In my previous Journal, I wrote about my favorite place to adventure, Acadia National Park. Although it is a great place to vacation and connect with nature, it is not a great example of having an abundance of technology. While trying to preserve the land, it can be hard to find a balance between tech and nature. For this Journal, Project 2, I am transitioning to the opposite of going on a hike, drinking Coca Cola. Ever wonder what it takes to get a cold Coca Cola from the factory to the palm of your hand on a hot summer day? A lot of energy. In this Journal, I am going to be discussing the ecological footprint of producing Coca Cola, as well as the impact it has on its surrounding communities and my closing thoughts.
It hurts me to say this, but when I finish a bottle of Coca Cola, which isn’t often, I hardly think about where it goes after the recycling. The same thing can be said with all the other trash and waste I throw away day after day. This idea of out of sight, out of mind, is not a healthy state for the environment. As I carelessly throw away a finished bottle, it is out of my present situation, but now a part of my future. According to How Products are Made, “The common soda bottle today is made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a strong yet lightweight plastic….It makes up 6.4 percent of all packaging and 14 percent of all plastic containers, including the popular soft drink bottle. Accounting for 43 percent of those sold, PET is the most widely used soft drink container. Aluminum, a close second, is 34 percent, while glass, which used to be 100 percent of the bottles, is only a small percentage of those sold today.” These plastics are made from natural substances that are characterized by having chains of molecules (How Products are Made). The problem with these plastics is not where they come from, but where they go. America ships the majority of its trash overseas to places like Thailand, Vietnam, and Malaysia being the world’s largest importer of plastic scraps, receiving hundreds of millions of tons from the United States (Mother Jones). Before diving too deep into this issue, let’s jump back to Coca Cola. According to Greener Package, “A 330-mL can of Coca Cola sold in Great Britain has a carbon footprint of 170 g, while the same-sized can of Diet Coke or Coke Zero has a footprint of 150 g. A 330-L glass bottle of Coca-Cola has a footprint of 360 g.” One thing I did not consider was different bottles having different ecological footprints. When looking at the numbers, the obvious choice is to go with a Diet Coke or Coke Zero because of its smaller ecological footprint. Greener Package continues by saying, “packaging accounts for the largest portion of the drink’s carbon footprint, between 30% and 70%, depending on the type of container used. However…recycling post-use can decrease the overall carbon footprint of a product by up to 60%.” Recycling is one of the only things consumers can do to turn a bad situation into a decently bad, but still slightly manageable situation. The production of these products is factory-based, the real threat is in the post-production process.
Earlier I talked a little about where the majority of our waste goes, but I didn’t discuss how they are affected by it. Without permission, shipments of waste and landfill flood the hills and valleys of Malaysia. “Shipments of imported plastic are piling up at ports, and a robust underground industry of illegal recyclers has spread across the nation, affecting the health and safety of local communities” (Mother Jones). The problem is that not all the products from recycling are actually recycled. When connecting this to my own community that I love, Acadia National Park, I cannot imagine the sight of landfill covering the natural soil, and the smell of trash killing the once fresh air and ocean breeze. The thought of drinking out of a nonreusable plastic bottle, from any brand for that matter, makes me feel sick. The cost outweighs the benefit by a significant margin. One solution could be the regulation of bottles and brands. Whatever brand distributes the bottle, it is their responsibility to have it properly recycled. That burden cannot be placed on the customer, because they have no other choice but to buy the product that is provided when no others are. By having recycling centers in the same factory as production, it might motivate the companies to do a better job recycling the waste they created. The notion of out of sight out of mind cannot apply here because it would always be in sight if it is in front of them, like the trash surrounding the innocent families in the Malaysia community.
At the end of the day, the surrounding community and the ones on the back end should have an influence on what decisions are being made because they are the ones who get hit the hardest. When the problem is not placed in front of you twenty-four-seven it can be easy to let it slip your mind. The unregulated waste issue is not only prevalent for Coca Cola, but for everyone with a product to sell. When that empty plastic bottle now leaves my hand and falls into the recycling bin, it is not gone, but transferred to a different location, out of sight, but still in mind.
References:
How Products are Made:
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Soda-Bottle.html
Mother Jones:
Greener Package:
https://www.greenerpackage.com/metrics_standards/coke’s_carbon_footprints_are_revealed
You must be logged in to post a comment.