21–30 of 53 posts
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 t…
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 t…
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.
It just doesn't work (for us Americans at least).
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 t…
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 t…
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…
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.
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…
According to the WWF ( http://www.worldwildlife.org/sites/TED/change.html ) it takes 53 gallons of water to make 1 latte. A great deal of this water is used in making the cup. So why use all that water for a product that gets trashed?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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. 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 w…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.