For the Environment

[gordo]

 

[PricelineNegotiator]

Just use glass or stainless steel.

 

[gordo]

Just use glass or stainless steel.

I guess I’ve seen too many lunch room sinks full of cups.

 

[keith1]

I guess I’ve seen too many lunch room sinks full of cups.

Grrrr!! Nothing on the planet is more annoying than people that leave a dirty cup (or anything) in the sink so that the next person after them has to remove it in order to use the sink.
Thank you Gord. Glad to have that off my chest.

 

[MailGuru]

It IS confusing: Grocery stores went from paper to plastic to save trees. Then they outlawed plastic and went back to paper. To say nothing of straws. Paper to plastic, then back to paper. I actually ate at a restaurant the other day and I asked for a straw for my iced tea. The actually told me that for environmental purposes, they no longer supply straws.

Who's flying this airplane?

 

[jwheeler]

for environmental purposes

I recently learned that many companies who want to 'appear' as though they care about the planet can simply buy "Carbon offset credits". This means they don't actually have to change processes to reduce the amount of pollution they produce, they can just give money towards causes that plant trees, clean the ocean, etc...and this "offsets" their carbon footprint.

An ad by Chase that featured a chocolate company called Xocolatl, lead to this discovery. They boast about how environmentally friendly they are. But when you dive a little deeper you realize they are just buying credits instead of changing the way they do things (see screenshot below). So now there are numerous companies (like this one or this one) who sell these 'carbon offset credits' and it makes me wonder what sort of accountability there is to ensure they are actually doing what they claim they are doing.

 

[tngcas]

I recently learned that many companies who want to 'appear' as though they care about the planet can simply buy "Carbon offset credits". This means they don't actually have to change processes to reduce the amount of pollution they produce, they can just give money towards causes that plant trees, clean the ocean, etc...and this "offsets" their carbon footprint.

Yes. It's all a money game - somebody is making money on the offset and nobody is tracking whether those funds are actually being used for what they say they are being used for.
For example: I have one print shop location that is not allowed to recycle any paper that gets cut smaller than your hand. We have to throw away any of the strips of paper we generate in our cutting process instead of recycle it. This is because the local recycling mill has a separate contract for shredded paper and it's written into their contract that they can't accept anything that resembles shredded paper for recycling (conflict of interest).

 

[keith1]

And there were all those that insisted the recycled logo be placed conspicuously on their material so those who received it would know how environmentally conscious they were. I'm going back to the earlier days of recycled paper here.
Except they couldn't give a damn whether the paper was actually recycled or not. They would tell you as much to your face. Especially when they learned it would be additional cost. We would stick the Recyclable logo on rather than Recycled. They had no idea there were different logos for different purposes.
We did a lot of promo material at election times. They were the worst. It was all about the facade. Or more accurately, as jwheeler & tngcas point out, it all comes down to money. No wonder I'm cynical.