As our society slowly creeps towards the stark realization that our planet is becoming crippled by plastic waste, influential corporations are quickly feeling the pressure to take action.
In early July, Starbucks made headlines by becoming one of the first major food chains to commit to the discontinuation of plastic single-use straws in their stores, a decision which was hailed as a success for environmental advocates yet a disservice to people with disabilities.
Starbucks has provided a prototype strawless beverage lid to mitigate the waste produced by straws, but replacing plastic with more plastic is hardly a viable solution. It encourages consumers to contribute to faux environmentalism.
As explained in an investigative article by Reason.com, the new beverage lid contains more plastic than the current lid-plastic straw combination. Despite the increase in plastic per lid, supporters argue that the prototype is recyclable and by extension, more environmentally-friendly.
It seems futile to replace plastic with plastic, but it is far more futile to get lost in the debate over straws. Perhaps we’re missing the point entirely. The goal of a plastic straw ban is to mitigate the effects of plastic waste; though given the public outcry, is it really the best foot forward?
The challenge is simple: Starbucks must reinforce environmentally-friendly policies without diminishing the quality of service for customers. There are a number of solutions Starbucks could employ in order to make a more sensible impact on its plastic consumption.
First, Starbucks should encourage the use of glassware. It is possible to manage the scale of waste produced by customers who remain in-store to enjoy their beverage. Stores already possess the ability to provide this solution. Baristas can provide reusable glassware and ceramics for customers to use to enjoy their beverages while they work, study or hang out in-store. This tactic immediately targets preventable single-use waste for customers who remain in-store to consume their drinks.
Second, Starbucks should also increase incentives to reuse. Starbucks currently supplies a 10-cent price reduction on beverages to customers who provide their own personal cup. Saving a 50th of the cost of an average beverage, however, is only a soft gesture with potential. If Starbucks increased its reimbursement or exchanged it for a percentage-off per drink, we would probably see a large influx in the use of travel mugs and water bottles over the typical plastic cup.
Lastly, Starbucks should acknowledge its wrongdoing.
Plastic straw waste contributes to an incredibly minute portion of plastic debris cluttering our oceans, yet corporate structures have considered it the most pressing threat to eliminate from public use.
As the disapproval of single-use plastic becomes a popular movement, so grows the finger-pointing between consumer and producer. This mentality shifts the blame of pollution onto consumers and individuals who consume plastic, rather than addressing the producers of plastic items directly.
Corporations like Starbucks must accept wrongdoing in their contribution to single-use plastic waste, and provide manufacturer-based solutions in order to address the issue adequately.
Our culture is becoming one of vilification of single-use plastic, in the hopes of disrupting the damage done to our planet.
Hollow gestures like the dismissal of straws won’t save the world. Corporate structures must think wisely, inclusively, and proactively to be the environmental superheroes they aspire to be.
