Patagonia is clear about that decision though [1]. Microplastics are bad but not the whole story. They still offer natural fibers which have their own problems. I don't think this is Patagonia chasing short term profits, I think they are trying to remain true to their corporate goals.

[1]: https://www.patagonia.com/stories/an-update-on-microfiber-po...

Their statement sounds and looks good at first, but the actions amount to: you should keep buying our products, you should buy a new washing machine, you should buy a filter and we will keep thinking about it.

Patagonia do make high performance plastic products for activities where performance matters and in a better way than most, but have not been a performance focused company for decades. The original breakthrough of using plastic fleece in the wilderness due to it's non water absorbing properties doesn't really justify the size of their production with those materials today. They make most of their money selling plastic fleeces for people to wear to coffee shops. This segment of the market didn't realy exist before brands like Patagonia so they while they may offer a better alternative today, they are helped to create this particular problem.

And if you've ever seen their clearance lists, they're as bad as other fashion companies for overproduction - new colours every season which need to make way the following season.

Replacing plastics in their casual ranges and extending the lifecycles of the colours alone would make a bigger difference than a couple of research grants, but is risky for sales and less sexy. So take those statements with a pinch of salt.

I'm confused on what you think Patagonia should do differently. Should I boycott them for some reason? Should I feel bad about wearing their products? How bad are they environmentally on the scale of all apparel manufacturers from worst to best? Is Cotopaxi ok?

It seems to me the point is that they could do many things that would be better for the earth, but would impact short term or medium term numbers. And this is in contrast to the claim that Patagonia is somehow unlike other corporations.

They’re not. They’re also “evil” in this way. Perhaps less so. But it’s a property of money making endeavors to prioritize making money.

Can you name those things? Where are we supposed to get our clothes?

Patagonia helped Samsung modify their washing machines to reduce microplastic pollution: https://www.fastcompany.com/90904159/why-patagonia-helped-sa...

Not a perfect company, I mean almost all of their iconic garments are plastic, but they're doing far more than other technical outerwear companies.

I have one of their “iconic” puffy jackets. I wear it about a third of the year here in Seattle. In the five years I have owned it I have washed it maybe once and possibly never. I don’t even wear it in the rain often because I have a rain shell which is also plastic and also doesn’t get washed.

> Good, evil, depends on who is counting.

I'm gonna use that statement from now on.

It's hard to get to the billion dollar size and do literally zero things that anyone could criticize on moral grounds.

I would assert that there does not exist a company which is both larger than Patagonia, and more moral than they are.

Least bad is not necessarily good.

You could also say least bad is not necessarily bad. It's a platitude.

Do you believe Patagonia has done net harm or net good in the world?

It depends on how much harm their microfibers and microplastics have done to however many number of people who ingested them.

Doesn’t it depend on everything?