Comment by Melatonic | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Melatonic | Hacker News Reader

As someone who considers themselves a huge environmentalist this video is unfortunately sort of bullshit.

1. He claims that the entire "outdoor" movement was created by Oil and Gas which I think we know is total BS. Humans have been exploring the outdoors long before oil and gas - hunting - exploring - etc.

2. While TNF does definitely produce a ton of crap (and is really not my favourite brand in general) there is just currently no better substitute performance wise for petroleum based products in many areas. You can make a lot out of natural materials but a nice and lightweight waterproof jacket is not really one of them.

3. The original founder of the TNF (now deceased) bought tons and tons of land throughout Chile for years that people thought was for malicious ends. It turned out to be, however, that they were instead intending to donate the land to create even more natural parks (which Chile already has a ton of). Not a small amount of land here - we are talking quite a bit.

The "outdoor industry" in general has pretty much all of the problems he lists and tons of companies don't do shit in reality to help the environment. Would I prefer for all of these companies to stop making so much VOLUME of product and instead focus on quality and longevity and for consumers to focus more on buying used and second hand products? Of course. But this doesn't seem intended to really focus on that at all and is just a hit piece specifically on TNF. Who is paying for this advertisement and what is their motivation?

Why not focus instead on the problems of the outdoor industry in general?

What a nice collection of strawmans.

>1. He claims that the entire "outdoor" movement was created by Oil and Gas [...]

No, he says that outdoor experiences are made possible in big part thanks to Oil and Gas, because pretty much every product you bring with you comes from Oil and Gas. I agree with this.

>2. [...] there is just currently no better substitute performance wise for petroleum based products

He states this in the video, this is pretty much the basis of the argument he's presenting.

>3. The original founder of the TNF (now deceased) bought tons and tons of land throughout Chile

No one is talking about Douglas Tompkins ... I fail to see what's the point you're trying to make. TNF was sold on 2000, that was twenty two years ago. How are you trying to link this with "the original founder" of TNF? And how does that change anything? Please explain otherwise this is just weird.

>and is just a hit piece specifically on TNF

Yes, it's literally on the URL of the website and the video.

>Who is paying for this advertisement and what is their motivation?

Oil and Gas companies?

I actually enjoyed the video as I think it balances out things and sets the record straight on how all of these "green" brands actually have a HUGE environmental footprint that they kind of push under the rug whenever they can.

You make some really good points, but it could be said in a much more cordial way.

Per the site guidelines[1]:

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community."

"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3.""

"Assume good faith."

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You're right, I removed a couple of snarky remarks that were unnecessary.

This whole campaign is stupid. Textiles make like (googles fervently) .8% (probably) to 5% (probably not) of all oil consumption. And this doesn't end up in the atmosphere, it's solidified.

The highlight of this video:

> TNF has PROPANE fireplaces!!!!

It literally took more energy to stream this video on the internet than it did to heat a lounge with propane. Calm down now there buddy.

> but OCEAN PLASTICS!!!!

Ok, this is a good one. First, how often are you washing your fancy TNF jacket? Probably once a year, because you don't want to ruin the water proofing treatment.

The EPA, when they're not busy buying $5k office chairs, is actually doing good work updating requirements for Wastewater Treatment plant guidelines to tackle microplastics, but this again, misses major sources.

Actually looking at the quoted sources for most of the graphs only count developed countries. They miss third world areas where rivers are used for trash disposal.

This is an enormous amount of effort targeting a minor abuse of plastics. To the above poster's point: if anything, they should be ragging on them to make their products repairable.

I still subscribe to "buy once, buy quality", which is why I don't own anything TNF. I'm on my second zipper on my 5 year old Columbia, which I bought specifically because it looked like it could be easily replaced.

My North Face Summit jacket is over 20 years old and except for the zipper runner, it feels like new. Best clothing purchase I ever made - every ski trip, bad weather hike, lots of random winter walks, camping trips - works perfectly. I don't plan to replace it, this one will last my whole adult life. I would not chose yellow a second time, though.

In the last few years TNF has increased focus on streetwear though. I have become more hesitant to buy gear from them due to this since i suspect this has affected quality.

That's possible. I would still start with North Face for a jacket if I needed one due to great experience, possibly compare to an ArcTeryx - had great experience with them too. Both are very expensive of course.

That's a pretty dang solid lifespan (and thank you for choosing function over staying-current-with fashion trends). I have not seen current generation TNF jackets have the same reliability (in my very unscientific study)... maybe times have changed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com