MinBane

I write what I like.

Archive for the tag “Denmark”

A Rebuttal to Friedman: There is no “lid on Africa” also addressing his misconception on Migration!

The Cambridge Dictionary defines “taking the lid off” as: “to cause something bad that was previously kept secret to be known by the public” (Cambridge Dictionary, Cambridge University Press). A writer like Thomas L. Friedman in the New York times should know this perfectly well, as he used this term in his column ‘ Opinion Can I Ruin Your Dinner Party?’ published on the 7th August 2018. This is the reason for why I writing this. Because of two paragraphs that needs to be addressed, I will first let his words speak, before showing what the EU says about the matter. As a European, the American writer doesn’t make sense.

The key part was:

Toppling Qaddafi without building a new order may go down as the single dumbest action the NATO alliance ever took. It took the lid off Africa, leading to some 600,000 asylum seekers and illegal migrants flocking to Italy’s shores in recent years, with 300,000 staying there and the rest filtering into other E.U. countries. This has created wrangles within the bloc over who should absorb how many migrants and has spawned nationalist-populist backlashes in almost every E.U. country” (Thomas L. Friedman – ‘Opinion Can I Ruin Your Dinner Party?’ 07.08.2018 link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/opinion/can-i-ruin-your-dinner-party.html).

I don’t know in which world Friedman is residing, but the words of the EU, Zelesa and MPC are clearly not opening any jars of uncertainty. Yes, there been a growing amount of illegal and non-asylum seekers through the United Nations or Bilateral Organizations, which they have come from War-Zones as in the past. As the EU Member States takes their quota of refugees and asylum-seekers as a global task of helping people in need, as that cannot happen where they are or they are living in temporary shelters awaiting hopefully a helpful nation to become their guardian. However, no else is saying it is NATO fault or even the fall Qaddafi, which is the reason for crossing across the Mediterranean sea. There is more porous borders as well as the conflict in the Sahel Region that has continued. These are all reasons for the transport of refugees from the rest of the Sub-Saharan Africa. However, there was never a lid to be taken of the continent.

The EU Science Hub states:

Between 2008 and 2016, the total annual number of African migrants remained stable. However, legal immigration was declining in this period, while the number of irregular arrivals and asylum claims of Africans increased. Irregular arrivals of Africans via the Mediterranean started to decline again in 2017.In Europe, the majority of African immigrants come from North Africa, with most people making the move to reunite with family members already settled in a European country” (EU Science Hub – ‘New perspectives on African migration’ 01.07.2018 link: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/new-perspectives-african-migration).

EU Project opened more nations for Immigration:

Clearly, African immigration to Europe was marked by increasing diversification both in the number of countries sending and receiving the immigrants. Particularly remarkable was the emergence of the southern European countries, principally Italy, Portugal, and Spain, themselves longstanding emigration countries, as immigration countries. This was as much a product of the improving economic fortunes in these countries and their integration into the prosperity and political sphere of Western Europe as it was of mounting immigration pressures on their borders to the east and the south. Enclosed in a new European transnational space, new identities of ethnicity and citizenship began to emerge that entailed creating both symbolic and material borders to keep away or distinguish the immigrants. The Europeanization of these countries and the rebordering of the Mediterranean that it implied required the separation and stigmatization ofimmigrants from the global South (Suarez-Navaz, 1997; Royo, 2005)” (Paul Tiyambe Zeleza – ‘Africa ‘s Contemporary Global Migrations: Patterns, Perils, and Possibilities’ P: 39, June 2010).

Migration Profile – Libya:

Despite Libya being, first and foremost, a country of immigration, the deterioration of immigrants’ conditions in the country has also made it an important country for transit migration and particularly for the many migrants trying to reach Malta and the Italian Isle of Lampedusa As to emigration patterns, Libya has never recorded significant outward migration flows. However, during the 2011 unrest, there was an upsurge of Libyan nationals fleeing the country. According, though, to the authorities in neighbouring countries, the great majority are believed to already have returned to Libya” (…) “To conclude, two considerations can be made about the impact of the Libyan crisis on international migration movements. On the one hand, Sub Saharan nationals were without any doubt the people most at risk, both in Libya and at the borders (where repatriation activities led to an impasse). On the other hand, the capacity of neighbouring African countries to manage the crisis in terms of the reception of migrants was remarkable. (IOM, 2012)” (Migration Policy Center – ‘MPC – MIGRATION PROFILE Libya, June 2013).

As we can really see, is that what Friedman is saying is wrong. The African Migration to Europe has lasted long. That is not new and has usually followed to the previous Colonizers of the ones migrating. However, with the change of he European Union, has changed that pattern, but not opened up something. The Libyan Crisis and fall of Qaddafi have had is effect. However, the results by the EU and the IOM are stating not as bad as previously stated. Also that the “illegal” are rising, but less of the direct asylum-seekers, meaning their means and ways has changed, but the end-game are more of the same. They are still fleeing from crisis and wars in Sub-Saharan Africa, but they doing so by the shores of Northern Africa crossing into EU Countries.

So, the taking the lid off by invading and deposing Qaddafi seems like far-fetched. That is a lie, also a relic of the past, as Friedman sounds like they opened a box with a box-opener. This was simply done with getting rid of one dictator. He seems like that is the reason for the whole transit in Libya, not the whole conflict within the continent and neither the true nature of it all. As people are doing whatever they can to get shelter and hope for the future, because the International Community isn’t reacting or caring about the oppression in their nations. They are forgotten and know they will not get help, as the Western Powers are boasting these leaders who oppress and then people want to flee from these shores.

No lid was taken, it was never a lid there to begin with? Are there a lid that was opened so that United States could have space for all the slaves in the past? Or is there a lid taken of the brain of Trump? We all, the rest of the world really want to know.

Enough of this nonsense. Peace.

A spiteful chant: Where did humanity go?

Where did humanity go in our time? When did we cease to care about other people’s struggle and their causes? When did that cease to matter? Because in our time, the rich and wealthy are securing more and more resources, while the poor is having no ways to get out of it. The states are closing their borders, stricter rules for refugees and asylum-seekers. While in dictatorships, the harassments and the internally displaced numbers are rising. The rich countries are investing in warfare, but not taking charge for the fleeing refugees from the crisis. They are trying to pay the states in regions and close the borders in migration routes. There is no heart, just cash-money. The heart has left, and the ignorance is rising.

The deaths of civil wars, the displacements of draconian laws and of dictators doesn’t matter. The lack of dialogue and of political freedoms, that doesn’t matter either. The lack of compassion and of political will change is also okay. As long as the troubles from afar doesn’t touch us. However, we will seal of the borders and make sure the innocent victims of internal disputes and skirmishes hopefully can cross the border to the closest country and not seek refugees in Europe or in the United States. Because, we cannot mange to show some humanity and heart.

The blood in your veins should boil, but for most. We don’t give a damn, they don’t give a fig. If their villages are burned to the ground by the military. If the Police is detaining people without any justification. If the state is securing the demise and death on fake imports. All of that doesn’t matter, as long as it doesn’t happen where we are.

This is the despicable. This is the reality. Our time, our reality, what our representatives put forward and make sure to build big invisible walls and mechanisms to close borders. To make it less achievable and costly to cross. Even more dangerous, as the perils of death and destruction at home isn’t better. But to leave can also cost your life, either by crook or by the book. Secondly, there will be nobody to even care to look.

This should be disgusting. Knowing that people are dying fleeing civil-wars and dictatorship, than when they are entering our safe havens; there is no one caring for their ills and troubles. They will just shrug it off like dirt on their shoulders and move on. There is lack of solidarity and heart. I hope in my time, that the Republic’s and Nation’s that close their borders never start warfare with themselves. As the ones who saw what we did. Might also give us no helping hand. They might say, we saw what your parents did to us. Why should we save the kids to such despicable people? Why do you deserve safe haven, when you couldn’t help our kind in need?

That is what I worry about, because we never know when the tide change, when society start to deteriorate or self-destruct. That is within us and we never know. We could be next, right now it is our brothers from afar, next time it could our closest neighbor or even ourselves. Than, they will remember our cold hearts and lack of compassion in the times of need. Peace.

The European Council plans to move more migration management outside its borders!

The European Council in the draft note before the next general meeting. Is establishing mechanisms, which would ensure that less tries to cross the oceans to get to safe harbour in Europe. This by both giving financial aid possibly and make the Border States have settlements of asylum-seekers and whatnot.

“The European Council will also strengthen EU external instruments on migration in the context of the negotiations on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, in particular so as to ensure effective cooperation with countries of origin and transit. To this end, the external components of the internal, border, asylum and migration funds should include a dedicated external migration management window specifically geared towards stemming irregular migration flows” (Council of the European Union – European Council meeting (28 June 2018) – Draft conclusions -8147/18, 19.06.2018).

This is really nasty stuff, that the European Union continues to purge like this and with these methods. Actually, making sure the refugees and asylum-seekers are stationed in Libya, Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and everything else bordering at sea towards Europe. There is lack of heart and with intent of shattering people’s dreams of possible refuge. That is what this is.

They are planning external migration management to stop the flow of people crossing into their borders. That means an invisible wall with functions and mechanisms stopping the ones trying to seek refuge. Just think about that, the sovereign states on the borders are bushwhacked by the EU and also most likely pushed by the funds their way as a bargain. Both parties with no consideration of the implications on the lives on the ones fleeing war-zones and civil-wars, famine or any sort of disaster that are creating all the reasons for fleeing on humanitarian grounds. Still, the EU will use these states as buffers and shield itself from people coming.

We can all see with this, the precious and deep scars, the evidence of control and also extending boundaries, just so, the ones in need cannot cross into refuge. They cannot get shelter or hope for the future, but live in oblivion, outcast in their own homeland and not welcome at the destination either. It is just a sad story of our time and the lack of compassion within the leadership of our representatives as well. Peace.

UN allocates $21 million to help thousands in need of humanitarian assistance in Sudan (20.02.2017)

shf-20-02-2017

My letter to Jean-Claude Juncker on the proposed EU Army!

juncker-army-quote

Dear Jean Claude Juncker, the President of European Union Commission and former Prime Minister Luxembourg; you had a moment of glory or you might thought so honourable Jean-Claude.

I am just a member of EFTA by default as a Norwegian citizens and since my country isn’t a Member State; I’m sure in your opinion my opinions doesn’t exists because the ones that matters are the citizens inside the Union. Still, I want to write to you as citizen of the world and worried about you Napoleon complex and hereditary idea of stronger federalism of Europe. This happens in the same week the underlings of you doesn’t’ want to be accountable in the European Parliament; this are the Member States who has Members of European Parliament (MEPs). So with this in mind are these the men and woman who should be responsible for deciding warfare in the name of the Europeans when we can’t know how much they spend on the taxpayer’s funds while representing their states in the Union?

Well, I know I am trading waters now and sound a bit strange, but the hesitation on the matter is the inaccurate faith you have in the EU and their institutions. The general European is not there with you as the disregard for the daily life of European feels estranged from the boulevards of Brussels where you are stationed unless you commute from Luxembourg. That is not for me to judge. What I will more judge is the idea of a European Army!

European Army is setting the precedence that the 28 Member State’s will comply and accept to donate and keep the strengthen defence and military upkeep through the Union. That is also to connect the defence budgets and the military equipment production stronger in the EU. That must be put into the calculation. Not only keep a solidified borders as the Commissioners fear the Islamic Terrorism and the refugee crisis to the levels that Europe needs a bigger and wider army. That is controlled by the unaccountable MEPs and EU Head of States, the Consilium that will order this giant army.

greek-bailout

A unknown giant army that will base by the 28 member states and put a prerogative of the federal state controlled by Brussels, as they already have issued currency, bills and now a Army. So the missing piece for you is the army and king. Honourable Jean-Claude you are acting with spite and fear if you enforcing the idea of an European Union Army and Defence. That is not the sign of peace or collaboration Europe needs. Especially with the ways that Cyprus and Greece economy has been liberated and sold to foreign investors while the taxations are slimming even more with the policies from the Central Institutions of the EU.

With those acts of spite and diligent betrayal of common sense in the banking industry of Greece and Cyprus; not even saving but bailing out with the whole-sale of nations. That coming with effect of the Brexit recently, you want the unaccountable MEPs to run an Army from Brussels. Do you know how insulting that is the European people and citizens, Jean-Claude?

Can’t you just take control of the Eurovision Song Contest or something; make sure the trade-laws and negotiations between Member States are following the guidelines of the Brussels accords. The Union you currently abide to is a currency-union, free-movements of people and goods and ‘universal’ policies that they have to follow no matter which country you live in. In that sense an army is needed, but that gives powers to Union and something Europe not seen before.

We have had the NATO that many of the current members of Union are obliged to serve and follow the codes of the agreement. As much as the European States has co-operated in military unifications it’s been training and peace-operations that many of the Member States has participated in.

If you think it is healthy to have a giant army directed from Brussels than the powers of the Union is more giant multi-national state, federalism and centralized in Belgium than people might express wishes for. Europeans want their states to have power and keen that their representatives have power and accountability within their domain; if the Brussels thinks it is good idea to take the guns and ammunitions from Madrid, Prague, Vienna and Copenhagen. Than they will have to ask what their own armies are supposed to do? How are the pecking orders of the EU General and Danish General? Are the orders from Brussels trumping the ones of Stockholm?

An European Army is the answer to fatigue and gesture of complex gravitas as the European Member States deserves their sovereign and rights to defend themselves within the military alliances and military benefits the nations. If the EU thinks it is wise to counter this and control it centrally than they can initially take over all powers and make a EU Police. Then all of the law’s and orders will controlled by the Brussels under the new federal jurisdiction of EU Commission and the Consilium. That in the end will be voted over by the unaccountable MEPs in EU Parliament. So they can decide if the army need to invade or guard Gibraltar or Guernsey from the Pirate Bay.

juncker-treaties-quote

Let’s be clear Jean-Claude Juncker, the one man in Europe with clearly a Napoleon complex! It’s time to whine down and take a beer. It is time to render the times of not-so much peace in Europe and wonder what the EU has lost. What powers the EU has taken in times of Peace and less hostility. What kind of powers the centralized Brussels decrees are burdening the towns and villages of Europe that you never will put your foot in Mr. Jean-Claude.

The Army you propose to counter foreign invaders is absurd and worrying. The EU Army will only be beneficiary for a un-elected aristocrats who will use it to silence criticism and the citizens who disobey the command of Brussels. It will not be a defence organization that can be sustainable to keep greater powers out. This army will only cause frictions and be a power that can be used in Neo-Colonial affairs for the former European Empires to control their former colonies. This will not be an army for peace; it will create more bloodshed in the names of spoiled rich EU observers and their elites. Is that what you want Jean-Claude?

Your EU Army will not be a tool for peace, but for rivers of blood, for loss of lives and loved ones. For the concern of foreign dignitaries and their allies; this create a hatched hiccup of world order and the destination unknown as the EU Parliament who will obey the command of their leaders will send their citizens to wars for resources at one point or another as recessions and market-crash’s happen once in-while. It is just a matter of time before a legit war intervention becomes an excuse to export needed minerals to Europe. That is what the Army will be for right, Jean-Claude?

You should first implement the Federalism fully before pledging the idea and dream of multi-national army those bounds of future conquests and current problems as they want to have fortified walls and gates of Europe. If the EU Commissioners start to think of the EU as Rome Empire than he has also lost the plot as the twist and turns of the vague Union; if he wants the weak Union to grow stronger there needs more trust between Berlin, Prague and other capitals nota army to silence the ones who disobey. Does he want to be emperor… new royal lord of Europe instead of a possible statesmen; the greed of a man who forgot the principals and dynamic of Europe as he sits in the bureaucracies of Brussels. Peace.

Lot’s on 1950s Bilderberg Conferences that we’re on European Integration, EEC and other issues discussed within the conferences!

1stmeet blinderberg 2

As there been a leak of documents that are addressing the Bilderberg conferences that have been silenced and been a not well-known public affair between the European Government and also the World Affairs, as they have been set invited to discuss the affairs and deal with the present takes of issues.

Like on the Bliderberg Conference of 1954 that we’re on the 29th – 31st May. When the Chairman for the Conference we’re Prince of the Netherlands Prince Bernhard and his Vice-Chairmen we’re John S. Coleman and Paul Van Zeeland. While the same Conference had rapporteurs on the subjects that we’re discussed, these men we’re from USA, Belgium, Netherlands, France and Italy, but half we’re from the United States. Of attenders there we’re from all across Europe, like from Norway came Leif Høegh; UK had a dozen attendees, but the one standout we’re Sir Harry Pilkington; From Germany Rudolf Mueller, Penagiottis Pipenelis from Greece for instance. This proves the importance of the conference as the nations didn’t send some random citizens.

They held the conference in hope for the American that the European Countries could through the NATO partnership have the military arm inside the European Defense Community, while German and French didn’t have faith in or could be part of the EDC. While the unity within unions like Steel and Coal we’re possible, as the sacrifices we’re not feasible, even if the American wished for something more than a European answer, but a Atlantic Pact, that we’re combining the European and American, not only trade, but also Defense. There we’re a general agreement between Europeans at the conference to work against the Soviet propaganda and advantages from the Communists.

One key pieces from the 1954: “The difference between America and Europe with respect to the problem of overseas territories emerged from the discussion as minor by comparison with the areas of agreement. The obvious objective to be sought is an agreed policy of the West to work towards colonial self~government as rapidly and safely as is possible. Such a solution serves the interests of the West and of the dependent peoples. It thwarts the imperialistic interests of Communism”. Second piece: “It was recognised that this conflict sprang largely from the differences in the emotional reactions to the Korean war in America and Europe – differences which it was thought had recently diminished. It was hoped that the negotiations at present taking place on the list of controlled exports would do much to eliminate them”. Third piece: European unity in some form has long been a Utopian dream, but the conference was agreed that it is now a necessity of our times. Only thus can the free nations of Europe achieve a moral and material strength capable of meeting any threat to their freedom”.

The next conference we’re on the 18th– 20th February 1955 at Barbizon Conference. The Chairman of the Conference we’re H.R.H the Prince of Netherlands. Honorary Secretary we’re J.H. Reitinger and American Secretary Joseph E. Johnson. Interesting people’s attending we’re Sir. Colin Gubbins of United Kingdom, H.J. Heinz of United States and Alberto Pirelli of Italy.

Sir John Kotelawala

Sir John Kotelawala

This was the second conference and here is the key issues and quotes from the report: “We had created the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to oppose Stalinism all Its aspects, but today that Organisation had a very difficult task. Set on foot to meet the possibility of an attaque brusquee it now found itself facing the long struggle of the cold war, perhaps to be prolonged through many decades to come” (…) “Anti-Colonialism: “A European speaker discussed the important psychological aspect of the uncommitted peoples of Asia and Africa, and a number of Latin Americans. He had been very much struck during the last General Assembly of the United Nations by the fact that so much jealousy and resentment was pent up beneath the mostly polished exteriors of representatives of these countries. This was particularly so with the Asians and to a lesser degree there was something of the kind at work in the minds of quite a few South Americans” (…) “There were Asians who, being ardent nationalists and in many cases instrumental in forging the independence of their countries, nevertheless understood the West and all it had to offer to Asia and Africa well enough to interpret it. Names of men like General Romulo sprang to mind, or Sir John Kotelawala” (…) “There was a dangerous tendency on the part of United Nations commissions, after short visits to territories under European tutelage, to recommend periods after which independence should be given. There had been continuous attacks on the Belgian position in Ruanda-Urundi, in East Africa. In this case the Commission had recommended a course which might transform the territory directly from feudalism to “peoples’ democracy”. It must be remembered that the more the Western powers were weakened in Africa the more would their political, economic and even moral powers of resistance to communism be weakened” (…) “The United Nations had entered into the discussion by way of the problem of colonialism. But in terms of the broad relationships between the West and the East the United Nations was an instrument of the greatest importance. It had been said that international law was a generalisation of British foreign policy of the nineteenth century. Whether that was true or not, there was written into the preamble and articles 1 and 2 of the Charter a set of propositions about international order which were entirely congenial to the foreign policies of all who sat there in the room and these had been agreed by sixty governments, including the uncommitted peoples whom we were discussing” (…) “One of Europe’s greatest responsibilities today was to find new formulae for getting over nationalism and in that the speaker agreed with the views of a participant who had suggested that some sort of federation might be the solution. We must find some form, whether it was of federation or of any other juridical term which one might give it, which would be a European-invented by-pass for European-created nationalism”.

The next conference we’re in Garmish-Partenkichen conference at the date 23rd – 25th September 1955. When the same leaders as earlier in the year at the Barbizon Conference as this was a continues effort on the common work. The key things to take from this one we’re this: “The discussion on this subject revealed general support for the idea of European Integration and unification among the participation from the six countries of the European Coal and Steel Community, and a recognition of the urgency of the problem” (…) “The six countries of the Coal and Steel Community had definitely decided to establish a common market and that the experts were now working this out was felt to be a most encouraging step forward and it was hoped that other countries would subsequently join in”.

Nasser Blockade

In 2 Years the next conference happened on St. Simon Island on the 15th – 17th February 1957. Where most of the usual suspects showed up again, when even a Turkish representative Muharrem Nuri Birgi; Jean De La Garde, French and David Rockefeller, United States. The discussion of this conference led to this: “Several speakers urged that patience was essential in the present Suez crisis. Situations like that which developed in Iran in 1951 and was now being repeated in Egypt could not be dealt with in a hurry. A dictator who is impervious to external influences must be allowed to run through his cycle. For a period his personal pride and the demands of his position will render him insusceptible to advice or pressure. The point at which this cycle begins to turn is very delicate and needs careful watching, since a dictator like Nasser might well take desperate measures” (…) “According to the best available estimates, the expansion of oil sales in the years ahead would bring greatly increasing revenues, in fact within the next ten years the oil-producing countries of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrein should receive 5 billion dollars in oil royalties; yet it was calculated that. over this period they would not be able to spend more than a third of this amount inside their own frontiers. This would leave a surplus of about billion dollars to dispose of” (…) “It might be possible and desirable to change NATO’s present strategic!’ posture and to develop a military organization and doctrine which would free Europe from total . dependence on the threat of massive atomic retaliation. But until or unless this was done the contradictions of our present policy were damaging and dangerous. Because the peoples of NATO did not believe in the possibility of an effective shield against attack, they were reluctant to make the sacrifices required to provide for the forward advance strategy was official doctrine at present”.

The Second conference that year was in Fiuggi, we’re still the usual suspects we’re in control of it and the men behind it. Special names registered at this one we’re Henry A. Kissinger we’re a U.S. Representative and Major-General James Jr. McCormack a U.S. Representative. Key issues and quotes from the Fiuggi we’re this: “Participants from the countries directly involved, however, felt that these fears would prove to be unfounded. The Common Market would be implemented by easy stages and, if the experience of Benelux was any guide, trade With the outside world would increase together with internal trade. They were confident that the Common Market would be a step towards greater freedom in world trade as a whole. This was the purpose of the plan, although in some cases adjustments had had to be made so that particular interests would not be too drastically affected. Now that the internal pattern had been settled in the Common Market Treaty attention would concentrate increasingly on relations with third countries; the Free Trade Area would be the next step in the process of European economic integration” (…) “the main obstacle to British and Scandinavian participation in the Common Market was its function a step towards political union among the countries concerned” (…) “there was also the problem of including agriculture, which for countries like Denmark was of fundamental importance”.

130624-004-0BDAC008

At the 1958 Buxton Conference on the 13th September to 15th September 1958; which was run by the usual suspects yet again. Other representatives worth noticing from this ones we’re E.N. Van Kleefens from the European Coal and Steel Community, Jaques Rueff, European Economic Community (EEC), C.V.R. Schuyler, S.H.A.P.E., Sakari Tuomioja, UN Economic Commission for Europe and Sir. Gordon Archibald of the United Kingdom; other key quotes from this conference are these: “Nationalism could well yield positive results, as was the case in Turkey under Ataturk. It was objectionable, however, when it reached beyond its own borders hurting the interests of others. In such cases we had the right to protect ourselves, and should be firm about it” (…) “The Common Market was due to come into operation on a January 1959, and it was feared that, if no solution were in sight by then, the first appearance of discrimination would produce a schism between the Six and the rest of Europe” (…) “Further the speaker suggested that the Free Trade Area proposals were not the only alternative to the European Economic Community. The notion of association had a technical meaning, and various degrees of rights and obligations were conceivable and could be worked out between the European Economic Community and individual countries on a bilateral basis” (…) “Another major problem facing the European Economic Community was the co-ordination of monetary policies. As one of the participants pointed out, the economic integration of the Six required the co-ordination of all fields of economic policy”.

So there you have it and this is just outtakes, the Soviet problem is a key picture on every single conference, but that isn’t that important now. As the proof of the cold-war and the escalated influence U.S. policy had in Europe. That with their will of a more unified Europe; this being more valid for me, as the proof of the works behind the scenes from the Bliderberg group and their supporters from both United States and Canada; as they even wanted a federal solution to issues between the nation and their integration of monetary and trade-agreements on the continent.

Also the worrying views of Europeans wish to hold-on to their colonies and the liberation of the nations under British and French rule. While the Americans actually wanted a quicker liberation, while they had the worry of Soviet and Communist influence in the new “territories”; the leaked documents really reflect the dominance and arrogance of the Europeans at the time as their paternalistic threshold came under question. Another key we’re  the usefulness of NATO and the place of military operations as a countering for peace in Europe, as the fear of Soviet was a reason for the alliance after the Second World War.

Next time I drop on the subject, I will go through the 1960s documents of Bilderberg conferences. To see what else that came up in the next decade. Peace.

Press Release: Italy joins Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa with USD 8-million contribution, raises continent’s green energy potential (15.12.2015)

Green-Economies-Africa-rpt

At the global climate summit in Paris on December 10, the Government of Italy announced a USD 8-million contribution to the Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa (SEFA) managed by the African Development Bank (AfDB). Italy’s capital infusion substantially raises the value of SEFA from USD 87 million to nearly USD 95 million, enabling it to continue scaling up its assistance to African nations to unlock private investments in sustainable energy. Italy joins the Governments of Denmark, the United Kingdom and the United States in support of SEFA.

The Italian contribution comes at a critical point for climate change. As Governments meet in Paris to map out their evolving approach to global climate response, practical actions such as Italy’s announcement can help ensure that developing countries have the support they need for building their renewable energy sectors in their quest for fundamental sustainable development.  

“Italy is pleased to contribute to Africa’s sustainable energy development, particularly by supporting the development of more renewable energy projects, as well as AfDB President Adesina’s ambitious ‘New Deal’ to electrify the whole continent in the next 10 years,” stated Francesco La Camera, Italy’s Director General, Ministry for the Environment, Land, and Sea. “SEFA’s objectives are fully in line with our Government’s commitment to support African countries’ work to achieve economic development which is both green and inclusive. As our Prime Minister Renzi said during this summit gathering, Italy wants to ‘be among the protagonists of the fight against selfishness, on the side of those who choose non-negotiable values like the defence of our Mother Earth.’ We believe that joining forces in SEFA is an opportunity to do that.”

SEFA is an important element in the AfDB’s landmark New Deal on Energy for Africa, which looks to solve Africa’s huge energy deficit by 2025 under the pivotal leadership of AfDB’s new President, Akinwumi Adesina. SEFA was launched in 2012 to address several constraints to the development of Africa’s renewable energy sector, including a lack of bankable projects coming to market, limited access to finance for small and medium-sized projects, and challenging policy environments for private investment in the energy sector.

“AfDB deeply welcomes Italy and is grateful for its contribution to the SEFA partnership,” said Alex Rugamba, AfDB’s Energy, Environment and Climate Change Director. “SEFA plays critical role in opening the door for more private sector engagement in delivering energy infrastructure as well as connecting more Africans to modern energy sources, using technologies which are not damaging to our global environment.”

Statement By H.E. Yoweri Kaguta Museveni President of Uganda as the Co-Chair of the Summit for the Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda at the U.N. (25.09.2015)

Museveni UN 25092015 P1

At UN Summit for the Adoption of the Post-2015 Development Agenda

New York 25 September, 2015

Your Excellencies Heads of State and Government,
Your Excellency Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark and co-chair of the Summit,
Mr. Secretary-General,
President of the General Assembly,
Honourable Ministers,
Distinguished participants,
Ladies and Gentlemen,

I am pleased to co-chair this important Summit as we gather as a community of nations to adopt a new development agenda that will guide our development efforts for the next 15 years.

This historic Summit is the culmination of months of tireless efforts and unprecedented commitment by Member States and stakeholders to formulate a universal, inclusive and transformative development agenda.

I would like to pay tribute to H.E. Sam Kutesa for his leadership and accomplishments as President of the 69th Session of the General Assembly and thank all of you for supporting Uganda in that responsibility.
I also congratulate and convey appreciation to the President of the 70th Session, H.E. Mogens Lykketoft and the Secretary-General, H.E. Ban Ki-moon for their leadership.
Today heralds the dawn of a new era in our collective efforts towards eradicating poverty, improving livelihoods of people everywhere, transforming economies and protecting our planet.

Together, we are sending a powerful message to people in every village, every city and every nation worldwide ─ that we are committed to taking bold steps to change their lives, for the better.

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which we will adopt today, is ambitious in its scope and breadth. In the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable development are addressed in an integrated way. The agenda also carries forward the unfinished business of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

Over the last fifteen years, we have attained significant achievements through implementing the MDGs. Globally, more than one billion people have been lifted from extreme poverty and improvements have been made in access to education, health, water and sanitation, advancing gender equality and women’s empowerment.

In Uganda, we have been able to reduce the percentage of people living in extreme poverty from 56% in 2000 to 19% currently. We have also attained universal primary education, promoted gender equality and empowerment of women and continue to reduce child and maternal mortality. From our experience, it has been clear that to sustainably achieve the MDGs we must have socio-economic transformation.

It is, therefore, refreshing that in the successor framework, the SDGs, key drivers of economic growth, have been duly prioritized. These include infrastructure development especially energy, transport and ICT; industrialization and value-addition; human resource development; improving market access and greater participation of the private sector.

While the SDGs will be universally applicable, we also recognize national circumstances, different levels of development and the needs of countries in special situations, particularly the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and African countries.

Taking urgent action to combat climate change and its severe impacts is also prioritised in the new agenda. We should redouble efforts towards reaching an ambitious legally-binding agreement on climate change in Paris in December that promotes the achievement of sustainable development, while protecting the planet.

The new agenda also rightly underscores the important linkages between development, peace and security and human rights. We have to intensify efforts to combat transnational crime, terrorism and the rise of radicalization and violent extremism around the world.

We should reject pseudo ─ ideologies that manipulate identity (by promoting sectarianism of religion and communities) and eclipse the legitimate interests of peoples through investment and trade. Where identity issues are legitimate, they should be expeditiously handled.

Museveni UN 25092015 P2

Excellencies,

We should all be proud of what has been accomplished so far as we usher in this new development agenda. However, the critical next step will be to ensure its successful implementation on the ground.

In this context, integrating the SDGs into our respective national and regional development plans, mobilizing adequate financial resources, technology development and transfer as well as capacity building will be critical.

We have to ensure full implementation of the comprehensive framework for financing sustainable development, which we adopted in the Addis Ababa Action Agenda to support achievement of the goals and targets of Agenda 2030.
One of the major challenges many developing countries continue to face is accessing affordable long-term financing for critical infrastructure projects.

In this regard, it will be vital to promptly establish and operationalize the proposed new forum to bridge the infrastructure gap and complement existing initiatives and multilateral mechanisms to facilitate access to long-term financing at concessional and affordable rates.

The efforts of developing countries to improve domestic resource mobilization, boost economic growth and address major challenges such as unemployment should be supported by development partners as well as international financial institutions and regional development banks. We also need to do more to promote Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs), support entrepreneurship especially for women and youth and enhance the contribution of the private sector and other stakeholders to sustainable development. Through prioritization, the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) themselves can also contribute to their own infrastructure development.

In order to build effective, inclusive and accountable institutions at all levels, we have to ensure that the voices of developing countries and regions are heard and that they are treated as equal partners in multilateral decision-making. At the international level, we need urgent reform of the United Nations ─ particularly the Security Council ─ and other multilateral institutions to reflect the current geo-political realities.

We need a renewed global partnership for development in which all the commitments made, including on Overseas Development Assistance (ODA), trade and investment are fulfilled.

While the Agenda represents the collective aspirations of all peoples, its success will hinge on its ability to reduce inequalities and improve the lives of the most vulnerable among us, including women, children, the elderly and persons with disabilities.

After months of intense negotiations and steadfast commitment, we have before us an Agenda that represents our best opportunity to transform our world.

We have heard the voices of people spanning the globe; from eager children asking for access to a quality education to young women seeking better maternal health; from rural villagers whose farmlands have been ravaged by droughts to the coastal fishermen on Small Island States who fear their entire existence will soon be swallowed up by rising sea levels.

We continue to witness the influx of refugees and migrants into Europe from Africa and the Middle East, which is partly caused by conflict and lack of economic opportunities.

These voices may speak many language and dialects, but in the end their message is the same ─ please help us to live happier, more prosperous lives, while also protecting the planet for our children and grandchildren.

After adoption of this Agenda, it is incumbent upon us all to take the development aspirations laid out in this document and turn them into reality on the ground; for our people, our communities and our nations. This agenda will create global prosperity different from the past arrangements of prosperity for some through parasitism and misery and under-development for others.

I thank you for your attention.

Press Release: ASD Welcomes decisions that will support and effective Arms Trade Treaty (28.08.2015)

ASD -PR

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

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: