

The Starbucks Cup Dilemma - Corporate Social Responsibility - davidchua
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/150/a-story-of-starbucks-and-the-limits-of-corporate-sustainability.html?partner=homepage_newsletter

======
jessriedel
I don't want to start an environmental flame war, but...

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?

~~~
ohyes
You are coming at it from the wrong angle. The disposal of inert materials in
a landfill is trivial. The problem is that we are disposing of otherwise
useful materials, in a landfill. If I'm putting paper in a big pile of paper,
and not using it for anything, I'm wasting resources, I could use that big
pile of paper for something else.

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.

~~~
ars
Paper uses more resources to recycle (especially water) than it uses to make
it fresh. It's a feel good thing that does more harm than good.

Putting paper in the ground is excellent from a CO2 sequestering point of view
as well.

~~~
maukdaddy
Awww don't disappoint me like that Ars.

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.

~~~
jessriedel
Just to make Ars's point clear: the equilibium state of a forest is carbon
neutral. Trees absorb carbon as they grown, then release it after death as
they decay. Compared to an empty field, creating a forest stores a fixed, one-
shot amount of carbon (however much carbon is in the trees at a given time);
it is not a sequestering machine. If you could replace the forest with
landfill which was inert and held more carbon in the form of paper than the
forest, this would give a net decrease in atmospheric carbon.

Obviously, there are issues of decreased species diversity, chemical leaching,
etc., when replacing a forest with a landfill that this account doesn't
consider.

------
ohyes
I wonder why they don't come up with a cheap, washable cup that the customers
'borrow' for the duration of drinking coffee. You buy a coffee for 3 bucks,
you get the cup for a dollar, and you get a dollar back when you return the
cup. They wash the cup and use it again. It would be like getting it 'for
here', but you give some collateral against the price of the cup, and can
leave.

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).

~~~
robryan
Or make it compulsory to bring your own cup, which they also sell in store if
you don't yet have a suitable one. This would be great but given the
competitive nature of the industry would only work in certain locations where
people are more environmentally conscious.

~~~
jasonkester
Ever been to a grocery store that forced you to buy bags to take your stuff
home? More specifically, ever been _back_ to that store?

It just doesn't work (for us Americans at least).

~~~
tbrownaw
Yes. They also had the carts locked up so you needed to deposit a quarter
(which you got back by locking your cart up again), didn't take credit cards
(only debit/cash), and didn't have name-brand anything.

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.

------
jdp23
Excellent article, touching on all the things Starbucks is doing, the
complexities at the system level, and the fuzziness of their goals (for
example no numerical targets). For me this was the top-level takeaway:

"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."

------
jonhohle
If you dont like the idea of tossing your cup, and you're staying at the store
to finish your drink, you can ask for it in a ceramic mug ("to stay", or "for
here") instead of a disposable cup.

~~~
cryptoz
Definitely. You can often get a discount this way too, since they treat it as
a "personal mug" which gets you 10% off (in Quebec, at least).

------
dmm
Polystyrene foam (styrofoam) is an extremely recyclable material. I don't
think many people have access to recycling facilities though. Interesting
problem!

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.

~~~
maukdaddy
Aluminum would be a terrible material for a container that holds liquids at
temperatures of 150+ (65C+)

~~~
dmm
How come? Thermal conductivity? Perhaps it could be covered in cardboard.

What about glass?

------
chaosmachine
Bridgehead, a local coffee shop here in Ottawa, claims their cups are 100%
compostable. Assuming that's true, why doesn't Starbucks just switch to these
cups? I didn't notice any different in quality.

------
giardini
tl;dr

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?

