News Walt Disney World to eliminate self-service paper straws and plastic lids

[HauntedPirate]

My issues with this is not really that we have to ask for lids, but that they will end up being "out" of them at most locations. I have worked in food for many years, I know the tactics. Plus as others have said, it is a slow drip of taking things away. When we start excusing it saying that is is "only" having to ask, or "only" paper straws that melt on you, that ends up being a lot of "onlys".
Where is the limit when you think that it is OK to complain about the things that they are taking away?

“Ticket prices only went up 12%”

“My food only costs 15% more than it did in 2021”

 

[flynnibus]

The best way for Disney to reduce unsortable waste would be to replace trash cans in restaurants with tray returns and staff that processed your tray return.. properly handling waste into the right disposal method.

 

[John park hopper]

And glass is 100 percent recyclable! Not the case for plastic.

And glass does not float --it sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[HauntedPirate]

I am totally in favor of getting rid of incandescent bulbs in favor of LEDs, but I want my straws and lids!

I know folks love their incandescents.

I just purchased a LED floor lamp that produces any shade of white you like, I was surprised, its very impressive.

Moving away from incandescents is one of the greatest, painless, passive way to save energy (and maybe save the planet ) as LEDs use a fraction of the power needed to generate more light.

Try using LED bulbs with your garage door opener. See if you have any problems opening it, then ask your manufacturer what kind of bulb works best to not interfere with its operation.

LED’s are fine and dandy but have limitations. Not to mention most LED bulb failures are related to the circuitry needed, not the LED itself. Costs need to come down further, as they are still silly expensive in some instances.

 

[Andrew C]

People just want to be mad,

We don’t want to be mad. Disney’s decisions just sometimes lead us in that direction.

 

[flynnibus]

An incandescent bulb is directly designed to work on AC power with high voltage
An LED runs on 3.3v - so the LED is always going to have a supporting design that works to convert AC to DC and scale the power appropriately for the size of the LED array.

It's actually the supporting design that usually has all the heat and failures. LEDs do fade over time themselves as well.

You can make LEDs look just as warm and analog as incandescent.. it just takes circuitry that eventually adds up in cost.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Or bring a reusable straw? Everyplace I go they've switched to paper straws, so I have a foldable silicone straw that fits in a little case I have on my keychain. I honestly think they should stop offering disposable cups, too, (or charge for them) since most everyone brings in their own water bottle anyway. It's a change that, whatever Disney's motives, should be made. Plastic uses petroleum to make which is a huge waste. And compostable/recyclable lids and straws still take energy to make. I find the sturm und drang about this whole thing ridiculous. People just want to be mad, dreaming up scenarios where they can ruin a CMs day by being a huge Karen and throwing a fit in QS because they weren't given a straw without being asked.

How does a reusable straw address the fact that the cups are designed to be used with a lid?

 

[Disstevefan1]

Try using LED bulbs with your garage door opener. See if you have any problems opening it, then ask your manufacturer what kind of bulb works best to not interfere with its operation.

LED’s are fine and dandy but have limitations. Not to mention most LED bulb failures are related to the circuitry needed, not the LED itself. Costs need to come down further, as they are still silly expensive in some instances.

Totally agree, my love/hate relationship with LEDs is the very unreliable China built circuit boards (not the actual LEDs) I have had to replace 2 LED circuit boards in two of my ceiling fan lights. But I am still a fan of LEDs.

 

[AEfx]

Anecdotally speaking I have found LED light bulbs last no longer that incandescent. I use LED's but with the higher purchase price, I can't say I'm saving anything.

Interesting - for me it's been the opposite. I replaced everything my house a dozen or so years ago, and we were just talking the other day how not a single one has ever "burnt out". The only ones we have replaced have been because I upgraded a few to programmable/connectable ones - although I don't need all the pretty colors, it's really nice to be able to switch from bright white to softer more yellow light in places like the dining room where one person might use the bright white to work on an art project, but we don't want to feel like we are eating in a hospital cafeteria, LOL.

Plastic uses petroleum to make which is a huge waste. And compostable/recyclable lids and straws still take energy to make. I find the sturm und drang about this whole thing ridiculous.

That's a somewhat reductive way to look at it. It's what I was talking about above - it's how people deal with the truly terrifying things about climate change by doing something that is pretty much completely inconsequential at best because I think we all know the truth - that the "big things" are going to get us long before anything else, and we aren't willing as a society to do the "big things". Which is why folks use something like this to "feel better" about it because "every little bit helps!" (even though it doesn't).

For example - not picking on you, as I know this is a common thought process many have - looking at your profile, you are from Denver, so I picked that for comparison, as it also seems like a good "average" distance people travel to WDW.

A flight from Denver to MCO generates about 400 pounds of CO2 per passenger, each way.

So a family of 4 who flies from Denver to MCO and back again generates about 1.6 tons of CO2 emissions, just by themselves.

By contrast, depending on how you calculate, that averages out to the equivalent of making/distributing about 1.5 million straws.

To continue the back of the napkin math, let's say, what, at a week at WDW the same family of four uses what, maybe 4-5 straws a day if we are being really generous, and they use one every meal and multiple times a day for snacks? So 4 people x 5 straws x 7 days = 140 straws in a week (which I think is likely high). For math sake, let's just say 150 in a week.

So just one family of 4 traveling to and from Orlando is at least 10,000 times more impact than using straws when they are there. I highlight at least, because in practice I bet most people use far less because of water bottles/etc.

It's just completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and in spite of social media platitudes of "every little bit helps!" - no, it really doesn't statistically affect anything at all. It is just Disney trying to save money and get some social media shout outs for "going green".

 

[HauntedPirate]

Totally agree, my love/hate relationship with LEDs is the very unreliable China build circuits (not the actual LEDs) I have had to replace 2 LED boards in two of my ceiling fan lights. But I am still a fan of LEDs.

I am a fan of them as well. Longer lasting, usually, than incandescent bulbs, but the higher price coupled with unreliability at times just sticks in the back of my head. Can't beat them for Christmas lights, obviously.

But anywho...

 

[HauntedPirate]

Interesting - for me it's been the opposite. I replaced everything my house a dozen or so years ago, and we were just talking the other day how not a single one has ever "burnt out". The only ones we have replaced have been because I upgraded a few to programmable/connectable ones - although I don't need all the pretty colors, it's really nice to be able to switch from bright white to softer more yellow light in places like the dining room where one person might use the bright white to work on an art project, but we don't want to feel like we are eating in a hospital cafeteria, LOL.



That's a somewhat reductive way to look at it. It's what I was talking about above - it's how people deal with the truly terrifying things about climate change by doing something that is pretty much completely inconsequential at best because I think we all know the truth - that the "big things" are going to get us long before anything else, and we aren't willing as a society to do the "big things". Which is why folks use something like this to "feel better" about it because "every little bit helps!" (even though it doesn't).

For example - not picking on you, as I know this is a common thought process many have - looking at your profile, you are from Denver, so I picked that for comparison, as it also seems like a good "average" distance people travel to WDW.

A flight from Denver to MCO generates about 400 pounds of CO2 per passenger, each way.

So a family of 4 who flies from Denver to MCO and back again generates about 1.6 tons of CO2 emissions, just by themselves.

By contrast, depending on how you calculate, that averages out to the equivalent of making/distributing about 1.5 million straws.

To continue the back of the napkin math, let's say, what, at a week at WDW the same family of four uses what, maybe 4-5 straws a day if we are being really generous, and they use one every meal and multiple times a day for snacks? So 4 people x 5 straws x 7 days = 140 straws in a week (which I think is likely high). For math sake, let's just say 150 in a week.

So just one family of 4 traveling to and from Orlando is at least 10,000 times more impact than using straws when they are there. I highlight at least, because in practice I bet most people use far less because of water bottles/etc.

It's just completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and in spite of social media platitudes of "every little bit helps!" - no, it really doesn't statistically affect anything at all. It is just Disney trying to save money and get some social media shout outs for "going green".

Wait, wait. You're telling me that all these "climate activists" who fly all over the world, plus drive in big SUV's for "protection", to speak at "climate change events" to preach at the little people to disrupt and change their lives to "save the planet" are actually doing more damage than the "good things" they tell others to do?

"Shocking" - No one. Ever.

In all seriousness, that's one of the most logical and well-thought-out posts I've read in quite some time. Bravo!!

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

Interesting - for me it's been the opposite. I replaced everything my house a dozen or so years ago, and we were just talking the other day how not a single one has ever "burnt out". The only ones we have replaced have been because I upgraded a few to programmable/connectable ones - although I don't need all the pretty colors, it's really nice to be able to switch from bright white to softer more yellow light in places like the dining room where one person might use the bright white to work on an art project, but we don't want to feel like we are eating in a hospital cafeteria, LOL.

It's probably me buying Amazon garbage.

 

[HauntedPirate]

It's probably me buying Amazon garbage.

The throw-away culture that has been cultivated over the past 20+ years by manufacturers and companies like Amazon is at the heart of the problem. Lack of true recycling facilities in the US is right up there as well. But by all means, make it as inconvenient as possible for me to get a lid or have a usable straw for my drink in the parks because that is going to help save the planet. Virtue signaling, thy name is Disney. The only "green" in this farce is the money Disney aims to save.

 

[Disstevefan1]

That's a somewhat reductive way to look at it. It's what I was talking about above - it's how people deal with the truly terrifying things about climate change by doing something that is pretty much completely inconsequential at best because I think we all know the truth - that the "big things" are going to get us long before anything else, and we aren't willing as a society to do the "big things". Which is why folks use something like this to "feel better" about it because "every little bit helps!" (even though it doesn't).

For example - not picking on you, as I know this is a common thought process many have - looking at your profile, you are from Denver, so I picked that for comparison, as it also seems like a good "average" distance people travel to WDW.

A flight from Denver to MCO generates about 400 pounds of CO2 per passenger, each way.

So a family of 4 who flies from Denver to MCO and back again generates about 1.6 tons of CO2 emissions, just by themselves.

By contrast, depending on how you calculate, that averages out to the equivalent of making/distributing about 1.5 million straws.

To continue the back of the napkin math, let's say, what, at a week at WDW the same family of four uses what, maybe 4-5 straws a day if we are being really generous, and they use one every meal and multiple times a day for snacks? So 4 people x 5 straws x 7 days = 140 straws in a week (which I think is likely high). For math sake, let's just say 150 in a week.

So just one family of 4 traveling to and from Orlando is at least 10,000 times more impact than using straws when they are there. I highlight at least, because in practice I bet most people use far less because of water bottles/etc.

It's just completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and in spite of social media platitudes of "every little bit helps!" - no, it really doesn't statistically affect anything at all. It is just Disney trying to save money and get some social media shout outs for "going green".

Totally agree. But we all must understand, The straws and lids are REALLY ONLY ABOUT MONEY!!! We all must remember, this is TWDC we are talking about. TWDC may talk environment, but its really about MONEY!

 

[el_super]

It's just completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and in spite of social media platitudes of "every little bit helps!" - no, it really doesn't statistically affect anything at all. It is just Disney trying to save money and get some social media shout outs for "going green".

It really isn't about about saving money in the short term. Their environmental programs probably cost more money to operate than they save from cutting back on straws.

To your bigger point though, it IS the bigger picture items that really count, and Disney needs to position themselves away from broader conversations on whether theme parks and resorts are environmentally wise expenses in a world with dwindling resources and time.

They know things like fireworks are on borrowed time and need to make every effort they can to counter their existing waste and pollution.

 

[JD80]

Amazing how fast people become environmental experts.

 

[Andrew C]

Amazing how fast people become environmental experts.

I just want consistent lid availability.

 

[DisneyCane]

Or bring a reusable straw? Everyplace I go they've switched to paper straws, so I have a foldable silicone straw that fits in a little case I have on my keychain. I honestly think they should stop offering disposable cups, too, (or charge for them) since most everyone brings in their own water bottle anyway. It's a change that, whatever Disney's motives, should be made. Plastic uses petroleum to make which is a huge waste. And compostable/recyclable lids and straws still take energy to make. I find the sturm und drang about this whole thing ridiculous. People just want to be mad, dreaming up scenarios where they can ruin a CMs day by being a huge Karen and throwing a fit in QS because they weren't given a straw without being asked.

Or, when on vacation, I don't wish to deal with the PITA of bringing a reusable straw. The energy required to make a lid or straw is infinitesimal and pales in comparison to the energy you use on a single ride, let alone traveling there. If you are concerned about the energy to make a straw and lid for your drink then you shouldn't go to WDW in the first place.

"Initiatives" like this are just virtue signaling to hide a cost reduction. They are also designed to make a certain segment of the population feel less guilty about visiting WDW. Somebody who is "all in" on environmental responsibility will see things like this and feel like Disney is "doing something" to make their trip have less environmental impact. The fact that the entire business model is based on people using a lot of energy to visit and then using a lot of energy to do things while there gets overlooked because there is "zero waste to landfill."

As was said above, Disney would make a FAR bigger impact not selling plastic merchandise, or any merchandise for that matter.

A zero waste to landfill initiative is solving a problem that doesn't exist. There isn't a lack of landfill space to start with. This waste can be burned in waste to energy plants to have it not go to a landfill and get some use out of it. Plastic disposed of in trash cans at WDW will not end up in waterways or the ocean. Neither will nearly all of the plastic litter on property because it will be cleaned up and properly disposed of.

 

[Disstevefan1]

"Initiatives" like this are just virtue signaling to hide a cost reduction.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Or, when on vacation, I don't wish to deal with the PITA of bringing a reusable straw. The energy required to make a lid or straw is infinitesimal and pales in comparison to the energy you use on a single ride, let alone traveling there. If you are concerned about the energy to make a straw and lid for your drink then you shouldn't go to WDW in the first place.

"Initiatives" like this are just virtue signaling to hide a cost reduction. They are also designed to make a certain segment of the population feel less guilty about visiting WDW. Somebody who is "all in" on environmental responsibility will see things like this and feel like Disney is "doing something" to make their trip have less environmental impact. The fact that the entire business model is based on people using a lot of energy to visit and then using a lot of energy to do things while there gets overlooked because there is "zero waste to landfill."

As was said above, Disney would make a FAR bigger impact not selling plastic merchandise, or any merchandise for that matter.

A zero waste to landfill initiative is solving a problem that doesn't exist. There isn't a lack of landfill space to start with. This waste can be burned in waste to energy plants to have it not go to a landfill and get some use out of it. Plastic disposed of in trash cans at WDW will not end up in waterways or the ocean. Neither will nearly all of the plastic litter on property because it will be cleaned up and properly disposed of.

Improvement on the margins is still improvement. The point and overall benefit isn't for just for Disney to stop using single use disposable products, but to reduce or eliminate them from society in general. You are looking for societal change. It doesn't matter if the straws/lids from Disney parks are being disposed of property, point is to eliminate the demand for the product as a whole, to both prevent improper disposal, and the Manufactuing of single use disposal items in general. (The hilarity of which making this post while drinking from a 50oz plastic Poland Springs bottle actually made me chuckle out loud in my office.) One single business is never going to have a large enough impact on its own, its trying to change the disposal use culture that seems to have developed that is the goal.


As for not selling merchandise that just silly. Yes Disney could make more of an impact not selling any merchandise. Hell it could make more of an impact if it bulldozed all its parks, and just planted tree's on them. That would cut down on travel and energy usage, but its still a business. It's still going to try and operate and make a profit. You make improvements where you can, while still operating your business.