« I Mean, Grand |
| This could be the best book ever. »
I know that 'Please Recycle' is very good. I know. But it's a big box and it could easily be reused.
Posted at 10:42 in Complaints Dept., Sustainability In Design | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d49569e20105356eade9970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Wouldn't it be better if it said 'Please Reuse'?:
Is the heading another anagram?
Oct 15, 2008 at 10:52
wouldn't it be even better if amazon sent books in padded bags, all snug and cosy, instead of a book in a box filled with those airbag thingies?
and then failing that, yes, reduce, reuse, recycle.
Oct 15, 2008 at 11:12
I'm interested in what was inside!
James griffin |
Oct 15, 2008 at 12:30
Any idea what the circly-swirly thing in the bottom left means? It's on loads of stuff and I have no idea!
Mark Hadfield |
Oct 15, 2008 at 15:57
I think the swirly logo means 'Recyclable', as in, it hasn't already been recycled but the material it is made of can be recycled.
And yeah, the whole 'please recycle' thing annoys me. Recycling isn't actually that great for the environment. It still uses energy and resources, and most of the time virgin material goes back in anyway. The 'saving trees' idea is crap because trees are renewable, endlessly. Just keep 'em growing. No-one cuts down rainforests for paper. It's the process of turning the tree into the paper that harms the environment.
It's all about reusing. And making less things in the first place. Surely amazon can come up with a way to transport books using less cardboard than they do. It's not like books are that fragile; they can get knocked and scuffed but that's about it.
(I think this is what my dilemma is with using amazon. It's cheaper for me to buy books online and get them sent in the post, but if I walk to the local bookshop, there's no packaging or postmen or petrol in parcelforce lorries involved at all. I don't even ask for a bag.)
Oct 15, 2008 at 16:33
I thought the same thing the other day after I'd eaten one of Innocent's new food pots. I went looking for a thing to see if it could be recycled, then I thought why should I chuck it in the recycling? I'd be better off using it to grow a small bacteria colony in the back of the cupboard. Or curating a collection of belly button fluff. In fact anything that requires a container of that size.
Forget recycling. Let us start reusing!
iain tait |
Oct 15, 2008 at 20:20
This is the point at which I start shouting CRADLE TO CRADLE very loudly. Order the book from Amazon (ho ho) here: http://tinyurl.com/3rtkfn
Mike Reed |
Oct 15, 2008 at 21:52
Um, just realised that my comment is rubbish - Innocent already have a bunch of re-use suggestions on their labels. Damn them...
iain tait |
Oct 15, 2008 at 22:47
Yes, they do. Very tasty though aren't they?
Oct 15, 2008 at 23:31
Recycling doesn't just mean giving your selected trash to the nice man that picks it up on the curb, recycling also means to reuse for something else.
Oct 16, 2008 at 12:34
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
(URLs automatically linked.)
(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)
Name is required to post a comment
Please enter a valid email address