The Stanley Tumbler, this year’s big hit, is, at first glance, a victory for the planet.
It is durable. It is reusable. Unlike the discarded plastic bottles that are meant to be replaced, they do not create mountains of plastic trash.
But the craze has sparked some less sustainable behavior. People boast that they have dozens of them. When Target released special editions, including a coveted Starbucks version, it caused a mini-uproar.
Some trend forecasters say the fad is already over. “Some millennials or Gen-Zs are already embarrassed to bring a Stanley,” said Casey Lewis, who writes the trendspotting newsletter, After School. “And we know what’s going to happen,” he said. They’ll sit unused, collect dust on a shelf or in a basement, or “worst case scenario, end up in landfills.”
Stanley’s Mania is a story of how marketing, influencers and the power of social media converged to produce a cultural phenomenon. Stanley sold about 10 million “Quencher” water glasses in 2023, and the company’s total sales for that year are expected to reach $750 million, up from less than $100 million in 2020. The cups typically cost between $35 and $45, but they can be resold for much more and the hashtag #StanleyCup has been viewed billions of times on TikTok.
But the trend is also an example of how a growing universe of eco-conscious products—things originally marketed to be sustainable—can become a catalyst for simply buying more, potentially negating the environmental benefits. The entrances are lined with paper towels meant to save us from the scourge of single-use plastic bags. Cupboards pile with odd gadgets, like collapsible steel straws or reusable food containers, meant to cut down on the disposable.
“The point of a reusable cup is that, in theory, you only need one. And you’re replacing dozens or even hundreds of disposable cups with this reusable mug,” said Sandra Goldmark of Columbia University’s School of Climate. But if someone buys a lot of these mugs, “you have to drink a lot of water,” he said, to make up for the environmental impact of making them.
Products that market themselves as sustainable, such as the Stanley Tumbler, tend to grab the attention of customers. A study last year by McKinsey that looked at five years of sales data on 44,000 brands found a clear correlation between consumer spending and sustainability-related marketing.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. For most products, switching to a more sustainable alternative would not necessarily mean more consumption. You might not eat more vegetables just because they were grown sustainably, for example.
And most Stanley mug owners probably don’t have museum-scale collections, or even more than one or two. Even if they do, the climate tax would be much lower than, say, driving a gas-guzzling SUV or flying jet planes.
Whether a sustainable product really helps the environment depends on how well it supports the interest of its owner. The researchers coined a term to measure the time a person has to reuse an alternative before it fully offsets the disposable product it replaces: the environmental payback period. A 2020 paper found that for straws, coffee cups and forks, metal alternatives had to be used for the longest period of time—anywhere from a few months to a few years—to break even.
Many things play into this long payback period. First, making stainless steel is a polluting and energy-intensive process that usually relies on coal, a dirty fossil fuel.
Stanley advertises that their products last a lifetime. (That they’re built to last was demonstrated in spectacular fashion when a popular social media post showed a glass that had survived a car fire, the ice inside still unmelted.) But more recent marketing has emphasized drops of limited edition and a dazzling array of colors, features that are catnip for collectors.
Stanley said it is making an effort to make its products from more sustainable materials. The mug’s maker, PMI, which also owns the Aladdin brand, says its Quencher tumblers are made from 90 percent recycled steel.
But of all Stanley products, only 23 percent are made from recycled steel, according to the company. It plans to increase this to at least 50 percent by 2025.
Philippe Pernstich of Minimum, a carbon accounting software platform, said this would be difficult. First, there is a shortage of recycled steel because it is in such high demand. Making steel from raw materials is much more costly and energy-intensive and emits global-warming pollutants.
Stanley said in a statement that “sustainability is a core value” and that its products “eliminate the need for single-use plastics.”
Some glassware brands offer exchange or recycling programs. Companies could lean into it, Columbia’s Professor Goldmark said. “What if they offered a repair or refurbishment service. What if you could make your existing cup frosted?” he said. “There are all kinds of fun ways to let people have fun with your product” instead of “doing more and more.”
All in all, there’s no doubt that culture’s shift to reusable bottles is good for the planet. Single-use plastic water bottles have their own carbon footprint, release microplastics and are rarely recycled: The plastic recycling rate in the United States has been stuck below 10 percent for decades.
“I think the cool thing about this water bottle trend, as silly as it is, is that it makes reusable bottles cool,” said Ms. Lewis, the trend expert. “It makes people want to never leave home without one.”
There’s already a new “it” bottle on the horizon: Owala. Owala bottles are already on all campuses, Ms. Lewis said. Their appeal: When you take it back to drink, you look like a koala.
