Coca-Cola Named Most Polluting Brand in Plastic Waste Audit
theintercept.com
theintercept.com
It's not the only point in the article, but is the only one I'm commenting on here.
It's basically, "the majority of plastic waste comes from the company that sells the majority of the products" (or if they aren't selling the majority of the products, the article doesn't argue they have an outsize contribution), and it is implying that somehow Coca-Cola is where the blame for this pollution lies.
But what evidence are we given that they're worse than other companies, that it's not just because they sell the most popular products? The article doesn't give any (it does not say why they are comparatively worse). And nor does the article argue why the fault should be with the product producers. Are they the ones dumping the used containers in the ocean? What about the government policies regarding recycling or waste management? Or consumer behavior regarding waste?
I'm sure some people are going to see this comment as somehow just trying to defend a big corporation, but that is not my goal at all. I'm interested in the quality of the discussions surrounding these issues, and I'm trying to point out that the article's discussion doesn't meet very high standards.
E.g. Coca-Cola could claim to have reduced their use in plastic in 25% and still be the most polluting brand.
What would you suggest they do to reduce the amount of waste?
If the products are sold in plastic bottles, there are severe limits to what the control the company has once the product is in the hands of the consumers.
If we're talking about government regulations, why is that company to be held accountable for those regulations?
There's a lot a company can do.
So we have to ask whether it is economically viable to, say, collect the packaging. I imagine that country-wide programs to do this would be very expensive.
Of the ones you mention, I imagine that research is the most likely to be viable (keep in mind it’s not just the research but also finding a material that is economically viable to produce) But how do you know they aren’t already doing that?
In Germany collection of bottles has been implemented all the time and it is definitely not "very expensive". In Slovakia it is planned to start again since next year or so.
In the 80's and 90's, where I live, Coca-Cola used to sell in returnable glass bottles, you would drop it at the mini market and buy a filled one, and buying one without returning another bottle cost a lot more, so people had incentive to store empty bottles and return it back. It worked just fine. They didn't go broke. I call BS that it's not economic viable.
This gets back to my original point: why are they to blame for it? I'm willing to hear an argument for why they are, but neither the original article nor your comment provides one.
As far as I understand things, the majority of plastic pollution comes from poor waste management practices. With good waste management practices, there aren't any issues with plastic pollution. If this is true, then why should the companies who make the products be at fault? The waste management practices are the responsibility of parties such as governments.
Coca-Cola manufactures billions of plastic bottles a year. Governments don't create waste. If you think waste management would solve it, why isn't Coca-Cola contributing to waste management? This is a direct government subsidy. Our taxes are funding waste management services for a problem that Coca-Cola and others create.
I don't drink Coca-Cola, yet my taxes pay for waste management services and litter pick-up operations from my city council. It would be more fair if that price was shifted to the company.
I've explained why it doesn't seem that way to me. Give me a reason and then we can discuss that reason.
> why isn't Coca-Cola contributing to waste management?
What is the reason that they should?
> a problem that Coca-Cola and others create.
What is the argument for that company creating the problem? You haven't addressed what I've said regarding this.
> It would be more fair if that price was shifted to the company.
Why?
You also seem to be implying that good waste management practices are somehow only needed because of there being so much plastic. We need good practices whether or not Coca-Cola exists.
Simply look at the situation and see if it passes a basic common sense test:
Coke produces billions of plastic bottles, many of which end up as pollution.
Coke produces billions of dollars of profits, none of which goes to preventing those plastic bottles from ending up as waste.
Coke’s company operators and shareholders make billions of dollars, of which none (or a negligible amount) of which goes to preventing said waste.
We all live in a world that is littered with plastic waste, which causes health problems and other horrible ecological problems, even if we don’t buy coke products.
Coke is directly responsible for creating a huge amount of this waste. They are not the only producer but they are the biggest and the biggest ones get held accountable for things. This is the way of the world in which human beings make emotionally bisased decisions.
Does this sound fair to you?
"As far as I understand things, the majority of plastic pollution comes from poor waste management practices. With good waste management practices, there aren't any issues with plastic pollution. If this is true, then why should the companies who make the products be at fault? The waste management practices are the responsibility of parties such as governments."
To clarify that a bit, my understanding is that it comes from those countries that have poor waste management practices, and that many countries already have reasonably good practices. I also saw an article recently claiming that the majority of ocean waste comes from ships disposing of their waste at sea. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21135259
Because they are manufacturing it.
Why are they to blame for diabetes? Because they are manufacturing the product.
Why are they to blame for tooth decay? Because they are manufacturing the product.
Why are car makers to blame for road deaths? Because they make the cars.
etc etc.
It's so easy to trot out such near-slogans.
I am NOT saying you can't make an argument for these parties to having the blame, however such simple "because they make it" doesn't cut it.
It requres a more substantial argument.
Governments and companies are both organizations taxing the world in different ways and giving services in return.
The only real choice we have is to give our money and positive/negative attention to these organizations irrespective if they are governments or companies, so I would ask why not make both types of organizations responsible?
What has that got to do with my point?
,,What about the government policies regarding recycling or waste management? Or consumer behavior regarding waste?''
The problem with consumer behaviour change is that it doesn't scale. There are billions of people who pollute much less than an averahe person living in US, but they are unable to offset it
Blaming doesn't need much effort, so even though it has less direct effect, it can scale better through social media.
Regarding government policies (and especially enforcement) you are totally right though.