What did you find out then, about the best path forwards to save the planet given that billionaires hold so much power and wealth right now?
It’s a real funny one, isn’t it? The point that Rhodes and Chuck Collins made is that whatever you think about the veracity of our democratic process, it’s more democratic than billionaires. And I heard the classic counter argument to this on Piers Morgan the other day, when Garys Economics (real name Gary Stevenson) was making the argument that we should tax [rich] people more and billionaires fairly using the democratic process. And [US right wing commentator] Dave Rubin was basically saying why the fuck would we trust the government after Covid and Gaza and so on.
Read next: The climber who traded the block for the mountains
Obviously at the minute, what Rhodes and Collins say is an incredibly difficult argument to make and the prevailing political orthodoxy – especially in America – is to shrink the state and invest more in capital. So ultimately, it’s about leadership, isn’t it? It’s about strong leadership and a strong vision, and for right or wrong, the right has that at the minute. They have these strong men who are prepared to make their arguments in the most brutal, unsentimental way possible that clearly appeals to a lot of people. So the challenge for more progressive elements of society is how to not go down the same path? How do you make the case for trust in democratic institutions? Or we’ll just have two teams of billionaires fighting it out, and that’s the road to oligarchy at the end.
I ended up coming away from your podcast with a sense of optimism, in the sense that although most companies won’t follow Patagonia’s lead and give all their profits away, what they did was almost the equivalent of high-end couture in fashion. Where luxury brands will push the boundaries of what we think is possible in fashion, and smaller, less radical but still impactful aspects of that would trickle down to the high street, which for the purposes of this analogy would be other businesses.
Like I just said, we need active leadership, and that’s what that is. The other good thing that I took from the process, and that I’ve heard from people who have listened to the series is that there’s a lot of people doing worthy stuff out there. It’s easy to get overwhelmed by the news cycle but there are people doing good work and it’s not all doom and gloom. I do think Patagonia believe what they’re doing.
When I first heard it, I guess as someone who’s been worn down by endless marketing ploys and greenwashing, I was sceptical. But what have you learnt of its real impact and how the money has been used?
It’s a really pertinent question, and some of the feedback that I’ve had about the podcast is that I probably didn’t examine that closely enough. I think it’s a fair comment to say that the way that Patagonia disseminate that money is slightly opaque, and a few people have said that I should have asked them more about how they choose where the money goes and how they disseminate that capital. I do know that a year ago, they gave away about 80 million, which is listed in the first episode of The Announcement, and they’re talking about giving away 100 million a year to The Holdfast Collective. What I’m trying to do now is do a follow up interview with someone senior at Patagonia to ask these questions and potentially explore those topics through follow-up episodes.
The Announcement by Matt Barr is out now, listen below.
Follow Isaac on Bluesky.
Buy your copy of Huck 81 here.
Enjoyed this article? Follow Huck on Instagram for more from the cutting edge of sport, music and counterculture.
Support stories like this by becoming a member of Club Huck.
