Saw this on 20th and Santa Monica Blvd. in Santa Monica at the end of a run, and it amused me so much that I ran home, got my camera, and ran back to take a picture of it.

Seems Starbucks’ promotions for the latest eco-docu Arctic Tale, reviewed here, is kinda polluting our environment. This on top of the fact that as Jasmin notes, Starbucks’ paper carriers’re printed in China and assembled in Indonesia….

Of course, Starbucks isn’t solely to blame. Whoever jettisoned this cup on the sidewalk garden to — biodegrade? — is a bit of an idiot too. After all, the mermaid offers a dime off for bringing in your own cup, though a lot of customers don’t know this and fewer take advantage of it.

My challenge to Starbucks as a sponsor of Arctic Tale: Shave a dime off the printed menu prices, then ADD ON a dime for NOT bringing one’s own cup. This way, no-cup people’d still pay the full price while cup people get a dime off — but everyone’d start thinking about it.

Perhaps something to discuss at the “National Day of Discussion” Starbucks plans to hold in stores on August 15, 2007, “designed to engage local participants in a dialogue about how to modify their impact on the planet by making simple, everyday decisions.” The only problem would be that — people might actually start bringing their cups in more!

15 Comments

I suck because I went to a screening of Arctic Tale over a month ago — then thought I’d write about it closer to launch date, then totally forgot.

This is the prob with screenings way before the launch date.

Anyway — Arctic Tale is sorta like March of the Penguins — perhaps because both films’re from National Geographic Films — except with a more environmental bent.

Narrated by Queen Latifah, Arctic Tale‘s a documentary that follows Nanu, a lil polar bear perhaps even cuter than Knut, and Seela, an ugly-cute walrus, as they grow up in an arctic landscape. Their habitat’s getting increasingly warmer — making survival harder and harder.

You watch with bated breath as these cute mammals try to make it through winter after winter, despite the warmer weather that makes it difficult to hunt, harder to swim from berg to land, etc.

Do they make it? Do their sibs and relatives make it? You’ll have to watch to find out –

Unfortunately, the film really takes a sad U-turn for the worse at the end. As the credits roll, lil kids’re featured saying stuff similar to “Chage your lightbulb to a CFL, and save the polar bears!”

Dude — The polar bears’re fucked at this point. Yes, I heart Nanu — but even Nanu’s kid’s unlikely to live out its lifespan. Global warming’s picking up, and while lil changes are good, changing one lightbulb isn’t going to actually save the polar bears. Right now, it’s about realizing we’ve really really fucked up, we’ve pretty much ensured the decimation of the polar bear population, and we’ve gotta (yes, make personal changes too, but) push for some huge, governmental, national and international changes to prevent a mass extinction.

One ironic part of the film promotions: Starbucks is helping promote the eco-film. As Jasmin notes, “we would probably take them more seriously if Starbucks’ paper carriers weren’t printed in China and assembled in Indonesia. Another case of do as we say, not as we do?”

In fact, Starbucks’ so psyched ’bout this PR opp that they’re holding a “National Day of Discussion” on August 15, 2007: “these friendly and informative discussions are designed to engage local participants in a dialogue about how to modify their impact on the planet by making simple, everyday decisions.”

If you attend, note that you’re making these simple everyday decisions, and ask why Starbucks isn’t making these simple everyday decisions as a company.

On the upside, Starbucks’ sponsorship money’ll at least go toward promoting the film as well as some great orgs behind it, such as Earthwatch Institute and Conservation International.

0 Comments

Democracy Now! put together a lil segment on the Ethiopian coffee licensing initiative — a segment that would’ve been more timely if it aired BEFORE Starbucks and the Ethiopian government announced they’d come to an agreement, but an interesting show nonetheless.

The show features a choir performance directed by the cheeky anti-corporation activist Rev. Billy (covered here), a rundown of the similarities between the plight of Starbucks baristas and the plight of Ethiopian coffee farmers by Starbucks worker and union activist Sarah Bender, plus some analysis by Dean Cycon of Dean’s Beans and Wondwossen Mezlekia of the blog Coffee Politics. Starbucks declined to participate.

Watch it here (128k stream), or read the transcript here. (via Coffee Politics)

2 Comments

[image from abc. For those new to the Ethiopia coffee trademark issue, start here]

The Ethiopian government and Starbucks put out a joint release yesterday, announcing that they “agreed in principle to sign a licensing, distribution and marketing agreement that recognizes the importance and integrity of Ethiopia’s specialty coffee names.”

“Agreed in principle” sounds rather vague, but appears to be a significant change of heart on Starbucks’ part. Oxfam, which has been advising and backing Ethiopia on this trademark issue, says it’s optimistic. Once the agreement’s actually signed later this month, more details’ll come out –

Starbucks first opposed trademarking and fought hard against it. Earlier this year, Starbucks announced it no longer opposes trademarking (though it’s still not for it).

Now it seems Starbucks is more or less for it.

0 Comments

[image from abc. For those new to the Ethiopia coffee trademark issue, start here]

I s’pose there’s no definitive way to tell what combo of reasons made Starbucks move from opposing Ethiopia’s effort to trademark its coffees to treading an allegedly neutral (but nowhere near pro-trademark) position. But I’m wondering if the threat of stockholder anger pushed the mermaid to change its stance.

According to a Wall Street Journal article (requires subscription) titled “BREWING CONFLICT: Ethiopia Battles Starbucks Over Rights to Coffee Names,” at least one ethically oriented financial company made a call to Starbucks about the issue.

Apparantly, Adam Kanzer, managing director at Domini Social Investments, which manages $1.8 billion, including shares of Starbucks, called Starbucks to “voice his concern that Starbucks’s stand is inconsistent with the company’s socially responsible heritage.” Adam’s quoted saying that Starbucks’ “immediate focus is on their profit margins,” while Starbucks’ response to the Ethiopian tradmark issue is “part of the real value of the company from an investment perspective.”

WSJ writes that “Starbucks executives, however, say that if Ethiopia wants to increase the value of its regional coffee names, the best way is to allow Starbucks to freely promote them in its nearly 13,000 stores around the world.” The problem with that argument? That strategy, so far, has led to Starbucks making $26 an lb on these coffees while Ethiopian farmers make a mere 75 cents a pound.

Of course, Starbucks won’t apologize for this inequity. WST quotes Dub Hay, a VP at Starbucks, saying: “We’re not really apologizing for the [profit] margins because what we do with that margin is open new stores…. The gift that Starbucks can bring to the coffee farmer is the guarantee of more business next year.”

Wait — Doesn’t some of that margin go toward paying the salaries and bonuses of people like Dub? And regardless, will Starbucks be opening even more stores next year? Yeah — thought so. What happens to the margins for Ethiopian farmers then?

Still, don’t underestimate Starbucks’ ability to skirt around the issue. Starbucks’ application to trademark the name “Shirkina Sun-Dried Sidamo” was a big part of the reason why the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office blocked Ethiopia’s application for “Sidamo” in 2005. Now, writes the WSJ, “Starbucks has yanked the name “Sidamo” off the coffee,” renaming it “Ethiopia Sun-Dried Shirkina.” Nice PR move.

9 Comments