One for the Howies haters: http://brainfood.howies.co.uk/2009/02/packing-light/

They’re sending someone out to visit one of the factories. In Hong Kong. By train.

8000 miles, 17 days, 8 trains, 2 continents, 9 time zones, 9 cities, rain, snow, -20c, +20c, cities, desert, mountains, hotels, bunks and one great wall.

“Awesome”

Are they trying to give the bloke a hint?

Cost – Significantly more than a flight
Carbon footprint – Possibly even higher than a flight

Maaaaaaketing, maaaaaaaketing…..

19th Century Business travel, 16th Century stock control

CaptainFlashheart how dare you say that. They are postively ringing their heads to squeeze out ideas and have come up with a lame pastiche on a Longwayround roadtrip. After all, its alot cheaper and copying isnt a bad thing??? 😉

wouldn’t it be more carbon footprint friendly and actually faster to send him by on a sail boat?

I’d be happy to be paid to do that.

What are they trying to prove?
They don’t have to use planes?

Didn’t they just used to use the M4?

If they really are Carbon-friendly do they need to employ him at all? Lets be honest, whats his role/purpose?

Oh great. Im not part of a Howies-‘buzz’/online viral marketing bollox

So they haven’t actually see the factory that makes their clothes yet? 😯

I didn’t hate Howies, but I do now.
Pillocks.

That blog would probably only have got about 5 hits if you hadn’t posted the link here.

😉

I don’t have an axe to grind with them particularly, but this does look a tad self-indulgent and smug.

it’s actually a significant carbon saving going by train. can’t remember the exact figures though…

make him walk!!!!!!!

he can be a one man walking billboard for howies,
even down to his howies branded boxer shorts

i dont get how ‘carbon footprints’ can be applied to planes/trains and other public transport. Its not as if the plane wont fly if he doesnt get on it, so the carbon emission is still there but is just happily ignored by travelling on a train, which would also still run if he wasnt on it. Carbon footprint should only be applied to things you can make a difference on, like driving YOUR car, or turning on YOUR central heating etc.

if people re-evaluated things like air travel then it would make a difference,
it would be like saying why bother being a vegetarian the meat is on the shelf anyway so why don’t we eat it, that’s just wasting meat!!!

edit im not a vege by the way

colande, do vegetarians claim they are saving cows by not eating them? cos the ‘carbon counters’ claim they save carbon when they take the train instead of flying, which is rubbish as they would both still run. Unless of course it was a large scale and permanent move to more carbon friendly modes of transport, making air travel non-cost-effective, causing cancelations of flights (and therefore ACTUALLY reducing carbon, not just claiming its reduced by not counting it and sticking your head under a large rock :0)

I typically travel to/through Hong Kong 5-6 times a year for work. They could have asked me to go – net additional carbon footprint would have been trivial 😉

They’re just not trying hard enough…

Did he have to go? No. So its not saving any ‘carbon’ is it?

Its like Brown saying buy a new car as you’ll be saving ‘carbon’ by scraping your old one…….err right.

I had to scrape mine this morning. Covered in snow it was.

Did he have to go? No. So its not saving any ‘carbon’ is it?

i dunno, on the one had they get grief from people for having stuff made in china (the usual “so just how ethically produced are your jeans then” type stuff), so when they decide to send someone over there to inspect (and presumably report back) they get even more grief.

i just think it’s a bit sad really; when all’s said and done they’re doing more than most other clothing companies to be as ‘good’ as they can, but i guess whatever they do they can’t win with most people…

and yeah, i like them. i have quite a few of their clothes. i’m quite happy with that. doesn’t really matter to me what anyone else thinks of me for it!

stato you kinda answered your own question there 😀
i saw your point as he may as well fly because the plane is flying there anyway,
but like you said if more people did re-evaluate there travel methods then that plane might not exist and thus reducing carbon emissions.
by flying you are adding to your own personal carbon footprint,

carbon offsetting i find a bit of a funny one,
yeah go and fly thats fine just chuck us some money and we’ll offset you carbon for you, no worries.

thats my point though, the ‘personal footprint’ business. Yes you might reduce your personal footprint but who is going to cover the big fat bit that you are avoiding by going on the train? as it certainly wont be the airlines. If your the deciding number on if a flight runs or gets cancelled then fair enough, be smug in your reduced footprint, but that never happens! I think it would be great if we all did our bit and it changed how things worked but thats not happening.

Im flying to Aberdeen on thursday for a meeting with 2 others from work, could have got the train, would have been more carbon friendly, would have been cheaper (im not paying tho), but the plane is still there, if i dont take the seat it will more than likely be empty. If i never take that plane again it will still fly, if my company chooses to only let us use the train in the future the plane WILL still fly. Me flying/not-flying does not trip the airlines profit margin, even 3 of us not flying does not matter, we do not use thier service enough to figure into their profit margin so why not take advantage of it while its still there?

Shame they couldn’t find someone who was passing that way anyway and get them to have a look on the way past, rather than send someone specially on an extended backpacking holiday….

OK here are the DEFRA figures on emissions:

Total Emissions Per Vehicle

Average Car (25 mpg) – 1.39 lbs/mi

Total Emissions Per Person
Average Car/Single Driver – 1.39 lbs/mi
Average Car/Family of 4 – .34 lbs/mi
Train – .32 lbs/mi
Bus – .48 lbs/mi
Plane (250 mi trip) – .85 lbs/mi
Plane (600 mi) – .69 lbs/mi
Plane (3500 mi) – .56 lbs/mi

Figures for trains and planes are based on average occupancy (I assume). Bear in mind that CO2 emissions from planes are more harmful because they are higher up.

STATO – so what’s your point? The amount of emissions from the aircraft will go up with the number of passengers – by choosing to fly on the plane you are adding to the amount of CO2 emissions. The train will also be departing as well. By getting on the plane you are adding to CO2 emissions – it’s that simple.

Sorry but you’re either part of the problem or you’re part of the solution there’s no way to avoid taking responsibility here – although I’m sure there are loads of people who choose to fly (I accept that some people have to) who know in their heart of hearts that it’s environmentally damaging but try to rationalise their way out of it.

STATO, yes the plane still fly’s, but if you went by train, and so did 150 other people, then it wouldn’t.And in reality you wouldnt need an entire plane load to decide not to fly, maybe just 10 people form each flight, and the airline woud just put on one les flight per day.

If 150 people are small minded and think like you then the plane is full, if 150 people think of the consequences of their actions then the planes dont fly.

but this does look a tad self-indulgent and smug

Isn’t that Howies down to a “t”?

Why don’t they just make the clothes in the UK anyway (topical), and save on the emissions of shipping denim halfway across the world. Then they could just pop in and see how they’re doing.

At least that might justify a £150 for a pair of jeans.

I’m not saying it’s feasible, pay/conditions/margins/ yadda yadda but if their customers are that concerened about carbon footprints….

the basic economics of flying means that if people decide not to fly then a airline would have no choice but to reduce the number of flights on that specific route, therefore reducing emissions.
even if the plane isnt full then the route will be in question,
this is why airlines over book flights, it is cheaper to compensate the passengers left on the ground than to have empty seats on a plane.

on the flip side if people say i may aswell fly because there are seats, ie becoming more popular, then the airline will reply by increasing the number of flights,
there would an infinite number of seats aslong as the airline is able to sell them, they will just increase the number of planes.

can they not hire a local independant specialist consultancy to inspect and report on their far eastern factories?

looks like someones got a nice free trip on work time… i hope his garbage howies zips break in russia…

can they not hire a local independant specialist consultancy to inspect and report on their far eastern factories?

Maybe it’s cheaper to use their own folk. More interesting for the blog, free advertising and thought-provoking.

Plus, if their own staff are known to have integrity, they’ll know the audit is accurate. There’s self-interest in a local consultancy being less than scathing.

If you’re outsourcing than surely at some point you’re going to want to see the factory and people that make your stuff first hand at some point? No? If they want to do it the slow/expensive/lower-impact why, then why shouldn’t they? If they want to talk about it and take customers along with them (virtually) then why shouldn’t they?

Wouldn’t the carbon footprint be lower if they made stuff in Wales? Y’know, if they actually cared about that kind of thing.

who actually wears howies stuff though? I certainly wouldn’t. Is it all for ‘work in IT still cool wear skate shoes so what if i’m almost 40’ types?

Why don’t they just make the clothes in the UK anyway (topical), and save on the emissions of shipping denim halfway across the world. Then they could just pop in and see how they’re doing.

At least that might justify a £150 for a pair of jeans.

I’m not saying it’s feasible, pay/conditions/margins/ yadda yadda but if their customers are that concerened about carbon footprints….

and

Wouldn’t the carbon footprint be lower if they made stuff in Wales? Y’know, if they actually cared about that kind of thing.

.
.
.
Spot on….but you’ll get the Howiesdeniers on here soon saying ‘I dont care I like the clothes’. My frame is made in Taiwan? Yep but if the bike company started some wierd pseudo lifestyle-care bollox I’d soon get rid.
.
.
.
Howies customers are more cynical/brighter than the average fashion shopper? Safe to assume as all of them buy into the lifestyle ethos at the begining- how else did you come across their website? So…..why do they spend so much knowing the clothes are probably made at Gap cost prices? MADNESS.

With you there Jack, just make em here. Explain, I mean I’m an old fuddy duddy so is this company not just another exploiting cheap labour and charging top dollar a la Lacoste?
Of course I’ve heard of Howies but assumed by the prices they were UK or US made.

I suspect that my comment on about Howies were removed yesterday. Sorry if they were not in keeping with your attempt to keep an advertiser (seriously).
But how do they live with themselves promoting a hedonistic green(?) life style at the expense of cheap third world labour.

Well as I said if they really cared, a sail trip would be very low in carbon emission.
If you want to be ethical when you buy clothes you need to step away from cotton first and buy things made of hemp and bamboo.

Then you are probably as ethical when you buy American appeal stuff then when you buy howies. And that is because American appeal buy US cotton which is as unethical as it gets.