Saving the Earth vs. Protecting Your DVDs

Message

jindianajonz · #1 Post by **jindianajonz** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:01 pm

Perkins Cobb wrote:According to Facebook, they're delaying their March releases while they wait for non-eco friendly cases that they had to import from China themselves. Personally, I'd rather just get my disc on time than insist on consuming more plastic, but ohhhhhhkay....

Wait, they are delaying for NON-eco friendly cases? Why even announce that, it just seems like bad PR.

#2 Post by **swo17** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:06 pm

This is actually the most impressive thing they've done in a while. Eco-friendly cases are a pox on humanity.

jindianajonz · #3 Post by **jindianajonz** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:11 pm

Are you talking about the flimsier blue plastic cases that have a recycling symbol punched out, or those crappy cardboard sleeves that recent Futurama seasons have used? I've never had a problem with the former, but the latter are just terrible.

Perkins Cobb · #4 Post by **Perkins Cobb** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:12 pm

jindianajonz wrote:Wait, they are delaying for NON-eco friendly cases? Why even announce that, it just seems like bad PR.

One would think so, but the eco-friendly cases are "proving unpopular with collectors," so they say, and the commenters so far are seconding that. I don't really know much about the difference, nor do I care much about what my discs come in; are the "eco-friendly cases" really demonstrably better for the environment? In any case I would think if Twilight Time wanted to do collectors a favor they'd work on the ugly covers before they worry about the plastic underneath.

EddieLarkin · #5 Post by **EddieLarkin** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:14 pm

jindianajonz wrote:Are you talking about the flimsier blue plastic cases that have a recycling symbol punched out

Those ones. Not only is the recycling symbol punched out, but the base of the disc hub is as well, meaning some of the disc lays against the sleeve! They're awful.

Zot! · #6 Post by **Zot!** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 1:48 pm

I'm pretty sure they're "shipper friendly" rather than eco-friendly, as they lower weight slightly and allow big studios to save a couple pennies here and there. If you want to be eco-friendly, just use streaming and downloads and give up this evil collecting hobby.

captveg · #7 Post by **captveg** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:48 pm

Zot! wrote:I'm pretty sure they're "shipper friendly" rather than eco-friendly, as they lower weight slightly and allow big studios to save a couple pennies here and there. If you want to be eco-friendly, just use streaming and downloads and give up this evil collecting hobby.

Being shipper friendly is theoretically eco-friendly, since less weight in transit = less use of fuel.

But that plastic adds up (the punch-outs get recycled), which is also eco-friendly.

Sure, not making any BDs/DVDs would save far more, but so would ending all manufacturing of every product out there...

#8 Post by **swo17** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 3:55 pm

The material they make bulletproof vests out of is really hard on the environment too. They should cut giant holes in those things.

knives · #9 Post by **knives** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:00 pm

Isn't that a bit of a false comparison.

#10 Post by **swo17** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:02 pm

Gregory · #11 Post by **Gregory** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:04 pm

I like the "eco-cases" and have never had a problem with damage. Not saying it never happens, but I think the benefits outweigh the occasional drawbacks, which probably happen when people are not treating an case carefully. When the cases are packed together in cases, there is little risk of damage, and a small difference in weight can make a big difference when extrapolated to millions and millions of units. When I ship them as a seller I protect them from damage (as I do everything) by wrapping the item in an extra layer of bubble wrap/packing material, which is close to weightless and can be reused many times.

jindianajonz · #12 Post by **jindianajonz** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:08 pm

I try to use the eco-cases whenever possible because I'm environmentally concious, but I always wrap the discs in baby seal pelts to protect them from damage.

knives · #13 Post by **knives** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:08 pm

swo17 wrote:No.

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but I can't imagine someone like you being unable to tell the difference between a DVD case and a life saving vest where cutting from one is just an aesthetic issue and with the other renders it invalid.

#14 Post by **swo17** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:10 pm

But DVDs are my children?

Gregory · #15 Post by **Gregory** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:15 pm

knives wrote:
swo17 wrote:No.
I can't tell if you're joking or not, but I can't imagine someone like you being unable to tell the difference between a DVD case and a life saving vest where cutting from one is just an aesthetic issue and with the other renders it invalid.

Then wouldn't that make it unimaginable that he was serious?

Zot! · #16 Post by **Zot!** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:24 pm

captveg wrote:
Zot! wrote:I'm pretty sure they're "shipper friendly" rather than eco-friendly, as they lower weight slightly and allow big studios to save a couple pennies here and there. If you want to be eco-friendly, just use streaming and downloads and give up this evil collecting hobby.
Being shipper friendly is theoretically eco-friendly, since less weight in transit = less use of fuel.

But that plastic adds up (the punch-outs get recycled), which is also eco-friendly.

Sure, not making any BDs/DVDs would save far more, but so would ending all manufacturing of every product out there...

I refuse to accept that this is what is going to save the earth. I don't think I have binned a single CD, DVD or BD I have ever bought, except about 5 million AOL CDs. But seriously, why half measures? if you're thinking green you need to accept that physical media is a detriment to the environment, and in that consideration digital files are a viable alternative.

Gregory · #17 Post by **Gregory** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:34 pm

Of course it's not "what is going to save the earth." And downloaded and streaming files are still not a viable alternative to the quality and quantity of what's available on disc. It is a little troubling, though, that CD-type media have been around for 30 years and are still not widely recyclable. Any extra DVD cases I have to get rid of, I donate to a local "creative reuse" store (they have these in Portland and in the East Bay, and they should exist in many more cities), which contribute to waste diversion and affordable materials for teachers and many others. I've also given away or sold DVD cases on Craigslist after putting many of the discs in a big space-saving "DVD wallet."

hearthesilence · #18 Post by **hearthesilence** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:40 pm

In case you haven't heard, we're already fucked, so you might as well get all the non-eco-friendly products you want because it ain't changing a thing.

David M. · #19 Post by **David M.** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:45 pm

if you're thinking green you need to accept that physical media is a detriment to the environment, and in that consideration digital files are a viable alternative.

I wonder about that. Which is worse, the environmental damage of manufacturing and shipping discs (which are a damn good way to get a lot of content to people) or the environmental damage of having entire server farms shuttling it across the web on demand every time they want to watch it?

Gregory · #20 Post by **Gregory** » Thu Mar 06, 2014 4:54 pm

hearthesilence wrote:In case you haven't heard, we're already fucked, so you might as well get all the non-eco-friendly products you want because it ain't changing a thing.

"You're never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours," [Lovelock] says. "Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time."

Bullshit—the U.S. Midwest could have been getting a great deal of its electricity from wind energy for years now if the will was there, for example, and this would make a substantial difference in getting away from fossil fuels. Sure, we've reached the point of irreversible climate change, but Lovelock seems overly cynical about prospects for minimizing the calamity we've created, and preparing for it in terms of energy security and general sustainability.
He already discredits himself, in my opinion, by advocating so strenuously for nuclear energy, which is unsustainable for any number of reasons, including the CO2 emissions that result from the entire nuclear fuel cycle.