Week 33
I’ve spent my last week thinking about situations I call environmental catch-22s. I’m convinced that every environmentalist encounters these problems, because not only do I find myself in “what to do” paradoxes all the time, I keep reading about these from other writers.
An environmental catch-22 is a situation an environmentalist finds herself in when she is trying to pick the best product for the job at hand, and neither product option is really a viable green choice. Let me give you some examples:
At Starbucks the other day with a friend, I forgot to bring my own container, so I opted against buying a prepared drink, meaning I wouldn’t get stuck with a paper or plastic cup I had to throwaway. Not buying something seemed like a rude option, since we sat and chatted for a couple of hours in the store. So, I bought a bottle of San Pellegrino bottled water. Okay, I hate buying water anyway, especially since I had my own stainless steel container filled with tap water sitting in my car, but due to the aforementioned feeling that I needed to buy something, the $1.65 was a small price to pay. Plus, the water came in a glass bottle and had a metal screw-top lid. Both are easily recyclable and, importantly, don’t downcycle like plastic (meaning plastic is ultimately trash, getting closer and closer to the landfill each time we recycle it as the material downgrades). As I sat sipping my bottled water, I glanced at the label and found that the water was bottled in Italy. That means, for me to be drinking this water, it had to board an airplane and fly from Italy, with a huge carbon cost following in its wake. Not only that, but it’s extremely important to be cognizant of the impending water crisis our planet is facing (read Maude Barlow’s Blue Gold for a frightening wake up call about water).
So, catch-22: Should I have bought a drink in a disposable cup or purchased the water flown in from Italy? There was no other drink option beyond drink nothing (which is probably the strategy I’ll adopt next time).
Another example came to me during a Master Recycler field trip on Saturday to the Salem Keizer Transfer Station. We viewed the inner workings of a Household Hazardous Waste facility and watched as Salem residents dropped off both garbage and recycling. Here, the transfer station takes practically any recyclable material – used cooking oil, latex paint, motor oil, paper, plastic, glass, etc. There was even a bin for paper milk cartons and aseptic cartons (soy milk, broth, juice boxes, etc.). This prompted a group discussion about whether milk cartons are truly recyclable. Apparently, according to our instructor, while many recycling facilities accept these cartons, paper mills consider them contaminants and don’t like having to process them. This is because loads of chemicals go into waxing and lining the milk cartons so they don’t break down in the fridge. Plus, virgin trees are mined to produce the cardboard in the first place. Based on this information, I raised my hand and asked which is better for the environment – cardboard or plastic milk containers? The answer I received was”probably plastic” given the above-mentioned reasons.
And yet, it’s a little like the paper versus plastic grocery bag debate – both use energy to produce and recycle, and it seems like the environmental cost of each product is really about the same. And because nothing can be simple, I have a little voice on my shoulder saying, “But wait! Plastic never ever degrades in a landfill and it winds up inside the stomachs of birds and other sea animals, so plastic has to be worse!”
The real problem is we’re stuck in a society that doesn’t have answers to these problems yet. As a consumer trying to do the least harm possible, I’m asking the wrong question: “What is the least harmful product to buy?” when maybe the question I should be asking is “How can I not buy this product at all?”
As a people on the verge of both an environmental crisis and an explosive green movement, it seems to me that the best possible solution is applying cradle to cradle thinking to all of these catch-22s. For more information on cradle to cradle manufacturing, check out either The Story of Stuff or McDonough and Braungart’s Cradle to Cradle: Rethinking the Way We Make Things. Here’s a little excerpt from the book’s Web site to give you an idea what cradle to cradle thinking means:
- “In addition to describing the hopeful, nature-inspired design principles that are making industry both prosperous and sustainable, the book itself is a physical symbol of the changes to come. It is printed on a synthetic ‘paper,’ made from plastic resins and inorganic fillers, designed to look and feel like top quality paper while also being waterproof and rugged. And the book can be easily recycled in localities with systems to collect polypropylene, like that in yogurt containers. This ‘treeless’ book points the way toward the day when synthetic books, like many other products, can be used, recycled, and used again without losing any material quality—in cradle to cradle cycles.” – http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm
Basically, instead of existing in a linear system in which products are made, used, and thrown away, we “close the loop” – we deliberately make products that can be recycled without losing value and later be turned back into other products. It’s a great philosophy, and it’s already happening. As consumers, we simply need to support this idea by buying closed loop products and letting our legislators know we value this sort of innovative thinking.
12 comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Every Starbucks, along with most mom and pop coffee houses, have “for here” cups. A ceramic mug for hot coffee or a glass for iced coffee, water, etc.
A solution we found was to buy our milk locally from a dairy that delivers our fresh milk each week and picks up the containers from the previous week’s delivery for reuse. Not only are we supporting local farms but we’re reducing our plastic consumption drastically.
Kristen – Of course! I guess I just didn’t think about it at the same, but for the future, sure!
Tanya – I’m very jealous. This is not a service offered in our area, at least as far as my research has discovered. There is only one dairy that delivers milk in Oregon, and they don’t deliver to our area.
I continue to research this, however, as some co-ops do offer bottle return options. We just live so far away from them….
Coffee alternatives at Starbucks that could have been considered – 1) buy one of their reusable mugs, OR 2) get the disposable cup, DON’T take the lid, then take the cup with you rinse it, and put it in the paper recycling, or 3) buy a Doubleshot Mocha and recycle the can when you get home
Paper is always better than plastic. Plastic is petroleum based. Plastic never, ever, goes away, and few items are re-made with a full 100% recycled plastic. Paper does come from trees and while not ideal, many many more products come from 100% recycled paper, and is almost always easier to recycle.
Regarding milk, humans are the only species who drink milk into adulthood. Most of us get more lactose intolerant as we get older -there’s a reason for that, yet the milk industry push us to think we must have it, even though calcium can be found in many other alternatives. Consider decreasing use of cow’s milk. For recipes I use rice or soy or hemp milk. Also, you can still find places that sell glass bottles of milk that can be returned when you are done.
Food for thought
Ecogrrl, thank you for your comments. Here’s what I’ve learned in my various readings/classes in response. As far as alternatives at Starbucks, the number one greenest option is to always not buy new stuff. I have an overwhelming amount of mugs/travel cups, etc. at home and I didn’t want to buy another.
I could have taken the paper cup minus the #6 plastic lid, but the plastic-lined hot drink cups are marginally recyclable (similar to milk cartons). They are often considered a contaminant in the waste stream.
I also could have purchased a double shot espresso in a can, but the particular location I went to was out at the time, and this is really equivalent to buying Italian water in a glass bottle – the materials are both recyclable and both traveled across the world to reach me.
As far as milk is concerned, I already don’t eat meat, and as an animal rights activist I am regularly looking for alternatives. Right now, though, in our trash free year, the aseptic containers the soy and rice milk come in are LESS recyclable than regular milk cartons. Because we are currently focused on reducing trash output, we stick with organic milk from local dairies. As you can see from an earlier comment, unfortunately, I cannot buy (or have not yet found) milk in glass bottles.
It all boils down to the same issue – no matter what option I choose, there is a negative environmental impact somewhere along the line – I need to pick the least harmful option I can, having weighed all the variables. As consumers, we need to push for better, more sustainable products.
Surely, any environmentalist need to know of the “trimming” technique to survive – exploring things that we can live without. We used to buy water occasionally, but now depend fully on the filter. In fact, many households in non-urban areas would use it direct from their wells. It turns out that the urban centric development is at the root of many of our problems which is difficult to fix.
Jayadeep, Certainly trimming is a necessary technique – take a look at my “garbage free tips” and you’ll find that we’ve cut out quite a few products we’d normally buy during the course of this garbage-free year.
Suggesting ways for me to avoid milk and the single bottle water purchase miss the point of the argument, however, since it’s impossible to never need to buy anything (please don’t misunderstand me here to mean I’m suggesting bottled water and milk are necessities).
I just used those two examples to illustrate a larger point – that anytime you buy anything, you’re faced with a choice, and often, that choice is a “lesser of two evils” or, in my words, an environmental catch-22. Since it’s true that everyone needs to buy something at some time, and unfortunately, almost everything we buy today has some adverse environmental impact, we need to be looking at the manufacturing and disposal process these products go through to turn their impact to zero.
Hello
Can I just check that I understand this correctly…Are you saying that in Starbucks in America they serve all coffees in disposable cups, not just the ‘takeaway’ ones???
If so, that is really shocking.
Michelle,
When you order at Starbucks, it’s not a “for here or to go” situation – they assume it’s to go unless you explicitly ask for a “for here” cup. I didn’t even think about these for here cups being an option until Kristen, above, posted this as an alternative for me. In other words, unless you ask for a ceramic/glass mug, you are getting a disposable one.
Hey, just discovered you and I’m busy reading…I have a related question. Maybe you have addressed this in another area, but my Catch-22 is at restaurants, what to do with the leftovers. We CANNOT waste food, so we always take it, but we always feel terrible about the containers. We do recycle our styrofoam, but I’m not happy about that process, and I’m not sure we’re brave enough to bring our own containers to the restaurant. What are your thoughts?
Meg, thanks for reading! Regarding your environmental catch-22, the only solution I’ve come up with is the one you propose – bring your own containers to the restaurant. You don’t have to be brave to do this, lots of people do. Just bring a Tupperware and lid, and politely ask for the wait staff to let you use your container – and then maybe tip a little more for their trouble. We’ve gotten some weird looks, but people seem more interested than judgemental, and it’s a great chance to educate people about what’s best for the environment. If this is too difficult, at the very least I would suggest to a manager that the restaurant discontinue using Styrofoam containers, which are terribly harmful to the environment.
If everyone did this, it wouldn’t be “weird.” Or, the only reason this is weird is because not many people do it. This is about changing social norms, and I believe in this cause enough to risk a few odd looks.
I just sent my husband for take out food and I know they use styrofoam containers. So I sent him with one of our glass (we’re a no plastic house) containers. He said he was going to be horribly embarrassed, but would do it any way. If only I would stop using the “puppy dog guilt look.”
Thanks for inspiring us to go out of our comfort zones!