The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility
fastcompany.com
fastcompany.com
Isn't the disposal of inert materials in landfills one of the lease important environmental problems? Yes, if you're cutting down rain forests to make your cups, infusing them with CFCs, or using terrawatts of fossil-fuel-based power, then there are issues to discuss. But if you're just putting paper in a big pile somewhere, there's basically no issue. For all intents and purposes, our space for landfills is unlimited.
Could someone fill me in on any aspect of this I'm not considering?
Have been thinking about advertising catalogues you get in the mail and phone books as well today, both products that use a lot of paper for marginal benefit these days.
In fact almost nothing is made from rain forest trees. They are usually cut down to use the land, not for the trees.
Rain forests are cut down to clear land for farming in developing countries, not for wood.
The less you have the more you should think about doing things right.
Landfills can also be a problem, as they can have negative effects on things like local water quality. If we are using landfill space when we don't need to use it (things that are inert and recyclable), it is a waste of landfill space, which we should try to minimize and use for things that actually need to be disposed of safely.
Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view as well.
Granted, it is Wikipedia, and I'd welcome data to back up your point, but other sources seem to say similar things. Barring a great internet hippie recycling conspiracy, I'd say you are wrong.
The article seems to be focused on the idea of composting the cups anyway.
Paper in the ground is the opporite of CO2 sequestering because you had to cut down a TREE to make that paper. A living tree is, by definition, a CO2 sequestering machine.
Also, throwing paper and organic matter into modern landfills, which promote anaerobic breakdown, produces methane. As you know, methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
The best thing is to grow them, then cut them down and bury them in a way that prevents them from decomposing.
As for methane, only a small amount of the organic matter turns into methane, plus while methane may be potent, it doesn't last long.
Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching, etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't consider.
Compare the two approaches:
(1) don't cut the tree == one tree-worth of carbon sequestered (as the tree matures its carbon-weight does not grow as quickly)
(2) cut down a tree 5 times in 20 years and create 5 trees-worth of cups and put them in a landfill == 5-trees of landfill carbon + 1 immature tree of carbon (more realistically probably not 6x but 2x-3x)
ps Actually about 75% of CO2 is absorbed by algea, it's the oceans that make oxygen not rainforests
I believe this thinking is very flawed if it's used to justify extra-market laws or consumer boycotts. (If it's not being so used, then you're basically just saying "In accordance with market principles, Starbucks is trying to increase share-holder value by finding value in it's waste products. I approve.").
How do you decide if something is "wasted" other than with economic cost-benefit analysis? If there was an economical way to use it, we would (or will, once we have the technology). I'm all for entrepreneurs finding new ways to utilize waste products. And, in fact, such entrepreneurs enjoy huge advantages in the market place because many people have not-quite-rational feelings about "waste".
In other words: where is the market failure which is significant compared to the failures associated with carbon emissions, CFCs, etc.?
I ate half my dinner and threw it away instead of putting it in a tupper-ware.
I wasted food. (There are starving people in x country)
I malloc a gigabyte of memory and don't do anything with it.
I wasted memory. (but you should see what a memory hog Photoshop is, it hardly matters).
I cut down a bunch of trees, and turn them into paper. I then put the paper in a big pile and don't do anything with it.
I wasted paper. (I had to cut down more trees, instead of reusing the ones I already cut down).
I turned that into waste, which need not be.
How does economic cost-benefit analysis and share-holder value even factor into this? The fact is that we have the technology to do this, it reduces our need to cut down and process timbre, and reduces environmental impact of our consumption (and in doing so helps survival of future generations). 'The market' is incredibly short sighted in terms of planning for our future. Ethically, we should conserve resources.
>How does economic cost-benefit analysis...even factor into this?
Suppose we lived in a universe where tupper-ware containers cost $X and there was no cheaper substitute.
If $X = $1 million, you would just throw the left-overs away. If $X = $0, you would save them. How would you decide if it's morally necessary to use tuppaware for arbitrary X without a cost-benefit analysis?
(The answer probably depends on factors other than just the cost X. For the sake of moral clarity, suppose that the cost was derived purely from paying people to build the tupperware. The people who are building them consume resources like all people do, but the actual construction of the tupperware requires no inputs other than labor.)
Every time you make food, there is slightly less food available in the future.
(It is kind of a function where some of it gets replaced, but not all of it, so as you proceed, the function approaches an infinitesimal number).
At what point on that timeline does the finiteness of the food outweigh the cost of a tupper-ware?
It seems that the answer would be right at the beginning, because the sooner we start conserving the food, the longer we would be able to sustain our supply.
If I had $1 million for the tupperware, I would pay it, because it is a matter of longterm survival vs. money.
No you wouldn't. You could have eaten gruel today for breakfast, but you didn't.
Unless you're really going to bite that bullet (that survival is the only morally valuable thing, so no one is allowed any non-survival-promoting fun) then you need to allow that other things, like happiness, are important. In particular, you need to allow for people to sacrifice some future survival (i.e. waste) for some happiness in some cases.
How would you determine when this is OK? A cost-benefit analysis...
I had strawberry yogurt for breakfast. I had it because it tastes good, and is relatively good for me. I could have gone with the cheap plain yogurt, but instead I had the slightly tastier more expensive stuff, on the chance that it is actually healthier and tastier.
But the morality of my breakfast isn't at question here. (I could be totally amoral and still make a good argument for what should be done).
I never said there wasn't an element of cost-benefit analysis, I said that it (waste specifically) wasn't a purely economic cost-benefit analysis (which is what was argued initially). It seems that you are agreeing with me, as you have 'allowed' for other things like 'happiness'. (Which would be an emotional cost-benefit analysis).
It makes me happy to think that future generations will be able to enjoy the things that I enjoy currently.
Glad to have changed your mind.
Please Recycle.
There are far far far more important goals than recycling or composting paper.
Crop irrigation, and getting rid of septic systems would be where I would start. Don't grow crops in places where you need to irrigate (or at least reduce it), and septic systems waste water, instead of recycling it like a sewer does.
http://paul.kedrosky.com/archives/2007/04/semiconductors.htm... Note: $27 per acre-foot = 0.008 cents per gallon.
There are enough Starbucks within the US that returning the cup wouldn't be much of a hassle (might even be good for repeat business).
It just doesn't work (for us Americans at least).
It worked fine, except that their bread would often start to grow mold by the time we were maybe two-thirds through a loaf (which doesn't seem to happen with bread from other stores). We'd probably still go there for other things, except that we always need bread and going to two separate stores is annoying.
The market will eventually sort this out, but not before it is far to later.
Recently I have encouraged to know that many people pay the green electricity surcharge, which means you are subsidizing more green sources of power being integrated into the grid, I'd assumed that they would have a really low uptake on that kind of thing.
They have build a half cozen in my area in the past few years so I figure they cannot be doing that poorly...
As someone else mentioned: They also make you pay a $.25 deposit to use a shopping cart, don't take credit cards, and don't offer name-brand anything.
1. All shops serving hot beverages require a mug. The mug may be purchased at any shop covered by the policy, or otherwise bring your own. Warning about 'Caution, Hot Beverage inside!' become moot. Your cup , your problem.
2. Purchased mug is sold at small profit and first fill-up is free or whatever incentive to purchase the liquid additionally with the mug.
3. Purchases that use a refillable mug, get a 5% discount during phase-in.
4. Shops do not offer to charge extra for the disposable cups. If available, this lazy option would give a choice that leaves them justified in being lazy, and creates a sort of contract that they still contribute to the greater good.
5. Add a creative incentive that allows purchasers to add value to this activity. Marketers can add to this.
6. Make all these mugs as easy to wash and as durable as possible. Non-toxic, non-breakable, easy to wash. No problem.
7. People love to drink coffee/tea in their cars. There's an another possible angle to create a cross-incentive
Well there's a few things I thought about.
Best alternative is my coffee cup that I have black coffee (no milk or sugar) and I refill but never wash. Gradually the layer of coffee tar on the inside exchanges with the fresh coffee.
It's also pretty hygienic, nobody else ever borrows my mug, and nothing can live on the layer of caffeine sludge.
"The complexity dissipates, apparently, when you have the law on your side. Only 5% of Starbucks stores currently recycle cups, and that's mainly in places like Seattle, San Francisco, and Ontario, where it's required by law."
EDIT: Another thought: aluminum. It's expensive and highly recyclable. Another benefit is that you have a small army of homeless picking the streets clean of the valuable metal. Can't find a recycling bin? Just toss it in the gutter! It'll find it's way.
What about glass?
Could some unfortunate soul who had the misfortune of reading this entire article please summarize it in 3, possibly 4 sentences for us of a weaker constitution?