News Disney removing plastic straws and more by mid-2019

[GoofGoof]

And I can guarantee the temperature of the ice/water mixture will not increase until the last cube is fully melted.

If you do it right and depending on the outside temperature there’s a good chance that last cube doesn’t melt until the next day. And yes...the beer stays ice cold.

 

[GoofGoof]

Point is environmental stewardship is a series.of tradeoffs are ultimately dictated by financial considerations.

Take for instance, paper recycling. When the U.S. recycling rate comes out for 2018, we will see a significant decrease in recycling rate. Reason being, China has put in place stringent quality limits.on inbound wastepaper.

This has resulted in a creating in recycled wastepaper prices. Prices have fallen to the point where it costs more to collect/sort than what a recycled is paid. This results in lower quality wastepaper domestically and a position where it is more cost efficient to send wastepaper to landfill.

With a for profit company in America everything is always ultimately dictated by financial considerations. Management has a duty to shareholders to maximize the stock value. The growing popularity of environmentally friendly funds that invest only in companies that are attempting to be industry leaders on environmental issues has given the cause some economic benefit. There’s also the negative PR of being a bad guy for the environment. For customer facing companies that can be a big driver of at least making an effort to be more environmentally friendly. Most companies have to come up with justifications to show the economic benefit in order to spend money on environmental causes. That is often why they hold themselves out as great players in the environmental cause even if it’s an exaggeration or a flat out lie.

Why not if the earths resources are finite? Destroying the environment in order to make a buck... How capatilistic.

If you also subscribe to environmentalist pablum, the ultimate in carbon sequestration is to cut down all trees and bury them in the ground.

Just as stupid as Starbucks holding themselves up as a pillar of environmental virtue.

Some progress is better than none at all. Yes, the stuff Starbucks is doing can’t make up for every environmental issue in the world, but it’s a small step in the right direction (and done mostly for economic reasons as I said above). If it’s positive, I could care less if the motivation for the corporation isn’t 100% altruistic.

Look at it like this. There are starving people all over the world. If I go volunteer at a soup kitchen and feed a few homeless people I’m not doing much to help eliminate world hunger, but at least a few people get fed. A small step is better than none.

 

[castlecake2.0]

Next time you have a McDonald’s to go cup (with or without straw) look on the side for a little red line about a third up. That’s the ice line. Fountain Coca Cola is designed, by Coca Cola, to be drank in a cup filled with a third of ice. It was part of my food and beverage training at wdw too. That’s the way the company wanted it served.

 

[Lensman]

All the points about recycling made I get but as I posted much earlier the problem is we are adding more people to this planet every day and with that goes-- you have to feed them, cloth them, house them, provide energy, dispose of the additional waste etc etc. As far as feeding, the oceans have been a source of protein for centuries but we have fished it to the point many species are in sever decline and there is a point where they may not recover. We use the oceans a dumping ground for our waste. Land available for farming is being converted to housing projects daily for the increase in population yet we have to produce more food to feed the masses. OK so we don't use plastic straws and we feel good but at the same time more and more new products we consume are made of plastics. I look back at WW II and the national war effort to recycle metal, fats, paper, rubber etc. and grow victory gardens. I doubt that national effort and mind set we will ever occur again. People are inherently lazy it is easier to throw the beer can or plastic cup or empty McDonalds bag out the car window rather than recycle. or dispose it in the trash. I will continue to recycle what I can, however I question how much good it actually does

I will repeat again that repeated application of the Nirvana Fallacy arguments is not helpful in reasoned discourse. The fact that proposed solutions that are being undertaken by some will in some small way incrementally improve things is not negated by the fact that there are other more Thanosian solutions. Are you proposing that the only possible solution is to wish 50% or the humans on Earth into dust as the only worthwhile solution? I don't think so.

The U.S. is currently at 30% recycling of bottles and we seem to be stagnated. Even California's overall recycling rate stagnated at 50% and even declined to 44% recently. The contributing factors could include:
1. People across different communities need to be more aware of the need to be part of the solution.
2. Communities need to increase the availability of recycling locations. My small town finally installed recycling containers near every public trash receptacle. We also finally implemented single-stream recycling and recycling of plastic types 3-7. We're still not accepting plastic films or microwave trays or caps.
3. The domestic market for recyclables has declined due to lower prices.
4. The international market for recyclables has declined for other reasons.

One positive note for the future is that it took decades for us to stop littering, but we did it. We can solve recycling and reuse as well.

This is so much brainwashing corporate BS I could puke.

Food grade recycled fiber was available long before Starbucks decided to use it. If Starbucks was so concerned on their environmental impact, they should close down.

I don't really think you think that if Starbucks closed down they wouldn't be replaced by another firm with worse environmental and social practices. I admire that they provide group health insurance for workers working more than 20 hours a week and they are in the 90th percentile in their peer group in environmental policy/impact. For reference McDonald's in in the 82nd percentile.

I judge companies based on their ESG ratings. (But I don't invest in them based on that, but that's another matter)

I give up. Obviously putting ice in your drink doesn't make it more than a couple of degrees colder, and I've just been imagining it.

You're at least trying to put forward some actual numbers to this, no matter what the hecklers are saying.

On a pure theoretical basis, icing a drink taken from the fridge will cool it from 40 F to 32 F. And note that the temperature and weight of the glass you put it in matters. I don't use ice at home (but do at my sister's place) and I use real glass that is pretty heavy so I have to make sure not to use it straight out of the dishwasher or my drink will end up too warm - I'd guess 50 F.

Just as stupid as Starbucks holding themselves up as a pillar of environmental virtue.

Starbucks is not a person, they are a corporation. They happen to be highly rated on environmental and social factors as a corporation (90th percentile against peers). This allows them to advertise this both as a marketing scheme and as a way to garner ESG investment capital in investor relations. I think they do a great job of promoting themselves and have been very successful, being about 40% as large as DIS and with a slightly higher PE ratio.

 

[larryz]

Yup, I blew a vessel in my eye when I read 47 to 25.

And I blew out an eardrum when I heard 25 or 6 to 4.

 

[larryz]

Then my thermal thermometer is broken. The drink in the one glass (I removed the ice after I filled and measured the temp of the next glass - so ?less than a minute) was definitely cooler - as I stated above. Little, if any, ice had melted. It may depend upon the amount of liquid, material of the container, etc. But in my test it was definitely 15 F cooler.

It will also vary depending on which emissivity setting your thermometer's on, and whether or not the sensor is picking up the ice or the liquid between the ice cubes.

 

[larryz]

Take a bucket or cooler, add some water and stick your hand in. Now dump in a bag of ice and stick your hand in again. I guarantee that the water and ice mix feels significantly colder than when it was just water. If you still aren’t convinced leave your hand in there for a few minutes.

And then dump it over your head and give money to somebody. Be sure to video and put it on FaceTube.

 

[s8film40]

Next time you have a McDonald’s to go cup (with or without straw) look on the side for a little red line about a third up. That’s the ice line. Fountain Coca Cola is designed, by Coca Cola, to be drank in a cup filled with a third of ice. It was part of my food and beverage training at wdw too. That’s the way the company wanted it served.

Yeah sure, and it has nothing at all to do with them being able to sell 10oz of product as 20oz.

 

[LuvtheGoof]

It will also vary depending on which emissivity setting your thermometer's on, and whether or not the sensor is picking up the ice or the liquid between the ice cubes.

She said she took the ice out before measuring.

 

[GoofGoof]

Yeah sure, and it has nothing at all to do with them being able to sell 10oz of product as 20oz.

It is factored into the cup sizes. That’s why a small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 ounce cup and the large is 32oz. Nobody needs that much pure soda. A 12 once can of Coke is 140 calories while McDonalds says the small coke is 150 calories which acknowledges the cup should have just a little over 12 ounces of actual soda. The large coke is listed as 290 calories so just a bit over 24 ounces of actual soda.

 

[Goofyernmost]

It is factored into the cup sizes. That’s why a small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 ounce cup and the large is 32oz. Nobody needs that much pure soda. A 12 once can of Coke is 140 calories while McDonalds says the small coke is 150 calories which acknowledges the cup should have just a little over 12 ounces of actual soda. The large coke is listed as 290 calories so just a bit over 24 ounces of actual soda.

Excluding Ice? Add ice and it drops by a lot depending on how much ice one uses. Of course, 16 ounces of ice and water is still 16 ounces of one item. Add eight ounces of ice to a soda and you have cut the product and the calories in half.

 

[GoofGoof]

Excluding Ice? Add ice and it drops by a lot depending on how much ice one uses. Of course, 16 ounces of ice and water is still 16 ounces of one item. Add eight ounces of ice to a soda and you have cut the product and the calories in half.

That’s the point. The small coke is served in a 16 ounce cup because it’s both ice and soda. By listing it as 150 calories they acknowledge there are supposed to be around 12 ounces of actual soda and the rest is ice. If you buy a small coke from McDonalds you should know that it’s served over ice so you aren’t getting an amount of soda equal to the cup size. There’s no conspiracy here to short people on soda, it’s not a trick. If they served soda with no ice then the cups would probably just be smaller or the price larger.

 

[s8film40]

It is factored into the cup sizes. That’s why a small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 ounce cup and the large is 32oz. Nobody needs that much pure soda. A 12 once can of Coke is 140 calories while McDonalds says the small coke is 150 calories which acknowledges the cup should have just a little over 12 ounces of actual soda. The large coke is listed as 290 calories so just a bit over 24 ounces of actual soda.

So assuming a 20oz fountain soda is supposed to be a 10oz serving, I suppose that means a 20oz bottle is supposed to be 2 servings. Which actually most drinks 8oz is considered a serving so that makes sense. Since Disney is selling one serving fountain drinks at roughly the same price as 2 serving bottled drinks that means they’re charging double the price for the luxury of having a fountain drink over a bottled drink. This is what your saying correct?

 

[Lensman]

It is factored into the cup sizes. That’s why a small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 ounce cup and the large is 32oz. Nobody needs that much pure soda. A 12 once can of Coke is 140 calories while McDonalds says the small coke is 150 calories which acknowledges the cup should have just a little over 12 ounces of actual soda. The large coke is listed as 290 calories so just a bit over 24 ounces of actual soda.

So assuming a 20oz fountain soda is supposed to be a 10oz serving, I suppose that means a 20oz bottle is supposed to be 2 servings. Which actually most drinks 8oz is considered a serving so that makes sense. Since Disney is selling one serving fountain drinks at roughly the same price as 2 serving bottled drinks that means they’re charging double the price for the luxury of having a fountain drink over a bottled drink. This is what your saying correct?

Let me help with the math. What @GoofGoof said was:
1. A small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 oz cup and contains 4 oz of ice and 12 oz of soda. [Note: If you do the math is it 13 oz of soda but I think that McDonalds adjusts their fountain to serve soda slightly stronger to account for initial ice melt.]
2. A large soda at McDonalds is served in a 32 oz cup and contains 8 oz of ice and 24 oz of soda.

A small fountain drink at WDW costs $3.29.
A large fountain drink at WDW costs $3.69.

Here's what we don't know:
1. How many overall ounces are in the small fountain drink or large fountain drink at WDW.
2. How much ice is supposed to be served in each cup at WDW.
3. How much bottled soda costs at WDW.
4. Why any of this matters.

I don't think WDW is packing in the ice to get one over on their customers. I think they're putting ice in their drinks to keep them cold in the hot Florida weather. There is quite enough profit in that $3.29 small drink even with no ice. Generally speaking, fountain soda has incredibly good profit margins at high volume sales locations.

 

[GoofGoof]

So assuming a 20oz fountain soda is supposed to be a 10oz serving, I suppose that means a 20oz bottle is supposed to be 2 servings. Which actually most drinks 8oz is considered a serving so that makes sense. Since Disney is selling one serving fountain drinks at roughly the same price as 2 serving bottled drinks that means they’re charging double the price for the luxury of having a fountain drink over a bottled drink. This is what your saying correct?

No, not quite. I’m not even sure what size the fountain drink cups are at WDW but for arguments sake let’s say the regular size one is a 20oz cup. Nobody should expect 20oz of soda since they should know it’s served over ice.

As far as cost goes, using the ratio from McDonalds (16oz cup= about 13oz of soda) the 20oz WDW fountain cup should be a little over 16oz of actual soda with the rest ice. At WDW the 20oz bottle from a drink cart is priced slightly higher at $3.50 vs $3.29 for the fountain drinks. Looking purely at price of soda per ounce the bottle is $0.175 per oz and the fountain drink is probably around $0.20 per oz. So yes, the bottle is slightly cheaper per oz., but at some locations in the parks the fountain drinks have free refills which could make them much cheaper than the bottles. You also control the amount of ice yourself.

I’m not defending Disney’s pricing on soda or pretending that there aren’t some CMs who go heavy on the ice sometimes. They only offer the 20oz bottles at carts and locations where it’s cost prohibitive to run the plumbing for a soda fountain. The fountain drinks are much more profitable for them. I do think it’s nice to have a drink with ice in the hot sun. Unless you drink fast that 20oz bottle will get warm pretty fast.

 

[s8film40]

Let me help with the math. What @GoofGoof said was:
1. A small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 oz cup and contains 4 oz of ice and 12 oz of soda. [Note: If you do the math is it 13 oz of soda but I think that McDonalds adjusts their fountain to serve soda slightly stronger to account for initial ice melt.]
2. A large soda at McDonalds is served in a 32 oz cup and contains 8 oz of ice and 24 oz of soda.

A small fountain drink at WDW costs $3.29.
A large fountain drink at WDW costs $3.69.

Here's what we don't know:
1. How many overall ounces are in the small fountain drink or large fountain drink at WDW.
2. How much ice is supposed to be served in each cup at WDW.
3. How much bottled soda costs at WDW.
4. Why any of this matters.

I don't think WDW is packing in the ice to get one over on their customers. I think they're putting ice in their drinks to keep them cold in the hot Florida weather. There is quite enough profit in that $3.29 small drink even with no ice. Generally speaking, fountain soda has incredibly good profit margins at high volume sales locations.

I think the current bottled soda prices are $3.50.

Also yes I agree in the case of WDW they have plenty of profit margin. However I believe the restaurant industry as a whole has popularized the practice of heavily icing drinks and yet still advertise the drinks at the cup size not the portion size. This practice on the whole is most definitely done to reduce the ratio of actual product used versus what’s advertised. This is particularly obvious when very cheap businesses actually charge a fee to request a soda without ice.

 

[s8film40]

No, not quite. I’m not even sure what size the fountain drink cups are at WDW but for arguments sake let’s say the regular size one is a 20oz cup. Nobody should expect 20oz of soda since they should know it’s served over ice.

As far as cost goes, using the ratio from McDonalds (16oz cup= about 13oz of soda) the 20oz WDW fountain cup should be a little over 16oz of actual soda with the rest ice. At WDW the 20oz bottle from a drink cart is priced slightly higher at $3.50 vs $3.29 for the fountain drinks. Looking purely at price of soda per ounce the bottle is $0.175 per oz and the fountain drink is probably around $0.20 per oz. So yes, the bottle is slightly cheaper per oz., but at some locations in the parks the fountain drinks have free refills which could make them much cheaper than the bottles. You also control the amount of ice yourself.

I’m not defending Disney’s pricing on soda or pretending that there aren’t some CMs who go heavy on the ice sometimes. They only offer the 20oz bottles at carts and locations where it’s cost prohibitive to run the plumbing for a soda fountain. The fountain drinks are much more profitable for them. I do think it’s nice to have a drink with ice in the hot sun. Unless you drink fast that 20oz bottle will get warm pretty fast.

I thought the cart prices were tax inclusive. I could be wrong, but if not it kind of defeats the purpose off all those nice even numbers.

 

[GoofGoof]

Let me help with the math. What @GoofGoof said was:
1. A small soda at McDonalds is served in a 16 oz cup and contains 4 oz of ice and 12 oz of soda. [Note: If you do the math is it 13 oz of soda but I think that McDonalds adjusts their fountain to serve soda slightly stronger to account for initial ice melt.]
2. A large soda at McDonalds is served in a 32 oz cup and contains 8 oz of ice and 24 oz of soda.

A small fountain drink at WDW costs $3.29.
A large fountain drink at WDW costs $3.69.

Here's what we don't know:
1. How many overall ounces are in the small fountain drink or large fountain drink at WDW.
2. How much ice is supposed to be served in each cup at WDW.
3. How much bottled soda costs at WDW.
4. Why any of this matters.

I don't think WDW is packing in the ice to get one over on their customers. I think they're putting ice in their drinks to keep them cold in the hot Florida weather. There is quite enough profit in that $3.29 small drink even with no ice. Generally speaking, fountain soda has incredibly good profit margins at high volume sales locations.

Do they still have the large size? I thought I read a little while back they went to 1 size cups, probably when they went to the chip cups.

I think the current bottled soda prices are $3.50.

Also yes I agree in the case of WDW they have plenty of profit margin. However I believe the restaurant industry as a whole has popularized the practice of heavily icing drinks and yet still advertise the drinks at the cup size not the portion size. This practice on the whole is most definitely done to reduce the ratio of actual product used versus what’s advertised. This is particularly obvious when very cheap businesses actually charge a fee to request a soda without ice.

This is an interesting point. If a fountain drink is served with ice then it’s probably economically justifiable to charge more to eliminate the cheaper ingredient and replace it with a more expensive one. It’s not commonly done at most restaurants since the markup is so high anyway on fountain drinks. It probably wouldn’t be acceptable in a lot of other situations. If a fast food restaurant offered a salad with lettuce and chicken on top served in a specific sized container and you asked for the salad but without the lettuce, and asked them to just fill the container with chicken they would probably charge you more.

 

[GoofGoof]

I thought the cart prices were tax inclusive. I could be wrong, but if not it kind of defeats the purpose off all those nice even numbers.

That makes sense. It really doesn’t change the math much though. I also don’t know how big the cups actually are. That could have a bigger impact on the actual cost, plus whether you can and choose to get a free refill.

 

[flynnibus]

This is particularly obvious when very cheap businesses actually charge a fee to request a soda without ice.

or... they are just trying to discourage behavior that messes up the processes and ordering models...