Opinion: To drink a Coke or not to drink a Coke, that is the question…

Today the reactions to the new voter laws in the State of Georgia is happening. Rightfully so. It is a need to address and take account of the awful and disenfranchising electoral laws the Republican Party have signed into law. The act of Governor Brian Kemp and his fellow Republican Representatives. They have all deliberately done this and with intent of making it harder for fellow citizens to cast their ballot and vote. That is for the simple reason. The less voters means more likely a Republican majority. Therefore, it is winning strategy to make it harder for the general public to vote.

Now… what is tragic about the politics in America at the moment. Is that instead of looking at the initial issue. The progressive and the ones who wants voters to show up is going up against the businesses in Atlanta, Georgia. The ones who has a base there and the ones who funnel money through the political system. A system that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is fine with in the days of sunshine, but speaks ill of in the days of rain.

This week has been a storm and been heavy rain. The raindrops are clearly hitting hard and not so easily to get to the storm-drain. Nevertheless, the ideals should be to revise the system. Get new legislation to counter this one or repeal the acts that disenfranchise voters in Georgia. That should be the focus. The focus should be on the ideals and integrity of the ballot, which John Lewis stood for and fought for all his life.

Not battle the beverages industry and one of its giants Coca-Cola Company. Yes, the giant international beverage company has its sins to answer for. They have their ills and its profit motive at any given time. However, it isn’t the bottles of Coke fault for the voters law. Neither is it in the interest of a bottling and beverages company to stop people from voting. Their best interests is to get people hooked on their drink and purchase more of bottles next time they pass by a Wall-Mart.

That is why politics in the United States have gone bonkers. Yes, the politicians are screwed by lobbyist and secretive PAC-Money, which funds their massive and expensive campaigns. Still, in the middle of that. That doesn’t mean they are responsible for the ills and evil, which occurs now and then. Right now that’s all on Governor Kemp and his Republican comrades.

A bottle of Coke will not solve this. Neither will a bottle of Pepsi. Heck, no sort of drink will juice up the veins of democracy. Not the Speakeasies or the roaring 1920s will make fudge about it either. Coca-Cola isn’t the company to solve or in the dominion to do so. Yes, they can stop giving money to the Republican Party, but that they will only cease for a hot-minute and return when they need favourable legislation. As long as the dark-money and PAC money can fund politicians. The companies will return and secure results on their “investments”.

The activists shouldn’t go for a boycott and stop drinking Coke. That is a short-term and a losing strategy. Who will win? The one with billions in the bank and can sustain a hit or the few consumers with a moral obligation? I think the guy with the biggest bank and there are so many who don’t care. Those folks will drink Coke regardless.

That is why, the ones who wants change and make a difference. Call the legislators. Email them like crazy. Make their team and staff go nuts over all the feedback. Make the legislators of State of Georgia packed with messages, faxes or whatever they get memo home. That what they was wrong and they need to revise it.

The GOP and the Governor will not care if you stop drinking Coke. They will not give a damn. You are the ones who losing your beverage. It is not difference then when Republican activists burns their Nike’s or destroyed their coffee-maker. In some ways … its the same thing and neither was winning.

The activists and the ones calling for this. Better think ahead. The Democrats who are fearing for the ballots and voters of Georgia. Better do “Good Trouble”. What they are doing is symbolic hogwash. This is changing their Tinder Profile and thinking their soulmate will love that you were drinking Pepsi instead of Coke. Sorry brother, but that’s not it and that wasn’t the reason why the person swiped your way.

Let’s be clear. You can stop drinking coke, but that will not save democracy. You can boycott Coke, but that not resolve the issues either. What you can do and what you should do. Is to show civil disobedience and call for changes in legislation. Both in Georgia and in the Federal Law. So, that dark-money cannot run rampant behind closed chambers and decide what lawmakers do. Secondly, you can pressure state legislatures to actually vote for laws that makes it easier to vote and not what they did this week. That is what you should do. Not stop sipping Coke.

That means visible protests in the streets. Sponsoring billboards, sending letters, emails and other texts to legislators and by all means be vocal about the cause. Nevertheless, the idea of stopping to drink a beverage. Well… that is futile and not doing anyone any damage. Coke will not be hurt and their bottom-line will not even feel the sting.

It is a time for everything, but boycotting Coke over voting legislation is redundant and a foolish enterprise. Especially, when there are so many other avenues where the ones in power would fear you and would feel your presence. They are not fearing what your drinking in your living-room and at your kitchen. No, they are fearing your feet stomping in the streets and your voices cracking close to their chambers of power. That is why they take away your access to vote in the first place. Peace.

PepsiCo ‘moments content’ ad were trivializing real-life demonstrations!

“…they’re weak, petty, so apathetic about this gift of life as if it were all a mere Pepsi commercial.”Marisha Pessl

We live in interesting times, where a soft-drink company’s advertisement can spark this sort of outrage, I wonder if people could have used this anger against the brutality and the violence around the world, when it comes to government sponsored authorities. I wonder, because this sort of act of discontinued discussions usually appears in culture, when there are something real behind it.

That it was, it was something real, the Pepsi Corporation together with a marketing company went together and made a fake ‘Black Lives Matter’ protest, but instead trying to say, “We will bring harmony to the world if you listen to Skip Marley’s and drinks Pepsi Coke!” Yeah, brother!

Well, the ad is trivializing the protest movements and their demonstrations, that is clear, making it seem so simple, while everyone around is drinking and giggling on the Pepsi. The way they have made it is with such flair and so look like it is a manufactured reality, which it seems that there should not be any police brutality when demonstrations appear. They should just be smiling and giggly, wearing designer clothes and be top-notch mood, while all are drinking Pepsi.

Therefore the company had to come out with this statement:

PURCHASE, N.Y., April 5, 2017 – “Pepsi was trying to project a global message of unity, peace and understanding. Clearly we missed the mark, and we apologize. We did not intend to make light of any serious issue. We are removing the content and halting any further rollout. We also apologize for putting Kendall Jenner in this position.” (PepsiCo – ‘Pepsi Statement Re: Pepsi Moments Content’ 05.04.2017).

That demonstrators worldwide and organizers feels a bit betrayed by the motivation and the use, is understandable, that Piers Morgan defended the corporation was to be expected. Corporations can do as they please and especially if it is benefits the likes of Piers Morgan, who we for some strange reasons doesn’t know why is famous or why he acts entitled to the world to care about his opinion. Well, let go back to the ad in question.

It is not like PepsiCo and other corporation’s tries to tap into the youth culture, the company of Pepsi have made fortunes doing so and selling stories that fits that paradigm. So that they trying to fit themselves into BLM, the growing resistance against Trump or any movement that is questioning the powers-to-be. That seems a little beneath a soft-drink company. It seems a bit insincere. Since a company of this stature and this size are blend into the establishment and the greater state, who is not that favorable of demonstrations.

That there will be trivializing this is natural, that will be people not understanding the outrage, but next time, the corporations might tap into your struggles and your fights to get justice in society. Than you up next homie. Your definition of understanding, of justice and freedom, liberty and fight for better society might be portrayed in a sugarcoated reality by Coca-Cola, will you accept it?

There is healthy reasons to question PepsiCo and their management for their use of demonstrations, which has inflicted pain and suffrage for many, as they have been there because of the violent police force, who has brutally used weapons and tactics to disperse fellow citizens. Around the globe, the police use all sort of methods to keep the demonstrations at bay and detain unlawfully citizens. Still, that was not in the sweat dreamy portrait of Pepsi.

We do not have to wonder, to know that the PepsiCo tried to tap into protest movement and be more edgy, as the world have become more fragmented and use of international model and reality star in Kendall Jenner would peak interest. Therefore, she jumped on the project in the faith of the PepsiCo as she considered this a good move and secure move to get even more exposure. Something she did, but not on the purpose as she anticipated. She anticipated the sort of glare and glory as Nespresso commercials does for George Clooney. That she should be an iconic commercial and a game-changer. Instead, it all has boiled down to controversy!

The misuse of public anger and of injustice in trying to sodas does not seem like a good idea, but for one or more in the boardroom of PepsiCo, it did for a brief moment. The ideals behind the demonstrations and the acts against violence on fellow citizens was supposed to tap into with persisting a message, if you drink Pepsi, there will be peace. That story no one else believe, than the ones stuck inside the boardroom.

Therefore, when a multi-national enormous corporation as Pepsi tries to sell their soft drinks, they should consider the stories they are sending! It is not rocket science. It is very simple; do your drink supposable taste better than the competition? If YES, sell that; is the drink more affordable than competition? If YES, sell that; is the drink more environmental friendly packed or produced? If YES, sell that; but a product and a company of this magnitude will never be symbol a protest. They are the same establishment that the Occupy Wall Street in 2011 would go against. Not only the Merrill Lynch‘s of this world and the other banking buddies, but also the core food and beverages producers as well.

So next time Pepsi tries to start a campaign, go back to the basics, the reasons why you still exists was that you became the cheap alternative to Coca-Cola and was the one for use in the kitchen. Time reconfigure out that message to the public! Peace

A look into the Coke’s BioPET-PlantBottle™ 1.0 – Is it really Green or is it Greenwashing?

cokeadwall

We live in a time where big multinational companies who do what they can do their business. Buy for one, sell for two. That is capitalism and the dream of getting wealth and generating it. We live in a day and age where multinational companies have vast powers and can use it whatever way they like. They can if wanting to make as much of wealth to circus of companies and hide the earnings in a tax-haven in the Caribbean or in Lichtenstein. But this article or blog will be about that. It’s about another possibility that they can do.

greenwash-noun

Milking a special type of cow:

Something that isn’t right. Companies can if they feel tell stories and express themselves as they please. Until a certain extent they can if they want to make them look extra good, but if so they shouldn’t play in-between reality and fiction. Especially not portraying stories about their products – they can make their milk being squeezed out a most beautiful cow ever. Even if wasn’t most purebred highland cattle from the western islands of Scotland. Instead it’s made with some lame ass country cow. If a Milk producing company said their entire product was made from Highland Cattle, we as consumer expect the product to be that, right? So if the pieces of production and process is made with fractions of other milking cow it want be pure Highland. It will be milk, but not as promised. Some people would be devastated. Some people would call it fraud. And partly it is, even if pieces of it made with the milk. This piece here will be about similar way of acting one way, and acting another. While telling the public something else. This here is a kind of way to make something greener then it really is. It isn’t really green, but said so. In a way that mislead the public. Some people calls that way of acting for Greenwashing. It’s a nice way to express them in similar incidence. First certain words will be translated like PEF, PET, PTA and LRB. So that people will know what they are. After that I will show what a certain company called the Coca-Cola Company makes which a famous Bottle the famous PlantBottle™.

Words to know:

  • polyethylene furanoate (PEF)
  • polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
  • purified terephthalic acid (PTA).
  • liquid refreshment beverages (LRB)

PETPlantbottleProcess2PETPlantbottleProcess2

Bio-Plastic information:

The first information is that it’s renewable made from Sugercane-polyethylene which has the ability to replace 30% of the petroleum that would have been used for making certain type of plastic. The other good piece of using bio-plastic will be lower-carbon footprint (Sugercane.org).

Hitachi company explains what PTA is: “Purified terephthalic acid (PTA) is made by causing a reaction between the secondary petroleum product paraxylene (PX) and acetic acid”. When Hitachi describes PET its like this: “Polyethylene terephthalate(PET) is a general-purpose plastic made through polycondensation of PTA with ethylene glycol (EG). This material has many outstanding properties: resistance to both heat and cold, transparency, electrical qualities, chemical proof and abrasion proof” (Hitachi).

infographicplastic

How Coca-Cola endeavors to make the PlantBottle™:

Here is how it has gone from 2011, when Gevo made an agreement with the Coca-Cola Company to make the second generation plant-bottle with Isobutanol.  Further commenting on the important factor between Coca-Cola and GEVO: “The global market for PET is approximately 50 million metric tons and has a value of $100 billion, with approximately 30 percent used for plastic bottles. In this next generation of PlantBottle™ packaging, Coca-Cola plans to produce plastic beverage bottles made entirely from renewable raw materials” (Gevo, 2011).

PlantBottle-productline

In the same year (2011) Coca-Cola Company made already a deal with Virent: “signing multi-year, multi-million dollar Joint Development and Supply Agreements to scale-up Virent’s plant-based Paraxylene (PX), trademarked BioFormPX, as a route to commercially viable, 100% renewable, 100% recyclable PlantBottle PET resin. In the past, Coca Cola’s PlantBottles have included only 30% plant-based plastic. Virent’s chemical allows the remaining 70% of the bottle to be plant-based” (…) “Virent is one of three companies working with Coca-Cola on PlantBottle technology. The others are Colorado-based Gevo and Avantium, which is based in the Netherlands” (Lane, 2014).

In South Africa in Wadeville outside of Johannesburg, South Africa there is coming a new bottle-plant. This is Africa’s first: “Coca-Cola approved technology for carbonated soft drink bottles thus enabling the closure of the loop in the biggest sector in the beverage market. The 3000m2 Phoenix PET plant, equipped with Starlinger technology, will supply an additional 14 000 tonnes of PET resin per year to the PET packaging industry. It will eventually divert an additional 22 000 tonnes of post-consumer PET bottles from landfills each year, reducing resource consumption, creating jobs and assisting industry in meeting its target of a 50% recycling rate for 2015” (Parkes, 2015).

Later JBF Industries and Coca-Cola went into a partnership in 2012 to produce bio-glycol that will be used in the new plant-bottle. This will end up with a deal and an agreement that will do this: “Construction on the new facility is expected to begin at the end of this year and will last 24 months. At full capacity, it is estimated the facility will produce 500,000 metric tons of material per year. By using plant-based materials instead of nonrenewable materials, the facility will remove the equivalent of 690,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or the equivalent of consuming more than 1.5 million barrels of oil each year” (Mohan, 2012).

corn to plastics poster

The Dreams of Coca-Cola Company and their PlantBottle™ 2.0:

A spokesman for Coke Scott Vitters commented in 2014 this: “Coca-Cola introduced the world to PlantBottle in 2009. The technology uses natural sugars found in plants to make ingredients identical to the fossil based ones traditionally used in polyester fiber and resins. PlantBottle packaging looks, functions and importantly recycles just like traditional polyester (or PET) plastic, but with a lower dependence on fossil fuels and a lighter environmental footprint on the planet” (…) “Today our first generation PlantBottle technology replaces one of the two ingredients that make PET plastic. Our long-term target is to realize a 100% renewable, fully recyclable plastic bottle. To realize this goal, Coca-Cola is investing millions in local technology companies – companies like Virent in Madison, Wisconsin; Gevo in Englewood, Colorado and Avantium in Amsterdam, the Netherlands” (Vitters, 2014).

“Continuing in rigid high-barrier packaging, polyethylene furanoate (PEF) bottle development remains on track. Avantium has entered into an agreement with ALPLA for development of PEF bottles, with the first bottles targeted to reach market by 2016. Avantium has also partnered with Coca-Cola and Danone in the development of PEF bottles”. (…) ”PEF is a next-generation, bio-based, recyclable polyester developed by Avantium on the basis of furanics technology. According to Avantium, PEF has 50-60 percent lower carbon footprint compared to petroleum-based PET” (Rosato, 2014).

Right now the Coca-Cola Company together with other industry packaging companies as Virent, Gevo and Avantium has made this possible: “The PlantBottle 2.0 represents an upgrade to the existing bio-based PlantBottle the beverage company already uses for some of its drinks. This substitute for polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles has a 30% bio-based content, principally derived from Brazilian sugar cane supplied by Braskem”. In the future the same companies hope for “The 100% bioplastic bottle is the result of collaboration between Coca-Cola, Geno and Virent to perfect bio-purified terephthalic acid (PTA). Commercial rollout of PlantBottle 2.0 will take place over the next five years, culminating in a full replacement in 2020” (SustPack).

Ringier Plastics commented this: “From traditional PET to recyclable (also known as R-PET) to bio-based PET, technology and environmental properties have come a long way. PET generally consists of 70% terephthalic acid and 30% monoethylene glycol (MEG). But now it is quite possible to produce bio-based MEG from renewable raw materials instead of fossils. Coca-Cola is a pioneer is adopting bio-PET packaging with its PlantBottle™, producing the first ever fully-recyclable PET plastic beverage bottle using 30% of non-fossil material and resulting in less carbon footprint. Coca-Cola aims to convert all its plastic packaging to PlantBottle by 2020 and entered into a partnership with H.J. Heinz Co. to produce ketchup bottles using PlantBottle material” (Ringier Plastics, 2015).

SuccessPBCokeSuccessPBCoke2SuccessPBCoke.CriteriaJPG

The Marketing Companies making PlantBottle™ what it is:

“Fahrenheit 212 worked with Coca-Cola’s global packaging team to translate a complex and contentious advance in polymer production into a clear and compelling consumer proposition.  The PlantBottle brand name evolved from the concept development and strategic positioning work undertaken by Fahrenheit 212 and the PlantBottle icon, which has been now been featured on over 10 billion packages since its launch in 2010, was conceived and created by our in-house design team” (…) “In its first year, PlantBottle was launched in nine global markets, including Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Sweden and the United States across brands such as Coca-Cola, Sprite, Dasani and vitaminwater”  (Fahrenheit 212). The other marketing plan of Coca-Cola company was merged with another agency they did this: “Ogilvy & Mather’s campaign uses Coca-Cola’s iconic red and white color scheme and optical illusions to create intriguing images for the new bottle. The print ads all emphasize a way that plants make us happy, followed by the message that Coca-Cola’s PlantBottle is “Up to 30% made from plants” and “100% recyclable.”“ (Oster, 2014). One of Ogilvy & Mather’s ads just below.

plantbottle_posters_Page_4

It all sound beautiful doesn’t it. Mixing PEF and PET like its nothing? Plastic turned fantastic from petroleum based sort of bottle into plant heaven, right? Is there a reason why it just sounds so magnificent! If so, why does it for the last five years show up a dirty dozens of similar quotes from Scott Vitters in all kind of outlets from the Guardian to the New Zealand Scumbag post? That makes a brother like me curious. Especially when they been cooking this for so long.

ethics-sda

Well, there isn’t everybody who has a piece of pay from Coca-Cola Company. This reports I come with now haven’t a clear connection or are in business with the Company. They are separated from it and are on their own. So you should see what their saying and be fascinated.

There many ways of telling how it really is: “Coke invented the Plant Bottle.  The Plant Bottle is made from sugarcane, a food source.  The Plant Bottle is a PET plastic bottle.  The Plant bottle is 100% PET, 70% made from oil and 30% from sugarcane.  The Plant Bottle is not biodegradable and lasts as long as the petroleum-based PET however a large segment of the population believes that the Plant Bottle is, in fact, biodegradable” (…) “Coke has invested heavily in rPET bottle-to-bottle recycling.  Coke is a large buyer of rPET pellets in China and reputedly is putting rPET in small” (…) “The largest producer of rPET pellets in China is tripling its capacity in 2011” (…) “Krones, one of the world’s largest developers and supplies of machinery to the bottling industry is introducing a series of super efficient PET washing and flaking recycling equipment.  rPET flakes and pellets can be manufactured at prices less than virgin PET” (N.Michaels).

Another example of renewable resources usage are PET bottles – called Plant Bottle. Those bottles are composed of PET, produced from terephthalic acid (70 % of mass) and ethylene glycol (30 % of mass). Terephthalic acid comes from oil, whereas glycol is produced from ethanol (deriving from fermentation of vegetable feedstock). Such bottles can be easily recycled, and they can be collected with other (classical) PET bottles. This partially bio-based PET saves global fossil resources and also reduces CO2 emissions. Plant Bottle is 20 % biobased (20 % of the carbon present in the material comes from renewable resources) and 30 % bio-massed (30 % of the mass of the material comes from renewable resources) and a simple scheme on figure 12 shows how the Plant Bottle is made (Plastice).

beyond-greenwash-the-state-of-play-2-638
Gendell said in 2012 this about the PlantBottle: “The first complexity is that only a portion is plant-based, so the PET is also composed of some things that ought to stay within a technological closed loop” (…) “The other complexity is that there must be a mechanism by which the plant-based material may return to nature and participate in the biological cycle. Even if the first complexity were resolved by making PET entirely from plant-based materials (which is not truly possible today, considering all the catalysts and polymer chemistry whatsits that are not made from plants), the PET would still be an inherently non-biodegradable material” (Gendell, 2012).

In Denmark a Henrik Saugmandsgaard Øe is a Danish Consumer Ombudsman says this: “criticized Coke’s use of several marketing ploys, including the use of the word “plant,” excessive green colors and a circular-arrow logo inspired by the familiar symbol for recyclability. The ombudsman also noted a lack of documentation to support Coke’s claim that PlantBottle is “environmentally friendly” or has a “reduced carbon footprint.”” (…) “the bottle contains only a maximum of 15 percent plant material — a percentage he said hardly justifies the designation “PlantBottle.”” (…) “The Consumer Ombudsman requested the trader to indicate the minimum percentage of plant material in the bottle or to explain more clearly why the plant material proportion of the bottle was specified as ‘up to 15 percent” (Zara, 2013).

PETPlantbottleProcess

The issue with getting a 100% Bio-PET bottle is a big issue for Coca-Cola Company. Ordinary PET or 30% Bio-PET bottle has Petroleum-based component considering the bio-based in PEF. The Plastic Packaging Expert Gordon Bockner: “PEF molecule is a contaminant in the existing PET stream. A very small amount of PEF will (a) reduce the performance characteristic of the resulting PET/PEF blend and (b) neither will the blend be crystal clear and glossy, which are two of the key (marketing) attributes OPET. It is, therefore, not realistic to suggest that the two resins might be successfully blended to make a commodity LRB packaging resin” (Pierce, 2014).

Liz Baird the Environmental Consultant has said this about the PlantBottle:”When a company uses their marketing to appeal to the eco-conscious consumer, but they are spending more money marketing than they spend on being green, it’s called greenwashing” (…) “For example, there are some companies who tout their products as green, but if you look at the list of ingredients, palm oil is one of them. Harvesting palm oil is extremely dangerous to the orangutans” (EcoDaily, 2015).

GPC Cycle

After thought:

This here story here is about the 30% Bio Sugarcane based PET Resin and the rest of the bottle 70%. Not the newly released bottle that is supposable 100% BioBased Plant bottle. It hasn’t been addressed yet because I don’t see how it’s made possible and there aren’t reports or scientific how the whole PET resin is made. Therefore I won’t address it today. This here is just a full case on how Coca-Cola Company has described the infamous Plantbottle™. So since this original Plantbottle™ 1.0 is 30%. And call all natural you get the feel of a greenwash perception scheme. That isn’t fair for the consumer or society. It even got a Danish Ombudsman on the tail, but the same scenario and drop hasn’t made a fuzz where else it has been released, this is something about the leniency towards the Coca-Cola Company in these countries that has this specific bottle. That you have many companies on all sides of the globe focusing on how to make a Sugarcane bottle instead of a petroleum-based one, the first step was using 30% of the Bio PET resin. If they will fix it and make it, also make sure that it can contain the material that it’s talking about. It can’t be either or. Has to been made for a certain type of PET-Resin to make it hard enough to be a bottle for production-line and to contain the sugar-caffeine-carbonated-liquid called Coke from Coca-Cola Company.

Wonder how it will be 100% compared to the 1.0 type of bottle. That will be another story. Would be another story to see how the produce and production of Plantbottle 2.0 who supposed to be 100% made of sugarcane. And I might go into detail about that if I get the hold of that information. I can’t write it out of the thin air. Got to taste the carbonated sugar-water and then get the feel of the flavors and ways. Peace.

Reference:

EcoDaily – ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green – Labeling Can Be A Guise’ (01.07.2015) Link: http://ecodaily.org/its-not-easy-being-green-labeling-can-be-a-guise/

Parkes, Lisa – ‘Africa’s first Bottle-2-Bottle Plastic Recycling Plant Opens its Doors in Wadeville’ (13.05.2015) Link: http://www.petco.co.za/ag3nt/system/about_petco_dynamic_blog.php

Oster, Erik – ‘Ogilvy & Mather NY Introduces PlantBottle for Coca-Cola’ (09.06.2015) Link: http://www.adweek.com/agencyspy/ogilvy-mather-ny-launches-plants-make-us-happy-for-coca-cola/67789

Mohan, Anne Marie – ‘Coca-Cola enters partnership to expand PlantBottle production’ (27.09.2012) Link: http://www.greenerpackage.com/bioplastics/coca-cola_enters_partnership_expand_plantbottle_production

Fahrenheit 212 – ‘Coca-Cola PlantBottle – Defining the Consumer Proposition for Bio-PET’ Link: http://www.fahrenheit-212.com/coca-cola-plantbottle/

Rosato, Don – ‘Green plastic barrier packaging material and process advances’ (28.07.2014) Link: http://exclusive.multibriefs.com/content/green-plastic-barrier-packaging-material-and-process-advances/food-beverage

Pierce, Lisa McTigue – ‘PEF will not oust PET for beverage bottles anytime soon’ (25.07.2014) Link: http://www.packagingdigest.com/resins/pef-will-not-oust-pet-for-beverage-bottles-anytime-soon140724

N.Michaels: ‘Why and When will Bottle-to-Bottle rPET Technology Dominate?’ (03.12.2010) Link: http://theplanetbottle.net/news/2010/12/why-and-when-will-bottle-to-bottle-rpet-technology-dominate/#sthash.QksuvCPg.dpuf

Lane, Isabel – ‘Coke invests further in scaling Virent’s paraxylene production for PlantBottle’ (09.09.2014) link: http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2014/09/09/coke-invests-further-in-scaling-virents-paraxylene-production-for-plantbottle/

Gendell, Adam – ‘The catch behind Coca-Cola’s switch to plant-based bottles’ (10.10.2012) Link: http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2012/10/10/catch-behind-coca-colas-switch-plant-based-bottles

Ringier Plastics – ‘Bio-based PET shows the way forward’ (07.05.2015) Link: http://www.industrysourcing.com/article/bio-based-pet-shows-way-forward

Vitters, Scott – ‘Statement of Scott Vitters General Manager, PlantBottle Innovation Platform The Coca-Cola Company United States Senate Committee on Agriculture Nutrition and Forestry United States Senate June 17, 2014’

PTA – ‘Production process for purified terephthalic acid (PTA)’ Link: http://www.hitachi.com/businesses/infrastructure/product_site/ip/process/pta.html

PET – ‘Production process for polyethylene terephthalate (PET)’ Link: http://www.hitachi.com/businesses/infrastructure/product_site/ip/process/pet.html

Sugarcane.org – ‘Bioplastics’ Link: http://sugarcane.org/sugarcane-products/bioplastics

SustPack – ‘Coca-Cola Gives Expo Debut To 100% Bio-Based PlantBottle’ Link: http://www.sustainability-in-packaging.com/news/coca-cola-gives-expo-debut-to-100-bio-based-plantb

Gevo – ‘Bio-based Isobutanol to Enable Coca-Cola to Develop Second Generation PlantBottle™ Packaging’ link: http://www.gevo.com/?casestudy=bio-based-isobutanol-to-enable-coca-cola-to-develop-second-generation-plantbottle-packaging

Zara, Christopher – ‘Coca-Cola Company (KO) Busted For ‘Greenwashing’: PlantBottle Marketing Exaggerated Environmental Benefits, Says Consumer Report’ (03.09.2013) Link: http://www.ibtimes.com/coca-cola-company-ko-busted-greenwashing-plantbottle-marketing-exaggerated-environmental-benefits

Patent – ‘Method of making a bottle made of fdca and diol monomers and apparatus for implementing such method’ (31.08.2012): http://www.google.com/patents/WO2014032731A1?cl=en

Plastice – ‘Bioplastics – Opportunity for the Future’ (2013) Link: http://www.central2013.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Downloads/outputlib/Plastice_Bioplastics_Opportunity_for_the_Future_web.pdf

%d bloggers like this: