Topic

Ultralight Backpacking Ethically (UBE)


Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Home Forums General Forums Philosophy & Technique Ultralight Backpacking Ethically (UBE)

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 262 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1538608
    Anna Carter
    Member

    @acarter_1

    Locale: Pacific NW U.S.

    I considered both orders of phrase for my initial post title, ultimately choosing the former, because I subjectively determined that the acronym UBE, when pronounced out loud as a word, flowed more smoothly from my lips than did EUB. I also felt that, although correct grammer is essential for assuring comprehension on the part of one's audience and/or conversation partners, an online hiking forum, perhaps, is not necessarily the ideal location in which to display one's admirable command of English grammer. Ultimately, I decided that UBE sounded cooler to me.

    #1538611
    Jack H.
    Member

    @found

    Locale: Sacramento, CA

    I find it interesting that turning something in to an acronym even played a part in it. FWIW (LOL). OMG!

    #1538614
    Anonymous
    Inactive

    "This is the sort of thing up with which I will not put!"

    SHALL not put.

    You are under arrest. You have the right to remain silent….

    #1538619
    Dondo .
    BPL Member

    @dondo

    Locale: Colorado Rockies

    For those looking for a more ethical down bag, there is now an alternative.

    #1538621
    Anna Carter
    Member

    @acarter_1

    Locale: Pacific NW U.S.

    Thank you for returning us to topic. We are wasting kilowatt hours of electricity talking about acronyms. Does anyone else have anything to say about the piles and mountains of gear that UL afficionados have in their garages? I suppose I have been assuming that UL is synonomous with simplification. My bad.

    #1538623
    David Coate
    Member

    @coateds

    Locale: Pacific NW

    I remember running accross a political poll many years ago (30+) that found 80% of Americans rated the environment in their top 10 concerns. Or something like that. The much younger and less tolerant version of myself was surprised by this. I had assumed that there were a lot more "wrong-thinking" people in the world that wanted to destroy the earth, its environment and the species that depend on it.

    This thread serves to remind me that most people, given a reasonable choice, (This last being highly subjective) will generally make the environmental choice if it is clear and economically painless. Many will even endure a certain amount of pain, in time, money or effort to protect the environment when they can. The trouble is, and this is the point here, these decisions are rarely clear cut.

    The good news is that we are trying. We are seeking information on this site in order to make better decsions. We all know there are trade-offs between synthetic and down, both in the weight we haul up that hill and to the environment. The information will eventually lead us to the "best" answer.

    I believe that the more we consumers demand more environmentally sound products, the more they will be available to us. Business will always sell what people want to buy. Business will also try to sell us a pig in an open pit mine and tell us it is good in some convoluted way. We just need to be informed consumers and not let them pull the (merino) wool over our eyes. So keep asking questions. Keep seeking the lightest, most useful items. Keep looking for the companies that protect our environment. It will not be simple, but we are getting better at it.

    #1538632
    Thomas Burns
    BPL Member

    @nerdboy52

    Locale: "Alas, poor Yogi.I knew him well."

    >Obviously, political conservatives and liberals are equally capable of being concerned for the environment.

    Exactly right. If you're a conservative, you're a conservationist. If you're a liberal, you're an environmentalist.

    I'm one of those fuzzy-headed liberals who believe that if you look for common ground, you just might find it. If you look for conflict, you'll get it.

    That's why I appreciate the generally non-accusatory nature of this thread. We may disagree on the methods, but the goals remain the same. Nobody wants to despoil the natural world.

    Stargazer

    #1538654
    Unknown abc
    Member

    @edude

    >"Exactly right. If you're a conservative, you're a conservationist. If you're a liberal, you're an environmentalist."

    an abslutely correct statement.

    By the way, can someone explain to me what this trash is about "Ethical" backpacking? Give it a break -_-

    Edit: And may I also add that the government needs to get it's paws off!

    #1538658
    Paul McLaughlin
    BPL Member

    @paul-1

    I think there is only one easy way to be sure you are having less impact on the environment due to your purchase and use of backpacking gear – purchase and use less of it. By using less, the uncertainties of the relative environmental impacts of synthetics vs. natural fibers, recycled vs. new, and so on, become less critical. It goes back to the basic idea of Reduce, Reuse, Recycle in that order of importance.
    So one aspect of traveling light in the backcountry – not taking unnecessary gear – is inherently a good idea for the environment, as long as you also don't buy that unnecessary gear. In other words, the footprint of your gear is not what you carry but what you own – and to a lesser extent how long you own it. Wehn you use something until it is worn out, you get the most use of the resources that went into it. When you get something new just because it's a little better and the old item sits in the closet, that's more footprint for effectively the same use. I think that if you must have new gear, it's actually better to sell the old stuff so someone else can use use it and wear it out, thus getting all the use out of it.
    But of course it is more complex when looked at over the long term. Someone mentioned the closet full of differnt sleeping bags for different conditions, adn so on. If you have several different bags (for instance) and you use them all enough so that over a period of many years you wear them all out, then you would have worn out several bags if you had owned only one at a time – and would not have enjoyed the benefits of having the right bag for each trip. Complexities do indeed abound.

    #1538694
    Brian UL
    Member

    @maynard76

    Locale: New England

    In (overly)simple terms:
    the babyboomers rebelled against their depression era parents/grandparents who believed in conserving, pinched pennies, saved and reused packaging, had a small wardrobe, and tried to never be wasteful.
    So the babyboomers became the "Me" generation and loved excess and the excessive materialism postwar industry provided ( war battered Europe was just rebuilding itself.

    Then as they grew up ….they realized their parents were right! But instead of admitting it they re-branded old fashioned values as "green" "LNT" "environmentalist" and the poison of US bipartisanship created a false image of the other side as being against them in spirit when they were only against them in detail. Then they turned against the huge industrial/Holywood material/fashion machine they created and ashamed and embarrassed at what they've done revised history to make it look like older generations and traditional Western values created that consumerist monster when it was in fact their own misguided youth culture.
    Of course the science of environmentalism and the success of resource exploiting industry opened a whole new world of understanding the limits and impacts we can have like never possible in human history.
    Let both sides of the isle come together to rebuild our infrastructure with out branding people because they find SUVs useful or can't afford to install solar power, buy patigucci cloths, eat like omnivores, or view GW with healthy skepticism. These petty fights mask the real problem and only serve those in power and leave all of us impoverished.

    #1538711
    W I S N E R !
    Spectator

    @xnomanx

    "These petty fights mask the real problem and only serve those in power and leave all of us impoverished."

    Thank you.

    #1538715
    Julian Thomas
    Member

    @jtclicker

    The issues are hugely complex – if you cut down on what you buy, the economy goes down, jobs are lost and lives become harder. What is needed, as in most things is a sense of balance. However, when you have our version of 'democracy' and where the means of production and exchange have become a moral arbiter rather than just a production mechanism, where also ideologies such as 'freedom' and national identity are combined, you are fighting a loosing battle.

    #1538729
    Spruce Goose
    Member

    @sprucegoose

    Locale: New England

    >>…you are fighting a loosing battle.<<

    Darn loosing battles.

    #1538750
    Michael Neal
    Member

    @michaeltn2

    Locale: Northern Virginia

    In one way ultralight people are friendly to the environment by carry less gear, unfortunately many of us have much more gear than most sitting at home. We could be friendlier to the environment and our wallets by calming down in our lust for the newest lightest gear. Or at least make sure to sell more of our extra stuff so that others do not need to purchase it new.

    #1538873
    Michael Skwarczek
    Member

    @uberkatzen

    Locale: Sudamerica

    "These petty fights mask the real problem and only serve those in power and leave all of us impoverished."

    Thank you.""

    cheers

    #1538885
    David Ure
    Member

    @familyguy

    UL gear does not last as long and ends up in landfills sooner than more durable, heavier gear.

    Discuss.

    #1538903
    Jack H.
    Member

    @found

    Locale: Sacramento, CA

    True. A Cuben or Silnylon pack wears out faster than a dyneema pack.

    #1539052
    Anna Carter
    Member

    @acarter_1

    Locale: Pacific NW U.S.

    It would be interesting to find out the net environmental impacts of the maufacturing of UL gear (or its components if you make your own) and build a "cradle to grave" list…for companies and their products…I know that some manufacturers, even major ones, in the outdoorsy-people business are doing that…Patagonia, Chaco, REI, etc….also smaller ones like Tundra (the ethical down bag people)…

    I know that, when it comes to my own gear, I will pay more (reasonably) for less impact. I see investing more money, such as I possess, in products or processes that have less net effect on the environment/do not use unfair labor practices/etc.

    In the U.S. economy at least [unfortunately], we vote with our dollars if by no other means…so a shift in the buying habits of a group of consuming people [hikers] is noticed much more quickly than changes that are less concrete- social or political in nature. As long as this economy is driven by GNP and the "growth is good" concept…the more that UL backpackers, or regular ol' backpackers for that matter, shift to environmentally-friendlier gear, the more notice will be taken by the manufacturers…

    Honestly…despite the recent Pew "Americans don't believe in global warming" poll, I get the impression that non-recycled, non-reusable products are going to be passé within a couple decades. I don't have much to back that statement up…but I feel like the rapidity with which recycled and repurposed products have hit the market and are replacing throw-away standards bodes well for a change in our economic habits.

    #1539092
    David Coate
    Member

    @coateds

    Locale: Pacific NW

    It seems to me that recycling is about as clear cut as it gets in terms of reducing human impact on the environment. That is why so many of us are willing to put in that little extra effort. In that, I completely agree that we will see more recycling, re-use, gear swaps etc in the future.

    But this is not "despite" people's beliefs about other environmental concerns. I for one do not think Global Warming is clear cut. I do not see how it is possible to establish a base line temperature against which to compare current global temperatures. That is: how do we know what the current global temperature would be today without human industrial activity?

    Please understand that I personally believe in taking action to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels for a lot of reasons. The possibility of global warming being one of the least of them. My only point is that it is hard to get people to take action in lock step when it is unclear just what impact enduring the economic pain have on the environment. When the benefits are clear however, it is easy to get everyone on board.

    #1539111
    Michael Neal
    Member

    @michaeltn

    I think more people would be on board with the concept if it was presented more reasonably. Telling people the world is ending tomorrow due to global warming automatically triggers the BS meter in a lot of people's minds. Then they become entirely unmoved by any environmental messages. Seeing politicians use it as a scare tactic also firms up this reaction.

    #1539118
    BlackHatGuy
    Spectator

    @sleeping

    Locale: The Cascades

    "Seeing politicians use it as a scare tactic also firms up this reaction."

    Politicians use everything as a scare tactic. "Socialism!" and "They're just trying to take your guns away!" are two of my personal favorites. Unfortunately, many (most?) of our politicians are not our best and brightest (or, perhaps, even very bright at all), so they don't have much else to rely on to get elected. Plus, let's face it, much of the voting public is pretty, well ….. ignorant. Not quite capable of critical thought. FUD works, and it works well. In fact, it works much, much better than honesty.

    Anyway, I think reasoned people, for quite some time, have been warning about global warming without the "world ending tomorrow" rhetoric. IF global warming is a real problem (I think it is, and the vast majority of scientists think it is, but I respect those with opposing opinions when based on science and critical thought) then there's a tipping point. Don't know when that tipping point is. I personally think we're at it or near it.

    So … if the bridge is out, and you keep heading down the tracks toward the bridge at a high rate of speed, early on you can calmly say that you really need to change direction. But at some point, if you just keep barreling down the tracks in the same direction, the message will necessarily get more dire and compelling, and perhaps, just before you go crashing down into the canyon, hysterical.

    FWIW.

    Doug

    #1539185
    Diane “Piper” Soini
    BPL Member

    @sbhikes

    Locale: Santa Barbara

    I'm very much aware that ultralight backpacking depends on cheap oil.

    As I hiked the PCT this summer I thought about how none of my experience would have been possible without cheap oil. From the gear on my pack to the food I ate to my rides to and from the trail to the helicopters bringing in trail crews to build bridges and dynamite new trail. If there was no cheap oil there would probably be no PCT hikers.

    Still, I reused all the ziplocs I could. (I do this at home, too. I try to never buy plastic bags.) I didn't use TP (but I admit I got so mad at the weather once I decided the earth deserved to be shat upon). I made as little impact to the wilderness as I could, but I gave up on cleaning up after others. If they don't care, why should I?

    I don't know what to do sometimes. Down might be mean to birds. Synthetics are bad for the environment. Not much of a good choice there.

    I'm a liberal tree hugger but I think hunting for food is ok.

    #1539198
    Anna Carter
    Member

    @acarter_1

    Locale: Pacific NW U.S.

    I think that it starts with increasing awareness, first in ourselves then others who are open to it enough to not try to chew us up the minute you mention environmentalism. As soon as you have that epiphany, "Hey, all this stuff comes from oil, and it all had to be manufactured and shipped here, and at what cost?" then you start to become more and more aware of exactly what resources are required to get a single quart-size zip-loc bag from the oil field to your kitchen shelf to your pack. It's more than anyone [in the U.S.] realizes without a good deal of thought. Myself…I stopped buying new plastic bags, started re-using all the ones I had…when those are finally toast, I will recycle them and sew some new ones out of durable fabric (preferably recycled bottle fabric of some sort).
    Why should you care? Because you know that it is a better choice to care- in every way. Otherwise, you would not ask that question in the first place.
    About choices…maybe right now the choice between X piece of gear or Y piece of gear is not ideal. I think that is part of the point. That those of us who know enough to care put in the effort to try to get choices improved.

    As an aside…on global warming…and the environmental sciences are actually my field, so I did not see this on An Inconvenient Truth (I have actually not watched it)…it isn't about warming or cooling, necessarily….that, like most things purported in mainstream U.S. media, is too simple…there is no baseline "normal" temperature with which to compare our current state….nor can any scientist "prove" that we are going to blow up the planet in the next 100 years…the Earth has gone through stages of warm/cool/really freakin cold over over its entire life (Global Weirding)…the problem is the rate of warming…exponentially faster than during pre-industrial human history…dangerously fast….will we wipe ourselves off the planet? maybe….but we are actually capable of preventing our own extinction, unlike any other species in the history of this planet (most of which are extinct)…what is so amazing about cars/factories/oil that we will sacrifice our own lives and the lives of coming generations to protect them? As I see it, if there were even a remote chance that my actions could be the direct cause of global catastrophe and the subsequent deaths of millions, I would make an effort to stop whatever that action was. I like this planet. That's why I hike. (Back to topic at hand with brilliant segue.)

    #1539203
    W I S N E R !
    Spectator

    @xnomanx

    If greater sustainability in backpacking gear production is the goal, it seems that shifting gear production back to organic materials is what's needed.

    I think it's great- there's a big movement to go back towards waxed cotton packs, etc. within the bushcraft community.

    How these materials fit in with UL is pretty questionable.
    I'd love to see someone put together a a sub-20lb. fully functional kit without using any plastics/synthetics.
    Is it even possible? Sub 15? Sub 10?

    It would be great to see some new designs maximizing the materials of old…I don't necessarily believe it has to be a regressive shift.

    Maybe I have my next MYOG mission…
    Anyone got a good source for a decent organic WPB hemp distributor?

    P.S…Sorry to be a buzzkill, but I really don't care for the acronym.

    #1539231
    mark henley
    Member

    @flash582

    The magic fabric your most likely looking for would be silk … in lots of different weights.

    SUL gear can and has been made from silk, just look up in the make gear forum. Bill up there has even made hammocks from the stuff I believe.

Viewing 25 posts - 26 through 50 (of 262 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting

A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!

Get the Newsletter

Get our free Handbook and Receive our weekly newsletter to see what's new at Backpacking Light!

Gear Research & Discovery Tools


Loading...