Sustainable UL

Nathan,
Good questions.
4. “Is sustainability incompatible with human interface…?”
I do not believe it is incompatible if and only if we use LNT principles. And where trails and other facilities are developed, they are designed and built to minimize impact. The environment adjacent to the AT has generally recovered to an amazing degree since Earl Shaffer’s 1948 thru-hike. Look at his photos and descriptions. There are lots of reasons for that, and perhaps the trail’s being there slowed the process – or perhaps not. I don’t know. But recovery has been dramatic.

3. Individually, yes, I go for sustainability when practical. Few manufacturers have tried it. Patagonia and Malden, come to mind.

Some sustainability has more to do with the durability of products than their petrochemical or industrial origins. For example, old Kelty packs made of uncoated nylon are still in service while polyurethane-coated packs get discarded as soon as they start smelling like dog vomit. There are material combinations that could last virtually forever. There is no reason, for example, that a pack bag could not last a century. Polyester reinforced with Spectra or aramid fiber and coated with silicone instead of polyurethane could result in heirloom packs. If you could put your gear in your will, *that* would be sustainable.

Natural materials are another matter. We are seeing a resurgence of wool for base layers for many good reasons – sustainability probably being the least of them. Hemp could produce a great, strong,lightweight pack fabric. High quality cotton duck, perhaps with some synthetic or natural reinforcement, could be an adequate pack fabric as well, if someone would make lighter weights than are currently available. I have a 2 pound DIY pack of 8 oz. Carhart duck. If you haven’t used a cotton pack, you have missed out. They are great. And there is no reason an adequate duck could not be made in the 4 ounce range with an intimate mix of cotton and reinforcing fiber.

2. What is sustainable? Heirloom gear – very durable stuff – for one. Gear that does not require lots of non-renewable resources is another. Is there a threshold? I doubt it. It is probably a continuum.

Nathan – thanks for asking… these are great questions. I’m convinced that we (H. sapiens) are at a crossroads where our impact on the environment goes beyond the local. The question of sustainability boils down to the quality of life that we will ALL enjoy (or not) in and outside of wilderness, and in and outside of affluent societies. It is, in fact, a BIG question, most significantly related to resource extraction and use, man-made toxins injected into the environment, and global warming.

Leave No Trace is critical for wilderness preservation at a local level, but in my opinion, the question of sustainability is larger. Ultimately, wilderness will recycle just about anything that we backpackers leave in it. TP is unsightly, but gets reabsorbed. Fire rings disappear with time. So to the question of whether wilderness areas can ultimately absorb low-impact human use, I think so. The issues here are largely aesthetic and grounded in short-term “snapshots” of experience. To Vick’s comments about the eastern wilderness, natural systems are often fairly resilient. AND I acknowledge that this perspective is colored by the fact that I live in the Northeast.

A lot of us are trying to reduce our contributions to global warming by using energy efficient appliances, vehicles, home heating, and so on. We are at least starting to grapple with the impacts of our habits on the larger environment. The issue has been there for decades – and fear of global warming throws it back in the spot light. It makes sense to me that backpackers at least consider their passion from the same perspective.

Start by asking whether we have an impact beyond the backcountry through our purchasing decisions. My thought is that we do. Maybe minor (maybe not), but an impact none-the-less. Then think about how this could impact our behavior.

Some off-the-cuff thoughts…

Be thoughtful in selecting gear. Buy it with the intention of wearing it out.
• Try to strike a reasonable balance between durability and weight. The assumption is that “disposable” gear is high impact. Though on average, I think that UL gear is plenty durable if used with reasonable care.
• Try to manage the “gotta have the latest greatest” bug. Mea culpa here. One way to do this is to make sure that when we replace gear, we keep the older stuff in use… reducing overall demand for new. Sell it or give to someone who will use it. Scouts?
• Reward manufacturers who are up front with their environmental practices and impacts, and offer recycling programs. Patagonia truly is a leader here.
• Buy natural fiber products when it makes sense – and when it has less environmental impact than the synthetic alternative. For example, I don’t know whether a manufacturing cotton pack has less impact than a nylon one – but I’d like to. I have several “duluth packs” for canoe tripping that will easily meet Vick’s heirloom test – and work as well / better than their nylon counterparts.

As an independent force in the industry, BPL could make a difference is a bunch of ways (this is a brainstorm – just ideas that I don’t claim as “good” or “practical” from BPL’s point of view)
• A series of articles that outlines the “environment footprint” of commonly used materials – so that those of us who do factor this in can make more informed choices. For example, how is silnylon manufactured and what are the impacts of that process? What are the environmental (social?) impacts of aluminum versus titanium products from ground to smelter?
• Create a “green” category or criteria for annual awards
• Use industry influence to encourage gear manufactures to include environmental footprint in advertising ala Patagonia or Mountain Equipment Co-op, perhaps simply by including that information in gear reviews when available
• Encourage staff to occasionally ask thought / discussion provoking questions in forums when the opportunity comes up
• Set up, or suggest outlets for some sort of “gear giveaway” program. If for example, I knew that a scout troop or social service agency would use my long-unused Mountain Hardware Kiva or Gregory pack, I’d consider this a great way to recycle

It seems like there are two separate things here: aesthetic sustainability and manufacturing sustainability.

Things like leaving TP on a trail, building a big fire ring, etc… are mainly important for aesthetic sustainability. They reduce others’ experience of the wilderness. Which is certainly important, both for politeness, and because people’s experience of wilderness is one of the main things motivating them to protect it.

Manufacturing sustainability is a more complex problem. I’d love to see a detailed analysis of the sustainability, toxicity, and durability of different backpacking fabrics. I’m sure it’s not always as simple as “natural is better than synthetic”. Non-organic cotton, for instance is one of the world’s biggest users of pesticides.

It’s good to think of sustainability in all purchases. It’s also good to remember that your main impact on the earth probably isn’t from that tiny little pack full of ultralight clothing, but from the rest of your closet, the computer you’re typing on, the car in your driveway, the food in your fridge, etc…

-Erin
http://www.groundtruthtrekking.org/WildCoast.html

<it’s good to think of sustainability in all purchases. It’s also good to remember that your main impact on the earth probably isn’t from that tiny little pack full of ultralight clothing, but from the rest of your closet, the computer you’re typing on, the car in your driveway, the food in your fridge, etc…>

Agreed – absolutely. And they are not unrelated. Thinking / habits in one spill over and inform the other. And speaking for myself, what is in that littl’ ol’ pack represents maybe 1/10 of what’s in my “quiver”. I’m definitely not trying to claim the moral high-ground…just grappling with the fact that our children face a less certain future than we did. Which I find profoundly sad.