Trash on Campus

Trash on Campus

         By Kendra, Liza, Tess, Joe and Grant

Amidst the fast pace of college life, students do not think twice about what goes into their trash can. Items that are mobile, clean, and easily disposed have become prominent at the University of Denver, and most likely at college campuses across the nation. The general trend that our trash journal revealed is similar to the thesis proposed in the Garbage Project: our trash reflects our values.  Our individual behavior in regard to trash reflects that most college students will choose products and practices that are the least time-consuming and most beneficial to them. However, when analyzed as a collective attitude of a university, the seemingly trivial habits of individuals adds up to a measurable amount of unnecessary landfill. Nonetheless, we came to a consensus that the forced awareness of our trash disposal in Journal 3 prompted us to throw away less. Thus, it can be concluded that general awareness of what products we are using and disposing of will lay the foundation for bringing about a change in habits.

The pattern most recognizable in our data was the high usage of plastic bottles. College students are always in a rush, from sports practices to classes to nights out. It is far more convenient to grab a plastic bottle of water on the way out the door than to refill a reusable bottle. A reusable water bottle must be taken around, and in today’s fast paced world, this feels like a burden that is not worth the gain. In fact, many students do not even realize that there is any problem whatsoever with using plastic water bottles; it’s just a part of life. Without the necessary awareness required to bring about change, there will be none. However, in recent years, the word has gotten out and many students have begun to switch back to using reusable aluminum bottles, nalgenes, and refillable sports bottles. The University of Denver even handed out reusable bottles during orientation week, a very smart decision to make it easy for students to become more environmentally friendly, although many of those bottles ended up in a landfill.

The data found on our college campus is similar to the trends in society. The problem of plastic bottle waste is seen everywhere from stadiums, to beaches to trash cans - basically anywhere except recycle bins. Just as college students are living busy lives, so is the rest of the world. When someone is in a rush to get somewhere, grabbing a plastic bottle on the way out is quick and easy. Primarily, plastic bottles provide convenience. It is just as convenient to dispose of plastic bottles in the quickest way possible, even if that means not properly recycling it. This is a problem as it quickly fills up our landfills and contributes to the litter we see. In our society today, Strasser points out that people “save and fix less and throw out more, for the habits of reuse [have] always been intertwined with the skills of household production” (Strasser 199). Sustainable practices of reuse have disappeared as people have come to accept the ease of disposability. Old habits are unable to support current lifestyles. The use of reusable water bottles is now more important than ever and could save resources and our earth.

Purchasing and utilizing a reusable bottle is an easy first step that many can take towards becoming green. Once a student has a reusable bottle, it can be used at one of campuses many bottle-fill stations. These stations even show the number of plastic bottles that are saved from the landfill just from the use of a reusable bottle, making people feel as part of the green movement. This awareness may motivate people to pay closer attention to their other habits, where they can then learn from them, and change. One might be inspired to continue their green ways and purchase a reusable coffee mug or replace the plastic forks and knives in their dorms with reusable ones. The importance of using a sustainable bottle is greater than most might think.  Some results aren’t obvious but they are there and every bit of effort is going to make a change in today’s trash epidemic.

People in today’s society don’t think that throwing away that one extra water bottle can make a large impact, but that seems to be everyone’s mindset. With 1,500 plastic bottles consumed every second, people are unaware of the harm these plastic bottles are causing the environment, especially when 80% of all purchased water bottles are ending up in the landfill after one time use.  Additionally, the plastic bottles are becoming harder and harder to reuse as the plastic is becoming thinner, in an attempt to appear more “eco-friendly”.  Some plastic bottles leach hazardous toxins into the water, particularly when they are left in the sun, making them less appealing to reuse.  It seems to be easier to buy an entirely new water bottle than to reuse your existing one that may appear to be worn out.  This example of planned obsolescence is resulting in enormous amounts of plastic waste in landfills. Since bottling companies are portraying their product for one time use, single-use bottles are more convenient and safer to the consumer.  Bringing awareness to consumers can ultimately change society’s wasteful habits.

The amount of plastic cups airlines use every six hours

Instagram Images:

The Problem With Food

Stone Guise

Brandon Schlecht

Thomson Kirsch

Max Zheng

The Problem With Food

In todays world, most people misjudge the amount of waste they produce. Our class conducted a project in which we recorded our trash consumption for a week and took pictures of litter that we found. Most of what we consumed and found was related to food waste. Our consumer society makes waste, especially food waste incredibly common. It is so common that our world is on the brink of an ecological disaster.

After looking at the pictures again, the realisation occurred that over fifty percent of the waste could be considered food waste. This food waste includes beer bottles, an untouched goldfish cracker bag, and even the infamous red solo cup. For the first few days of the project we had a problem finding litter, but as the weekend approached, it became easier to find the food waste. After talking about the pictures on instagram, our group decided that there was more waste on the weekends, rather than the weekdays, because of how late people stay up and the parties. At parties, people often don’t know where the trash is, so they decide to litter. Also on the weekends is when the dining hall doesn’t have late night dining. Causing students to buy more food that has packaging. They eat the food and then dispose of the packaging in the most convenient way possible, usually on the ground on the way to a party. Another problem with the food waste that we found was the amount of packaging that we found. A lot of the packaging from companies is impossible to compost or recycle. Instead of being environmentally sound and making packaging one hundred percent paper or aluminium, companies decided to mix these two products, making them impossible to recycle which then produces more waste.

The multiple images of trash packaging found in just one week of doing litterati was shocking. This shows a large problem in our society. We are consumers, and we must eat, therefore we buy all sorts of food. However all of this food comes packaged in some way or another, and this packaging is rarely compostable or recyclable. Most of it ends up in the landfill, or in the case of litterati, on the streets. Producers are packaging their food products with more and more trash that will end up in the landfill. They do this in order to sell more of the product as more packaging is appealing to a consumer, the more eloquent the packaging the more appealing the product is, and eloquent packaging is made up of more waste. Susan Strasser stated that “Decades before Kotex, throwaway packaging was promoted for its convenience and cleanliness.” (Strasser 171), and we as a society have come to see extensive packaging around an object as a sign of its quality, as well as its convenience of use. Producers are only out to make a profit. There are a few easy solutions that could be made to the issue of food packaging. One simply being to use less packaging, something a few companies have already adopted. For example Morning Thunder tea advertises how their tea bags are not wrapped individually, this greatly decreases the trash created by the product. Although many companies will refuse to make this change, if they did it would greatly reduce this issue. Another solution to the issue would be to make more packaging with compostable products. Like the compostable cups, napkins, and forks; food manufacturers should also be able to do this. Another solution would be making packaging out of recyclable materials. Many companies already do this as they use cardboard, however a large majority of the pictures of food packaging trash on instagram, were not recyclable materials. For example there was a picture of a Goldfish bag, which may seem recyclable, but is not. The bag is lined with a material on the inside that turns an otherwise recyclable bag, into a landfill item.The last solution that we as the consumer could do to help this issue is to change where we shop. If we shop at smaller markets or farmers markets the food often comes in little to no packaging. Although some products must be bought from the over packaged supermarkets, even buying just your fruits and veggies from a farmers market could make a difference.

Substance Packaging Littered throughout DU: Case Lee Nick

As Humes wrote in his evaluation of William Rathje’s work, “In garbage, though, there are no half-truths, no spin, no politics...How they lived, what they wore, where their trade routes reached, even how and who they worshipped -- all of that, and so much more, is contained in the record of their garbage,”(Humes 146). Fortunately, we did not have a task as challenging as studying an ancient civilization through their trash but only a college campus. However, even that was intimidating for the three of us. So we narrowed it down by only looking at substance trash such as alcohol, cigarettes and chewing tobacco. Also we avoided all of the Instagram pictures that either didn’t give a location or gave one that was not nearby one of the three freshman dormitory halls (Centennial Towers, Centennial Halls and Johnson McFarlane) because we were focusing on freshmans’ consumption habits and this was the only plausible way we could think of.

What we found was that litter around Centennial Halls had four times as many beer bottles than the other two buildings combined. Halls also had more cigarettes than the other two buildings combined, and was the only one that students found chewing tobacco cans around. Now does this mean that students in Halls are consuming four times as much alcohol as the other buildings’ occupants combined? Probably not but there is an underlying trend of a tendency to litter by halls residents. Maybe this has something to do with the lack of eco-friendliness of the facility. Without composts in the bathrooms or even garbages around the dorm, residents could have slowly become less caring about whether they throw something out, because recycling is not encouraged. According to an experiment conducted by our group, where we interviewed people on the street at night, we found that people are more likely to litter while intoxicated. Could Halls be the degenerate dorm?

There are differing supporting evidence but also flaws to our data. One possibility could lie in the process of collecting the data. How many students in this class are from Halls and if any specific individuals had habits of uploading pictures of used substances could skew the data. Another possibility is that students from Centennial Towers like to keep their surroundings relatively clean and make efforts to drop their trash either on their way to or back from class while passing Halls. Also the fact that Halls and Towers are on the outer rim of campus and do not have the most extensive landscaping could lead to students feeling less attached to the land around it than students in J-Mac and therefore feel less guilty when littering.

The environment is the most important thing in our life because it provides us with life. Yet the students in the dorms, particularly the ones in Centennial Halls, do not realize this. They need to understand that throwing trash away properly is as important as breathing because if we sicken the environment, we sicken the air. They should also take pride in their campus. I hope that as they get older, they will become more environmentally conscience and will care about the campus more.

Food Packaging Waste- Zach, Callyn, Braiden, Ally

Zach, Callyn, Braiden, and Ally

October 14, 2013

Project #3

Food Packaging Waste

Looking through the class’ journals and Instagram posts, it is easy to see that the number one contributor to your average college student’s waste is food packaging. We walk into the grocery store and grab a 6-pack or ramen or a box of individually wrapped fruit snacks without thinking twice about the unnecessary trash that is a result of a simple meal or quick snack. Between classes, studying, and trying to make room for a “college social life,” convenience and efficiency are the primary needs of students. Companies are constantly trying to make their newer products less time consuming and chose college students as one of their main targets. The whole world has become so reliant on the convenience and efficiency of our world, especially our meals.

Through analyzing waste we realize how much of our food trash could have been avoided by another method of cooking that same exact food. Noodles, soups, vegetables, pastas, pizzas and many other foods have different formulas for their easy-to-make options. Although these are convenient, they create much more waste than other methods of making this food would create. Part of the need for these products is the lack of accessibility to proper cooking utensils and kitchen appliances in dorms, but this is also due to the fact that an easier way to cook things is more appealing to the average American. This shows a lot about the way Americans work in that we are more concerned with making our lives easier than helping to maintain the health of our planet. This seems like an exaggeration but in all truth food waste is becoming a huge issue in landfills and is growing as companies realize this need for convenience and meld their products so that they sell more. 

A substantial variety of trash was found around campus including food wrappers, cigarettes, bottles, paper towels, balloons, plastic bags, and even frisbees among other items. This diverse and expansive list continues, as does America’s endless addiction to trash, no matter the type or shape. Yet, reviewing the class instagram of litter around the school, it is evident that the most prominently misplaced category of trash is food packaging. With people constantly eating, a real problem has unsurprisingly developed in our society. While landfills are abused by all sorts of trash, the food packaging industry is a place where solutions already exist that could divert waste from landfills allowing the individual consumer to avoid wastefulness and contribute to a healthier cycle of reuse rather than to an inefficient linear production system. As discussed in “The Story of Stuff,” we cannot continue on forever addicted to this system. Author Edward Humes agrees in his work “Garbology” admitting, “what no one considered… is waste’s oddest, most powerful quality; we’re addicted to it.” We have arrived to a point where breaking our addiction cannot be done on a single level. On the production level, the simple switch, for example, from plastic packaging to compostable packaging or from a landfill-bound juice packaging to a recyclable aluminum can would eliminate the amount of food packaging waste in landfills significantly saving our atmosphere from consequent dangerous gas emissions and conserving resources. However, as trash piles and we continue to pretend we aren’t harming the environment, the question remains: why haven’t food producers taken initiative if it is so simple? We have come to love the convenience of disposability without even taking into account that rerouting the linear production system into a circular cycle would not diminish consumer convenience but only bring greater efficiency.

Encouraging producers and consumers alike to make choices to benefit the environment will be key in progressing towards a sustainable zero waste world. Although, without the participation of producers, little progress can be made. Even the most zero-waste-dedicated individual will end up producing unwanted landfill trash if there is no other option. The transformation from practically total waste to zero waste will be a difficult journey but one that will be worthy of the input resources in the long run. With the dangers of waste in mind, the world as a community should attempt to open the eyes of their neighbors to the existent and simple solutions and head towards a sustainable zero-waste future beneficial to all.   

Project #2: Coors- Blick Albrecht-Reed, Gonzalez, Finken

Ever since it has become available, companies have used advertisements as a way to make customers buy their product instead of their competitors. A primary example of this is beer companies. They have adopted everything from memorable slogans to scantily clad women as the primary way to convince customers to buy their product. In between innings of baseball games, you are guaranteed to see an ad pop up on your TV telling you that this particular beer is colder, fresher, cleaner, lighter, manlier, tastier, or better than the next. It is interesting to see how these commercials are similar to those shown 20 years ago but they also show how certain things have become more socially acceptable. Being in Denver, CO, we chose to focus on two Coors ads from different time periods and analyze the similarities and differences as well as what the ads suggest about sustainability culture over the years.  

The 1987 Coors ad has no people and displays only a can of beer which is poured into a glass. The newer ad shows a party with a broad social scene. The majority of people there have a beer in hand, but they all have glass bottles instead of cans. People are walking around and socializing, making the beer seem quite portable. In terms of sustainability, cans vs. bottles is a meaningful and currently debated topic. It seems like cans would have the edge because of how easily aluminum is recycled. That does help its case, but it takes much less resources to retrieve glass from the environment than for aluminum in the first place. There does not seem to be any clear cut winner here-which is why beer companies continue to produce their product in both types of containers. Rathje sees the disposable mind set as the biggest problem in our society. “Rather than a problem specific to landfills or other sanitation strategies, he says, this is a flaw in how manufacturers create and consumers use disposable products” (Humes 161). If this is the real problem, then bottles seem to have the edge. Many people don’t recycle their drink containers and, especially when intoxicated, tend to litter. So if these two products are scarcely being reused, then it would make sense to use the one which can be manufactured with less negative environmental impact. From studying these two commercials, it might appear that Coors has leaned toward bottles, but the sleek bottle is more flashy and appealing to customers. The newer commercial is more worried about portraying their product as a personality enhancer than one which is going to save global warming. But if the world can recycle at a higher rate as Rathje would desire, cans just might take the edge in sustainability.

In the twenty years between the 1987 and 2007 commercials, Coors holds true to the same values of brewing light beer with crisp mountain-fresh taste. The commercials open in similar fashions setting the scene in the Rocky Mountains. The 1987 advertisement submerges the viewer in a relaxed mood followed by singing in unison and the image of a flowing Coors poured into an iced mug while the 2007 version opens with upbeat music and guys hanging out drinking bottled beer, also in mountain scenery.  In comparison of the two images Coors is emitting, the more modern promotes a party atmosphere where drinkers may be inclined to consume more while the 80’s commercial attaches an intimate feeling to the product. Honorably, it is apparent Coors operates on its original standards however the best things cannot always last forever, after indulging in the unique taste of Coors, the can or bottle is easily disposed and forgotten.  

The availability of advertisement space has increased the amounts of ads out there and has changed the way people present their companies over the years. A good example of this is the way that Coors has changed its approach in gaining customers. We compared two ads, one from 1987 and one from 2007. In 1987, Coors focuses more on nature and the relaxing feeling that beer creates. The 2007 ad focuses more on how fun alcohol can be and depicts a party setting with girls and music. This follows the way that alcohol has been viewed over the years and the way that its reputation has changed. Companies such as Coors become successful with this strategy in knowing what the consumer wants and what they are looking for in a product. 

Planned Obsolescence in Kleenex

Tissue Just Say “Kleenex”?

By: Kendra, Tess, Joe and Grant

          The Kleenex product revolutionized the way people perceive sanitation. Although there was not anything wrong with using a handkerchief, Kleenex exploited people’s fears and values in order to make their product seem like a necessity. Using similar scare tactics as Scott had used in the paper cup revolution, during the 1930s Kimberly-Clark warned in their advertisements that “Germ-filled handkerchiefs are a menace to society!” (Strasser, 180). Kleenex became the first popular paper tissue and was introduced in the 1920’s by Kimberly-Clark, the same company that had just developed Kotex. Kleenex was initially marketed as a disposable facial cleansing wipe for women to remove make up. However, in 1930, the idea was brought up that Kleenex tissues could replace the handkerchief for flu and cold symptoms. As evidenced by the old Kleenex ads, the main ideas being propagated are that of cleanliness and convenience. The purveying fear of germs and disease prompted the appeal of disposable wipes, ”Don’t put a cold in your pocket.” Further, the idea of convenience comes into play, “Meet the tissue that meets you halfway.” Through this mantra, the advertisement is promoting the ease and practicality of having this specific form of packaging. Convenience was another driving factor in the change from using handkerchiefs to facial tissues. Germ theory drove people to believe that washing a dirty handkerchief with other laundry could contaminate the whole batch, and in 1919 Good Housekeeping gave specific instructions for home laundering: “Soiled handkerchiefs should be separated from the rest of the wash load and dropped ‘carefully’ into the washtub, to which salt had been added” (Strasser, 179). This was just another chore to add to the list for women of the time. However, the image of the modern woman was to be as efficient and hygienic as possible, while eliminating their stereotypical duties. It was found to be both easier and more hygienic to be able to dispose of a soiled tissue directly after use, as this would cut the individual laundering of handkerchiefs from her schedule. The modern woman saw the tissue as freeing. Without an understanding of its environmental impacts, the tissue had very few downfalls and picked up popularity as time went on to the point where nowadays carrying a handkerchief is a rare occurrence.

          The modern advertisement conveys the same ideas of cleanliness and convenience but does so through pictures. This picture, screenshots taken from a video advertisement, targets parents as its audience. By showing a child using the Kleenex, women, and especially mothers, are drawn to the idea of cleanliness. Messy children can be mess-free by simply using a tissue that can be thrown away after a single use. In addition, children are innocent and naive. One does not equate such a tiny person with doing serious damage to the environment. Because of this, consumers hardly think of the destruction they are doing to the environment when they use this single-use product. Furthermore, the advertisement does not show packaging; it shows solely the product itself. Consumers, therefore, do not think twice about where the packaging goes after use. Nonetheless, the new and old advertisment have two similarities, which is that they both propagate convenience and cleanliness. In the modern ad, a consumer will think Kleenex is so easy that even a child can do it. As well, women, who usually do the cleaning, appreciate their time that is saved from additional cleaning. Thus, cleanliness and convenience are at the forefront of Kleenex’s marketing strategy. 

          Through the years of the evolution of this product, the common outlook on disposability has changed drastically. In the early twentieth century one might have used the same handkerchief for many years without finding need to replace it until it came undone and thus unusable. However, in the eyes of today’s common consumer, this might seem unusual and even unsanitary. Tissues, unlike handkerchiefs, are made thin and fragile and therefore can only be used one time. This material makes it necessary in most cases to use more than one tissue. This is a prime example of planned obsolescence, where the easiness of pulling tissue from the box as well as the fragility of the tissue itself encourages consumers to use more than one each time.This stems from today’s consumer’s desire for the ability to immediately dispose of their nose blowing material after its first and only use. Obviously it is easier to simply toss out one’s waste rather than clean it and reuse it, but this mindset of usage and disposal can be dangerous. It is simple and easy, however, it is simply wasteful and extremely hazardous to the environment.

Some more stuff: The evolution of toilet paper advertisements

Some more stuff: The evolution of toilet paper advertisements

Thomson Kirsch, Stone Guise, Max Zheng, Brandon Albrecht

Toilet paper: the ultimate disposable product. Justifiably, of course. Whoever wants to

recycle toilet paper? Once it is used, it is used, and reusing it would probably violate a good

number of health and sanitation recommendations. However, it was not always this way.

Immediately before someone (read: game-changer) came up with the idea of paper designed

solely for use where the sun does not shine, people used paper that they normally would have

thrown away, like old newspapers or advertisements. What they did before that isn’t worth

contemplating. Now, we live in a world with dozens, if not hundreds, of different types of toilet

paper, all with one quality that the creators would really like you to notice. Thus, advertising.

Advertising for toilet paper has probably changed as much as the actual product has, if not even

more. We present two different examples of this advertising to help illustrate this change. Above

left, we have Gayetty’s medicated paper, which was made in 1857 and was the first toilet paper

specifically advertised as such. On the right, we have a Charmin advertisement, exact date

unknown, but much more recent than the Gayetty’s ad. These advertisements are for the same

type of product, but the difference that a century and a half makes is remarkable.

First, how are the advertisements representing the product? Some of the only text in the

ad reveals how their product is “more durable than before, so it holds up better!” The Gayetty’s

ad, on the other hand, has no image. Instead, it relies purely on text to market itself. Even then,

the ad does not talk about the superiority of the Medicated Paper, instead focusing on how

terrible normal paper is for you. This ad also barely addresses the fact that the consumer would

be wiping their bum with the product.

The advertisements also try to develop a target audience with their use of advertising

ploys. For example, Gayetty’s focuses on the science behind their product, which gives the ad an

overall more educated feel. Charmin, on the other hand, makes no pretense about education or

class, instead just focusing on the humor in a bear trying to wipe its ass. Gayetty’s product is

therefore marketed to a higher-class, sophisticated clientele, and therefore it is also marketed to

anyone who wants to be high-class or sophisticated. Charmin relies almost entirely on their

brand name and the humor in the image to find their clientele, which gives them a broader, more

average target audience.

The advertisements also use radically different marketing strategies. Charmin puts a

strong focus on its name by placing their logo in the middle of the top of the ad. This makes

sense given the fact that Charmin is a very recognizable brand name. Instead of using text to get

their point across, the ad instead uses one large, central image that illustrates what the advertisers

believe is a significant problem amongst TP-users. This image anthropomorphizes bears, which

both provides humor and allows the advertisers to broach a subject that would normally be taboo

(imagine humans instead of bears in the image and it gets weird quickly). Charmin maintains

a very happy, joking atmosphere while marketing their product. Gayetty’s instead uses a more

aggressive approach by immediately warning the customer of all the terrible chemicals found

in normal printed paper. It goes on to describe the contents of an average sheet of printed paper

(which people used as TP at the time) as “death-dealing material”. Essentially, the advertisers

have no qualms about scaring people into buying their product. The ad goes on to say that it

is actually much less costly to pay for toilet paper instead of getting free paper, but having to

deal with the potential consequences. Gayetty’s also uses scientific phrases and chemical names

which, in the late 1800s, was the same as using magic to prove your point.

It is not hard at all to see the differences that time has wrought in these ads. When

looking at the Charmin advertisement, it’s quite clear that they don’t really care about the ideas

behind their product. Yes, it is for a rather unmentionable action, but they make it as light and

joking as possible, while still retaining some dignity. Gayetty’s is very prim and proper, and

barely mentions what their product is actually used for. Instead of actually talking about their

product, Gayetty’s focuses on how terrible the competition is for you, and the science behind

these claims. These ads definitely show how the standard for things you can display and talk

about has significantly lowered since 1857.

“The idea of the durable and reusable was displaced by aspirations of leisure and luxury,

ease and cleanliness” (Strasser 201) This quote from Susan Strassers’ book Waste and Want

neatly sums up what happened when Gayetty’s Medicated Paper was introduced. Why would

one use old, handled paper when fresh, soft, and easily disposable sheets were available? And so

began America’s love of mass consumption and trash production. Gayetty’s Medicated paper

was on the forefront of this revolution in disposability, bragging about how it was specifically

designed to be used once and thrown away. The Charmin advertisement does not draw any

attention to its disposability, but that seems to be because it is assumed that their product will

offer no problems when the times comes to get rid of it. This assumption was, in part, made by

Gayetty’s novel idea that we should have paper that exists only for you to clean yourself and

then be easily disposed of.

Strasser, Susan. "Having and Disposing in the New Consumer Culture." Waste and Want. 161-

201. Print.