Originally Posted by
tango_echo
That's a very interesting point. My understanding of fabric shopping bags for the supermarket is that it would take thousands of uses to make them competitive on an overall environmental basis with using standard plastic bags acquired each time at the checkout. I wonder what sort of numbers apply to these large multi-use toiletries - will they reach an environmental break-even point before being replaced? I for my part will be heading to the nearest supermarket when I'm in next in a WA and will chuckle at having to purchase travel toiletries of my own for a stay at such a high-end brand.
It is all optics. You are correct about the bags also. I am not even sure moving to the larger containers will cost them less (I will use more product, I will no longer ration).
We looked at this previously years ago on a different thread and tried to analyze how much plastic waste was in a single 16 ounce shampoo and how much plastic waste was in 16 1 ounce shampoos and there was some percentage less plastic in the 16 ounce shampoo (but then the issue about the spout not being recyclable came up). But if people use more product, then they'll be using more containers anyway (since these are NOT refillable). Refilling them would be so inefficient for housekeeping that any cost savings would be gone. Plus if they refilled them, what would they refill them from? Gallon sized plastic containers?
The only reason chains are switching to these larger containers are due to regulations certain governments are passing that ban the use of the single use containers. If the regulation only bans single use plastic, there are other materials they can use instead (like foil) which ironically are not recyclable and more difficult to use.
If this was good for costs it would have been done 20+ years ago.