{"id":5320,"date":"2018-08-22T22:43:21","date_gmt":"2018-08-23T03:43:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=5320"},"modified":"2018-08-22T22:43:21","modified_gmt":"2018-08-23T03:43:21","slug":"we-need-to-dispose-of-the-word-disposable","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ecooptimism.com\/?p=5320","title":{"rendered":"We Need to Dispose of the Word Disposable"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I\u2019ve often written here [1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3,<\/a> 4<\/a>] about how word choices can affect how we see things. Problematic connotations can sometimes arise by stigma and sometimes by subtle associations. A classic environmental example is how we refer to global warming. In the 90s, the Republican strategist Frank Luntz encouraged rebranding it as climate change because it seemed less frightening and would therefore make it less of an issue. (The irony is that it\u2019s actually a more accurate term. But because it minimizes perception of the problem, as Luntz desired, many of us prefer to call it something more emphatic like climate disruption<\/em>.)<\/p>\n

In a similar vein, years ago, before the advent of LED lights, when improved fluorescent lights were the most energy-efficient technology, I wrote in a guest column in a lighting industry magazine that the word \u201cfluorescent\u201d had too many negative associations with its older, uglier versions. So, to get people to come around to the newer, more pleasing fluorescent bulbs, I wrote that they needed to be renamed.<\/p>\n

The impetus for this current thought about words that can have misleading connotations occurred as I was sitting in a waiting room that had a coffee station. In need of caffeine \u2013 I had forgotten my coffee travel mug \u2013 I grabbed a cup. As I finished making my fix, I looked at the counter and saw the disposable Styrofoam cup, the disposable \u201cK-cup\u201d coffee pod and the tiny \u2013 you guessed it, disposable – milk container. My \u201cgarbage guilt\u201d set in.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Those little ketchup squeeze tubes are another pet peeve. My order of fries inevitable needs a half dozen or more of them. They make a messy pile of garbage that can be neither recycled or composted. Plus they get all over your hands. They\u2019re a rare example of something both disposable and<\/em> inconvenient.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The litter atop that coffee station caused me to ponder the word \u201cdisposable.\u201d For many people, disposability connotes convenience (finger-coating Ketchup pouches aside). You don\u2019t have to bring stuff \u2013 containers, utensils, plastic bags – with you and you don\u2019t have to worry about cleaning or taking care of them. Just toss it. No problem. Disposability is seen as a positive thing, reinforced by the \u201cable\u201d suffix.<\/p>\n

The word makes the use of disposable things and the resulting garbage seem OK. They\u2019re meant to be guiltlessly thrown away because that\u2019s how they\u2019re designed and perceived.<\/p>\n

When I advocated for renaming fluorescent bulbs, I couldn\u2019t come up with a replacement term. I\u2019d like to do better here, especially as single-use plastics are being increasingly recognized as a major problem. (The issue is being addressed in part by bans and fees \u2013 see my \u201cStatus of Plastic Bans\u201d list<\/a> \u2013 but even then, there\u2019s pushback by both users and producers.)<\/p>\n

So, how can we retitle disposability? My first thought was an obvious one. Just call it what it is: \u201clandfill.\u201d But that doesn\u2019t work as an adjective in front of \u201ccups\u201d or \u201cbags\u201d (or with the current fixation on straws).<\/p>\n

Next, I attempted to channel Stephen Colbert\u2019s coining of \u201ctruthiness\u201d with \u201cdisposiness.\u201d But I\u2019m not as clever as Colbert and it didn\u2019t feel like it solved the problem.\u00a0 There was, though, some, er, truth to it as the garbage never really gets disposed of. It\u2019s still here, just relocated. When we throw things away, there is, as Bill McDonough is fond of saying, no \u201caway.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve concluded that our new term needs to have that suffix \u201cable\u201d in it, but with a prefix that drives the point home. Garbagable? Trashable? Wastable? They still imply, though, that because something has the ability to be thrown out \u2013 e.g. it\u2019s trashable \u2013 it\u2019s OK. The word needs to communicate that single-use stuff that doesn\u2019t decompose or effectively recycle is NOT okay. It\u2019s wasteful and it\u2019s a problem so it needs to be discouraged. But I don\u2019t usually advocate for guilting people into environmental action. That\u2019s been repeatedly shown to not work. Better to play upon self-interest and desire. \u201cWasteful\u201d (I rejected \u201cwastable\u201d even though I like creating new words) heads in the right direction – who wants to be wasteful? – but still doesn\u2019t quite get us there.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

We need to somehow say you really don\u2019t want<\/em> to do this. Not an admonishment that you shouldn\u2019t do it. \u00a0And it needs to be \u201csticky,\u201d meaning the word will attach itself to the item the way disposable does.<\/p>\n

I\u2019m reluctantly left for the moment with \u201cgarbagy.\u201d But it still doesn\u2019t fully meet my criteria. Plus, the English language being what it is, you wouldn\u2019t be sure how to spell or pronounce it.<\/p>\n

Maybe I should ask Colbert.<\/p>\n

Share this:<\/h3>