Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Adidas Creates Trainers Made From Plastic Ocean Debris in Bid To End Pollution (telegraph.co.uk)

Posted by msmash on from the going-forward dept.

Adidas is building on its previous commitment to turn plastic pollution into high-performance products. Next month, the German sportswear will begin selling three new editions of its popular UltraBoost shoe, all made from plastic debris found in the ocean. From a report: Helping to achieve its goal of creating one million pairs of the Ultra Boost style, Parley for the Oceans will produce trainers made from recycled ocean waste. Made up of 11 reused plastic bottles in each pair, the Ultra Boost' laces, lining and sock lining covers will be made of other recycled products, making for an environmentally-friendly high-performance product.

47 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder how much they'll cost? by adosch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't wait to see that $120 price tag on ocean plastic shoes from $0.50 worth of drinking bottles. This changes everything.

    Good thing I still wear Converse All-Stars.

    1. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      "Garbage shoes."

      Well, that brilliant idea didn't last long, now did it?

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by CindyFahnestock-Scha · · Score: 1

      Then you will have a list of the rich and famous buying them, no matter what the tag, doing something "green" and good for the environment will justify the price. Why didn't I think of this?

      --
      Cindy Fahnestock-Schafer
    3. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      They'll probably net 1 or 2 cents making the $.50 shoes. It costs plenty to dredge, sort, and transport the material out of the ocean or landfills and re-process it. If they are safe, last as long, and preform as well, what's the difference? At least they are cleaning up the environment. But then again, it's going to be your world. You do as you please with it.

    4. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by cyberzephyr · · Score: 1

      Can't wait to see that $120 price tag on ocean plastic shoes from $0.50 worth of drinking bottles. This changes everything.

      Good thing I still wear Converse All-Stars.

      Have you heard that Nordstroms is going to sell jeans that look like they have mud on them for $400.00? It looks like a perfect match.

      --
      I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
    5. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well there is always something deeply unsavoury about the way companies try to cash in on a mostly false image of being "green", "healthy" or whatever. Recycling is only ever going to be a superficial excuse for not doing what really should be done: don't produce superfluous rubbish. Just as an illustration: when a 5p charge was introduced on plastic carrier bags in Wales a few years back, it led to a fall in the number of bags used of about 80%. The 5 pence a bag now costs isn't really a heavy burden on people's budgets, so I think it is safe to conclude that this change came about simply because people now think a little bit about whether they need the bag or not - or IOW, at least 80% were superfluous and would probably have gone directly to a landfill. Morale: We can make big changes, even if we give minimal thought to the issue of waste.

    6. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      I wonder what the environmental impact of going out and collecting the plastic is. I'd bet a shiny penny that it's worse for the environment than just leaving that tiny amount of plastic in the ocean.

      It's not like there are floating barges full of perfectly sorted plastic out there, the reason nobody's cleaning it up in the first place is because it's a horrible job to do so.

    7. Re:Wonder how much they'll cost? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Converse all-stars aren't exactly good buys for what you get....

  2. Sneakers. Repeat after me by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 2

    Sneakers. Msmash really is a brain-dead little thing that can't understand that American websites need to have content in American English.

    1. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by darthsilun · · Score: 2

      Why? Can't American readers (who are probably a minority) read proper English?

      As native[1] English speakers, lessee–– UK population: 65M
      Ireland population: 4.6M
      Australia population: 23.8M
      New Zealand population: 4.6M
      South Africa population: 54M
      Canada population: 36M[2]
      versus
      US population: 321M

      Americans the minority of native English speakers? Nope. Thanks for playing though.

      [1] However fluent in English they may be, most Indians – AFAIK, and I've traveled there some – don't consider English to be their native language. I'd posit the same for most sub-Saharan African nations, Hong Kong, etc. Even if we wanted to count, e.g., India, do you want to guess the number (out of 1.2B) who read or speak English fluently? And India has a lot of its own English idioms which I guess you wouldn't understand either, even though it's "Proper English."
      [2] Even though Canucks use England English spellings, e.g. colour, honour, harbour, etc., they really speak American English. Except when they're speaking French. We'll count them to your side anyway, what the heck.
      (population sources: World Bank)

    2. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by No+Longer+an+AC · · Score: 1

      Tennishoes - run together just like that. Not "tennis shoes".

      Sneakers was a game from Sirius Software.

    3. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      Is Mt. Dew now Coke? Coke doesn't make sense when referring to Soda/pop as a general term.

    4. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by infolation · · Score: 1

      I thought they were called kicks?

    5. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by mikaere · · Score: 1

      Only works for Native/English as First Language, though. If you consider ALL English speakers, you Americans are totally in the minority (251,388,301 vs 929,089,957).

      Source: Wikipedia

      --
      It's good luck to be superstitious
    6. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by clickety6 · · Score: 1

      The original source is a UK newspaper. And it's not rocket science to understand the headline once you read the summary: "Next month, the German sportswear will begin selling three new editions of its popular UltraBoost shoe,"

      --
      ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
    7. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      It may not make sense, but AC wasn't lying.

      There are areas where coke is a valid synonym for pop/soda.

    8. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      I guess... just doesn't make any sense to me, I suppose, considering coke is a type of soda.

    9. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to make sure it's correct English that's being used. Wouldn't want to set a bad example, would we now?

    10. Re:Sneakers. Repeat after me by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      When British books are released in the US, they have their spelling corrected and their obscure Briticisms translated into equivalent American terms. Similarly, when French books are released in the US, they are translated into American English.

  3. Ewww... Water? by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Fish .... in it!

    1. Re:Ewww... Water? by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      Water? You mean like in the toilet?

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    2. Re:Ewww... Water? by D00MSlayer · · Score: 1

      The Ocean is one giant toilet for fish. Think on that.

  4. Superb marketing idea by demon+driver · · Score: 1

    What Chinese clothing companies have been doing for ages, making 'fleece' clothing out of shredded plastic bottles because they're so cheap a raw material that it even pays to ship thousands of tons of them from Europe to China before processing them, now will be part of an environmentalist image that will help get the Adidas owners even more stupidly rich. Of course, cargo ship exhaust gases won't show up in the ads...

  5. One time by FredrikKarlsson · · Score: 1

    One time I reused a plastic bag. Did I save the environment? If Adidas want to really help the environment they would fund research to find materials that does not create harmful waste. How much does this actually help? We have had shoes that are environment friendly for hundreds of years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Does this PR stunt really offset the making of the machines for recycling materials? How long do you think they will plan to use recycled materials? Forever or the news cycle ends?

    1. Re:One time by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      Blah, blah, blah. They didn't spend the money the way "I" would have spent it. Like the shoes or not, the plastic IS being removed from the ocean. I don't see it as a SHOE manufacturers responsibility to develop replacement plastics for the BOTTLES that are being reclaimed for these SHOES. Go pester the bottle manufacturers about what they are doing to find those less harmful materials.

      Remember the old line from the environmentalist groups about "everyone doing a little bit helps"? If they get PR out of it, who cares? They did their little bit, but people jump out of the woodwork to bitch about it. Not sure I'd even call 11 bottles per pair X 1MM pairs a little bit. I get so sick of all the people that bitch on this site because something isn't perfect or god forbid is not a completely altruistic act.

    2. Re:One time by CindyFahnestock-Scha · · Score: 1

      If everyone recycled everything in the USA, (or any country for that matter) they could be totally self sustainable (granted the oil situation). This could possibly cripple some overseas factories and trade industries. Dollar stores in USA would go defunct yet the economy boom by create more "recycling / reuse" factories in the USA. Will it happen, nope. The cost of recycling goods outweighs the profit margin. The world is unfortunately moved by money.

      --
      Cindy Fahnestock-Schafer
    3. Re:One time by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Did you tell everyone about your bag saving and feel smug for at least a day? If so, then you did save the planet. If not, then probably not so much.

  6. What? by kelemvor4 · · Score: 1

    Adidas is making video game cheating software out of plastic now? WTF did I just read?

  7. Best part of all... by Pollux · · Score: 1

    When you've worn them out, you can toss them right back into the ocean!

    Because it's not pollution when you're returning it back to its source, right?

    Just don't throw them away in a landfill.

    1. Re:Best part of all... by scdeimos · · Score: 2

      It's only 95% ok. They still contain 5% virgin plastic.

  8. I would like to see the life cycle calculations. by Wheels17 · · Score: 2

    I wonder how much energy was consumed in each stage of the "environmentally friendly" production. Building the collectors, fuel to get them out to the plastic, collection energy, return energy, cleaning and recycling the plastic, etc. While getting the plastic out of the environment is a good thing, source reduction would be much more efficient.I always enjoyed the Fiji water example ( http://www.triplepundit.com/20... ).

  9. Do they come with by fredrated · · Score: 1

    barnacles pre-installed?

  10. Always thought by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 2

    That Adidas trainers were rubbish.

    --
    The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    1. Re:Always thought by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I always thought generalities about companies who constantly change the design of their products was rubbish.

      #notbuyingnikea4thtime.

  11. speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by superwiz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    "Trainers" is British slang. It is not used in any part of the largest country in which English is the majority language. If you want to use a region-neutral word, go with "athletic shoes". But the most commonly-used and universally understood colloquialism is sneakers. I promise you that "trainers" is not just something that sounds British in the US. This isn't like "coke" vs "pop" vs "soda". "Trainers" will make majority of Americans reach for a dictionary, find out that it's a British usage, and then wonder why the hell was the editor publishing this for international audience not fired yet.

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    1. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by Psiren · · Score: 2

      "Trainers" will make majority of Americans reach for a dictionary

      I fail to see the downside here. It's also not slang, it's just the word we use.

    2. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by superwiz · · Score: 1, Informative

      I fail to see the downside here. It's also not slang, it's just the word we use.

      It's a word used by a small minority of English speakers. It's not a literary word. It's a slang used when talking to an audience which has not idea what it is. And it was used in the title of an article about a global company -- not a local event (which might have justified the usage). In the US it's considered British slang. It will not show up if you try to look it up by typing "define trainers" in Google search bar. If you try to lookup "soda" in the same manner (which is a colloquialism for "carbonated water", but not a slang), you will get a definition.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    3. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by TheConway · · Score: 2

      Since it's use as a word to describe a training shoe is in the English Dictionary it's not slang. By your logic, sidewalk and trunk are American slang. It may well not be the term used by the majority of English speakers, but you should have stopped there. That got your point across well enough before making yourself look foolish.

    4. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ""Trainers" will make majority of Americans reach for a dictionary"
      Good! It will be the start of a new and better world for them.
      Little tip for you: English is the language of England, the largest country in Britain (I won't go over the differences between UK, GB and all the rest of it here as that's outside the scope of the question), so common usage there means it is not slang. The majority of what is laughably called "US English" is, in fact, slang; it is illiterate and syntactically broken beyond repair.

    5. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I'm American. I hear "trainers", I think "British English athletic shoes". it's not a huge mental jump, and it doesn't hurt anyone to know what other countries call things.
      It's not as if it's written in Mandarin.

    6. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Little tip for you: English is the language of England

      Little tip for you: German (or maybe Russian) would be the language of England if it weren't for the US. British English is cute, at best. Proper American pronunciation is universally considered the normative English pronunciation. And so is proper American usage. Oh, and that little "blessed" plot, that realm -- The England -- would long know no King or Queen were it not for the generosity and spirit of these colonials it formerly thought to subjugate.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    7. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by superwiz · · Score: 1

      Why stop at Britishisms then? Why not just go with some Liverpool localisms while describing global events for global audiences? I don't think "if a word is not in the dictionary, it should not be used to describe international events to audiences mainly situated in other countries" is too much to ask of an editor of a major publication.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    8. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by superwiz · · Score: 1
      It's not in the dictionary. Both MW and AH list it as "chiefly British". So it's not normative usage. It is without any doubt whatsoever not a literary word, nor a word recognized by the majority of English speakers as a reference to footwear.

      That got your point across well enough before making yourself look foolish.

      Yeah, that's how we got to "Nature" allowing itself to use "maths" as an accepted usage. That was my line in the sand. Its existence changes the impression of what is "math" for those who use "math" as a the normative short form. I may know the difference and you most likely do, too. But those who do not, get the wrong view on the world as described by the word. And the fact that even "Nature" allows itself this usage in the article titles shows just how far this has gone. British English is no more normative for standard English than German is normative for Germanic languages. In fact, British English is a dialect of the standard English similarity in the names notwithstanding.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    9. Re:speak ENGLISH WILL YA? by Hank+the+Lion · · Score: 1

      I would say: just try the Google lookup of "define trainers" for yourself.
      I did, and the first hit was http://dictionary.cambridge.or..., which gives as definition:
      "a person who teaches skills to people or animals and prepares them for a job, activity, or sport:" and
      "[ C usually plural ] (UK) (UK also training shoe, US sneaker) a type of light, comfortable shoe that can be worn for sport"

      The second and third hit are directly for "trainers", not "trainer", and give
      "A British slang word for Shoes." and
      "plural noun / British / shoes that people wear, especially for running and other sports"

      So, you are right that it is a British word, but not that a Google search for "define trainers" will not give you a definition.
      I'm not a native English speaker myself, and I had no problem understanding the meaning.

  12. LOL at jocks! by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

    So Adidas is making a few recycled shoes the one says they hope that "and union? I knew nicks wearing Adidas shoes were dumb, but WOW! I wonder how many barrels of oil Adidas burned to retrieve those few pounds of recyclable plastic.

    1. Re:LOL at jocks! by RecycledElectrons · · Score: 1

      Wow..my mobile spell checker made a mess of that. Enjoy laughing at me.

      I meant to say:

      "So Adidas is making a few recycled shoes and the title of the article says they hope that "will end pollution?" I knew jocks wearing Adidas shoes were dumb, but WOW! I wonder how many barrels of oil Adidas burned to retrieve those few pounds of recyclable plastic."

      Also, hey, Slashdot, fix your $^#@ site so it works on Android. This is 2017, not 2007.

  13. Greenwash by Fudoka · · Score: 1

    More marketing drivel