Using a reusable tumbler has become a staple part of people’s lives, especially the youth who carry them on college campuses, in the workplace, at the gym, and around the neighborhood. As it is easy to carry wherever you go, it promotes the conservation ethic by removing the need for single-use plastic bottles and cups. In fact, its usage has become a popular lifestyle choice promoted by sustainability and eco-friendly values. By carrying a tumbler while sipping your morning coffee or running class in the campus building, you display your identity as a person dedicated to preserving the planet. However, a paradoxical reality is in order, since the production of a reusable bottle requires a heavy toll in terms of emissions and resource extraction. The situation gets even more complicated as people start buying tumblers for the trends, appealing aesthetics, status signaling, and social media clout. When the algorithms on social media constantly promote the acquisition of visually appealing lifestyle accessories, carrying a tumbler for hydration becomes a trendy accessory. Therefore, while using a reusable tumbler for conservation efforts is commendable and sustainable, buying tumblers for trends, status signaling, and aesthetics turns sustainable living into hyper-consumerism.
Body Content
First, the sustainability of a tumbler relies not on its ability to be reused but on the amount of usage and time required to offset manufacturing-related emissions. Any tumbler goes through an extensive process of extraction, thermal energy input, water, and intricate manufacturing before it reaches the consumer. By the principles of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), we need to consider the environmental impact of a given product from its production to its disposal. For instance, the manufacturing process of an insulated stainless-steel tumbler requires an energy-intensive procedure resulting in an initial carbon footprint of approximately 3.8 to 4.2 kg. Compared to a standard steel or plastic insulated bottle, an insulated tumbler requires more energy for the creation of a double-wall structure and vacuum insulation to ensure that it keeps the beverage cold. Therefore, the carbon impact of the production of such a product has to be offset 30-90 times before its usage in comparison to a single PET plastic bottle. So, for a reusable tumbler to be genuinely eco-friendly, it must be used consistently throughout a long period of time.
In addition to the aforementioned technical aspect, the usage of a reusable bottle relies on consumer behavior that determines whether bringing an enclosed drinking vessel to the workplace or university is genuinely sustainable. According to the study conducted by Fedi et al. (2021) of university students, the intention to use a refillable water bottle was associated with certain psychological factors and environmental conditions. The authors utilized the framework of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and illustrated how student intention shapes their actions in relation to bringing and using a reusable bottle. Specifically, if the target audience for refillable water bottles has a positive attitude towards such products and follows social norms of bringing a water bottle to the university, the likelihood of such an outcome increases. Moreover, the study conducted at Columbia University demonstrated that while students may have multiple reusable water bottles, the actual chance of bringing them to the campus building depends on the presence of water refill stations and the perceived quality of local water. Therefore, the concept of a sustainable tumbler is not a binary choice between disposable and enclosed single-use drinking vessels. In fact, the daily grind of a university student carrying a tumbler with tap water for years has a minuscule environmental impact as compared to the same person buying multiple tumblers that would have to be disposed of eventually. Ultimately, the issue of sustainable tumbler use is not about choosing between a single disposable cup and a whole array of plastic and stainless steel enclosed water vessels but an environmental impact created by the frequency and manner of tumble use.
However, once a tumbler transforms from a medium of single-use plastic avoidance to a status symbol, the situation turns into the paradox of green consumerism. With marketers promoting limited-run colors and aesthetic appeal, the product turns into something that people are encouraged to buy in order to express their social selves. In fact, the turn has been so impactful that the sales revenue for Stanley tumblers has increased exponentially, estimating at $70 million in 2020 to over $750 million in 2023. The concept of social media “what’s in my bag” and daily vlogs promotes the image of a consumer as an eco-warrior, with people constantly seeking to update their social media profiles with the latest “sustainable” news. The recent example of a famous Stanley tumbler that has gone viral on TikTok because it has not lost any ice after being placed in a car accident demonstrates that consumers are willing to pay extra for an item that signifies their membership in the group of people dedicated to saving the planet. As Griskevicius et al. (2010) define it, such people practice conspicuous conservation, which helps them gain status, reputation, and perceived wealth. By buying a tumbler that has a specific aesthetic, consumers signal their affiliation to the group of planet-conscious individuals. Therefore, the motivation to acquire a new tumble is not driven by necessity to stay hydrated but by social media-driven desire to look good in the eyes of society.
As a matter of fact, the paradox of green consumerism encapsulates the essence of the tumbler dilemma. While using a tumbler for staying hydrated is demonstrably more sustainable than disposable plastics, buying multiple ones for the trendy colors and social media clout offsets the benefits of single-use plastic avoidance. Akenji (2014) criticizes the phenomenon of green consumerism by noting how it shifts the responsibility for environmental degradation on the shoulders of consumers rather than policymakers. By claiming that “going green” is an easy choice that a consumer can make by buying certain products, marketing makes individuals believe that the over-consumption of goods does not affect the planet. In essence, the concept of green consumerism creates the reverse moral licensing for hyper-consumerism. Therefore, the more “eco-friendly” products a person buys, the more they believe that they are morally entitled to buy more. With the rebound effect, the impact of cup manufacturing negates the benefits of single-use plastic avoidance, thus rendering tumbler usage as a part of a larger scale of unsustainable practices. The unnecessary use of resources in the creation of multiple enclosed water vessels in order to match an aesthetic creates a rebound effect, where the environmental impact is counteracted by the impact of buying extra products. As such, when a consumer buys a dozen tumblers in order to alternate between them in accordance with their aesthetics, the resource cost is significantly increased. When a working person has a tumbler that is constantly broken in order to replace it with a new one in pursuit of trends, the concept of sustainable use transforms into green hyper-consumerism.
Therefore, the tumbler paradox is resolved not by promoting green consumerism but rather shifting the global paradigm in favor of longer use of a single product. The best principle to follow is the use of items for a longer time rather than buying more. In order to achieve the necessary impact of single-use plastic avoidance, it is better to choose one item that suits the individual throughout the years of university or working life while maintaining it through repairs. In addition, universities and the workplace should invest in proper infrastructure for the use of a single reusable vessel, such as drinking water refill stations. The initiative implemented by Princeton’s “Drink Local” or similar hydration station programs at Columbia University demonstrates how bringing infrastructure to accommodate a single user-given vessel promotes its use. Furthermore, manufacturers need to pivot towards the circular economy and start building products that are easy to maintain, including modular replacement units of straws or silicone rings. Rather than creating artificial scarcity with limited-run color drops, it is essential to move towards the long-term product lifecycle that favors repairs over replacements. Through the combined initiative of all stakeholders, the paradox of tumbler sustainability can be resolved.
Conclusion
In conclusion, a reusable tumbler cannot be considered sustainable unless we analyze the entire life cycle of a given product and its impact on the environment. Carrying a tumbler for a few years on a daily basis is not only a sustainable but a practical choice as it negates the need for single-use plastics. However, the unnecessary collection of various bottles due to their appealing aesthetics on social media turns the act of “going green” into an embodiment of hyper-consumerism. The paradox of tumbler use is not a matter of the product itself but the consumer behavior revolving around it. By shifting from the green consumerism viewpoint towards the general practical sustainability, the issue of unnecessary resource expenditure on multiple enclosed water vessels can be resolved. The paradigm shift will allow people to use an existing tumbler for a long time rather than replace it with trendy new ones every other month.
By: Nafilah Nurun Najwa
Write and Win: Participate in Creative writing Contest & International Essay Contest and win fabulous prizes.
About the Author
