81–90 of 114 posts
i bet he will ban plastic straws to compensate
I don't understand the point of straws. Can't you just use your mouth?
It's also much easier to drink on the go without spilling.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the point of straws. Can't you just use your mouth?
Not a great way to drink milkshakes, they're too viscous to drink straight from the cup. Paper straws collapse on themselves due to the low pressure inside the tube combined with weakened structural integrity due to moisture flowing into the paper. I wish I could say it sucks, but it doesn't sadly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand the point of straws. Can't you just use your mouth?
You missed the big question: why is a CEO not only not moving to the HQ city, but taking a private jet every couple of weeks instead?
I am sure that Starbucks will find a way to offset those emissions that the Jet will release to the planet, right? If they need him so badly (and I don't doubt about his skills or his ability to deliver) they can arrange a schedule with him that will get him a few continuous days per month in a hotel in Seattle, a few days per month travelling abroad (which is part of the JD) and a few days from home. But commuting w…
Given it’s Starbucks, it’s almost certain that they will be using biofuels or have a carbon offset in place. Given that, is there a problem with using a jet in this way?
Also, you don't really get to choose what you fuel your private plane up with. Most places only provide plain Jet-A1. An airline has the regularity and scale to organise this themselves, a private operation surely doesn't.
And most jets aren't certified for 100% biofuel.
I am sure that Starbucks will find a way to offset those emissions that the Jet will release to the planet, right? If they need him so badly (and I don't doubt about his skills or his ability to deliver) they can arrange a schedule with him that will get him a few continuous days per month in a hotel in Seattle, a few days per month travelling abroad (which is part of the JD) and a few days from home. But commuting w…
Given it’s Starbucks, it’s almost certain that they will be using biofuels or have a carbon offset in place. Given that, is there a problem with using a jet in this way?
It's all a scam. A system by which rich people swap money back and forth with other rich people to absolve themselves of the climate sin they claim the rest of us are burdened with.
Starbucks mandates that everyone be in the office 3 days a week, so does the CEO. OK, he gets to fly into the office, but it is still a very long commute, probably 2-3 hours each way, so I wouldn't envy the guy that much.
Most of starbucks already works "in the office" 5 days a week because they work in a coffeeshop which can't be remote anyway.
One wonders. If they did a search of the Seattle metropolitan area, how many candidates would they find that would have the chops to do, just as good, if not a better job than this one CEO? I understand why you cannot just pick a random person to be a CEO. But in theory, there are probably many people who have the leadership skills and industry insight to be really good CEOs of Starbucks, and probably for a much chea…
The thing with CEOs is that you don't really buy performance. A lot of them are actually not very good at their job. But you buy their old boys network.
Is the McDonald's of coffee. Why do people go there at all
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Greenpeace anti-nuclear campaigning came from the "peace" in their name: the inextricable link of nuclear energy with nuclear weapons. Their campaign against nuclear weapons testing was met with considerable violence and carried out at significant personal risk, culminating in the French government carrying out a terrorist attack in New Zealand resulting in the death of a Greenpeace member. You cannot accuse them of…
> perhaps if a stray shell hits the Zaporizhzhia or Kursk nuclear reactor we'll be reminded of that again. We don't use graphene reactors anymore, so at worst we will experience a Fukushima-level event. And by that I mean what was expected from Fukushima in the worst-case scenario which did not happen (still, people in the exclusion zone were forcibly moved out of their houses)
And yes the same reactors as in Chernobyl are still in operation today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK#List_of_RBMK_reactors . Including in Kursk where fighting between Russia and Ukraine is currently going on. This isn't an imaginary situation.
They were mitigated to avoid this particular issue but I wouldn't consider them 'safe' without a containment building etc.
And it's not graphene, it's graphite. Graphene is a nanomaterial that didn't exist for production during the envisioning of RBMK reactors. It was only theoretical and produced from 2004 onwards.