The Real Deal #10

Welcome to The Real Deal, the Climate and Energy newsletter from the builders of getreal.earth, a new platform coming out in 2025 to help people get involved creating a sustainable planet.

Last month we presented a high-level, massively oversimplified grid to use when discussing/considering/researching climate/energy:

(Right away I can see that I’m missing weather/meteorology studies and changes. Now that I’ve had a couple months to get my feet under me and begin talking to experts, I’ll be revamping this to make it easier to read as well.)

What we’ll be doing moving forward is using this grid (or updated version) to highlight the current issue’s topics.

I pressure-tested this against a few of our prior issues:

1. There are many areas not yet covered.

2. Some have been covered multiple times.

3. Every issue covers at least one of these topics.

As we delve into this week’s Thursday topic - a deep ”-ish” dive into what a worldwide-recognizable brand can do to the planet - here is the first stab at giving you an easy guide to understand the content of what’s coming today in ORANGE:

What A Brand Does

Quick question: For you, what does this image evoke?

Speaking for myself - in simple terms - it evokes these thoughts:

• Childhood

• Yum

• Best

• America

• Couple Times a Year & At Movies

This isn’t a cola war discussion; out of respect for respect everyone’s tastes, it is an undeniable fact that Coke has a worldwide recognized brand and is highly popular as a soft drink. But my feelings toward a brand aren’t the same as my feelings about the company. That’s just me… but hear me out.

For the curious, I found an interesting Investopedia article that details the Coke/Pepsi comparison rather succinctly. Bottom line: PepsiCo is bigger in total revenue with a more diversified product offering (Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats), while Coke focuses on “drinks” and dominates the carbonated beverage sector.

So let’s just assume that the Coke logo has some kind of positive effect on you, even if you might not drink it. Whatever the case, it represents sugary (or sweetened) carbonated drinks that taste good.

Right? A “fun” brand.

[Getting thirsty]

Think about that in the context of the early 2020s push toward “net-zero” and sustainability. In 2022, Coke pledged that by 2030 it will:

1. Bottle 25% of its product, globally, in reusable glass or plastic containers, and

2. Use 50% recycled material in its packaging,

3. Collect and recycle a bottle or can for every one they sell.

This was common in that time — a whole 30 months ago — due to a resurgence in awareness about the dangers of plastics in our lives. Coke’s announcement was likely lost in the shuffle of a busy time when companies were making bold sustainability promises that were likely impossible to meet and difficult to track, at best.

The article in the Guardian I referenced above also goes on to explain that some time after November 20th of this year (two weeks ago), just before the global plastics treaty, Coke removed the page overviewing these pledges from their website.

While they’ve made new promises, there has been no mention of the old ones from 2022.

So What?

Consider the following:

• Coke admitted in 2019 to producing over 3 million metric tons of plastic a year.

• WORLDWIDE plastic production currently stands at an estimated 440 tons a year according to the UN’s website.

• Coke tops the list of 56 companies that account for over half the world’s plastic pollution.

Now this isn’t a coke-bashing party. As I mentioned, I love the product.

However, if you think about the brands we choose and how it impacts things, one can apply the Pareto Principle to this situation as well: 80% of outcomes can be traced to 20% of causes. It stands to reason that finding 20% of plastic producers in the world and convening them should result an impacting 80% of the solution…no?

And if you’re thinking about why the producers are the problem… consider why is it up to the consumer to let the way a product is packaged influence the selections they make? I have to admit, when I buy drinks that come in single-use packaging, I tend to choose aluminum or glass over plastic. Alcohol rarely comes in plastic — because it leaches toxins into the alcohol (ethylene glycol and terephthalic acid).

Sounds tasty.

But I have started wondering lately - is this because there are less plastic containers now? Or is it simply because I make different choices than I used to? I don’t know. This will take a deeper dive.

Informed Consumers do Make Different Choices

About fifteen years ago we went for a hike up a mountain with some friends. We got there early, plastic water bottles all filled up and ready to go, and when we got ready to depart, our friends were… conducting a chemistry experiment in the back of their SUV… pouring water from one big metal container into a smaller one.

I wandered over.

“What are you doing?” I asked.

“We don’t use plastic for water,” one of them answered.

“Why?” I asked.

“Because it’s poisonous,” they answered.

I gave them this, “Um, okaaay,” response and left the situation, annoyed. We were about six whole minutes late for our walk at this point and I wanted to move (in addition to being clueless about the vagaries of plastic consumption at the time, I was sort of impatient).

Fast forward all these years and I have realized that I have built a lower tolerance for plastic in my life. And even with this awareness and aversion, have determined that removing plastic completely would be impossible.

Why? Because I don’t base my purchasing decisions on whether something is packaged in plastic. I don’t believe I should have to, either.

So Who’s Responsible for Changing?

If Coke is responsible for 1% of all plastics produced in the world, and 11% of all plastic pollution, who else should be responsible?

Should they be punished? 200 countries were represented at the aforementioned plastics treaty this year. Does each of them decide to enforce limits on plastic, or require sustainable packaging in some percentage of bottles produced?

Coke has already stated in countless press releases over the years that they are taking efforts to reduce their plastic production and increase sustainable material content in their packaging.

The numbers are staggering. Over 20 million tons of plastic gets into the environment a year, and currently there is between 79 million and 199 million tons floating around in the ocean. As I covered here a few weeks ago, the Ocean Project is trying to tackle the cleanup…but let’s talk about stopping the plastic production first.

The answer comes down to a commitment to business, innovation, and technology.

Why? Because until it is economically feasible for a company like Coke to make more sustainable packaging just won’t do it. Who would pay five or ten dollars for a single-use bottle of coke just because the packaging wasn’t plastic? A Coke costs what it does partially because it’s packaged cheaply. Full stop.

And will any government mandate something? Maybe…but why rely on it?

We need innovators to enter the stage and innovate.

We need business solutions based on science and engineering that will enable people to acquire the products they need in “safe” and healthy packaging - packaging that is good for us, our environment, and doesn’t pollute oceans at massive rates and release nanoparticles into the air, the ocean, the soil.

Cleaning it up is one thing, stopping the flow is another.

I’ve been talking to some people involved in this kind of solution and will be profiling companies, solutions, and people fighting this fight in future issues.

In the meantime — “Enjoy.” 🥤 🙂