Trying to avoid single-use plastic water bottles is a good thing. With Americans purchasing 50 billion per year, it isn’t hard to see why reusable stainless steel water bottles are better for the environment. But when stores are being forced to put up “Limit five per guest” signs to control customer disputes and resales — and you’re still complaining about all the colors and sizes and limited editions you weren’t able to grab on your overconsumption run — I promise that you and your Valentine’s Day themed tumblers aren’t saving any turtles.
The Stanley brand prides itself on being “Built for Life” and for using sustainable practices in production and manufacturing. “The most sustainable products are the kind that never need to be thrown away or replaced,” their website reads. I wonder if they remember that.
Stanley was created in 1913 and was marketed primarily to blue-collar workers and outdoorsmen for over a century. With the CamelBak, S’Well and Hydroflask crazes over the last few decades, though, came an opportunity for Stanley to market their products to an entirely new audience.
Overhauling its old marketing efforts and employing strategic, influencer-based marketing campaigns, Stanley hasn’t just “given in” to consumerist culture and the overconsumption crisis. It’s promoting it.
I have nothing against influencers, to be clear, but influencer culture gives in to every passing fad imaginable, telling trend followers that they need every product under the sun to be happy and accelerating overconsumption. I promise you don’t.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting a water bottle that looks cute. Buy whatever water bottle you like best, in whatever color or style or limited edition version your heart desires. But just buy one. Maybe two. Not a cabinet full.
There is no justification for owning a collection of Stanley water bottles or for purchasing them for resale values in the hundreds of dollars. There is no reason you should need one cup in every size, style and color. There’s no need for a separate bottle for the house, school, work and the car. You do not need to be spending thousands of dollars to purchase 37 different tumblers to match your clothes.
The overconsumption issue wouldn’t be too much of a problem if not for its environmental impact. “Let people enjoy things” is a mentality I’m fully on board with until it means excusing environmental degradation.
Stanley, considering its “Built for Life” motto and sustainability efforts, is an environmentally friendly brand. However, that claim only holds if the bottles are marketed and sold sustainably, too. Encouraging overconsumption through limited drops and exclusive products is counterproductive and hypocritical.
Sustainability experts and environmentalists alike say that the Stanley might be the next cotton tote bag. Totes were intended to serve as a sustainable replacement for plastic bags, but their popularity led to mass consumption and mass production, destroying their purpose in the first place. Mass production of anything isn’t sustainable — especially stainless steel.
Stainless steel is better for the environment when compared to plastic only when produced modestly and used frequently. A study in The New York Times reported that producing one stainless steel water bottle was far more environmentally damaging than producing one plastic bottle. However, the prolonged use of a stainless steel bottle, when compared to the one-time use of a multitude of water bottles, was significantly more sustainable.
The consumerism surrounding Stanley water bottles quite literally defeats its purpose. A stainless steel reusable water bottle is only sustainable if you reuse it. How could you possibly reuse a cup as many times as intended if you keep buying new ones?
Stanley says its products are warranted to be free from defects at the time of purchase and have a lifetime warranty on thermal performance degradation. So, even if there’s something wrong with it, you can have it replaced instead of just buying a new one. They thought of everything before hopping on the consumerism train, ensuring there’s absolutely no rationalization for buying or owning more than one or two.
I’m not trying to shame you for owning a cute water bottle. If you own just one, for the most part, I truly have no issue with you or your Stanley. But the craze around this product proves that most people don’t own just one. Limit yourself. I understand that they’re cute — but weren’t the turtles you seemed to care so much about during the Hydroflask era cute, too?
If that isn’t enough for you, just consider how much more efficient it would be to not continue buying them. They’re terrible for our overconsumption problem and, accordingly, the environment — and they’re also expensive and massively inconvenient. Stop pretending they aren’t.
They’ll typically set you back anywhere between $45 and a few hundred dollars. They’re heavy and can be hard to clean. And, since the most popular ones aren’t leakproof, people get mad at you when you drop them in class and water goes everywhere. Speaking as someone who has had her backpack drenched by a Stanley dropped four rows behind her, I’m telling you there’s a reason we glare when we see your pastel constructions of impracticality.
