The math is simple. According to Ozarka's own claim, their tiny new label uses a third less paper than the old one, or a whopping 30,000 less trees. The new advertising campaign, intended to lessen the guilt of their customers, entice new customers, and win back customers who have moved on to less wasteful methods of hydration, inadvertently reveals the devastating scope of destruction that even the most benign piece of their product generates. From an advertising perspective, they may have been better off not letting us know how many trees were saved, because even though most of us have forgotten the quadratic equation, our simple math abilities allow us to acknowledge the remaining destruction. Not all companies are going to leak this sort of information to us voluntarily, thus perhaps it should be a requirement for labels to include the ecological footprint of their product? To Ozarka's credit, perhaps they are right that more information would take up more space and thus more paper.
Ozarka also advertises that the new bottle is 'recyclable', not 'recycled', but 'recyclable', as if we didn't know that.
Look at a tree. Now imagine 60,000 of them. All gone. All used for the tiny label on Ozarka's new eco bottle. If the tiny little label equates to that much destruction, imagine the resources needed to manufacture the bottles themselves and deliver them to your convenient store.
This is just one product from one bottled water company. They have many other bottle designs still being manufactured which don't have any eco-claims, just the usual full size waste stream of an unnecessary product. Our readers agree that there are a world of reasons to help Ozarka meet their goal of lessening their impact on the Earth by ditching them completely.