<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The &#8220;Eco-Shape&#8221; Bottle? Nice Try, Nestle!</title>
	<link>http://c3.newdream.org/blog/2008/02/13/the-eco-shape-bottle-nice-try-nestle/</link>
	<description>Big Changes Start With Small Steps</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2008 03:09:58 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: Gee, I'm a Tree</title>
		<link>http://c3.newdream.org/blog/2008/02/13/the-eco-shape-bottle-nice-try-nestle/#comment-670</link>
		<author>Gee, I'm a Tree</author>
		<pubDate>Fri, 02 May 2008 19:56:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://c3.newdream.org/blog/2008/02/13/the-eco-shape-bottle-nice-try-nestle/#comment-670</guid>
		<description>And it's not even accurate.  There's nothing "Eco" about the shape -- anybody who has learned high school geometry can see that you can use the same amount of plsatic to fit more water.  Therefore, you can fit the same amount of water in less plastic.

(Hint: replace the inward bulge with an outward bulge -- same amount of plastic, more water.  Not as easy to carry, but aren't they touting the "Eco"-friendliness of the shape?  Maybe they're counting on the fact that most Americans don't know geometry.)

The 30% reduction comes entirely from using a lighter plastic, less material.  Has nothing at all to do with the shape.  Of course, there will be practically no reduction in landfill space.  The light plastic will have practically no impact on the volume that an automated crusher will shrink it down to.

I've always wondered why they don't sell water in aluminum cans, actually.  Much more recyclable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And it&#8217;s not even accurate.  There&#8217;s nothing &#8220;Eco&#8221; about the shape &#8212; anybody who has learned high school geometry can see that you can use the same amount of plsatic to fit more water.  Therefore, you can fit the same amount of water in less plastic.</p>
<p>(Hint: replace the inward bulge with an outward bulge &#8212; same amount of plastic, more water.  Not as easy to carry, but aren&#8217;t they touting the &#8220;Eco&#8221;-friendliness of the shape?  Maybe they&#8217;re counting on the fact that most Americans don&#8217;t know geometry.)</p>
<p>The 30% reduction comes entirely from using a lighter plastic, less material.  Has nothing at all to do with the shape.  Of course, there will be practically no reduction in landfill space.  The light plastic will have practically no impact on the volume that an automated crusher will shrink it down to.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve always wondered why they don&#8217;t sell water in aluminum cans, actually.  Much more recyclable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
