Related Posts
100 members. Let's keep this bowl alive 😀
Job Ref: JSM-1/HAR/100221 JAVA SPRING BOOT MICROSERVICE – Positions – 10 • 3 to 5 years of relevant experience • Java, Spring, Sprinboot, APIs, Microservices, Angular Js/Angular 2+, HTML, CSS, Javascript and Bootstrap. • Microservices exposure is a must Location : WFH/Bangalore/Hyderabad Suitable Candidates can send their Resumes to careers@prozenics.com with Job Ref and Designation
BE WARY OF FAKE SPRING, NEW CHICAGOANS
Anyone interested in Theo v2?
Additional Posts in Consulting
Deloitte FEP, thoughts on the group?
Can you pay for Invisalign with your HSA?
What’s the ultimate career checklist? (Cont.)
The rental shuttle line at SMF 🤦♂️
Anyone at Deloitte know how to view utilization?
New to Fishbowl?
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
As I understand it some of the few products that can be recycled in a cost efficient manner are aluminum cans, steel, and clean cardboard (commercial sources such as what is baled at Hone Depot). An argument could be made that the most environmentally friendly thing to do currently would be to reduce and reuse. Past that it may be most beneficial to ensure trash makes it into a landfill. Modern landfills in the US are quite secure repositories of waste. The goal would be the maturation of a technology like plasma gasification that would eventually dispose of new waste streams and then begin mining old landfills.
When “even Reason” comes out swinging against an environmentally friendly move? You mean Reason wouldn’t take any excuse to complain about regulation for 6 paragraphs before mentioning the subject in the headline?
Reason is a libertarian-leaning publication that pretty much hates anything that puts controls on the free market. It isn’t surprising for a second that they hate this entire conversation.
I’m not familiar with GWPF, but given that Wikipedia’s intro paragraph about them says “The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.” Amazing how organizations can call themselves things that they’re anything but.
What’s with the conservative hysterics? So what, Starbucks wants to get rid of straws because they don’t like them pictures of sea turtles with straws in their noses? Composite straws are still available for people who need them (which you’d know if you read before losing your mind over straws).
Take a deep breath, kiddies. I know you’re worried that next they’re coming for your cups, but I promise we’ll all be OK
Guess until the media complains about all the plastic lids in the ocean, Starbucks is safe...
You're missing the point: It's not about actually making a difference, it's about catering to the random causes people choose to rally to in their attempts to feel like they're making a difference without having to do anything difficult
Yeah, straws are borderline impossible to recycle. The lids are actually recyclable
In summary... Reduce, reuse, reconsider recycling?
Why don’t they give a discount for using reusable cups?
Unfortunately recycling only matters when taken to a proper recycling center. Plastic, paper , cardboard and whatever doesn't decompose in landfills since air and water are needed for decomposition as burying does nothing
@D3 As a consultant, I find your amount of faith in large corporations to make intelligent decisions disturbing...
Look up the McDonald's styrofoam box fiasco. The switch from paper was designed to make the burger packaging recyclable and reduce waste, but the environmental groups screamed bloody murder, so we are stuck with paper products that end up in landfills.
I hate to burst your bubbles but a significant portion of the plastic in the ocean is from what has been recycled. It is baled here and shipped to China/Vietnam, Cambodia, etc. Unfortunately it isn’t particularly practical to recycle plastic so they end up dumping it into rivers. Rivers flow into the sea. You get the idea. You would have been better off containing it in a landfill.
You guys need to chill with the SJW hate. Do you guys really think that they made a decision to change something for environmental reasons and then messed it up so that the new product is worse? Like this corporation with lots of resources made a decision after lots of thinking, and you sitting on your couch know better? Take off your tin foil hat. While I believe that corporations are motivated solely by profit, I’m pretty sure a company like Starbucks just found a way to keep costs the same/ cut costs AND be more environmentally conscious.
I think you’re the first one to bring up SJW....
And yes I totally believe that Starbucks looked cares more about the positive PR than actually making a real reduction in oceanic plastic waste.
This article lays it out pretty well. Also the real driver of ocean waste as well as opposition from disabled groups (which I had not heard before).
https://www.google.com/amp/s/reason.com/blog/2018/07/12/starbucks-straw-ban-will-see-the-company/amp
Apparently it’s a diff type of plastic which is easier to process than straw ones
Most recycling today is inefficient and costly. Which basically means most recycling is far from “environmentally friendly”.
Because the change in process costs more than the cup.
SC1 the rate at which plastic is actually recycled means it still net increases plastic use. Plus plastic recycling isn’t the most efficient process in the first place
Simple solution is to charge for trash by the lb and allow recycling for free.
People will recycle
OP, great article. When even Reason comes out swinging against a supposedly environmentally friendly move, you know there's a serious issue.
How is anyone here acting hysterically? Please do elaborate.
Do you care to actually rebut anything that has been presented or provide any information to move the conversation forward.
Happily.
Starbucks has already said that compostable straws are available to those who need them and come in Frappucinos by default. The disability issue is largely moot.
Plastic straws are literally unrecyclable. They all go to the landfill, and a substantial portion of them don’t even make it there. Like plastic bag bans in many places, this is as much about reducing overall garbage volume as it is about discouraging the creation of single use plastics. Whether or not we’re actually recycling the things that are recyclable? Starbucks doesn’t operate recycling plants or sell recycled plastics, so not something they can address, but the simple math here is cost, and it applies to compostable items as well. You want to see more use of recycled plastics? Increase the cost of new plastic to make recycled plastic feasible. The same goes for compostable cups/lids - they haven’t issued an affirmative “it was too expensive”, but there’s not really another sensible explanation. Both of those options have negative implications for low income folks as well.
So I guess aside from general whining, I’m wondering what y’all would do differently, besides doing nothing.
Increase the price of new plastics to make recycling of plastic feasible? How would you accomplish this? Negative impacts on low income “folks?” Starbucks increasing their per unit cost of packaging is a burden on low income individuals?
I see most discussion and little whining, minus your posts. You’ve not actually addressed anything substantially and seem to be the one that is whining.