the “climate control film”
Arctic Tale
. Starbucks used this story of cuddly walruses and baby polar bears to, in its words, “inspire people to change the world” by caring more for the environment. 14
Despite the green games, films, and works of art, the paper cups kept leaving a deep environmental footprint. They consumed tremendous amounts of energy, fuel, and large patches of landfill space and raised questions about just how much Starbucks wanted to help the planet. This is not to say the company did nothing. It just promised a lot.
LOOKING FOR A BETTER CUP
Beginning in 1996, Starbucks and its partner Alliance for Environmental Innovation started looking at ways to develop a more eco-friendly cup. The search took ten years. The problem, as Ben Packard, Starbucks’ vice president for environmental affairs, claimed, was that “recycled content had never before been used in direct contact with food, especially steaming hot beverages.” After ten years, the Food and Drug Administration did approve a Starbucks cup made with 10 percent post–consumer use material.
In March 2006, Starbucks rolled out the new white containers with a flurry of green fanfare. These “first ever” cups, the company announced, underscoring its self-proclaimed willingness to sacrifice profit for the greater environmental good, cost a little more, but they were worth it. Along with the sleeves, the containers would help Starbucks help us to save the planet. More sober, yet still celebratory, reports from the Alliance for Environmental Innovation pointed out that Starbucks used1.9 billion (now 2.2 billion) cups per year. As a result of Starbucks’ use of recycled materials, the Alliance estimated that in 2006, the coffee company saved 78,000 trees, enough energy to supply 640 homes with electricity for an entire year, enough water to fill 71 Olympic-size swimming pools, and enough trash to fully load 109 garbage trucks. 15
Despite these impressive numbers, the Starbucks cups still raised the proverbial question about whether the big cup—in this case, the green cup—was half full or half empty. When I told Elizabeth Royte about the cups containing 10 percent recycled material, she responded, “That isn’t much.” Then she asked, “Why didn’t they do this sooner?” Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist for the National Resources Defense Council, told a reporter, “It’s a helpful start, but 10 percent recycled content is minuscule.” 16 When I asked him over e-mail what would be a “more acceptable number,” he answered, “at least 30% pcw.”
(PCW
stands for post–consumer waste.) Ben Packard of Starbucks shook his head when I repeated to him what Royte and Hershkowitz had said. Cups with any more recycled material, he said, would fall apart, although one green-friendly paper company does feature a hot cup with 12 percent PCW. The same firm also offers a corn-based fully biodegradable and compostable cup. Beginning in 2007, a number of independent coffee shops around the country started to use these “ecotainers,” but they aren’t everyone’s preferred option. 17 Some worry that the cups emit a subtle odor that gets in the coffee. (The manufacturers dispute this point, but unlike Starbucks, they don’t have the marketing power to make their case to the widest audience.) Others point to the price. Paper cups with a top and a jacket typically cost between twelve to twenty-two cents each. Compostable containers can cost twice as much. So Starbucks clearly is willing to pay more for its cups, but not a whole lot more. 18
According to Steve Baker, owner of the GreenLine Paper Company in York, Pennsylvania, when it comes to developing better compostable cups or ones made from a higher percentage of post–consumer waste, the problem isn’t science. It’s economics. The big paper companies, he thinks, have too much invested in the production of virgin white paper.Switching to more eco-friendly options would cost
Arctic Tale
. Starbucks used this story of cuddly walruses and baby polar bears to, in its words, “inspire people to change the world” by caring more for the environment. 14
Despite the green games, films, and works of art, the paper cups kept leaving a deep environmental footprint. They consumed tremendous amounts of energy, fuel, and large patches of landfill space and raised questions about just how much Starbucks wanted to help the planet. This is not to say the company did nothing. It just promised a lot.
LOOKING FOR A BETTER CUP
Beginning in 1996, Starbucks and its partner Alliance for Environmental Innovation started looking at ways to develop a more eco-friendly cup. The search took ten years. The problem, as Ben Packard, Starbucks’ vice president for environmental affairs, claimed, was that “recycled content had never before been used in direct contact with food, especially steaming hot beverages.” After ten years, the Food and Drug Administration did approve a Starbucks cup made with 10 percent post–consumer use material.
In March 2006, Starbucks rolled out the new white containers with a flurry of green fanfare. These “first ever” cups, the company announced, underscoring its self-proclaimed willingness to sacrifice profit for the greater environmental good, cost a little more, but they were worth it. Along with the sleeves, the containers would help Starbucks help us to save the planet. More sober, yet still celebratory, reports from the Alliance for Environmental Innovation pointed out that Starbucks used1.9 billion (now 2.2 billion) cups per year. As a result of Starbucks’ use of recycled materials, the Alliance estimated that in 2006, the coffee company saved 78,000 trees, enough energy to supply 640 homes with electricity for an entire year, enough water to fill 71 Olympic-size swimming pools, and enough trash to fully load 109 garbage trucks. 15
Despite these impressive numbers, the Starbucks cups still raised the proverbial question about whether the big cup—in this case, the green cup—was half full or half empty. When I told Elizabeth Royte about the cups containing 10 percent recycled material, she responded, “That isn’t much.” Then she asked, “Why didn’t they do this sooner?” Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist for the National Resources Defense Council, told a reporter, “It’s a helpful start, but 10 percent recycled content is minuscule.” 16 When I asked him over e-mail what would be a “more acceptable number,” he answered, “at least 30% pcw.”
(PCW
stands for post–consumer waste.) Ben Packard of Starbucks shook his head when I repeated to him what Royte and Hershkowitz had said. Cups with any more recycled material, he said, would fall apart, although one green-friendly paper company does feature a hot cup with 12 percent PCW. The same firm also offers a corn-based fully biodegradable and compostable cup. Beginning in 2007, a number of independent coffee shops around the country started to use these “ecotainers,” but they aren’t everyone’s preferred option. 17 Some worry that the cups emit a subtle odor that gets in the coffee. (The manufacturers dispute this point, but unlike Starbucks, they don’t have the marketing power to make their case to the widest audience.) Others point to the price. Paper cups with a top and a jacket typically cost between twelve to twenty-two cents each. Compostable containers can cost twice as much. So Starbucks clearly is willing to pay more for its cups, but not a whole lot more. 18
According to Steve Baker, owner of the GreenLine Paper Company in York, Pennsylvania, when it comes to developing better compostable cups or ones made from a higher percentage of post–consumer waste, the problem isn’t science. It’s economics. The big paper companies, he thinks, have too much invested in the production of virgin white paper.Switching to more eco-friendly options would cost
Similar Books
