Has Environmentality gone too far?

[AurumPunzel]

With Disney replacing the plastic straws with paper straws, the phasing out of the soft drinks lids, the switch to bolted amenities in resort rooms, and the introduction of reusable bags, which have recently gone up in price, the debate as to whether or not it's a positive thing or is more about the money while generating PR to feed into the whole eco bandwagon regarding plastics while degrading the experience for guests really has kicked into overdrive, and especially with the reusable bags potentially becoming a forced purchase in the Parks like they already are in the Stores, it has become rather contentious.

As much as in the grander scheme of things, a reduction in avoidable waste is good, it has however got me questioning whether or not phaseouts and replacements in the long run will work, or just lead to more unintended environmental consequences, especially when you consider the LCAs that were conducted into the most common types of shopping bags (as mentioned in the No More Bags thread), and the heavier carbon footprints of the alternatives and reusable products that are often imported and not manufactured locally, when really, rationality and innovation in recycling and bioplastics is what's needed, since it'll achieve a fair balance without degrading the experience, particularly since the recent price rises, even to the reusable bags, has led to much cynicism about the measures.

So has Environmentality really gone too far, especially in the face of ticket and AP price increases?

 

[TheMaxRebo]

I don't think environmentality has gone too far - I think it is always good to think of the environment and ones impact on it .... but we also need to keep in mind why companies like Disney do what they do

The specific things they pick they do because it will be better for them as a corporation - that can be b/c it is better monetarily directly (e.g., saves them money) and/or b/c of the positive PR (which indirectly helps the bottom line)

Doesn't mean things can't be both legitimately good for the environment and the company - but we need to keep in mind the driver behind any move Disney (or any other company makes)

 

[tguz]

We are ones that don't like to be served drinks without a lid. It probably goes back to them being to flimsy for our kids when they were young but we will adapt. Maybe they have then upon request.

 

[tlmadden73]

It is just the corporate (and societal) trend. You are cool if you demonize single use plastics or LOUDLY proclaim you are for this cause or that cause.

It just feels like it is a hollow gesture that can be used to garner some free PR and it is an easy move because it costs them nothing and probably lets them cut costs (while raising drink prices).

If they were worried about the environment, wouldn't Disney do things like stop fireworks? Shut down their bus fleet and replace it all with monorails or skyliners? Dont have PLASTIC toys for sale in their shops?
Only have the park open during daylight hours? etc. etc. No .. because those environmentally conscious things would COST them a lot of money.

 

[jknezek]

It is just the corporate (and societal) trend. You are cool if you demonize single use plastics or LOUDLY proclaim you are for this cause or that cause.

It just feels like it is a hollow gesture that can be used to garner some free PR and it is an easy move because it costs them nothing and probably lets them cut costs (while raising drink prices).

If they were worried about the environment, wouldn't Disney do things like stop fireworks? Shut down their bus fleet and replace it all with monorails or skyliners? Dont have PLASTIC toys for sale in their shops?
Only have the park open during daylight hours? etc. etc. No .. because those environmentally conscious things would COST them a lot of money.

Yes and no. The single use plastic thing is a huge issue. Go to any lake or river after a large storm. You will find the shore littered with single use plastics that have washed through gutters. The plastic bottles, straws, wrappers, shopping bags... it's truly awful. We are, quite literally, turning into the Wal-E imagined future with this stuff. Plastic toys are not single use, in theory anyway. They also tend to be disposed of better. So there is good environmental reasons to focus on single use plastic as opposed to life cycle plastics.

But yes, there are other environmental things Disney could focus on as well. But not doing all of them doesn't mean doing one of them is wrong. And yes, I do believe that Disney, and most corporations, focus their environmental efforts on "best bang for the buck" PR and cost savings. But again, that doesn't mean that it isn't worth doing.

 

[AurumPunzel]

It is just the corporate (and societal) trend. You are cool if you demonize single use plastics or LOUDLY proclaim you are for this cause or that cause.

It just feels like it is a hollow gesture that can be used to garner some free PR and it is an easy move because it costs them nothing and probably lets them cut costs (while raising drink prices).

If they were worried about the environment, wouldn't Disney do things like stop fireworks? Shut down their bus fleet and replace it all with monorails or skyliners? Dont have PLASTIC toys for sale in their shops?
Only have the park open during daylight hours? etc. etc. No .. because those environmentally conscious things would COST them a lot of money.

I've seen that a lot with the influencers as of late, and the trouble is that the general public who don't do enough homework on the plastics issue will only believe one side of the debate, and not listen to the other to have a better point-of-view, not to mention that even misguided left-wing politicians are passing laws to force the anti-plastic brigade's views on others, while ignoring the need to improve and invest in recycling infrastructure and measures to ensure that no recyclable waste gets exported to developing countries that lack the capability to transform it into useful products.

Yes and no. The single use plastic thing is a huge issue. Go to any lake or river after a large storm. You will find the shore littered with single use plastics that have washed through gutters. The plastic bottles, straws, wrappers, shopping bags... it's truly awful. We are, quite literally, turning into the Wal-E imagined future with this stuff. Plastic toys are not single use, in theory anyway. They also tend to be disposed of better. So there is good environmental reasons to focus on single use plastic as opposed to life cycle plastics.

I'm not denying that it's an issue, and in fact, the consensus of dealing with the problem is unanimous. But what isn't unanimous is the phaseout-and-ban method that's often employed, since there are some plastics that aren't really 'single-use', but are often conflated as such, such as bags, and some, such as straws, are needed by some disabled people because the alternatives don't necessarily work, and phaseouts and bans are known to yield unintended consequences that verge on the perverse, such as increased thickness plastic bags (as seen in the statewide ban in California), more CO2 resulting from the production of alternatives, and the environment still being blighted by other, supposedly-biodegradable waste, such as that borne from paper straws and bags.

 

[jknezek]

I'm not denying that it's an issue, and in fact, the consensus of dealing with the problem is unanimous. But what isn't unanimous is the phaseout-and-ban method that's often employed, since there are some plastics that aren't really 'single-use', but are often conflated as such, such as bags, and some, such as straws, are needed by some disabled people because the alternatives don't necessarily work, and phaseouts and bans are known to yield unintended consequences that verge on the perverse, such as increased thickness plastic bags (as seen in the statewide ban in California), more CO2 resulting from the production of alternatives, and the environment still being blighted by other, supposedly-biodegradable waste, such as that borne from paper straws and bags.

A paper straw biodegrades in 2-6 weeks. A plastic straw 200+ years. A paper bag is about the same. A plastic bag takes about 1000 years. So yes, short term blight versus long term blight. It's not something that can be ignored. As for straws, we tend to use metal ones these days. We travel with 3 kids, so it's rare we don't carry a bag of some kind on us. There are always straws in a travel toothbrush case in there. We have left a few behind in restaurants when we've been careless, but generally it's no big deal. As for shopping bags, I've got some reusable bags stashed in both our cars. If we are just running in to the grocery store for a few items, it's no big deal to bring 2 or 3 with me. We do tend to order Walmart pickup, so we get lots of plastic bags for our major food shopping. Fortunately that same Walmart has a recycling drop off for those bags as well. It's a pain, and we aren't 100% consistent about it, but we try.

It's really about effort. The consumer has to want to take small steps. So I agree the bans from the top down aren't perfect. But if it gets people thinking and talking and trying to change, then it's not a bad idea. It's just not a great system. I prefer the economic model. Charging people for single use plastics and let them decide if the convenience is worth the price required. Keep slowly jacking the price until behavior changes.

 

[AurumPunzel]

A paper straw biodegrades in 2-6 weeks. A plastic straw 200+ years. A paper bag is about the same. A plastic bag takes about 1000 years. So yes, short term blight versus long term blight. It's not something that can be ignored. As for straws, we tend to use metal ones these days. We travel with 3 kids, so it's rare we don't carry a bag of some kind on us. There are always straws in a travel toothbrush case in there. We have left a few behind in restaurants when we've been careless, but generally it's no big deal. As for shopping bags, I've got some reusable bags stashed in both our cars. If we are just running in to the grocery store for a few items, it's no big deal to bring 2 or 3 with me. We do tend to order Walmart pickup, so we get lots of plastic bags for our major food shopping. Fortunately that same Walmart has a recycling drop off for those bags as well. It's a pain, and we aren't 100% consistent about it, but we try.

It's really about effort. The consumer has to want to take small steps. So I agree the bans from the top down aren't perfect. But if it gets people thinking and talking and trying to change, then it's not a bad idea. It's just not a great system. I prefer the economic model. Charging people for single use plastics and let them decide if the convenience is worth the price required. Keep slowly jacking the price until behavior changes.

The degradability of paper depends entirely on conditions, and as for plastic bags, 1000 years is often an inaccurate half-truth, since most usually take just decades to degrade, depending on the thickness and density of the plastic used, and of course, disposal conditions. But yes, I do agree that charging is a better compromise than banning, since Chicago learned the hard way when their bag ban gave free reign for retailers to switch to thicker plastic bags to get around it, so they eventually revised to to being a charge instead. As NYC is far bigger than Chicago, there are already fears the statewide bag ban is going to yield a tonne of unintended consequences, and will be detrimental to standards of living in the city, particularly since NYC has stores on literally every corner, and a lot of people that live and work in the city take public transport, so reusable bags end up becoming a practicality problem, even more so than in the equally public transport-dependent San Francisco.

 

[jknezek]

The degradability of paper depends entirely on conditions, and as for plastic bags, 1000 years is often an inaccurate half-truth, since most usually take just decades to degrade, depending on the thickness and density of the plastic used, and of course, disposal conditions. But yes, I do agree that charging is a better compromise than banning, since Chicago learned the hard way when their bag ban gave free reign for retailers to switch to thicker plastic bags to get around it, so they eventually revised to to being a charge instead. As NYC is far bigger than Chicago, there are already fears the statewide bag ban is going to yield a tonne of unintended consequences, and will be detrimental to standards of living in the city, particularly since NYC has stores on literally every corner, and a lot of people that live and work in the city take public transport, so reusable bags end up becoming a practicality problem, even more so than in the equally public transport-dependent San Francisco.

Well sure. The conditions are everything. But.... we know that paper is significantly faster than equivalent use plastic in equivalent environmental situations. We aren't talking 2 or 3x either, we are talking hundreds of times if not thousands. So we can quibble with the numbers that get thrown around to help people wrap their heads around the problem, but it doesn't negate the problem. Single use plastics are really, really bad compared to paper in the context of single use goods and the environment.

So Disney making the switch is a good thing for the environment, regardless of whether it is done for the PR or cost savings. It just happens to be a rounding error on the scope of the problem. But we have to start somewhere.

 

[AurumPunzel]

So Disney making the switch is a good thing for the environment, regardless of whether it is done for the PR or cost savings. It just happens to be a rounding error on the scope of the problem. But we have to start somewhere.

The issue with the reusable bags is the amount of energy and resources required to produce them, and because China (where they are made) still gets a lot of their electricity from coal-fired power plants, the carbon footprint adds up a lot quicker, and when you take into account the LCA the Danish Environment Protection Agency published, an RPET bag needs around 90 reuses to offset the total GWP and resource use equivalent of a lightweight plastic bag. As for straws, the issue with paper is that they often don't last in certain drinks after 30 seconds, and for people who need more time to finish it off, they'd need another straw just to finish the same drink, and that yields even more waste, not to mention never being able to offset the total production impact on the environment.

 

[Brett Wyman]

So Disney making the switch is a good thing for the environment, regardless of whether it is done for the PR or cost savings. It just happens to be a rounding error on the scope of the problem. But we have to start somewhere.

True. But this is the same situation as organic foods. Only the well off can afford them. The masses will continued to be turned off when corporations make environment gestures when the prices of those efforts are jacked up to line the company's pockets.

 

[jknezek]

The issue with the reusable bags is the amount of energy and resources required to produce them, and because China (where they are made) still gets a lot of their electricity from coal-fired power plants, the carbon footprint adds up a lot quicker, and when you take into account the LCA the Danish Environment Protection Agency published, an RPET bag needs around 90 reuses to offset the total GWP and resource use equivalent of a lightweight plastic bag. As for straws, the issue with paper is that they often don't last in certain drinks after 30 seconds, and for people who need more time to finish it off, they'd need another straw just to finish the same drink, and that yields even more waste, not to mention never being able to offset the total production impact on the environment.

Except you are focusing on production costs, not end of use costs. You have to look at both sides. The long term damage of a plastic bag can be immense. From marine death, to the micro plastic breakdown problems, to the cost of 1000 years or so remediation of landfill properties and more. The post use costs are immense if not as easily quantifiable.

So again, to keep this focused on Disney, exchange single use plastics for something with significantly fewer lasting effects is a good trade-off. Even if the upfront costs are a bit higher. This is a way of thinking the world is going to have to get used to. Less short term selfish for more long term gain. Sadly it's not a way of thinking humans have proven to show any aptitude for.

 

[AurumPunzel]

True. But this is the same situation as organic foods. Only the well off can afford them. The masses will continued to be turned off when corporations make environment gestures when the prices of those efforts are jacked up to line the company's pockets.

That's what I'm getting at here. The cost of going to Disney is already high enough, and to add insult to injury, such moves that end up benefiting the few and not the many end up alienating people. And that's already been witnessed in the Disney Stores where you're forced to purchase the reusable bags. Imagine the same happening in the Parks where you're forced to pay even more for a means to carry your purchases out of the store without struggling, that's when it really causes discontent. As much as I'm all for fairer environmental solutions, solutions that, as you say, turn off the masses and line up the pockets of the top brass when jacked up, is when it crosses the line.

 

[tlmadden73]

I am not saying companies shouldn't try and solve this problem . .but they are also slaves to market demand and profit. Companies could do a lot more .. but do not because they know it will cost them a ton of money (or customers).

In general, I feel single use plastics are not the problem -- our throw away society is (and the demand for throw away things) ... and general laziness.

If everyone would simply properly dispose of all these straws and bags and lids -- then it wouldnt be an issue of filling up lakes, rivers and oceans.

I mean it shocks me .. in general .. just going to the movies .. how many people just leave their soda and popcorn buckets. You carried it in .. how hard is it to carry it out and throw it in the trash? These are the same people that just leave their trash laying around at a park or beach and let it get scattered by the wind.
It is just hard to change people ..

 

[fla4fun]

I wouldn’t travel with reusable straws as there is no way to sanitize them in the hotel room. I can sanitize my toothbrush by pouring boiling water over the brush end (and I do sanitize my toothbrush daily before use), but there’s too much risk of getting a serious burn to try that with a straw, if you are going to get it sanitized inside and out. I am OK with paper straws, but have had several close calls with spilling without a lid to stabilize the paper cups.

I have been sticking a plastic Disney bag in my handbag in case I come across a situation where they won’t give me a bag. I will never buy a bag. Ever. Even if it means carrying the merchandise in my hands or canceling the sale at the last moment. I will reuse a free bag, but I will never buy one.

 

[DLgal]

Like most environmental issues, the single use plastics being a problem in waterways and such comes down to people being irresponsible in disposing of them. Reusable plastic bags are just as easy to throw into a gutter and still will cause lots of issues. But paper products also require more trees and will lead to deforestation eventually, so you can't go all paper either. What we need to do is start enforcing recycling and proper disposal of things and slap people with steep fines and penalties for littering or improperly disposing items/failing to recycle. Plus, we definitely need to invest in better recycling plants that can handle small items like bottle caps and straws and lids. It's a complex situation that requires a complex solution. These current efforts are band aids, and don't address the underlying issues at all.

 

[AurumPunzel]

Like most environmental issues, the single use plastics being a problem in waterways and such comes down to people being irresponsible in disposing of them. Reusable plastic bags are just as easy to throw into a gutter and still will cause lots of issues. But paper products also require more trees and will lead to deforestation eventually, so you can't go all paper either. What we need to do is start enforcing recycling and proper disposal of things and slap people with steep fines and penalties for littering or improperly disposing items/failing to recycle. Plus, we definitely need to invest in better recycling plants that can handle small items like bottle caps and straws and lids. It's a complex situation that requires a complex solution. These current efforts are band aids, and don't address the underlying issues at all.

Exactly. All the current measures do is cause more alienation and contempt towards the powers-that-be, and more hardship, yet instil a false sense of 'feel-good'. The statewide ban in California demonstrated that bag bans are not what the greenies think are an angelic solution. Statistics show that it only made a benign difference to the amount of plastic bags being dumped irresponsibly, while the reduction in lightweight bags have not been reported in the context of sales of paper and thicker 'reusable' plastic bags. And ATX's figures show that there were just as many paper and reusable bags being disposed of as there were lightweight bags before their ban went into force, which has since been lifted due to a court ruling in Texas that declared all bag bans to be against state solid waste management laws, thus preempting all bag bans within TX from ever being passed and/or enforced.

 

[pens4821]

I know its not perfect, and there are pros/cons of doing/not doing it, but I am glad they are trying. As others have said, its probably cheaper for them or making them more money (bags), but at the same time it is helping even if it's just a little. I'm not an environmentalist, but I do try to be conscious of some of the things I buy/use.

 

[tcufrog]

Like most environmental issues, the single use plastics being a problem in waterways and such comes down to people being irresponsible in disposing of them. Reusable plastic bags are just as easy to throw into a gutter and still will cause lots of issues. But paper products also require more trees and will lead to deforestation eventually, so you can't go all paper either. What we need to do is start enforcing recycling and proper disposal of things and slap people with steep fines and penalties for littering or improperly disposing items/failing to recycle. Plus, we definitely need to invest in better recycling plants that can handle small items like bottle caps and straws and lids. It's a complex situation that requires a complex solution. These current efforts are band aids, and don't address the underlying issues at all.

We recently moved to city where you have to buy a trashcan from the city and pay for your trash service based on the size of the can(s) you own. They are heavy duty with hinged lids and wheels. Recycling cans are free and you can get a second one for free as well. You don't pay extra for having recycling picked up. Landfill space is getting tight so this is one thing they're doing to encourage residents to reduce the amount of trash they throw out.

I've seen other programs as well. A friend of mine lives in a city that is now offering free compost bins that are emptied by the city on trash day. They are also establishing locations in the city where you can eventually pick up the fertilizer created by composting for your garden. One city I lived in had a pilot program that offered free rain barrels and low flow toilets. I'm not sure how successful the programs were but I think they are a step in the right direction. I like the idea of one-time tax credits for the purchase of environmentally friendly alternatives such as low flow toilets, low water need plants, hybrid/electric cars when they replace environmentally problematic originals. I also like the idea of some sort of reward system for home and business owners when they reduce their electric and water usage over a certain period of time.

 

[DLgal]

We recently moved to city where you have to buy a trashcan from the city and pay for your trash service based on the size of the can(s) you own. They are heavy duty with hinged lids and wheels. Recycling cans are free and you can get a second one for free as well. You don't pay extra for having recycling picked up. Landfill space is getting tight so this is one thing they're doing to encourage residents to reduce the amount of trash they throw out.

I've seen other programs as well. A friend of mine lives in a city that is now offering free compost bins that are emptied by the city on trash day. One city I lived in had a pilot program that offered free rain barrels and low flow toilets. I'm not sure how successful the programs were but I think they are a step in the right direction. I like the idea of one-time tax credits for the purchase of environmentally friendly alternatives such as low flow toilets, low water need plants, hybrid/electric cars when they replace environmentally problematic originals.

This is how our city has been for awhile. Residents have to pay more for larger trash cans, but recycling cans are free. We live in a newer home (built in 2015) and it has low flow toilets also. There was a county incentive if you purchased a low water use HE washing machine too...$250.