back
154 comments
There's a lot to unpack here. None of this is serious methodology. It's more of a PR statement.

From their raw data, the 36 tests came from a much smaller handful of stores in urban locations - in reality it's a much smaller sample size. 8 alone came from urban New York. 6 came from a single Starbucks location in Olympia, WA.

They jump to the conclusion that a transfer center means it's bound for landfill or incinerator. But I have literally been to one of the transfer centers they have listed here and they absolutely process recycling there.

They admit 3 were sent to specific recycling baling facilities... and they just didn't count them because they didn't feel like it?

Then there's this weird statement:

> "PureCycle's Ironton, Ohio, plant claims to recycle polypropylene through so-called "chemical recycling,” but Beyond Plastics does not consider chemical recycling to be recycling given that most of the plastic these facilities accept is not actually recycled but turned into fossil fuels or feedstocks using high heat or chemicals. It's a distraction that has failed for decades and is allowing companies to exponentially increase plastic production while polluting low-income communities and communities of color with hazardous waste and toxic air pollution."

Ignoring the white-knighting, it's weird to make the claim that recycling a petroleum-based product into it's obvious petroleum use case doesn't count.

The biggest problem though is that the outcomes for a paper cup are probably worse. All paper cups will be incinerated or sent to a landfill.

> All paper cups will be incinerated or sent to a landfill.

Is that surprising? Or "bad" somehow? Paper cups cannot realistically be recycled in any meaningful way. Paper is famously not waterproof, so cups are lined with either plastic or wax. This saturates the fibers in a way that cannot realistically be reversed. Such contaminated fibers can't be used as feedstock, the polymers mess up downstream processes.

The best possible outcome is biodegrading in compost or landfill. Which realistically releases almost as much CO2 as burning.

Wax lined paper cups will fully biodegrade on short timescales. That's literally the best possible outcome for any single-use item. It's not a flaw or a drawback, it's the goal.

The study looks more like an advocacy stunt than a rigorous audit, but it still points at a real problem: recyclability labels often describe theoretical acceptance, not likely end fate
Burning paper is not the same as burning plastic.
> not actually recycled but turned into fossil fuels or feedstocks

This is such a great claim.

We all know most of these wax paper and plastic Starbucks cups aren’t really recycled…it’s always been wish-cycled anyway :)
> Beyond Plastics placed 53 Bluetooth-enabled trackers inside single-use polypropylene cold cups and dropped them into in-store recycling bins at 35 Starbucks locations across nine states and Washington, D.C. Of the 36 trackers that returned usable data, none pinged from a recycling facility.

This is an obvious methodology problem, no? Bluetooth-enabled trackers are not recyclable, so they ended up in the correct place.

These trackers probably had CR2032 batteries that could damage a shredder, would pollute the resulting pulp, and could easily be pulled out of the mixed recyclables stream by a magnet.

Whether or not the cup itself made it to a recycling facility is not something this experiment actually tested for. All they know is the tracker didn't make it. The system appears to be working as expected.

If you look at the raw data they provided, more than half of them just stop transmitting while on the highway.

Some they can arguably prove were probably on the way to a landfill. But "none pinged from a recycling facility" is doing a LOT of heavy lifting.

Yet it still seems like decent evidence that the consumer-facing story is much simpler than the actual recycling path
My local Starbucks offers a 10 cents discount and extra loyalty points for bringing your own cup. I've started bringing an insulated one that keeps coffee hot for longer & doesn't sweat with an iced beverage. I seldom see others bringing their own cups, even regulars I see there every week, even when Starbucks themselves sell reusable cups. It is almost like there is a weird stigma about handing the barista something that doesn't come from behind the counter. I encourage trying it, especially if you visit the same coffee shop habitually like I do.
I wonder how much of it comes down to inconvenience. I've been bringing my own thermos for a year or so now and it took me some time to get used to the ritual of scrubbing it with soap and a bottle brush after use every day - at first I found it inconvenient enough that it made me want to just get paper cups.

Now it's a nice little ritual and I am used to the advantages of bringing my own insulated container with a lid - I can carry it back with groceries or do other errands without worrying about my drink spilling or getting cold.

FWIW I do occasionally see other people at my local coffee shop show up with their own mugs, but I agree that it's quite rare.

To be more effective, all drink prices should be reduced by 10 cents, then a 10 cent surcharge added for every disposable cup. The price remains the same for all customers, but the extra line item reveals the external costs.
If I'm going to use my own cup I just bring coffee from home in it.

Personally, when I get a coffee to-go, I want a disposable cup so that I don't have to carry it around for the rest of the day.

Bringing your own cup is also healthier, because paper cup linings are made of plastic that when exposed to hot liquids are likely to turn into microplastics.

My rule is: 1) keep hot stuff away from plastic, and 2) assume everything is/has plastic unless you know for certain.

I would hope it's a health code violation for a food processing employees to handle something given to them by a customer while processing food without either changing gloves or washing hands.
I think the habit/friction part is underrated
This doesn't surprise me, almost no municipality in the US will recycle number 5 plastics. Why Starbucks says they're "widely recyclable" is a mystery but it certainly seems an effort at deceptive greenwashing.
Starbucks says it because a retailer- and packaging-industry-backed organization says it: https://greenblue.org/2024/01/04/the-how2recycle-guide-to-re...

There is no actual oversight from the FTC or related organization for recyclability product labels.

Starbucks HQ city Seattle, WA accepts all plastic numbers in the curbside bin.
My local Starbucks has 2 bins for recyclables and trash with little images about what to put in each bin. Many customers look at them, think, and put them in the right bin. Most just throw them in the middle trash bin.

At the end of the night, all three bins go into the same dumpster, they recycle nothing there.

Depends where you are. It says compostable or recyclable as the only options near me, but a google image search for "starbucks trash can" will show a lot of variation.
My gut feeling is this should be illegal. It's something like false advertising.
Landfills really aren't that bad. modern landfills have multiple layers of lining to prevent leaking into water supplies and soil. After they are full, they are covered with earth and can become usable land. Their gases have to be managed (can be burned for electricity or processed in other ways) but overall putting trash in the ground and covering it seems alright to me. The amount of land that you actually need isn't that much too.
Hear me out:

Single use plastics are a carbon sequestration technology.

We take oil out of the ground, and instead of burning it we turn it into a solid and bury it again.

Something like 30% of the oil we consume never ends up getting burned. While that's probably not a 30% reduction in CO2 gasses, the price pressure plastics put on fossil fuels is not negligible.

The point is that we may not have plastic forever. Oil is a finite resource. An easy, cheap replacement hasn't been found yet. Either we abide by reducing and reusing (where we should be focused), or we should actually recycle.
Depends where you are. Some places in the US have decided to use landfills to store radioactive waste openly.
Slightly related, but my town has sent out several flyers recently chastising everyone for recycling things that aren't recyclable. If this overambitious recycling continues, the privilege of recycling itself shall be taken away. Unwanted elements include any kind of glass or glass bottle (my wife and I are guilty of recycling cleaned jars of spaghetti sauce); certain types of plastic; and pizza boxes that are "too greasy" (unclear how greasy "too greasy" is).
IIRC any grease is considered a contaminate. So any cardboard with grease splotching should be discarded instead of recycled.

Interesting my municipality recycles glass, but like, why? Silica is the most common mineral in the crust, easily accessible almost everywhere, and recycling it takes as much energy if not more than just making new. It's not like aluminum or steel where there are significant energy savings to recycling vs mining and refining.

> Unwanted elements include any kind of glass or glass bottle

?? Isn't this one of the most recyclable materials there is? Even aluminum cans come with contaminants that can't be removed by the consumer.

Regardless, at least you can easily reuse glass jars for home use. I find they make excellent drinking glasses and the reusable lid is a nice perk.

At least pizza boxes can go in the yard waste bin to be taken to the industrial composter. My yard waste bin came with a sticker that actively encourages putting food soiled paper in it.
Visited a recycling facility recently. It’s a private company that covers an entire county in California. They filter the garbage wit people and a big machine and seem to get paid by companies abroad to ship them all recyclable materials - plastics, cardboard, metals, glass. That pays enough to keep them in business for decades. Someone really needs to look at where the materials from our garbage go.
Yeah when you see `-able` suffix the implied presumption is that it isn't happening. And if you are familiar with the green-washing of the plastics industry in the US, and the economics of the recycling infrastructure of the US, you already knew this was the case, as is the case for most plastic.

Highly recommend this podcast for those who still spend time sorting plastic into their recycling bin:

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/12/741283641/episode-926-so-shou...

The argument can be made, and I’m basically right there, is that we shouldn’t be recycling any plastics period. The energy, waste water, micro plastic production, toxic chemicals, etc involved in any plastic recycling that it is so much worse than simply throwing all Plastic into landfills and use virgin plastic for when you need to use it. The micro plastic pollution that is produced through plastic recycling is astonishing

And that’s only the plastic that isn’t shipped to third world countries to be piled up in their countryside

Corporations aren't recycling the stuff they say they are recycling.

World except America: I'm going to legally mandate what they do.

Americans: I'm going to get mad at the abstract concept of recycling.

Recycling has largely been a virtue signal act for decades.

Not saying people do it only to virtue signal, they just don't realize the net positive effect is very, very low.

Driving an electric vehicle (instead of ICE), on the other hand? Actually quite a large impact that 1 person can make.

Tried this once as well with plastic filler material that said you should visit some website to find a place that takes it back for reuse, and the website referred me to ask the merchant instead

The merchant (who produces the product and fills the boxes from the same country as where I live) ended up finding an answer: the manufacturer does not yet do this in europe

How is this legal to print on your product if you don't offer the service anywhere on the continent...

Wow, surprising that it was zero. Is there a chance that the cup was being separated from the tracker at a sorting facility with the cup going to a different destination than the tracker?
I started throwing everything in the garbage except aluminum over the past couple of years. Better off in a US landfill than shipped of to asia and dumped in the ocean.
> It's time for Starbucks to stop making misleading recycling claims and start prioritizing plastic-free, preferably reusable, alternatives for its customers.

I agree on the misleading claims part, but they do allow you to bring in your own personal cup already as long as it's clean. I don't see how that's not an alternative.

People are nit picking methodology when it's not even possible to recycle #5. Just throw it in the trash, there's no point wish-cycling. It only messes up the machines that shred and recycle the plastics that are recyclable (#s 1 and 2).
Recycling is largely a scheme to make people feel better about themselves without actually meaningfully addressing their environmental impact.

If you care about the environment, BY FAR the most important thing you can do is reducing your carbon footprint. Everything else is really a rounding error compared to that. But that requires a materially poorer existence: living in a smaller home, eating meat less frequently, foregoing air travel, bundling up in the winter instead of cranking up the heat, etc.

Most people generally feel like we need to do more for the environment, and have a vague sense of guilt if they're not contributing. However, that guilt is not strong enough for them to be willing to meaningfully decrease their standard of living. It is strong enough to make them willing to sort their trash into separate bins. Hence recycling.

The distinction between "accepted for recycling" and "actually recycled" is doing a lot of work here
There are some recycling bins in Jackson Wyoming that make clear what a scam the standard recycling bin is. Different bins for different color glass, no labels, purified, etc.
Glass is easily recyclable if you want to- my country has been doing so since the 1970s. Metals also. Paper no problemo.

Plastics? You're fucked. There's no money in it. Takes too much efffort. Contamination with food.

All this greenwashing effort by big brands are laughable. The cost of actually recycle any used cups would far exceed the cost to manufacture them. When just the act of using those cups has already give them all the "environmentally aware" credit, why would they bother follow through with the rest of the process.

The biggest scam is the paper straw. You still need a certain plastic liner, otherwise the straw will melt down in 3 minutes from direct contact with liquid. The amount of plastic you reduce is penny-on-the-100-bucks-note comparing to the amount of plastic waste produced by industrial activities.

The only way to fix the single-use container problem is for governments to ban it. Either the customers bring their own/rent the shops' containers for take away, or drink their beverages in the shop.

Is this doable? I guess. AFAIR the EU are experimenting with laws around this. Plastic bags ban is already visible in many country, even in non-first-world countries.

I'd be ashamed to post this "experiment" but I guess when you have an obvious agenda...