Which tent fabrics have the least carbon footprint?

That’s a great question.

The answer is hard to know. Basically, you’re asking about trade secrets.

There was some indication recently that Royal DSM, the Dutch multinational that owns DCF, was planning to exit the market because DCF is basically a sunset product due to the toxic production process. I suspect the dirty part of manufacturing comes with whatever is used to laminate the different layers together. DCF also has a shorter useful life span, which ought to be factored in.

Polyesters can be recycled up to a certain point but the idea of “recyclable polyester” is a kind fabric industry myth, since polyesters are not endlessly recyclable. But there are some relatively high performance tent fabrics made with recycled polyester.

Nylon is apparently harder to recycle but it can be done. I can’t think off the top of my head of any recycled nylons used for tent fabrics.

It is impossible to generalize about polyesters (and nylons) without knowing the details of the coatings used. Some coatings pollute more than others. But manufacturers don’t share that info with us.

If this is your concern, I would strongly recommend Yama Mountain Gear, not just for the materials used (sometimes they offer products in recycled polyester) but also for the full disclosure of waste produced and the commitment to donate profits to protection.

Tyvek is recyclable in some places. Shelters have been successfully built with it. I think only bivys are made with it currently but perhaps I’ve missed something.

There are plenty of tarps made of oilskin, but it’s rather heavy.

I’ll echo what Jon said. Also, we generally think of carbon foot print as the manufacturing step, not post consumer use.

The lowest carbon foot print would probably be duck canvas, which is very heavy. It isn’t recyclable either. Nylon, polyester, and DCF are all petroleum products, from what I have read. (I have no expertise on fabrics).

So everything is going to end up in a landfill at end of life, despite claims. If one is concerned about this, then the answer is to purchase the longest lasting tent possible. Of course, purchasing a 20 or 30 lifespan product is counter to much of BPL where the “newest and greatest” shelter is quickly sold out, to replace last year’s “newest and greatest” shelter.

Here is an interesting Slingfin article on Nylon vs Polyester vs Dyneema/Cuben.

Slingfin article
Good article.
Cheers

Maybe the recycled polyesters are best. Big Agnes and others have the solution-dye fabric (nylon ripstop) shelters?

“Big Agnes is the first to introduce solution-dyed tent body and fly fabrics to the equipment category. The ultralight Fly Creek and Tiger Wall backpacking and bikepacking tents in this collection are made with solution-dyed fabrics which drastically reduce water and energy consumption during manufacturing. The result is better for the environment and the high UV resistance of the solution-dyed fabrics improves the quality of our tents.”

 the answer is to purchase the longest lasting tent possible

This.

Even here, however, we consumers often don’t have the information to know exactly which materials will last longest, as the recent thread about UV damage shows. Still, you can have a pretty good idea. Higher denier, for instance, usually means longer life.

By asking more questions like the OP, maybe a concept like EUL will take hold. Not UL or SUL, but Eco UL, defined by the “lightness” of the environmental footprint as much as (more than?!) the force of gravity times mass (i.e., “weight”).

Jon, I really like that idea of calling it a Eco UL to describe eco friendly fabrics.

I want light gear, but I also want eco friendly gear. I’m willing to carry a little more if it’s better for the environment ( i.e. not using gortex gear ).

Isn’t this essentially a question about the global plastics industry, as well as all of the connected distribution systems?

At first glance this strikes me as being so multifaceted it’s impossible to answer. Which also makes it a completely ripe arena for manufacturers to greenwash their products with claims of “eco friendliness” or “sustainability” that are based on completely marginal or nearly impossible to verify metrics.

I do wonder if you look back at the tents and bags being made in the 60’s and 70’s, if they were actually better eco friendly wise compared to what’s being made today?

I then wonder if the race to become the lightest and most durable have made tents and bags less eco friendly?

If the answer to both these questions are yes, then why did we do it? Are we not as fit as the people in the 60’s and 70’s? I mean, at some point we have to admit that going lighter and more durable is harmful and we either:

1. Suck it up and carry heavier gear

2. Become more fit

3.  Decide not to backpack because you’re not able to sustainably do it because you’re not able to carry the heavier gear.

4. Say screw it because the planets going to die anyway.

fabric from 70s was a little heavier.  Just polyurethane, no silicone.  We make more now so there’s more pollution.  On the other hand we’re beginning to understand the problem and are developing processes that are better for planet

Yeah, if you really push lightweightness then it won’t last as long.  That’s a good strategy to buy heavier stuff and use it for a long time.

40(?) years ago the plastics industry realized they had a PR problem they had to deal with or people might quit buying plastics, so they created the recycling system with the little symbols on the bottom of each bottle.  Then, it seemed to people they were recycleable, but actually they’re not very.  But people kept buying plastics which was what was important.  “Frontline” on PBS has had good stories about this with letters between plastics industry people developing the program and acknowledging they weren’t really recycleable.

So, I’m skeptical of eco friendly fabric.  Is it really just greenwashing again?  Fool me once shame on you,…?

I think we’re slowly moving in the direction of more eco friendly plastic.  Derived from plants.  It degrades after a while.  And if they can recycle more plastic that would be great…

The planet’s not going to die.  Worst case, humans would go extinct but that’s unlikely.  We’ll probably be able to work with any changes – abandon some places and move to other places…  It may be pretty traumatic.  I think the U.S. should be very friendly with Canada because they have a bunch of land that will become habitable.

Isn’t this essentially a question about the global plastics industry, as well as all of the connected distribution systems?

At first glance this strikes me as being so multifaceted it’s impossible to answer. Which also makes it a completely ripe arena for manufacturers to greenwash their products with claims of “eco friendliness” or “sustainability” that are based on completely marginal or nearly impossible to verify metrics.

Yes, yes, and yes.

Trying to figure out what a manufacturer is really selling is often a daunting task.

I bought a bunch of really ultra light equipment 12-15 years ago. Most of it didn’t last. I’ve abandoned really light shoes, and sometimes on short trips I wear my 40 year old Danner’s (re-soled several times over the decades). I’m done with DCF/Cuben because it wears out too quickly, and I’m careful with the stuff.

I’m not doing it to save the planet, but to save my money, most of which is probably going to my kids when I die. I’m cheap frugal.

I think this would have a lot more to do with how and where the raw chemicals / thread/greige / woven fabric is manufactured and/or coated, where the tent is built and how it is shipped/stored between all  those locations and then how it is shipped to the to the customer vs the acutal material itself.  Potentially more than 10+ shipping trips in the process.  I do know that if you are building the  final product in house that can save 2-3 steps in the transport process. We should all go back to bushcrafting…

Since we’re not (all) likely to go back (all the time) to bushcrafting, this is important information to consider. Logistics is up there with green production, green materials, and recyclability.

Perhaps we shouldn’t use the term “cottage industry” anymore, given how vague that has become. Perhaps it should be the In-House Industry or the Local Logistics Industry. Not very catchy, though.

“Worst case, humans would go extinct but that’s unlikely.  We’ll probably be able to work with any changes”

The climate shifts we are seeing now so far, do not even hold a candle to the climatic shifts that pre modern humans have seen in our total existence, or even during just the last major climatic shift cycles of about 11, 000 and 10, 000 or so years ago (combined to equal about 14* C in global temp changes).  Simply huge climatic shifts and “coincidentally” (to some folks who don’t seem very bright) coincided with the die offs of many large land mammal species–particularly so on the North American continent.  But we are told by some so called scientific experts that these huge, powerful animals were hunted into extinction by primitive humans (whose populations btw, were likely significantly, significantly lower than current).  Course, had nothing to do with these major climatic, magnetic, solar, etc shifts and cycles.

Many of these same “scientists” seems to be the same ones that are telling us that current climatic shifts are completely or almost completely solely due to humans. Never mind the major changes in the Earth’s magnetic field, core, record breaking rotation speed changes, etc, etc.  and all the major changes within the last few decades seen in all the planets of the Solar system (and including the Sun itself, for example it is producing more helium of late) minus Mercury (not because there haven’t been such changes, but because we have less data on Mercury due to its proximity to the Sun and the challenges that this represents).

(Then consider the genetic evidence that the human population has gone through multiple severe population bottlenecks, which interestingly seemed to affect Africa far less the rest of the world, just like in Plato’s talks of Solon with the Egytpian priests)

Well, all added up, seems humanity is pretty likely to survive whatever is going on currently. (I do happen to think that humans are contributing to climate change, but based on what I know about solar cycles and physics research and how crappy the climate models are when it comes to factoring in the sun’s influence in all this, I suspect it is lower than most people believe).

With all that said, pollution is a very real and very big problem that is deeply affecting the collective health of the planet and many of its species, and climate or not, we need to address it because of the negative health effects. 

I think scientists are pretty good and acknowledge uncertainties, like what caused the die off of big mammals in North America – maybe hunting had something to do with it

And any changes we’ve seen so far are small.  There are big weather events and scientists say that maybe the increase in greenhouse gasses has something to do with it.

The media and politicians are a different story.  They exaggerate whatever to manipulate people.  Which is fine, that’s just how our system is.