Patagonia Mixes Its Drinks: Reviewing their Rum & Cola
by Warren McLaren, Sydney on 09. 5.07
Many moons ago, when this TreeHugger used to sell hiking boots he was often asked, "which brand do you recommend?" The response: “The one that fits the best.” Advice gleaned from enduring many long, blister-filled days in the hills. Recently we were lucky enough to test drive some new Patagonia footwear to see where they stood.
At first glance we found the Rum & Cola clunky looking, and a little heavy, but shrugging that off, we pulled them on and subjected them to days of stomping around at our day job, and on walks in the bush to determine comfort levels. Conclusion: Just like wearing a pair of slippers. For this testers feet, anyhow. Very comfy, surprisingly so. Equally at home leaping about on rocks and logs, or cycling to the commuter train. And they squish flat for travelling.
What about their green credentials? Materialwise, the outsole is 70% natural rubber latex. A lot of rubber these days has a synthetic origin. The foam footbed is recycled EVA (polyethylene vinyl acetate) and the foot-frame recycled (and instep strap) are from recycled TPU (thermoplastic polyurethane). The upper is leather, but more on that later.
We assume the boots, on the left, are called Rum & Cola (there is also a shoe - Toast and Jam, plus some Mary Janes - Sugar and Spice - pictured above right) to infer that combinations can be greater than the sum of their parts. In this case, it’s the footwear equivalent of a Russian doll (see pic below). The spongy footbed clicks into the supportive footframe, which in turn slips inside the soft pigskin leather boot, that itself slides within the rubber outsole. The intention is that the flexible boot can worn around on its own, but when you head off to pound the path or pavement, you can also have a robust wrap of grippy rubber protecting your foot, and that inner boot.
None of these elements are particularly revolutionary. Ski and mountaineering boots have long had removable inners, that double as hut slippers. The inner boot here draws its looks from the ancient soft leather kletterschuh, an early rockclimbing boot, before the days of sticky rubber. The oversized rubber toe bumper is reminiscent of sandals from Keen or Mion. The glue-free, click-in footframe is an idea that Nike, of all people, pioneered in their Nike Considered range, though they used it for outsoles, rather than insoles.
What Patagonia have achieved here, however, is quite possibly a delicious accident. In seeking ways to radically reduce the toxic solvents and adhesives so commonly used in footwear construction they've ended up giving their customer two shoes for the price of one ($140 USD for the boot - less for the other models). Maybe they have also inadvertently solved the problem of longevity in footwear. If any of the four parts of the shoe were to wear out before the others, you’d hope they might sell you the worn-out piece, instead of having to buy a whole new boot. Like a replaceable head toothbrush.
We wonder though, whether the small gap between inner boot (rum?) and rubber sole (cola?) will grow wider with continued use, letting in sand, dirt, twigs, grass seeds and other irritants. Maybe the reverse will occur, with the inner broadening to fill more of the sole wrap. Time will tell.
We would prefer that Patagonia were not relying on chrome tanning for their leather footwear, but vegetable tanning, using the tannin from potentially renewable tree bark is more suited to stiffer leathers, than the soft pigskins used here. Trivalent chromium III, as used by the tanning industry, can produce a highly toxic by-product know as chromium IV (hexavalent), which often contaminates ground water surrounding leather tanneries. Chromium IV was the carcinogen found in the water supply of the Californian town of Hinkley, which Erin Brockovich so famously campaigned on behalf of.
Although Patagonia state that their leather is sourced from tanneries that are ISO 14001 accredited, we note what a study into similarly specced Canadian businesses found that “Although rigorous compliance with the standard often resulted in real improvements, these improvements were primarily technical and administrative in nature." And another report notes that “A company does not have to solve all its environmental problems in order to get certification to ISO 14001.” We trust that Patagonia’s tanneries, beyond being ISO 14001 certified, also appropriately contain their waste water and recycle their chromium waste. And we wonder if the company plan to move to plant-based tanning sometime down the track.
This concern aside, we think their line of footwear makes other significant environmental advances. Though we are pleased to see that new eco offerings coming to the market from the likes of Simple, Teva and Timberland will keep them on their toes, so to speak. ::Patagonia Footwear
PS. Our advice remains. No matter how eco the brand of shoes you are looking at, the greenest ones will those that fit your feet the best. Because you will wear them to death, rather than replacing them early on with something more comfortable. Less is more.
Disclosure: The test drive footwear noted above were samples provided gratis.
You know what's even greener? Going barefoot. The trail will love you for it. Healthier and more fun, too.
right, until you impale your bare foot on a stick.
It's the leather, stupid. Leather is not green. For a multitude of reasons... e.g., tanning, animal farming, emissions, etc...
I'm sure the justification for using leather is that it is durable, but there are certainly synthetics that are equally durable. My favorite pair of shoes, with hemp soles and sueded polyurethane uppers, has held up beautifully, despite the fact that I am a heavy-duty walker. Literally hundreds, if not thousands of miles put on them. Unfortunately, the soles are finally giving out after several years. I would buy 10 more pairs of these, but the company that made them is no longer in business. Ugh!! When will shoe manufacturers finally get the hint that not everybody needs/wants leather shoes, and that non-leather options are just as durable? Also, for the tiny handful of companies that do make non-leather shoes, do they think we are all blind hippies that are completely oblivious to fashion and design?
What a medieval concept! Just like turnshoes and wooden pattens...you leave the stinky dirty wooden pattens (that'd be clogs for you modern types) at the door, with their accompanying allergens, and pad around the interior in nice breathable leather or felted wool soft shoes.
I would personally rather see leather get used than dumped into a landfill & that is the reality of the situation. I agree more synthetic options should be made, but to simply not utilize leather so that it all goes to waste is hardly much better.
I would personally rather see leather get used than dumped into a landfill & that is the reality of the situation. I agree more synthetic options should be made, but to simply not utilize leather so that it all goes to waste is hardly much better.
Providing rational environmental arguments to an animal nut is futile, my friend.
The big question is where are these shoes produced? I f they are made in China, how is that so eco? That's a lot of fossil fuel used for transportation. After returning a pair of SIMPLE shoes for this reason, I will need to know first hand where they are made before I venture down that path. I jwill speak with my pocketbook.
___________________
Writer's Response:
They are indeed made in China. And, oh, we wish there were easy answers to this dilemma.
If you find shoes made in the USA, ponder on where the oil came from to make the foam inner sole (Middle East?), the rubber for the sole (South America?), and was the leather tanned on one side of the continent only to be trucked to the other side for manufacture, ... ?
A product's life cycle is not only contained in its shipment as finished goods, but also the extraction and transport of materials used in its construction.
It may work out that buying a pair of imported shoes that last 5 or even 10 years is much greener than repeated purchases (due to, say, poor quality, bad fit, fadish styles, etc) from a local cobbler using leather from a cow slaughtered 20 kilometres away.
are they only in men's sizes? is there a conversion chart for women???
________________
Writers Note:
All three models available in women's sizing. No conversion needed.
"I would personally rather see leather get used than dumped into a landfill & that is the reality of the situation. I agree more synthetic options should be made, but to simply not utilize leather so that it all goes to waste is hardly much better."
the sales of hides for leather are the meat industry's profit margin.
when patagonia first announced that they were going to make footwear i was very exited. i used to wear patagonia from head to toe because i thought they were an ethical company. i've spent thousands of dollars on patagonia clothing. i am boycotting them now because of their use of factory-farmed leather in their footwear. i hope other people do the same! boycott patagonia!!
Please understand that Leather in our marketplace is a low cost byproduct of the beef industry. Boycotting vegetable tanned leather accomplishes nothing. No one is killing a $4000 cow for a $10 skin. The leather only becomes valuable after it is tanned. Cattle are raised and killed for beef.
For those who think a petroleum based synthetic material is somehow a better alternative to leather I question your logic.
Use less and care for your things to make them last longer.
I've been wearing the men's rum and cola boot for 4 months now. About 4-5 days a week. They are the most expensive and most comfortable shoes I've ever had.
The rubber is soft and wears down quickly. A heel strap snapped, so I returned the boots to the Portland, OR Patagonia store. The outsoles were replaced, but were "special ordered" (from Wolverine manufacturer) and took 2 weeks to be delivered.
So, their concept of having a shoe with longevity by replacing individual parts is not smooth yet. Until you can walk into a store and get a new outsole, its a hassle.
Wait for version 2.0