
How Coca-Cola Undermines Plastic Recycling Efforts - elorant
https://theintercept.com/2019/10/18/coca-cola-recycling-plastics-pollution/
======
spodek
The irony is that packaged goods companies generally promote and love
recycling because it distracts from reducing, as in reduce, reuse, recycle.
Getting people to think recycling helps, rather than mildly mitigates
pollution, keeps their sales up.

Since their products are nearly all unhealthy and all pollute, "reduce"
suggests we all benefit from no one buying their products at all. If they
thought about how environmental concerns will affect them, they'd promote
recycling wholeheartedly, not half.

~~~
PretzelFisch
It's sad when these packagers/bottlers like Coca-Cola used glass there was a
great recycle program built into it. Very sad that this faded away as they
changed to plastic.

~~~
pixl97
Glass causes a massive amount of pollution via breakage and product loss,
injury, and more carbon use because of its higher weight.

~~~
PretzelFisch
Are their studies that compare glass bottle reuse to plastic bottles? Since a
glass bottle just needs to be cleaned for reuse, I naively think it has less
of a footprint then the plastic extraction, processing and recycling chain.

------
dmytroi
Quick google shows that recycle rate is ~30% for PET bottles in US in 2015
[0]. Not obvious if the problem is that customers not returning/recycling
bottles or that garbage just gets landfilled.

Compare that to Nordics, where Norway achieved 95.4% return rate of PET
bottles (~0.3 USD return cash-back), and Sweden 84% (~0.15 USD return) [1].
Most countries in EU have landfill ban [2], so most of waste is either burned
or recycled. Diverting bottles/cans to return scheme solves garbage sorting
problem, which makes it possible to process/recycle 100% of it just by
improving recycling facilities.

In my personal opinion, closed loop systems (full ban on landfills) are better
for everyone, but require deep systematic changes, potentially using "dirty"
psychological tricks, to get done what's really needed. Adding deposits may
sound negative from NIMBY/corporate, but it leverages human psychological on
last mile (where garbage sorting is easiest) and from empirical evidence
achieves what needs to be done.

\- [0] [https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-
waste-...](https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-and-
recycling/plastics-material-specific-data) \- [1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-
deposit_legislation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container-
deposit_legislation) \- [2] [http://www.cewep.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/Landfill-taxe...](http://www.cewep.eu/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/Landfill-taxes-and-bans-overview.pdf)

~~~
Shivetya
Not sure how it panned out elsewhere, but we used to have newspaper, magazine,
and aluminum can, recycling bins in school parking lots. They got moved of
course after all the "predator" laws but even after being moved most were
abandoned as people used them for general trash; as in they did not want to
pay for services or take to dump on their own their regular trash.

Just slapping recycle costs on all three forms of drink containers should be
sufficient to boost return to proper places. I remember bottle deposits doing
well.

------
NeedMoreTea
They're consistent then.

Keep America Beautiful was formed in reaction to proposed 1953 Vermont
legislation to require deposits on bottles. American Can Company, Pepsi, Coke,
Budweiser, Philip Morris and others figured out, funded and launched the
group. Neatly framing their new externality as solely a fault with their
customers.

Interestingly Coke and others are complaining in the UK that rules to require
30% recycled plastic are too onerous, and have caused the cost of recycled
plastic to rise.

~~~
augustocallejas
This was well covered in the NPR podcast Throughline:

[https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the-litter-
myth](https://www.npr.org/2019/09/04/757539617/the-litter-myth)

------
KirinDave
Reading this makes me angry, and reminds me that there is an already
incredibly (and increasingly) lucrative market for repurposing post-consumer
plastics as material for modern industrial (and home-based post-industrial) 3d
print manufacture. Good food-grade filament is expensive, but with a bit of
work you can easily repurpose and re-extrude food-grade plastic for new work.
Similar stories exist for PLA and ABS, especially in industrial settings where
machines are designed to work with less pure stock. Maybe that should be my
next business...

My other question is, when do we start seeing these corporations as
unaccountable extra-legal entities who are in a very real sense an enemy of
future generations of humans and their prosperity? If we do come to that
conclusion, what is the appropriate physical response? Do we begin to protest
their plants as aggressively as US citizens protest ICE administration and/or
incarceration facilities?

~~~
stjohnswarts
Do you actually think there is a 3D printer market big enough to handle all
the plastics that are in drink bottles and such? I bet it isn't even 1/10000
of the actual waste.

~~~
KirinDave
No, not now.

In the future, yes.

------
agent86
I'm looking for HN to provide me some perspective outside of my little bubble
here.

I've only ever lived in states that have had bottle deposits. I've been
feeding these cans/bottles back into the redemption machines since I was a
kid. I can genuinely stay that I've recycled nearly every eligible container
I've ever used.

However for most of my adult live I've also had recycling available at
curbside - including cans/bottles. It was originally paper, glass and metal
separated, but has since gone single stream.

We recycle everything we can that is eligible, but I don't put cans/bottles in
there because I'd lose the deposit. I wish the deposit was gone so that I
could put these items in there and gain this little efficiency in life.

At the same time I see these studies where the data clearly shows the deposit
has a significantly higher effective recycling rate. I'm struggling to
understand this. Do the places without deposits also not have curbside single
stream recycling that processes these containers?

Can someone with experience in a location with no deposit but with curbside
single stream recycling available for these items explain why people aren't
recycling them there?

Is really as simple as "people won't put things into a different trash
receptacle in their home"?

~~~
mindslight
Bottle/can deposits predated curbside recycling, and vestigial regulations
don't just disappear. Some large liquor stores specialize in making returning
cans as easy as possible, to attract business from alcoholics.

FWIW have you done the math on the actual money you get back, divided by the
time spent managing an extra waste stream? Unless you're a heavy bottle user,
I personally don't see how it makes sense to not just ignore the deposit and
recycle via modern means.

~~~
WalterBright
> I personally don't see how it makes sense to not just ignore the deposit and
> recycle via modern means.

There's a psychological effect. For example, the grocery store charges 5 cents
per bag. If I forget to bring bags with me to the store, it irks me that I
have to pay 5 cents, even though the amount is trivial and completely non-
substantive.

~~~
mindslight
But do you travel back home to retrieve your own bags?

~~~
quantum_magpie
When I leave my backpack at home and realize I need to visit the grocery store
I do make a detour home first, and then move on to the store just to avoid
getting plastic bags. It adds maybe extra 15 minutes but I feel it's worth it.
I do shopping on foot though, so no need to burn extra gas to do that.

------
Swannie
> Several months ago, Coke came out in support of a bottle deposit program in
> Australia.

Guess who "co-ordinates" the bottle return scheme in New South Wales (where
the linked article references)? It's a joint venture of which Coca-Cola Amatil
(CCA - the Australian distributor), is a key stakeholder.

So they basically control what is an acceptable bottle, what the price you
must pay for that is, etc. and charge for producer certification, etc. It's
put the squeeze on a lot of smaller craft beer and beverage producers, as the
costs to implement have been pushed on to them.

Oh and in Australia it's illegal for the brewers to re-use glass bottles,
irrespective of their prior use or treatment :-(

[1] [https://returnandearn.org.au/about-return-and-
earn/](https://returnandearn.org.au/about-return-and-earn/)

------
dghughes
If anything the sheer amount of soda pop people drink is concerning. The
plastic waste is due to the chosen diets of consumers.

When I was a kid in late 70s early 80s my family of four shared one 750ml
bottle of pop (and one bag of chips) on Friday night. Now a 600ml is a single
serving of pop and many people drink pop with every meal.

~~~
thatfrenchguy
> The plastic waste is due to the chosen diets of consumers.

They’re not chosen though, they are the result of billions of dollars spent on
advertising.

~~~
catalogia
And yet many choose to abstain. The advertising is a problem and should be
banned, but that's not reason to dehumanize consumers by denying their agency.
People _do_ have a choice and they should be reminded of that at every
opportunity.

~~~
WalterBright
I drank a lot of coke until about 10 years ago, when I stopped. The first year
was difficult, after that I was not tempted anymore. The advertising has no
effect on me.

I have drunk a couple cans since, but didn't particularly care for the sticky,
syrupy taste, and did not resume the habit.

------
bhouston
We should bring this up with Warren Buffet, isn't he one of the main investors
in Coca Cola?

Warren Buffet likes to pretend he is great but we should clearly associate his
personal fortune with the plastic pollution that Coca Cola produces in mass.

------
amriksohata
In the UK there is a tax on sugary drinks so people pay more which is a good
thing. Just shows if this tax is adopted how much of a nuisance certain
companies are for the health and environment

~~~
avar
Those sorts of sin taxes are the poster child for dumbly implemented tax
policy. Tax the waste and pollution, or obesity and other health impacts that
cause societal externalities. There's nothing wrong with drinking sugary water
in moderation.

~~~
kibibu
Not in countries with partially or fully-socialized healthcare.

If drinking litres of cola causes diseases that the public purse has to
support, then pay more for the cola.

~~~
rayiner
Just deny care to those who drink soda or do other unhealthy things.

~~~
Al-Khwarizmi
Difficult to implement, how do you know if a given person is obese due to soda
or to, e.g., genetics?

And even if it could be implemented, it's still not the point of universal
healthcare. In most European countries we'd rather take care of everyone, even
those who are guilty of their own health problems.

For example, and even from an egoistic point of view and leaving ethics aside,
I'd rather have drug addicts treated and sheltered with my tax money than
having to encounter dozens of them, homeless and stinking from bad hygiene,
every time I walk the street, as I have seen in many US cities.

~~~
pixl97
Because 99.999% of people are going to be because of soda.

------
wiseleo
One of the hurdles of effectively recouping the California Redemption Value
deposit is that the would-be recycler has to take them to a smelly location
far away from place of purchase and endure the inconvenience of waiting in
line and dealing with unwritten rules and other customers.

I remember being in some East Coast state, I think it was Maine, where I could
return beverage containers at same store where I bought the drinks. That's
convenient. Going to a recycling facility to get 5 cents back per container is
not. My fuel cost would be higher than the value of returned deposit.

I recycled cans a few times. It's convoluted. The rate per can is in practice
disregarded and it would actually be lower at about $1.43/lb than the $1.63/lb
that could be paid out today by weight. The centers pay a rate per pound.
However, they can pay either the CRV rate per pound or the scrap metal rate.
Most infrequent recyclers would have no idea these are options.

"How much do recycling centers _pay per pound for cans and bottles_?
Currently, state certified recycling centers pay a minimum of _$1.63 CRV for
aluminum cans; $1.26 CRV for clear PET plastic bottles; $0.60 CRV for HDPE
plastic bottles (similar to the large water jugs); and $0.10 CRV for glass
bottles. These CRV per pound rates are periodically adjusted_ , with new rates
taking effect January 1 and July 1. _In addition to the CRV, recyclers may
also pay a scrap value, which may also fluctuate._

Can recycling centers pay less than the refund value for redeemed containers?
Yes, if the material is contaminated. Operators of certified recycling centers
must inspect each load of containers to determine whether it is eligible for
CRV. Recycling centers have the option to refuse to accept containers which,
in their opinion, are excessively contaminated with dirt, moisture, or other
foreign substances. Alternatively, _recycling centers may adjust downward the
CRV per pound used to calculate the payment by the ratio of such substances to
empty beverage containers_. In this circumstance, the consumer has the right
to accept the discounted refund and/or scrap price, to separate refund from
nonrefund material, or to take the material back."

~~~
Qub3d
The state of Michigan does this; you can return the bottles at the store you
bought them from using automated can return systems. I haul in a bag every
couple of months and get a coupon code that I can either turn into cash or use
on my in-store purchase. Its really slick.

------
nashashmi
In Pakistan in 1990s, Coca-Cola and Pepsi would give out glass bottles and set
up efforts to recover them, Offering discounts if they did. Plastic bottles
are now the new norm unfortunately.

------
oska
Coca-Cola is an almost wholly evil company. By 'evil' I mean they poison
people's quality of life and harm the environment and they do it _knowingly_.
They are in exactly the same category as tobacco companies.

------
Scoundreller
2 annoying things that Coke has done:

1) their hourglass bottles use more plastic per 2L bottle than other 2L
bottles

2) They reduced their 591mL bottles to 500. Ugh.

~~~
lultimouomo
Was the 591mL bottle a single portion? That seems huge... The half liter is
already a bit too much for me.

~~~
Scoundreller
Resealable cap. Up to the buyer as for how quickly they want to drink it.

~~~
dsego
Doesn't it go flat quickly?

~~~
Scoundreller
If you put the other half in the fridge and drink within a few days, no.

------
jstewartmobile
plastic and aluminum litter, xenoestrogens, reservoir depletion, diabetes,
obesity, tooth decay...

if only I could figure out a scalable way to punch people in the face, give
them the herp, and charge for it? instant billionaire!

~~~
carapace
Upvoted you because, despite _le_ snark, I think you're making a really good
point: Soda is fucking nuts.

Seriously, "pop" et. al. is "Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy" level farce.

There are places where it's easier to get Coke than potable water.

"If sugar had been discovered recently instead of in antiquity it would be a
_controlled substance_ instead of being _half_ our kids' meals."

------
tgsovlerkhgsel
TL;DR: By opposing laws that require a deposit on plastic bottles.

------
bipolar_lisper
can someone give me a good argument for not using glass

~~~
mqus
1\. It's heavy. In fact it's so heavy that it's sometimes (mostly? don't have
a source at hand) more environment-friendly to reuse plastic bottles than
driving all that weight around. Obviously, the weight also makes it
inconvenient, e.g. if you don't have a car you have to put that on your
bicycle and/or lift it to the next public transit station.

2\. It can break more easily. If it breaks, you can cut yourself on it. You
can also cut others which is why those bottles are prohibited at some places
with security controls or some workplaces.

~~~
stjohnswarts
I don't think I'd work at a place where they think that my glass bottle is a
deadly weapon. That sounds like a bad place to work.

~~~
mqus
The reason glass bottles are prohibited at some workplaces are mostly because
of situations in factories(or similar) where you let your bottle fall to the
ground and the glass can hurt others unintentionally, disrupting the work,
(maybe also insurance, I don't know), etc. It's just to prevent workplace
injuries.

I could have made that clearer in my sentence, sorry.

------
tbihl
Bottle deposits make me markedly less likely to recycle. Without them, it's a
small amount of energy to bring the bottles back home to recycle, so I can
pretend that I'm not generating waste. With deposits, I trash those and
typically trash the ones at my house, because otherwise I'm providing a
monetary incentive for homeless people to come to my house and root through my
bins.

------
mattmaroon
Coke is fighting legislation that would make their product more expensive? You
don't say!

~~~
tobltobs
deposit != more expensive.

same rule would apply to their competitors.

~~~
koboll
From the article:

>a bottle bill or container deposit law, which requires beverage companies to
tack a charge onto the price of their drink to be refunded after it’s returned

So, yeah, it'd make their product more expensive at the time of purchase.

But "soda companies oppose recycling" is more sensational than "soda companies
oppose adding a fee to the cost of their products".

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Deposit and return has been the standard way of achieving _working_ reuse and
recycling, pretty much forever. A century ago including Coca-Cola and all the
milk, pop and beer bottlers. Just about everything that wants something back
puts a deposit on it - otherwise people have no incentive to bother.

So the question becomes _why_ do they oppose a fee that is _unlikely to hurt
overall sales?_ Ah, because they would have to do something with those
returned bottles...

~~~
kwhitefoot
> because they would have to do something with those returned bottles...

No they don't. Here in Norway the bottles are compacted in the back of the
reverse vending machine (usually from Tomra: [https://www.tomra.com/nb-
no/collection/reverse-vending](https://www.tomra.com/nb-no/collection/reverse-
vending)) and sent directly to recycling. Bottles from all the different
suppliers go together, none of them go back to the manufacturer of the
content. And Coca-Cola has a deposit on bottles here and it is an entirely
non-controversial idea.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Well have to do something in the sense of use some proportion of the recycled
plastic. They have been consistent in briefing against deposit and reuse, and
recycling, despite using millions of tons of plastic a year.

Moving to the system presently in Norway, and Germany I believe would be a
huge step in the right direction. Sadly most governments appear afraid or
unable to actually put accountability on corporations. Personally I'd require
them to go back to deposit and reuse.

------
MrStonedOne
Misleading title.

Coca-Cola pushing back on a bill that would increase their overhead, increase
the cost of their product, and decrease sales is disingenuous and
intellectually dishonest to label as "Undermining Plastic Recycling Efforts".
Especially when they do things to push for the recycling efforts in other
ways.

That's not to say bottle deposits wouldn't be a great system, regardless of
how it hurts Coca-Cola's bottle line - I just can't abide by such egregious
dishonesty. I've taken to referring to such over generalization of titles "the
news cycle Simpson's Paradox." Its masking material details by over
generalizing or over abstracting them away.

~~~
mindslight
Bottle deposits are a terrible system. Store bags full of half-sugary cans (or
use much more water rinsing them out beyond a doubt), and foul your hands up
before getting groceries (or spend gas on a separate trip), all to effectively
recover less than minimum wage? Unless you're drinking some enormous amount of
soda or beer, you're better off viewing it as simply another 5 cent tax, and
putting them in the standard municipal recycling.

~~~
kwhitefoot
Here in Norway the deposit is closer to USD 0.50 than USD 0.05. I just keep a
bag for returnable cans and bottles and all the shops where I return them have
disposable wipes so that you can clean your hands after returning the cans and
bottles. I don't use any water to rinse out the cans. We just return the
bottles and cans about once or twice a month, perhaps a little more often
around Christmas.

~~~
mindslight
How do you deal with the bags leaking whatever drips out of the cans, now that
you're in the trash hauling business without the standard equipment? Do you
have stores that won't take back brands they do not themselves sell, meaning
you've got multiple categories of sorting/storing?

10x the deposit would certainly change my personal utilitarian calculation.
Which IMHO is a common pattern of failure in the US - only small amounts at
stake, a system that sucks because most people just ignore it, and then
opposition to making that sucky system more prominent (as my comment was
arguing). My viewpoint with respect to cans is probably how large companies
perceive dumping waste in a river - the fine is only a $300k line item several
years down the road, not worth worrying about!

The sustainability problem that we're facing is much more general, rather than
focusing on bespoke solutions for individual categories. A "deposit" is
basically just an attempt to price resource depletion into the consumption
side, rather than the supply side. IMO it makes sense to move the accounting
to the supply side instead of attempting to assign a specific negative cost to
every category of good that we don't want incinerated. Tax virgin materials to
properly price in the externality of resource depletion, as opposed to
increasing deposits to putative levels. If using recycled materials is
incentivized enough, it will even start to make sense to pull stuff like
aluminum out of the garbage stream.

(PS I've got to wonder whether USians downvoting me even actually return their
own bottles for the deposit, or consider it someone else's problem and enjoy
having an underclass to salvage recyclables from the unenlightened. I can't
imagine many people with tech level salaries care about the nickels.)

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Personally I would like both - hit the supply side with tax to ensure _all_
the packaging's hidden costs are on the producer, and a deposit to reduce the
amount lost.

I have a habit to take enough bags to the supermarket when shopping, yet I can
easily afford the few pennies a new plastic bag costs. My parents had the
habit to take items with a deposit - mostly drinks bottles. They didn't need
the few coins either.

Considering an old glass pop or milk bottle went round the system 50 or more
times, once strikes me as unsustainable madness. As the manufacturer carries
none of the consequences, they have incentives to ensure we don't improve. No
wonder they consistently lobby against deposit and reuse or recycling schemes.

