Coca-Cola, Nestle, and PepsiCo Are the Top 3 Plastic Polluters on the Planet (onegreenplanet.org) 181
An annual global audit from the Break Free From Plastic movement has found the largest sources of plastic pollution. Coca-Cola, Nestle, and PepsiCo are the top three most identified companies as sources of plastic pollution around the globe. From a report: As part of their audit, Break Free From Plastic conducted 484 cleanups in 50 countries, on six continents. According to the audit, part of the problem is that plastic is not recyclable. Only 9% of plastic produced since 1950 has been recycled. The rest is incinerated, in landfills or left pollution in oceans, land and other areas. When plastic is burned it causes toxic pollution. If not incinerated or recycled, it breaks down into microplastics, which cause harm to ocean life. 43% of collected plastic was marked with a clear consumer brand, like Coca-Cola or PepsiCo. Break Free From Plastic blames our "throwaway culture," for much of the consumer waste. They argue that this throwaway mindset is at the core of many companies' business model.
more accurately (Score:5, Informative)
More accurately, it's their customers that are the polluters.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More accurately, the Yangtze river is towers over them all like a titan vomiting endless streams of of protean goo. But hey, let's all hate on Coke because that's a target we can hit, no matter how irrelevant the hit will be.
Re:more accurately (Score:4)
More accurately, outsourcing handling of plastic garbage to china was great, now let's outsource to other eastern countries, because china has gotten picky.
Re: (Score:2)
Even that's not true. I'm sure a great number of these people put those bottles into recycle bins in good faith, assuming that they'd be recycled into a new bottle, and cutting down on waste. It turns out that the whole recycling industry is a giant ponzi scheme that ends with bottles being burned or—if we're lucky—buried.
Now the real question is whether or not any government is going to do anything about it. Being able to pinpoint where the plastic is coming from is a good first step, but what
Re: (Score:2)
If the plastics they counted were from cleanups, it's unlikely that the source was people placing them in recycling systems.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing is if we ban plastic use for drinks do we then move back to glass? Glass is a lot heavier and would require trucks to burn more fuel moving the glass around.
Someone will time and energy may want to do a study on the total impact of glass vs plastic. Got to weigh all the pros and cons as it isn't really a clear cut thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The only thing is if we ban plastic use for drinks do we then move back to glass?
What for? Drinks have been distributed in aluminum for a century. Aluminum cans are durable, 70% recyclable, and already produced by the hundreds of billions worldwide. They come in many sizes, and are commonly made in 250 ml, 330 ml, 355 ml (12 oz US), 375 ml, 440 ml, and 500 ml sizes. A 2L can is certainly possible, though it could be awkward to carry. A 1L can was introduced into the Russian market some time ago and the manufacturer is attempting to popularize it globally. The larger the can, the h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that we returned glass bottles for a redemption. Those glass bottles were then washed, sterilized, refilled with the product and sold again. But decades ago the plastics manufacturers saw a really greedy opportunity to make $$$ and hired lobbyists and bogus scientists to convince the politicos that washing bottles was not hygienic and actually a health hazard, and that plastics was a far better choice.
Re: (Score:2)
Around here, bottlers began to phase out glass bottles in the early 80's- pretty much when real gas prices hit their modern all-time high. But I suppose that shouldn't stop you from arguing that a bunch of lobbyists and scientists somehow convinced the thousands of independent bottlers to abandon glass, since hired lobbyists and bogus scientists are clearly bad guys.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that we returned glass bottles for a redemption.
You can do that with plastic bottles too, and then just burn them for power.
Re: (Score:2)
The blame for this falls squarely on the government and plastics manufacturer lobbyists.
It used to be that we returned glass bottles for a redemption
I see someone who has never had a kid drop a 2-quart glass bottle on the kitchen floor. That often ends with copious blood joining the mess on the floor, and trip to urgent care for stitches.
Glass bottles were firmly rejected by families, and plastic was greatly welcomed. Adult beverages are obviously a different matter entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More accurately, it's their customers that are the polluters.
Well, I can't argue with that (it was my first thought, too).
But, microplastics FEED the ocean [wattsupwiththat.com].
Re: (Score:2)
But, microplastics FEED the ocean [wattsupwiththat.com].
I tried reading that, but got too angry of all the wild conclusions and misuse of science.
Re:more accurately (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the days of personal responsibility are well over. They want to sue oil companies for global warming, despite the fact that we all use tons of oil based products every day. Nope, not our faults, it's the evil oil companies!
They want to blame the pharmaceutical companies for the opioid crisis, despite the fact that lots of people legitimately need them, there is money to be had so why not just blame them?
People hate Facebook because ostensibly Russia, Russia, Russsia! and muh privacy, but the fact is nobody decided between Clinton and Trump based on Facebook, the two aren't close choices to be decided by some shit you read on Facebook, and stop posting your entire life online if you value your fucking privacy so much.
Nowadays people just want to blame whoever has the deepest pockets or whoever can be scapegoated the easiest for our collective stupidity.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Give that poster some mod points...and a coke.
Re:more accurately (Score:5, Insightful)
the “Highly Concerned” were most supportive of government climate policies, but least likely to report individual-level actions, whereas the “Skeptical” opposed policy solutions but were most likely to report engaging in individual-level pro-environmental behaviors
Those who are "highly concerned" want someone else to solve the problem; those who are skeptical simply take care of their own output of pollution in the first place. It's easy to be "highly concerned" when it means Someone Else has to do the real work.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You are the one putting ALL the responsibility on consumers and NONE on the corporations that we all know play all kinds of dirty tricks. You think that pharmaceutical companies didn't do anything wrong when they pushed drugs that are only really needed for very serious pain issues for all kinds of minor pains. You think that the doctors who have been acting as (not like) drug pushers (I have nothing against allowing sale of any drugs, but I am against drug pushers) aren't to be blamed for anything - have y
Re: (Score:2)
Where did I say "all"? If the pharmaceutical companies broke any actual laws (false advertising, etc..) then they should pay for that piece of it. Doctors who over-prescribed should be held accountable for their part. More importantly, doctors who correctly prescribed but didn't properly treat their patients to properly get off of the medications should be held accountable. And people who misled their doctor to get pills should take responsibility for their own issues and for selling the drugs for profit.
Th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the days of personal responsibility are well over. They want to sue oil companies for global warming, despite the fact that we all use tons of oil based products every day.
It's so that they can look like they're doing something without supporting a carbon tax. The cost of a carbon tax would be baked into products and services and paid for by the users, ultimately holding The People responsible for their actions. But we can't have that, can we?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>"Yeah, the days of personal responsibility are well over. "
Yep. It is the fault of the gun, not the shooter- That is the current logic prevailing, because, you know, consumers are helpless victims and the corporations are big, evil entities. You can't have personal responsibility when you are a victim, and nowadays, everyone is a victim while freedom and privacy have little to no value.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, sarcastic whattaboutism that isn't even related to the issue at hand. In one case we all buy and use oil and our lives would be much worse off without it, on the other you're blathering about industrial malfeasance. If we were talking about oil spills you'd be at least on subject, this is about politicians trying to blame oil companies for something we all are driving (literally).
I think maybe your brand of zany off-topic zingers and you-go-girl SNAPs would be better suited to twitter, maybe, ok boomer
Re:more accurately (Score:5, Informative)
More accurately, it's their customers that are the polluters.
More accurately, Coca Cola has been lobbying against recycling efforts [theintercept.com] since a very a long time. Worldwide.
Re: (Score:2)
Recycling doesn't help if people aren't willing to dispose of them properly in the first place. Someone who throws their bottle in a park right now, instead of walking 50 feet to a garbage can, isn't going to bring it back all the way to the store just because there's a recycling plan.
Re: (Score:2)
They will if the bottle deposit is one dollar.
Re:more accurately (Score:5, Informative)
They will if the bottle deposit is one dollar.
That is a.o. what Coca Cola has been lobbying against. See the article I linked.
Re: (Score:2)
You want to force people to bring bottles back to some official facility rather than dropping them in the now-ubiquitous recycle bins? And you think that would be better? You're insane.
Re: (Score:2)
If only 5% of people are recycling, then yes the end result would be better.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the (wildly unlikely) case, then those 5% simply have no right to impose their values on the other 95%. They are simply not the aristocrats overseeing the peasants.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, and people are responsible when they do not recycle. That in no way eliminates the corporate responsibility for the bottles that are actually returned correctly. At least here in Finland the deposit seems to be good enough that most of the plastic bottles do get recycled - even those originally thrown away by the purchaser.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
>"More accurately, Coca Cola has been lobbying against recycling efforts [theintercept.com] since a very a long time. Worldwide."
The epitome of faulty reporting/logic. Of course they are going to oppose trying to hold the bottler as responsible for litter. They aren't littering. That doesn't mean they are "lobbying against recycling efforts." It depends on how one defines "supports recycling." Two things can be true- they can support recycling but be opposed to being penalized for using plastic in t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I just discovered a place where I can get coke with real sugar and a glass bottle. I can't go back to drinking that corn syrup swill they pass off in plastic bottles anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey I have a better ideal. Explain yourself. What in my comment sets off your douche bag mode? For your reference I'm talking the store down the street carries them. Mexico is a little far away to go for a coke.
Here is an ideal for you. Post less, read more. If you read something that means tells you that you must post then and there. Don't do it. Means you will come off looking less like a fool in the long term.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny thing: the Earth processes them just fine. Humans are just so impatient.
Re: (Score:2)
Same answer though. Nature's not known for coddling the weak, and it will sort itself out eventually. But we humans think in such short time scales.
Re: (Score:2)
Well put. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was the joke.
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is a yeti-style cup?
(I generally drink out of a Thermos(TM). I try to buy pop in Aluminium cans, but sometimes (Mt Dew ICE) is harder to get in that format. Gator Ade (the other 50% of what I drink) seems to be only available in plastic bottles.)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple econmic solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Force the purveyors food or beverage that are packaged in single-use plastic containers to collect a deposit worth 25% of the retail price and refund the deposit when the container is redeemed for recycling. The economics will take care of the rest.
You think millennial are going to bother taking bottles back for $0.25? They're already hiring people to go to their houses take out their trash for them.
http://www.trashday.co/ [trashday.co]
OTOH there's probably plenty of people who'll sift through that trash for $0.25 per bottle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you also never know where an individual's tipping point is. Myself, I can't be bothered for $.05 for a two-liter plastic bottle that has to retain its shape to be recognized by the redemption reader machine
So... it needs to be more than $0.05.
How about $1.00? It needs to be a number where almost nobody will just dump it.
(Of course Nestle/CocaCola/PepsiCo will claim that hurts their sales and they have plenty of lobbying money to make sure it never happens, we're just waving our hands in the air...)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there are plenty of people who'll sift through that trash for that amount. Over here we have $0.10 as redemption on all plastic and aluminium bottles and even though "the millennials" throws them everywhere the entire country is squeaky clean from said bottles and cans due to the army of homeless and migrants that collect and redeem them.
I just hope that we one day would put a redemption fee on chewing gum and cigarette butts, then the cleanliness would be past 11.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much of a deposit it would take for consumers to care. I wonder if a price point can even exist that is simultaneously both high enough for consumers to care about returning the bottles and not so high that it prevents consumers from buying the product. I'm not convinced.
When people are at home, they typically separate their recycling anyway (and never claim the deposits, because they just toss the bottles into their recycling bins). And when they aren't, they toss them into a recycling bin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much of a deposit it would take for consumers to care. I wonder if a price point can even exist that is simultaneously both high enough for consumers to care about returning the bottles and not so high that it prevents consumers from buying the product. I'm not convinced.
In Finland it seems to me most people do return empty bottles to the store for a deposit. The prices aren't big, but then again there's not really any trouble in doing so when visiting the store. What we have is:
10c for small 0.33l glass bottless, some small blastic bottles, 0.33l aluminum cans and almost all booze bottles
15c for 0.5l aluminum cans
20c for 0.5l plastic bottles
40c for 1l and larger plastic bottles
That covers most of it.
Note that Finns don't return bottles when their throwing their trash away,
Re:Simple econmic solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Massive oil subsidies (Score:3, Informative)
There's the " Intangible Drilling Oil & Gas Deduction"
The "Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies"
The "Inland Waters Transport fo
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
War? Nah - that doesn't fly...
Intangible Drilling Oil & Gas DeductionThat's a tax deduction, hardly a subsidy
Last-In, First Our Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies - LIFO is applicable to any company with stored goods, including lithium mines and car manufacturers
Inland Waters Transport for Petroleum Subsidy - you mean the funds spent [taxpayer.net] to make sure our waterways can transport all kinds of goods, including food? Funds that were first collected by a specific tax on fuels, and then given out to a broa
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the US Government doesn't have more recent data.
As far as CA, your statement is not accurate; it adds up all revenue sources and divides by the total spending of CALTRANS, which is MUCH more than just roads. Spending by CALTRANS [ca.gov] also includes rail and public transportation which consumes the majority of State diesel taxes (even though diesel trucks do massive road damage). CA brings in $3.5 billion in in-state revenues, and spends $1.3 billion on road maintenance. The majority of the rest goes to p
Re: (Score:2)
What oil subsidies do you speak of? I keep hearing about them but no one can ever really name them other than generic "help for oil companies", or tax breaks that ALL companies can benefit from (and take).
Err you can't be serious right?
1) there are specific tax breaks for oil companies in certain states, not ones that "all" companies can benefit from.
2) oil companies are among the biggest beneficiaries and one of the original campaigners for tax deferral laws which they abuse through their own oil trading schemes in ways that benefit them orders of magnitude more than any other company (which makes sense if you remember their raw product and trading volume is orders of magnitude higher than that of any other
Who is throwing what where? (Score:2)
Real Thing... but why? (Score:2)
I've got a .5L Coca-Cola bottle on my desk right now. Let me take a few sips...
Re: (Score:2)
In this case both the cart and the horse are the problem.
It doesn't matter which way round you arrange them.
Re:Real Thing... but why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Misleading Title (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep... Coca-Cola is the biggest user of plastic bottles, and Nestle Water has passed by Pepsi.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, lots of companies emit greenhouse gasses. Even you do. Are you willing to manage the consequences of everything you use? Doubtful. But you are OK with making "the oil companies" do that, because, um, they are bad and stuff.
Re:Misleading Title (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody has a right to profit based on the hidden unpaid costs of economic, environmental, or public health harm.
Have you heard of Coase's Theorem [wikipedia.org]? It's a counterintuitive economic theory which says it doesn't actually matter whether Coke has a right to pollute or I have a right to clean oceans. We just need to agree who has which one and make it possible for one party to bargain for the rights of the other. If you care about arriving at solutions instead of justice, it's worth thinking about.
Let me explain, as much as I understand. There's two ways of looking at the situation. One is the one you outline, that you and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it can't be managed sustainably, then it shouldn't be sold.
In that case, someone else will sell it. Possibly in another country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The sooner you stop emitting greenhouse gasses, the better.
Better headline: popular products found freq in po (Score:5, Insightful)
I suspect that Pepsi, Coke, and Nestle have 43% of the market share in countries that use rivers as trash dumps.
But to say such a thing is verboten; it suggests responsibility lays on the shoulders of people who can only be victims in the eyes of msmash. Much safer to blame some western corporations. They're safe targets, right?
You solve problems best at the source (Score:2)
But more often than not the goal here is to avoid actually having to solve the problem by punting it down the line to individual consumers, shifting blame to them.
I'm not accusing you of doing that per se, but the sentiment you're expressing isn't necessarily somethi
Re: (Score:2)
There's no problem for which rsilvergun won't suggest totalitarianism is the answer. I wonder if I could write a bot that was indistinguishable from his output, sort of a reverse Turing test.
The source is people throwing stuff in the river. (Score:2)
Hey... uh... who actually throws stuff in the river so it washes out to the ocean?
Is it Coke executives?
And why is any sort of personal responsibility so anathema to a leftist? I'm not sure you're serious at this point. You know that crying Indian campaign a couple decades ago, combined with wider availability of trash bins, reduced litter dramatically in the United States? You can get millions of people to change their behavior.
Or do you think the people under discussion today are too stupid? That they'r
Re: (Score:2)
Or do you think the people under discussion today are too stupid?
rsilvergun just doesnt want to take any responsibility. Never fucking has. Never fucking will.
Re: (Score:2)
And absolutely nobody... (Score:2)
Coca-Cola, Nestle, and PepsiCo has (Score:3)
Just my 2 cents
Great use case for Thermal Depolymerization (Score:5, Informative)
The thing that is irritating about this is that we have the technology to do something about this. Thermal Depolymerization breaks down plastic and turns it back into oil. It reduces plastic waste and helps reduce the need to drill for oil. The main issue is one of needing a good clean energy source to power the process, something like nuclear energy. This is a good case of something that isnâ(TM)t greenwashing and actually improves the environment.
http://large.stanford.edu/cour... [stanford.edu]
What about LEGO? (Score:2)
my gosh - I have pounds, many pounds, of plastic blocks in tubs. And each Lego kit comes !wrapped! in plastic bags.
I've given up and now vacuum the floor with abandon.
Maybe this is about pollution in the environment. But I'd have to imagine Lego consume raw materials for, and generates a LOT of plastic.
Re: (Score:2)
Even the title, never mind the summary, specifies plastic pollution not products. If you think Legos on your floor are pollution then maybe you should refrain from buying them in the first place.
Re:What about LEGO? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've missed the point: Pepsi doesn't produce plastic pollution any more that Lego does. The difference is in consumer behavior.
The entire problem of plastic pollution is some combination of "can't be bothered to toss plastic in a bin" and "city pays the lowest bidder for disposal, who proceeds to dump everything at sea".
Nowhere to use a reusable cup or bottle (Score:2)
OK, so where does one buy their products and get to use a BYOD reusable cup or bottle?
Re: (Score:2)
I just buy one disposable bottle, and reuse it.
Bring Back Glass Already (Score:2)
Re: Bring Back Glass Already (Score:2)
Soda tastes best in glass bottles anyway.
Place a $10 per lb tax on plastic (Score:4, Insightful)
A $10 per lb tax on plastic wouldn't affect most people's day to day lives. But it would encourage producers to shop around for alternative packaging material.
Plastic is not recyclable at a reasonable cost. It can be in perfect laboratory conditions, but isn't in the real world. Your soda didn't need a permanent eternal record of it's existence. Plastic shouldn't be used for single use packaging, unless it really is necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
So which side is actually incapable of shame? Looks like its you.
Let's consider how we got here (Score:2)
Break Free From Plastic blames our "throwaway culture," for much of the consumer waste. They argue that this throwaway mindset is at the core of many companies' business model.
I think we kinda need to remember how we got here. What's the alternative to single-use plastic containers? Well, it used to be glass bottles which are heavy to move around, heavy, bulky, and fragile to re-collect, and possibly a pain to clean and reuse. (Although I have fond memories from my college days where we had a Coke machine which dispensed re-used glass bottles. Coke tasted better out of a classic glass bottle. Interestingly, they developed worn bands around the bottle over time, where the bottles
Re: (Score:2)
Such limited thinking. In Europe, literally everywhere, these bottles have a $0.25 deposit. People return them, they're cleaned, refilled. If you throw them out, they'll be returned by someone else (kids) for $0.25.
How? We made it the law, companies are forced to cooperate. If your shop sells plastic bottles, you have to accept empty ones that consumers bring back.
You won't find a plastic bottle like that anywhere, not in streets, fields, rivers or anywhere else.
I wish they'd expand to many more types
Silver lining (Score:2)
In other news ... (Score:2)