5 ms·
It's hard to really call that a "mistake" in the article, since the article mentions it. It says: > The new lids are recyclable, while the plastic straws the
by codesections 8y ago
It's hard to really call that a "mistake" in the article, since the article mentions it. It says:
> The new lids are recyclable, while the plastic straws the company currently uses are not.
>
> This is cold comfort given the fact that even most of the stuff that is put in recycling bins
> still winds up at the dump. The company did not address, nor did it dispute, that its transition
> to strawless lids would increase its overall plastic consumption.
Not expressing a view about whether those follow-up claims are correct, just noticing that this wasn't a mistake/oversight by the article.
- naravara 8y ago>Not expressing a view about whether those follow-up claims are correct, just noticing that this wasn't a mistake/oversight by the article. It actually sounds like the article writer came up with a juicy "gotcha" headline and wrote most of the article, happened upon some information that undercut their premise, but decided to sloppily hand wave it away so they could publish anyway.
- tedunangst 8y agoHow else would one write an article which people might try to refute with misconceptions? I'm trying to imagine a version of this story that would satisfy the critics.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoI'd imagine that version of the story would have some statistics about how much of the recyclable plastic in current lids gets recycled and what the ratios of drink order sizes are for drinks that are getting the new lids. Then it would do the math and show the actual difference we should expect to see in how much non-recycled plastic Starbucks will generate.
- tedunangst 8y agoThat would be a good article. Though I think a similar evidentiary burden exists for Starbucks in order to claim a net reduction.
- daveFNbuck 8y agoYeah, this is not a clear win or loss for Starbucks until someone does the math.