Consider the premise. A more concentrated formula of fabric softener requires one to use less per load of laundry. So they can give you the same number of loads’ worth in a smaller bottle. So there is less packaging, and Al Gore is happy!
OK, but why not keep the same old bottles which require only slightly more material than the new, smaller ones, but would only have to be purchased one third as frequently? Wouldn’t that be way greener? Yes it would, but Procter & Gamble don’t want you to only buy their brand one out of every three shopping trips. They want you in the habit of picking up your fix of Downy as frequently as possible. Never mind that “fabric softener” is perhaps the most useless mass-consumable made by humans.
While I’m on the subject, why is it that consumer products manufacturers are even allowed to package stuff in non-recyclable containers? If beer and apple juice containers can be re-used, why can’t other liquids’ bottles? For crying out loud, if I’m willing to DRINK something from a re-used vessel, why would I care if my dish-soap came from one?
Am I on track for a Nobel prize here, or is this a concept that has already been aired?
[I just realized that this is my second trash/recycling post in a row. Despair not, dear reader, I am not turning into an eco-freak…]