I have to admit that I am a talk radio junkie. I was just getting up this Saturday and since my usual talk radio was in re-broadcasts, I was listening to the Oprah and Friends radio network.
The founder, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, was on the radio. He was talking about the how great Starbucks is. I was going “yeah, yeah, PR, PR, blah, blah, blah” when he started talking about changing their store fronts.
They are working with Conservation International to come up with a new store design that is greener. And one of the main components of that is reducing their affect on forests. He said that deforestation is one of the biggest components of carbon output, in that if there are fewer trees, there are fewer places for the carbon dioxide to be absorbed and used.
So there I am listening to one of the biggest media personality’s radio station, listening to one of the largest brands, and they are talking about the environment. Maybe it is just PR talk, but if it is PR talk that saves the world and makes them money, all the better.
Yea they will probably throw all their old “non-sustainable” stuff in the landfill while switching to the “posh” version of eco-friendliness.
They still use a lot of paper, albeit recycled, and they encourage people to waste by providing so much disposables.
In my opinion, they should stop providing the to-go cup and make their customers use the $20 mugs they sale. If people are willing to pay $5 for a latte, they can afford the investment anyway. I doubt that Starbucks would lose too many customers, because drive-thru coffee is just so handy!
I am sure there is a lot more they could do, like compost their coffee grounds and sell it at a crazy markup (like their coffee). And possibly requiring the use of CFL’s and what-not, but they are likely just planning really expensive remodels that will likely make their prices higher and generate a lot of waste during construction.
Deforestation is one of the biggest components of carbon output, in that if there are fewer trees, there are fewer places for the carbon dioxide to be absorbed and used.