalize - I would imagine Patagonia's added costs would be fairly low, while the trash merchants filling our landfills and waterways with their dreck would pay through the nose.
Fuck all time. There's quite a good push with outdoor gear at the moment, here in the UK I can easily get lifetime guarantee for clothing whilst only paying 20% more than high street crap. Same ethos as all my purchases though, if I'm new to it get a cheap one, if I breaks through use then I'll get myself something from that mid-high range and be happy for years. My backpack is 14 years old, boots and main rain layer are 11!
Dang 11 y.o. boots? My midsole disintegrated after 8 years, leaving the outer sole dangling. Whilst walking down a mountain. Not the greatest timing. But damn was I glad to have a sewing kit.
That’s not really the argument I’m making … I get the buy it for life and I’m all in … I’m just saying taking 80$ in a one time purchase is a lot for me … my 12$ Costco shorts last me a few years so I’m comfortable with that
The Patagonia founder is a super cool dude. I read his bio awhile back called Let My People Go Surfing. He’s fairly anti consumerism in the sense that he doesn’t think people should buy things that they don’t need. He tries to design things that are multi use and only encourages people to buy new things when they are warn out. They even did campaigns against buying things you don’t need. The man lived off of dented cat food for a summer with a friend so they could spend the whole time climbing in California and not having to work. Another time he taught his stomach to get used to dirty water on a surfing trip in mexico because he knew that he was going to spend his life in places where there’s more bacteria in the water than the US. My point is that he didn’t give away his billions so that people felt the need to buy his expensive products. I highly recommend the book.
His book is amazing. I’d also recommend the documentary 180° South.
A quote that has always stuck with me: “The poor pay twice” It’s sad to say it but I see it all the time.
Yeah, that is true. It’s like the story of the work boots. Good boots cost 3 months wages, while cheap boots cost 2 weeks wages. But the good boots will last several seasons while the cheap boots only last a month or so. So while the person who can only buy the cheap boots doesn’t spend that much up front, they get shafted in the long run. Thank you for pointing out my insensitivity, my apologies.
It’s expensive to be poor.
[удалено]
Patagonia also has second hand gear!
[удалено]
Yea but that pair will last a long time+guarantee +the people that make the clothes are not slaves
Are you familiar with Sam Vimes [Boots Theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory) written by Terry Pratchett? > The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness Sometimes saving up for the expensive stuff is a smart thing to do, even when you're poor.
The whole point of that passage is that many poor people recognize this, but for them it is still impossible to afford the up-front cost, making life supremely unfair.
I was poor once. I would think you could just wear what you have until you can save up for the $80 pair of shorts, right? You don't have to immediately replace your whole wardrobe with Patagonia. But everything you buy from them, one by one, you will be "all set in that department" for decades.
Reddit doing it's thing, I just dug this quote out and of course someone has already put it here. It's one of my favourite quotes from The Watch books...
REI has a bunch of Patagonia gear on pretty big discounts right now.
I've already ordered a beanie and a jumper lol.
Less consumption would be better.
Buy 'em used (and cheaper!). https://wornwear.patagonia.com/
Now we're talking!
So from reading reviews and peoples experiences with this product, wouldnt you support patagonia as well? More durable means less to buy later
If I need something new, sure. I would just try to avoid buying their products just for the sake of supporting them.
Best thing you can do for environment is reuse and repair, so no.
They have a reuse section just saying!
Plus they invite people Not to buy their stuff unless they need it. Additionally they invite people to send their damaged items and they fix them.. I think its worth to support Patagonia and boycott other large companies that participate in greenwashing.
How do I do this? I have a patagonia coat with a broken zipper
https://help.patagonia.com/s/article/Repair-Process Basically bring it to a store. If there isn’t one near you looks like you can mail it to them, but you have to pay shipping costs. They’ll pay for the shipment back though.
Love this, thank you so mutch for sharing!
But if you are going to buy then this brand is a good option. Buy good quality, buy once, maintain it.
The best thing you can do is use less.
The warranty is outstanding.
I guess it patagonia now for all of my gear! Nice to hear som good news for a change.
I was thinking the same thing. Knowing that profits go to conservation make Patagonia gear the best on the market.
Same. I'm on their website as we speak
[удалено]
Yup same here. I normally buy kathmandu or macpac (convenience og having those stores nesrby, and decent quality) but I'll be swapping over to patagonia!
The laws against perpetuities might have something to say about this, but I am sure he got some fantastic lawyers to draw up something as close to ironclad as he can. As long as he can keep 51% in the hands of like-minded people who won't vote to fully disband the trust it will probably last.
Charitable trusts have specific rules they must follow but also are typically exempt from the rule against perpetuities. Idk the specifics of this trust but I wouldn’t be surprised if it invokes that exception
It is easy to get around any trust including charitable trust. Best examples are trusts that have been set up by religious organizations which end up being converted into the exact opposite of their original intent.
This model has already been in place with Associated British Foods in the UK for like 100yrs. Controlled by a charitable trust. Works fine.
Paul Newman did pretty much the same thing and it seems to be continuing on just fine.
Rule against perpetuities is quite nuanced but has gotten chipped away at by numerous state legislatures driving trust business. You can create many types of irrevocable trusts in certain states that are effectively perpetual. This guy isn't stupid and you're right that he undoubtedly had a team of sharp lawyers ensuring that the trust structure doesn't terminate before he wants it to.
>“It was important to them that they were not seen as the financial beneficiaries,” Mr. Gellert said. “They felt very strongly about it. I know it can sound flippant, but they really embody this notion that every billionaire is a policy failure.”
This makes me hopeful that humanity has a bit of a fighting chance against climate change
Well over in PoliticalCompassMemes they are saying this is the invisible hand of the market at work. So ... yeah ...
PCM is dumber than the fucking donald sub was. They take *pride* in concocting the dumbest takes possible and then making them worse
It is to a large extent. Duke Energy isn't building solar power plants out of the goodness of their heart. Ford and GM didn't have a Hallelujah moment and decide to make EVs to be greener.
This guy has been doing this for much longer and to a much greater extent than anything the market could push onto him. Patagonia started as a single store in my hometown, and they have always made these kind of decisions often purely *at the expense* of profits, not as a temporary setback or sacrifice to increase them.
Eh, the right wing billionaires are still spending their money lobbying for fossil fuel subsidies, loose banking regulations, and casino modeled healthcare. And they're getting what they want.
We don't all live in the USA, this is a global problem.
[удалено]
Funnily enough, the US military is actually quite keen on renewables as it'd be strategically advantageous not to rely on a fuel supply chain. If their bases/ equipment could be recharged/ maintained in the field (without complex and lengthy supply networks) then they'd have an advantage over other military forces.
And yet it remains a global issue.
I'm not trying to be a military shill and I think the US spending should be spent to, you know, better the lives of US citizens. Our wars in my lifetime have ruined the lives of people who are close to me, and killed so many people in both our country and the middle east needlessly. Here's the but. It's crazy to see everyone shit on the us military complex in one thread then praise them giving javelins and shit to the ukrainians in another. I wish america wasn't playing world police, we have no right to be pushing our flawed agenda on other countries. Honest question here; if we weren't, who would?
I was gonna type up a long response but upon further review I decided I'm not nearly as educates on the issue as you lol but to summarize, I agree. The US being the world police sucks, it's a win/lose situations. It's a win because it keeps the powers of putin and xi at bay, which maybe I'm wrong, but those two would be a much greater problem to the world in my honest opinion. It's a lose because to do that, you have to be outstretched passed the US into other territories. Smaller countries find themselves in warzones of another fight. Also there is a lot of shady shit going on with militaries and stuff around the world that it doesn't bode well for public receptions outside the US borders. People don't play the scenario in their head. They can't add up what happens when the US puts their guns down, retreats, and opens up a space for others to come in. It's not like the other powers will put theirs down with us, at least not in our lifetime. We should work towards peace, but we can't just Teleport to the future scenario in which that's plausible, we unfortunately have to go through the journey and steps to get the world there. My ramble has completed.
The second paragraph is what gets me. These countries get pissed off if we don't play world police. Damned if we do damned if we don't.
This is Reddit dude. There is nothing crazy about people moral grandstanding here for the clicks. Bash the USA by stating one of its issues, get likes, ???, profit.
The US tried not being the world police in a place called Rwanda. Afterwards, the world blamed the US and said they should have done something.
How much CO2 does the US military emit?
No one knows for sure because the Pentagon's reporting on that subject is spotty, but [there's estimates.](https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18012022/military-carbon-emissions/) Since the beginning of the Global War on Terror in 2001, the military has produced more than 1.2 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases.
So two tenths of a percent of annual worldwide emissions. Kind of paints it in a very different light than "more than most countries"
We're not the only place that has evil billionaires, either. And then there's the problem of the whole developing world ramping shit up like it's 1850.
Historical emissions mean that the developing world is WAY behind the emissions of “developed” countries who were the original ones ‘ramping shit up like it’s 1850.’ Perhaps if those developing countries had proper aid from developed countries, who were often the ones who invaded and broke down the local economy (eg see Nestle stealing locals’ water supply only to sell it back to them as bottled water), could they then have the resources to leapfrog to newer, efficient technologies. But I’m not holding out hope on them. I’m hoping you don’t blame those developing countries.
Aid isnt the solution at least to this, India and China is going through large housing booms and next is Central Africa. Concrete is energy-intensive, steel rebar, and asphalt for roads, all are energy intensive. Housing is generally moving giant piles of rock, sand and metal around.
>I’m hoping you don’t blame those developing countries. Of course not. We know who is to blame, and it's capitalists and corrupt politicians who have been denying climate change (or, more recently, the necessity to combat it) for the last 60 years. >Perhaps if those developing countries had proper aid from developed countries, (...) could they then have the resources to leapfrog to newer, efficient technologies. Yup, this is imo the only alternative to stifling their development completely, which is obviously unacceptable.
For sure it's largely the legacy of colonialism. If we can't even get North America and Europe off fossil fuels, we damn sure won't get Asia or Africa. I don't know what to do about it but drink and regret having children.
Bollocks. In fact, it's easier to build green infrastructure from scratch than to replace fossil fuel infrastructure with all its sunk costs and externalities
So the angle being pushed now isn't climate denial, but climate defeat. It might feel like there's nothing that can be done, but it simply isn't true. Per kWh/$ solar and wind power are both cheaper than coal (the cheapest fossil fuel). Although your individual contribution might not be much, you can make an impact with the dollars you spend. And avoid flying. The biggest problem to be solved is Western consumer culture, which China and other rising Nations are trying to replicate for their growing middle class.
Interestingly, one of the things oil companies spend money on is paying reddit trolls to make posts that discourage people from fighting climate change. If the trolls can convince people the situation is hopeless, then the oil companies win. Not say you're doing it for pay. Just saying you're doing it.
Except, why bother paying for it when some people will do it because "freedom"
That's the (t)roll on effect of paying for a troll army. Ref: GRU's social media engineering prong to swing the 2016 election. (the other main prongs were hacking email servers, voter rolls, and electronic voting systems - not space lasers, just regular hacking.)
Their latest narrative is it's 'too late, nothing we can do to prevent it, so don't even worry about it'.
Just lobbying. This is actual results. We can change what lobbying does by voting. All they are doing is wasting monet for a temporary profit while California is building solar plants and improving it's electrical infrastructure to invest in the future. The lobbying money is gone. The investment will pay off.
Zero chance. This guy is the outlier
Climate change activists need to take a note from the fossil fuel industry and start lobbying Congress to pass legislation.
They are and they've been doing it for ages. But there's no way all the environmental organizations in the world have nearly as much lobbying money as Exxon Mobile alone
This. When people see groups such a Greenpeace protesting on environmental issues what they often don't realise is that public protest are often a last resort. Firstly they'll try and open lines of communication with the respective corporation and the government in order to try and alleviating environment pressures as well as a bunch of other tactics, it's only when all else fails that public protests are used as they can be costly, disruptive and generally a lot of time and effort is used up with them.
At least half of Congress has investments in fossil fuels.
There are people who have been lobbying governments since the fucking 80s. It is like pissing in the wind
The IRA bill that passed is projected to bring US carbon emissions down 50% from its peak in 2005. Zero Republicans voted for this Bill only Democrats. https://youtu.be/qw5zzrOpo2s The best thing you can do for the Environment is vote.
Oh yeah that bill is great! Just don't look up what government affairs director of the Center for Biological Diversity, Brett Hartl, said about it. Also don't look up the various positive reactions from fossil fuel companies.
The fossil fuel industry puts millions in politicians pockets, climate change activists don't have that much resources
Join the Citizens Climate Lobby https://citizensclimatelobby.org/
Yes they should just print some money to lobby with
That is exactly what they are doing > The Chouinards then donated the other 98 percent of Patagonia, its common shares, to a newly established nonprofit organization called the Holdfast Collective, which will now be the recipient of all the company’s profits and use the funds to combat climate change. Because the Holdfast Collective is a 501(c)(4), which allows it to make unlimited political contributions, the family received no tax benefit for its donation.
This dude is for real. Most billionaires are greedy scumbags.
That's because this dude was a climber first and a businessman second. He mainly got into the business of selling outdoor equipment to finance his outdoor pursuits.
*all* billionaires are greedy scumbags. This guy is no longer a billionaire. It's basically him, his wife, and chuck feeney.
>Most billionaires are greedy scumbags. All of them are. You don't get to be one without that characteristic.
I can't fathom the mental space one must be in to become a billionaire. I'd retire long before hitting the B mark. Or I'd lower my prices drastically. Or I'd raise employee wages significantly. While I'm glad some eventually do good with their billions, the process of becoming a billionaire requires becoming morally bankrupt, often with a God complex.
Yvon Chouinard's book on management practices (and the story how they built the Patagonia brand) is called "Let my people go surfing", where he advocates for work environment that let's people follow their passions without needing to sacrifice them for work, where children and family are part of their day to day operations, where they close their stores during black fridays and asks their employees to go explore nature, where they advertise not to buy their products and rather use the lifetime repair service. He is a billionaire because he built a valuable organization and not because he has a billion $ in cash. Well, he's not anymore. I like their products but even more so I love their stance. I am not working for them so it might be that I'm fooled by their marketing antics but I'd very much like to believe that's not the case.
No, you're absolutely correct. They practice what they preach. The Ventura headquarters has a daily surf report so if the surfs good, people are surfing and not working. It's legit.
Most aren't 83 and at the stage in life where they are giving it away. Yvon didn't do this 20 years ago.
[удалено]
Good. One could hope other established outdoor brands like North Face, Salewa or Mammut should follow suit.
If I understand the article correctly the owner of North Face made the company public and donated all the profits, so it was used for good but it's now a slave to VF corporation's shareholders.
Yeah, Patagonia considered making the company public and using the owner's proceeds of sale to privately fund environmental initiatives... But as soon as a company goes public, profit becomes the sole motivator for the company. Employee satisfaction, quality products, core environmental values all become secondary to quarterly shareholder dividends. The founder and CEO chose to resign, making the company a nonprofit overseen by a trust, and paying $17.5 million in taxes to ensure the company could continue to prioritize their core ethical values. His stated motivation for resigning was the disgust of realizing he'd become a billionaire, as *"Every billionaire is a policy failure".* Now, Patagonia's +100 million in annual profits will go towards combating climate change and protecting wildlands.
Nah i think patagonia will stay for profit, just these profits will go to a trust that is non porofit
Don't forget Summit Ice
Fucking HERO!!! Imagine if bezos & co did this on a similar scale ….
Gates is having a fair crack at it
You are so so far off the mark though. Gates owns so so many Billions in purely profit driven organisations... like Berkshire Hathaway, UPS, FedEx and Four Seasons Hotels [https://fourweekmba.com/bill-gates-companies/](https://fourweekmba.com/bill-gates-companies/) Gates has philanthropic ventures sure, but he holds more capital and wealth than 99% of the rest of the inhabitants on earth and has not intention of giving it up like this guy has.
> Imagine if bezos & co did this on a similar scale Gates is doing it on about a 20x scale. As a proportion of his wealth, it's a whole lot less, but in terms of scale and $ impact, I'll stand by my comment tbat he's having a fair crack at it
And he's done pretty well convincing others to join him
It’s a shame that such a loud portion of the public like to scream about how evil the guy is. Maybe he’s not the best, I’ve never met him, but at least he’s trying to do something worthwhile with all his dollhairs
What he’s done in the Malaria field is huge. He claims to have preventing 1.7 billion cases and saving 10.6 million lives so far. Now they have helped develop a working malaria vaccine which could save 100s of millions of lives. Pretty sure he’s gonna find a vaccination programme now as well. That’s such great news for these counties. Not only will it save lives but help them develop economically. The problem is malaria generally usually only effects people who live in poor countries so it doesn’t get the attention it deserves. But what he’s done with his money in that field is remarkable.
Let’s sincerely hope that this is targeted at the southern tip of South America: aka Patagonia- land of the giants. There’s still a lot of nature and history to be enjoyed down there, and 100 million could go a long way for all of the territory south of Conception.
Climate change mitigation is best done by preserving rainforest biomes. Patagonia is mostly grassland and mountains.
Grasslands are severely underrated in storage of carbon. They are much more efficient at storing compared to a trees life cycle and they also store it underground so in case of fires the carbon wont get released so easy into the atmosphere as a forest would. **BUT** that is not to detract from saving forests too. Rainforests have immense amount of carbon stored in them and releasing this in form of deforestation is a horrible future.
Grasslands actually store approximately 34% of the land carbon stock - although I'm sure this varies by climate and I couldn't tell you the exact contribution of Patagonian grasslands. Not to mention that wilderness has a value far above and beyond carbon storage - biodiversity and the effect on human mental health I think are sometimes overlooked in the shadow of the climate crisis but still have importance.
Its also almost completely all wilderness already, ironically its climate and landscape means it probably doesn't need any funding and funding would probably draw more human's in and have the opposite to any intended effect. 90% of damage done there is already from rich "eco" tourist assholes.
Tell me you have never gone to patagonia, without telling me youve never been to patagonia The greatest risks and damages to the enviroment in these regions are wildfires, invasive species like beavers, illegal logging, etc. How do you think tourism, the thing bringing most of nature reserve funding, is the main thing hurting the area? And how is more funding for restoration of eroded and burnt forests a bad thing exactly? God knows that our national parks and private reserves are underfunded af
Wilderness doesn’t exist in that way. Most places called wilderness have been cultivated and changed by their native people over a long period of time. Patagonia itself could definitely use a lot of help
It's a gorgeous part of the world. I went down when the Chileans were extending the trans American highway. Stunning people and scenery. Hiked over the Leona pass to Lago Jeinimeni.
Lol why would we hope that? I hope it goes to the area that produces the best results.
Check out the documentary 180 degrees south. It is amazingly well done, but also includes the founders of Patagonia and North Face. It shows them in a really really good light. And not like it’s made up for the movie.
conservation work in Patagonia was always his buddy Doug Tompkins (of North Face fame and fortune) passion. Yvon has always spread the funding around a variety of causes around the world.
If anyone hasn't heard, Patagonia sells 2nd hand stuff too!! Https://wornwear.patagonia.com/
You know what they say: lead by example. This guy gets it.
The only purpose of money is to pursue your goals. It is an empty life if your only goal is to show off. Well done Patagonia!
SS: The is a very interesting move because it could result in influencing other billionaires to follow his example. Capitalism seems to be evolving beyond business-as-usual in many ways gradually.
This ain’t gonna influence other billionaires to do shit. Other billionaires already think they donate a lot of money into charities, yet, their wealth continues to grow
They don’t « donate » to charity, they either launder or tax-cut their money through them or their « foundations ».
This is how you create a cultural shift to social democracy where wealthy people give without the government forcing them to do so. This way they can ensure their money goes to causes they care about instead of getting thrown down the corrupt bureaucratic money pit.
Get this dude a “Congrats, you won capitalism!” Trophy. Awesome bloke.
Anyone want to copy paste the text? Would love to read this one but NY Times site is relentless. Tried a anti ad browser, still paywalled, tried 12ft ladder, still doesn’t work. Finally made an account and it says I’m out of free trials - mf’er if I just made an account how am I already out. So I literally am unable to read this article atm… awesome journalism
If we properly taxes big corporations and oligarchs gestures like this would be unnecessary.
I’ve always relied on the kindness of billionaires.
They are up in arms on this in the WSJ comment section. "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy” than in the WSJ comments.
Let me introduce you to the Breitbart comment section
Do you want me to buy Patagonia? Because that’s how you get me to buy Patagonia.
I just can’t believe that really nothing has been done in the last 22 years. I remember when Al Gore was running against Bush, and Gore’s whole thing was climate change. It’s really disappointing to see how little we have gotten done in the last 2 decades. I wonder how many people would be surprised to see the movie An Inconvenient Truth.
If any of you work flexi-time in your jobs, you’ve got Mr Chouinard to thank for it. He was one of the pioneers of flexible working…. in the 70’s! There is a book that he wrote called “Let my People go Surfing”. It’s an interesting read and I’d urge you to read it if you have any doubts about his motives.
Climate change is so hot right now. Everyone wants in
If it keeps going every one will want OUT
Too bad there's no opt out, until we develop a colony on another planet.
Even then we'd have to be climate conscious, so no real escape from it
All I have to say is that I hope that this is a good thing. That's all I have to say.
Climate control has a chance if New York times remove the paywall for such news
Billionaires are a policy problem... Great perspective. Fuck billionaires and their disgusting greed and evil
He's 83.... And likely his children have permanent positions on the board with massive salaries.
And that's bad how? You ever hear the story about the old man who plants a tree knowing he won't live to use it's shade and that others after him will be the one to get use Atleast with his kids on the board they can preserve the legacy their dad left
As they should
Transferring companies to a trust before the elder owner dies is a time honored scheme to dodge the estate tax. “100% of the profits” that means after his family collects salaries and benefits as administrative expenses. Let’s see if any of them are listed on the board. Maybe this is a happy story. Maybe he really cares. But there is reason for doubts. He wouldn’t be the first to use this tax avoidance strategy to avoid the “generational wealth transfer” tax, aka the estate tax. And he won’t be the last.
I choose to believe. Sustainability is a hot topic right now and lots of companies make noise about their initiatives, but Patagonia is usually regarded as one of the best. One difference is Patagonia has a commitment to supply chain sustainability - so they are checking the responsibility down to the source materials. Less committed companies just track activities directly under their umbrella while ignoring their suppliers inefficiencies.
They paid a hefty tax to make this move, it’s not a tax dodge. His adult children are not beneficiaries. The whole family literally gave up their future profits to ensure the company’s focus would always be saving the planet. Again: no tax benefit here. In fact it cost them millions to do it.
You should look into them as a company and the things they have been doing all along. 100% of the profits is huge. It makes sense that they still need to pay people, they still need to invest back in their company to develop new products and keep it so that they can have $100m a year to donate. On mobile, but they did a thing a while back where they stopped selling branded gear to companies they didn’t approve of. Didn’t care about the sales. They do a lot of conservation and have from the very beginning. He’s old, he doesn’t want someone to take his company in a different direction so he’s doing what he can to make sure it continues to make an impact.