One of the few times I've read an entire thread, and found the arguments on both sides extremely compelling. Will likely never look at a large shared soap/shampoo dispenser again.

By the way, do they sell Jo Malone "minis"?

Not only because it might reduce costs but it allows them to virtue signal, issue self-congratulatory press releases and appeal to climate change glitterati who demand higher fuel costs for the poor while hopscotching around the globe to attend conferences in private luxury aircraft.

Shampoo bottles. We are talking about shampoo bottles. 500 million small bottles each year. 1.7 million pounds of plastic. It seems that some want this to be about some vast global brain wash conspiracy but it really is about massive piles shampoo bottles.

Then count me among the self-congratulating, virtue-signaling, vanguard of environmental activism. I don't use the shampoo or conditioner bottles in hotel rooms. Instead I buy the largest shampoo bottles of my preferred brand and painstakingly (sarcasm) transfer to reusable (yay me!) bottles that meet CATSA/TSA liquid requirements. Am I now awesome? Can I drop by Kensington Palace and have brunch with Harry and Meghan or will they be taking the private jet to Ibiza for the weekend? :rolleyes:

Let us know how that works out for you. :rolleyes:

As I have said, for years I saw those little bottles as wasteful and inefficient. My view had nothing to do with "virtue-signaling" (whatever that is), Celebrities, Royalty, Marriott marketing department, or private jets. Just the simple fact that there are more efficient, less wasteful, ways to deliver shampoo.

We agree. There are more efficient, less wasteful ways of delivering shampoo. But if that were all it was about then Marriott would have done it without fanfare or patting themselves on the back. Instead they issued a glowing press release about how wonderful they are and trotted out their CEO to be adored in fawning media interviews.

And they'll save a few bucks in the process. It's a social and financial win for them.

A press release and some interviews. Seems like a small effort to explain a change to a decades old policy. It also did not have much pickup, I did not hear anything about it until I stumbled on this thread over a week after it happened. If this was a key part of some vast plot involving the royal family, private jets, and brain washing it seems to be a bit of a failure.

And how many large bottles will be replacing the small ones in landfills each year?

Not landfills, the larger bottles are easier to recycle as they can be rinsed out.
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bus...-2020-n1047116

This assumes housekeeping staff are going to take the time to actually do this which I feel is going to be highly unlikely in the majority of cases. They're going to get tossed in the trash bag on the side of the housekeeping cart along with everything else and end up right in the same spot which would otherwise be occupied by a dozen small bottles.

So what? Why cant they get some credit for making a good decision? This is a win-win.

Your post is an assumption. The more likely outcome is the policy outlined by Marriott will be followed, the bottles will be recycled, and there will be a reduction in waste.

It's no more an assumption than assuming already overworked and underpaid staff are actually going to take the time to do this. What is outlined in Marriott policy and what actually happens at each individual hotel property are often very different things.

They are placing an empty bottle in the right receptacle, not curing cancer.

If you find anything to support your theory of significant amounts going to landfill let us know. Should be simple, a weekend of dumpster diving at your local Springhill Suits should do it.

I honestly don't care one way or another. All I'm saying is that if they can't get the front desk staff to manage simple things like room upgrades or 4pm check out, I kind of doubt the housekeeping staff is going to take the time to sort through the refuse and clean it out before recycling.

Nothing wrong with it at all. It's altruism with a payoff. If it didn't help the bottom line however they'd probably still be putting little bottles in their rooms. If making the change cost them more it wouldn't happen regardless of the demands from the eco-glitterati.

It appears you are complaining that the poor people you hired to clean your homes are bad at putting stuff in the right can. I have had great success with the poor people I hire to clean my houses. Perhaps it is an upper management issue rather than a poor people issue?

Guess I've got to buy bar soap and carry it with me from now on. Not sure how bar soap is worse than large plastic bottles. Seems to me they can use small bar soap that is wrapped in recycled paper. And then it'd be the best solution for all (tamper evident) and no plastic large or small.

For anyone who is worried about landfills, etc., you can get yourselves up to speed with this:

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/30/m...s-garbage.html

Try this.
25 pack PAYA Organics Face and Body Bar - 1.5oz Bars

I've carry bar soap. It's not a liquid so doesn't have to be in my 311 bag, doesn't take much space, keeps me smelling the same as at home and is much better than trying to unwrap a postage-stamp sized bar of soap when your hands are wet.

Not a fan of strong fragrance soaps... is this subtle, no fragrance or strong?

I would say it’s not a complaint as much as it is recognizing human nature for what it is and the tendency of hired people to cut corners when doing work assigned by others and knowing that they don’t have a full-time spy on their back. Just likes it’s not a complaint as much as recognizing the nature of business interests when business interests use “the environment”, “charity” or any other spin language as part and parcel of trying to jack up their revenue and/or profits (via cutting corners, reducing their own taxes or whatever else) because it makes financial sense for the business and is expected to help maximize their financial returns.

I have 10+ categories of recycling at many of my residences and want it done right. But I more than suspect that some staff/contractors have a way less dedicated, informed and detail-oriented approach to doing jobs passed/outsourced to them than when the job is done by the people coming up with the orders in the first place. Sure, it’s possible to dumb down a sorting and recycling job for others to do, but then doesn’t that defeat the purpose of maximizing the recycling effort and the return from recycling efforts? Sure, it’s possible to pay way more to try to hire someone with the same detail-oriented obsession as myself and who has the same commitment level to recycling and environmental causes, but if that means they have to commute in their own vehicles and displace locals who may be able to use public transport like I do where I can, then doesn’t that defeat the purpose of trying to “keep it local” as a way of “saving the world”?

You can make an effort to try to educate people why that which you think is important should also be just as important to them too, but people operate in a world where there are competing values applicable upon their time and money and where each “educated” individual has their own interests and circumstances in play in such a way that they are unlikely to ever be in 100% alignment 100% of the time with the “educator”.

Do you take as much issue with how poorly Marriott hotels deal with garbage sorting and recycling as with how I do things? Marriott does a poor job even with sorting out its mass of food waste, so should we be welcoming a move to Marriott eliminating hotel restaurants and included breakfasts in particular?

Marriott is not making this toiletry move to educate its customer base. Marriott is making this move to maximize its financial returns regardless of the impact of the change upon the environment. I can’t wait until Marriott borrows another move used by cost-cutting lodging services exploiting “the environment”: bed linen/towel provision/service charges to reduce “the damage” done by “excessive” laundry.

Me neither. It's not perfume-y.
Light scent, kind of like papaya or mango.

Wow! I can name about 3, and that's it.

Many of your residences? Do tell.


How does Marriott handle its garbage sorting and food waste?


Perhaps not educating anyone, but it might be making this change to have a positive effect on the environment while also effecting a cost reduction.


Any data or factual information to back that up?

Oh, I missed that!

GU - I apologize for anything uncomplimentary I may have expressed towards you over the years!

No apology wanted or needed, but I'll accept it nonetheless. ;)

For starters:

Food waste.
Containers/packaging material that provides cash refund/rebate.
Soft plastic.
Hard plastic.
Newspapers and other such papers.
Magazines/coated paper.
Clear glass.
Colored glass.
Metal.
Textile.
Wood.
Batteries.
Bulbs.
Electronics.
Garden waste.

;)

Anyone waiting for Marriott hotels to eliminate "single-use" toilet paper and tell people to just use water instead to clean themselves after relieving their bowels and bladder, all as part of "saving the world" in the financial interest of Marriott hotels? Less toilet paper use would be good for the environment, as paper manufacture is a massive chemical user, a massive pollution-making process and increases demand to cut trees (among other things) and generally involves a lot of transport of wood by fossil-fuel-using vehicles (trains and trucks among others).

So who here is willing to welcome Marriott eliminating "single-use" toilet paper in the hotel bathrooms on the same basis as eliminating "single-use" toiletries in the hotel bathrooms?

If they want to reduce toilet paper usage by installing bidets I’m all for it.

Reduce toilet paper stocks in the hotel bathrooms to the point of eliminating toilet paper rolls/stock in the hotel bathrooms in the way single-use toiletries are to be eliminated from the hotel bathrooms?

As with single use toiletries, hotels could eliminate the toilet paper stocking in the hotel bathrooms and make toilet paper available on request. Perhaps they should consider doing the same for the single-use toiletries: eliminating them as a default amenity in the rooms but making them a complimentarily-included amenity available on demand by an individual hotel guest.

It seems the end of miniature toiletries are coming in more forms than just Marriott and IHG.

https://onemileatatime.com/californi...el-toiletries/

Even if the time line is rather long.

How will this impact lotion? I couldn't care less about shared body wash (and I just use that for my hair too), but I use the lotion daily ... will they have large bottles of lotion in the rooms now, presumably mounted in a way so they don't get taken?

Cool. The NY times didnt even have a website until 2 months before this piece was published.

I'm sure there were plenty of articles talking about the internet being stupid then too.

So far in the hotels I have been to with wall mounted dispensers, the body lotion has still been small bottles. Though with the announcement, that may change.

The article hints that Marriott has removed all plastic straws in all of its hotels. Yet, I recently stayed in 2 Fairfields and there are plastic straws in the lobby, at the bfast and in the rooms.
These are the only 2 mid-tier Marriott stays I did recently, maybe I just picked two hotels that still need to adapt to the new guidelines, but I would say that it's misleading to say that they got rid of all plastic straws.

I applaud measures that benefit the climate but I wonder if Marriott is strictly following up on them or just sending out press releases that sound good.

Every one I have stayed at for the last six months (maybe?) has had paper straws. But they've all been Marriotts, JWs, Renis. They might not have "trickled down" to mid-tier properties yet, or, maybe they just haven't gone through all the plastic ones yet (assuming they wouldn't toss out the ones they had already).

For an updated story on how recycling is a foolish waste of resources, go here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/04/o...recycling.html

Recycling is nothing more than virtue signaling.

Well, if the debate was should Marriott recycle or not, you're article would make sense to bring up.

Given this is about eliminating plastic use.... *shrug*

An opinion piece by someone who describes himself as a contrarian is probably not the most balanced and factual information to base a discussion on. :D