You must log in or register to comment.

neil470 t1_ivtnddk wrote

From reading the source, it's hard to tell exactly what these values represent, but I think it's the amount of branded pieces of litter they found laying around. This does not seem like a good way of measuring the pollution caused by each company.

Edit: Also, this graph is just a compilation of graphs from the original source, just using lines instead of bars (which means it wrongly implies a trend between data points). Low effort and poor data visualization if you ask me, not to mention climate change and plastic litter being two separate things.


mfb- t1_ivtx5vx wrote

It's also ignoring the relative size of the companies. PepsiCo has twice the revenue of Coca Cola, but I don't know how much of that is in products that could potentially become waste and how much is elsewhere.


Wise_Mongoose_3930 t1_ivubbf4 wrote

Also if I buy a bottle of coke every day, and throw it in the ocean….but one day decide to switch to Pepsi, did come just get more eco friendly? Did Pepsi just get less eco friendly?

According to this chart, the answers are yes and yes, but obviously that’s not correct… right?


RevengencerAlf t1_ivvo8o2 wrote

I don't know the exact numbers but as someone who worked for one of these companies in the past... CocaCola is bigger in the space that they both share business in (beverages). But PepsiCo makes a ton of money from FritoLay, Quaker, and other food brands across the world.


dawgm4tic t1_ivwr9rw wrote

PepsiCo also introduced biodegradable chip bags last year, according to a quick Google search. That probably helps some ¯⁠\⁠⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠⁠/⁠¯


AV8R_1951 t1_ivvzpyi wrote

Bingo! This comparison is useless without tying plastic waste to revenue in the shared space.


aegtyr t1_ivuakfu wrote

This data is neither beautiful nor informative. What is happening to this sub?


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv1ef0 wrote

Its become r/all bait.

Find a piece of data that supports or acts as a call to action for people who browse r/politics daily and you have r/all bait.


Cautemoc t1_ivw9pk9 wrote

Reddit's moderator system is falling apart. Some subs are completely lacking proper moderation. Some subs are becoming tyrannically over-moderated. Who would have thought making them completely immune to consequences and not employees would have negative repercussion's over time.


skantanio t1_ivtzivn wrote

Yeah the Y axis makes no sense. Was the “audit” conducted in one place? Then this data cannot be used to determine global pollution. And if it was in multiple places, then the scale of the numbers in pieces of plastic seems too low.


its_a_gibibyte t1_ivuo6i4 wrote

Ah, so if I buy a Coke bottle and throw it on the ground, they blame Coca Cola corporation for that? Sweet. Moral blame averted.


Tarec88 t1_ivxfdzd wrote

This. The polluters in this scenario are us, consumers.


rtyoda t1_ivvc934 wrote

Yeah, between that and the idea that “CO2 emissions from plastic production are enough to power over 3,000,000 cars for a week”, this chart is just awful.


2020Fernsblue t1_ivx97lj wrote

Also given that marine pollution is overwhelmingly nets, which are not generally brand attributable it would be helpful to show nets as a normalisation factor here


_AlreadyTaken_ t1_ivwavqs wrote

If I dump trash that makes me responsible, not the manufacturer


dinobug77 t1_ivxh6ui wrote

It’s also not beautiful. It’s just some vague lines on a white page with a lot of squashed up and hard to read (on mobile) text in various colours. There is nothing beautiful about this data vis.

Why is coca-cola logo at the top? It makes it look like an attempt at a branded piece. Green and red do not work well together unless it’s Christmas. Why is Unilever pink? They have many secondary brand colours and that isn’t one.


Aezyre t1_ivxk6bk wrote

Classic r/dataisbeautiful: it just needs to be pretty and clickbaity it doesnt matter if it's bad


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivtekpk wrote

But don’t worry guys! They also have glass bottles in select markets. (Sarcasm)


rabb1thole t1_ivviow4 wrote

Glass is very costly to recycle. Many recycling services won't accept glass because it is so expensive to transport. And if you throw glass on the ground (which is the problem here), then it breaks and causes bigger problems. The issue isn't the aluminum coke cans (which are easily recycled) but rather the dolts that litter.


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivvlw6y wrote

Glass does not need recycling. We have been reusing glass bottles for centuries.


Queasy-Dirt3193 t1_ivvt6ja wrote

Woah and reusing the bottles counts as recycling in this case. It’s expensive to do it, which is why most bottles are plastic.


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivvtsdq wrote

Reusing is not the same as recycling. Recycling would be to melt down the glass and make a different bottle. Reusing is cleaning, sterilizing and maybe reprinting the bottle. Less energy intensive and the same supply chain that delivers the full bottles receives the empty ones. No empty delivery trucks on the way back. This has been done and proven before.


rabb1thole t1_ivvruj6 wrote

Actually, we have not. Very few places take back glass bottles. Do your homework.


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivvrxwf wrote

Maybe not in the developed world today. Remember the milkman?


rabb1thole t1_ivvt85c wrote

Oh sure, drag in .60 years ago.


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivvtikh wrote

Yeah, that was still being done with coke in Latin America til the 00’s. We did it like that at home. I’m sure Africa too. I never saw one of those bottles littering. They were picked up to sell within 5 minutes of you abandoning them.


rabb1thole t1_ivvty5w wrote

That's nice. It doesn't make it the norm. Do your research. Glass is too expensive to recycle.


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivvu7gz wrote

You can’t even tell the difference between recycling and reusing and are asking me to do research on wether glass was being used before disposable plastic was invented?


IvanIsOnReddit t1_ivvuhw9 wrote

My point is precisely a criticism of it not being the norm.

Here’s how it works, where it works: you buy a liter of coke in a glass bottle, it costs $2 but you pay $4 because you have no bottle to return. You drink it. When you want more Coke you bring the bottle and exchange it for a full bottle. Option 2: you buy the Coke for $2, drink it there and return the bottle right there.

Am I calling for banning plastic? No. But the default where I grew up was the glass bottle, no plastic waste. Plastic is almost never fully recycled, it degrades every cycle and is often mixed in with new plastic because it makes the manufacturing process less variable.


Sanchopanza1377 t1_ivvwzef wrote

I lived in a tiny little town in the United States of America, and when I bought a Coke in a glass bottle, I drank it there....

This was the norm until the climate change crowd got paper bags banned, insisting plastic was better for the environment.

Yo want to reduce CO2, go plant a *&#@ tree.

Other than that, you idiots should stop trying to help...


evilgiraffe666 t1_ivxbfj3 wrote

You can still get milk delivered in the UK with reused bottles, it's unusual but becoming a little more popular as an eco thing.


thefpspower t1_ivw1weq wrote

I've never heard of recycling services not accepting glass, it's one of the most recycled materials we have because it is actually not that expensive to do it compared to getting more sand to make new glass.

Glass bottles are more expensive than plastic yes, doesn't mean we shouldn't use them more.


rabb1thole t1_ivwdpz2 wrote

The US is largely single stream recycling which means human sorting. Glass breaks, so it's a laceration risk for the single stream sorter AND broken glass can damage the machinery. The US is a large country with many states bigger than EU countries. Even within a state, the cost to move the glass to an appropriate facility makes it unprofitable. Even with split stream, the broken glass is still a hazard and glass remains heavy to transport. There's just no current way to recoup the cost. I don't like it, but those are the facts.

Edit to add: I'm not trying to be a prick, but before randomly arguing a point, maybe do some research. Any search engine should provide answers.


Souslik t1_ivxhw13 wrote

I don't know about aluminium, but when it comes to plastic technology doesn't allow them to recycle more than 20% on the first cycle. After 4 it drops below 1%.

And they can't even make 100% recycled plastic bottles (even though they claim they can) because that would mean an unpure plastic which doesn't have the same aesthetic properties than a pure one.

The problem is definitely on both Coca Cola and the dolts that litter.


cgmacleo t1_ivu3cq7 wrote

"CO2 emissions are enough to power 3,000,000 cars per week"

I believe this is meant to read, "equivalent to 3,000,000 cars" (unless we invented cars that run on CO2 which would solve all sorts of problems haha).


amrav_123 t1_ivu20kq wrote

The more I study this report the more I get convince that "data can be beautiful" but it can also be created and defaced to suit whatever narrative you want to build.

The study in a nutshell:

  1. Volunteers chose their preferred site, and then went and sorted the plastic garbage into brands
  2. Since there were covid lock downs in places, it seems volunteers were allowed to sort throught their own garbage in some instances (this seems absurd and maybe I misunderstand).

Obvious limitations:

  1. The volunteers are mostly youth so the sites they are choosing are more likely to be dominated by brands such as Coke and Pepsi Co.

  2. The results are absolute. Given thay coca cola and Pepsi are massive players, there share in any garbage pile will always be the highest. Regardless of how much they collect to recycle they are always likely to top this. A better reflection of their hand in plastic pollution would be the plastic landing in garbage as % of their sales in a an area.

P.S - Not saying coke, Pepsi are innocent in plastic pollution. But such nonsensical school project studies just seem to arm them to counter these narratives. If this study were to garner enough traction, coca cola and all would just take it apart on any serious forum.


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv3nml wrote

>If this study were to garner enough traction, coca cola and all would just take it apart on any serious forum.

Exactly. Bad data is more detrimental to the cause than less significant, good data. Because getting clowned on over basic data science is not the best PR for any cause that relies on being "pro-science".


Kandorek t1_ivteymi wrote

at first i was confused how CC is the top polluter...
but then i remembered that most nations dont have Pfand...
such a shame...


bitey87 t1_ivtsstf wrote

It's the massive CC catalog that includes brands like Dasani, Smart Water, and Powerade.


xylopyrography t1_ivufwwu wrote

Bottled water is among humanity's worst decisions.


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv1zp4 wrote


Attempted solutions*

Bottled water was a solution to the failure of government to provide clean drinking water that was appetizing to their own citizens.

As long as this dumb solution works, no government official is gonna even attempt to look at the problem.


RevengencerAlf t1_ivvohod wrote

Except most developed nations have perfectly adequate and usually quote good tasting water and have been for as long as single use bottled water has been a thing. This includes the overwhelming majority of the US.


superbv1llain t1_ivy9h7s wrote

Maybe it started that way, but they definitely started marketing it as a luxury lifestyle choice, and then a necessity. If it was just a solution, it would still be sold primarily in gallon or bigger amounts.


Regressionbyhand t1_ivtuf48 wrote

If they used only glass bottles their carbon footprint (the issue for climate change) would be much higher due to the heavy material and transportation costs, and recycling costs. Take your pick


Otto_the_Autopilot t1_ivu4k2m wrote

Aluminum is a thing...light, infinitely recyclable, and an existing tech already well used by all these beverage companies.


Regressionbyhand t1_ivujp1c wrote

Agree. But plastic pollution has very very little to do with greenhouse gas emissions and actually may contribute to lowering them vs the alternative. All great aims but the two issues are not linked such that pointing it out here makes any sense.


R3lay0 t1_ivvdvun wrote

Aluminium recycling is highly energy intensive


guyonabeanbag t1_ivu5392 wrote

I pick not plastic


Regressionbyhand t1_ivuatyt wrote

Which is worse for climate change


chetanaik t1_ivuwemy wrote

We can switch transportation methods to something more sustainable. We don't have a method yet to deal with endless plastic waste. Microplastics and bioaccumulation along with most of the climate change impacts from plastic production anyways is worse.

Ideally just legislate that any bottled water producers actually recycle as many bottles as they use. Add recycling costs to the products if required, that'll show the true cost. People who need water can always rely on refillable jugs if this cost is justly high.


DiggSucksNow t1_ivvpuf3 wrote

Third option: business models that destroy the planet don't deserve to exist.


Sanchopanza1377 t1_ivvzb7p wrote

They forced plastic on us 40 years ago, because paper bags kill trees, and now we are evil for using plastic.

Landfills full of solar panels and toxic waste dumps full of lithium batteries....

The Eco-fascist business model is destroying the planet


xylopyrography t1_ivugsgj wrote

Ban bottled water by corporations. If a community wants/needs bottled water, they should bottle it themselves with their own treatment facility.

Consider banning basic flavoured beverages. Just have consumers and businesses buy the powder and add to tap water.

For 1 L and less switch to aluminum (but ban packing plastic)

For 1.25 L and above switch to either vending style with powder or wax carton, or just have consumers buy multiples of 1 L.

Carbon footprint of transportation is already a problem being solved and can be accelerated through carbon pricing.


richraid21 t1_ivum7jk wrote

> If a community wants/needs bottled water, they should bottle it themselves with their own treatment facility.

This is so god damn stupid I can only think you're a troll.


xylopyrography t1_ivuu5tw wrote

Well, 99% of communities don't need bottled water. It serves no function.

I've been to communities that bottle their own water. You can do it and sell it profitably for $0.50.


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv2z8f wrote

You miss the point. People that "need" bottled water are the same people that just want easy access to good drinking water.

So just make the tap water fit those conditions and it would save infinitely more money than every city in the US having a water bottling plant.


xylopyrography t1_ivv69vx wrote

No they aren't. That's less than 1% of bottled water usage. Probably less than 0.1%.

I live in Alberta. We have among the strictest water quality standards in the world, far more stringent than bottled water. Yet every grocery store sells palettes of bottled water a week and there are entire service industries created around businesses purchasing bulk water for water coolers that are shipped around on trucks from far away distribution plants.

All of that can be replaced with a metal water bottle and our tap water.

And for the communities without access to clean drinking water, there are dozens of other solutions, of which 0.5 L plastic bottle water containers are among the worst.


Regressionbyhand t1_ivuju95 wrote

All great ideas. However I was pointing out that plastic isn’t an issue necessarily when considering greenhouse gas emissions.


xylopyrography t1_ivuuhna wrote

I get they're separate issues. I think plastic is much worse considering the trend lines. That is, it's the bigger problem 50-70 years form now on our current path.

We are on the track to solve the carbon problem within 100 years, and can probably start reversing the damage.

But the damage we've done with plastic is continuing and it's going to take hundreds of years to undo it, even if we find a way to do it quickly.


caveyh96 t1_ivtvbo5 wrote

I don't blame Coke, we are buying the product


Aezyre t1_ivxkn5a wrote

And it's an easy one to avoid buying too.


TrashHiking t1_ivvgpn3 wrote

I blame coke for not making more environmentally conscious decisions and instead following the bottom line.

They could just make less off each container if they switched their plastics to an aluminum container.

Or they could make the same amount by charging slightly more.

Or they could lobby the government to pass legislation to get incentives to use aluminum over plastic (they would probably come out ahead on this one honestly).


caveyh96 t1_ivxet2e wrote

Consumers have the power. If you don't like how a company does something or operates don't buy the product


rat-morningstar t1_ivxh0ly wrote

"Don't buy their product" from coke or pepsico just means you can't buy basically any drink or snack.

The shops near me sell mondelez brands, pepsico brands, nestle brands, or coke brands...

So "the customer can just choose not to buy food" doesn't really work irl


caveyh96 t1_ivxi2e7 wrote

So, there is tap water for a start. You can make lots of food that isn't made by either of them two brands also. I just had a google hand there are a ton of other options for companies that arent owned by either.


SlowCrates t1_ivte08w wrote

God damn, we are in Brawndo territory at this point.


PTEHarambe t1_ivtiydi wrote

Mutilating our thirst and our planet... Not necessarily in that order.


Brickleberried t1_ivtr7io wrote

Yeah, but also, who buys those plastic bottles?


Carbon_60 t1_ivty6g1 wrote

If you want the product often times the only choice is a plastic container. I would pay a premium for glass I literally can't buy it though.


WisestAirBender t1_ivuqzzu wrote

If people didn't buy it the company would be forced to change. Sorry but they're a business. If there are no repercussions then they have no incentive to change.

It's not like coke is necessary for live


jmlinden7 t1_ivuvjcp wrote

You have the option to not litter


TrashHiking t1_ivuy8rp wrote

Okay, let's say you recycle your plastic instead. Most municipal recycling programs don't do anything with their plastic except bundle it up and sent it offshore for someone else to deal with.

So even if you do everything right, the bottles still end up polluting the environment.


jmlinden7 t1_ivuyhm4 wrote

Most countries landfill or incinerate their plastic. However that's dependent on people not littering


TrashHiking t1_ivuzhxp wrote

Where it's broken down into microplastics and released into the environment.

You do know that landfills aren't static environments where anything you put in just stays there forever, right?


jmlinden7 t1_ivuzpqc wrote

Landfills are sealed off from the environment. Incinerators incinerate the microplastics into CO2.


TrashHiking t1_ivvbtv6 wrote

Seagulls, raccoons, bears, and other animals feast on garbage and carry it back into the environment (both literally and in their gut).

Is it your position that greenhouse gasses are not bad for the environment?


jmlinden7 t1_ivvc6r5 wrote

Oh CO2 is definitely bad for the environment (and to an extent so are landfills) but microplastics (and plastic) aren't the main concern.


TrashHiking t1_ivvg3oz wrote

Your initial statement was that people could just not litter.

I'm showing that the issue with plastic is harder than just not littering and you're moving goalposts now.

What's your actual point?


Otto_the_Autopilot t1_ivu4wpy wrote

Aluminum exists too and doesn't require a premium.


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv4ei1 wrote

Thats great! Next time when I go to my store and see a row of only plastic bottles, Ill think of how wasteful my next $2.50 is gonna be.



Pleasant-Cricket-129 t1_ivuyvze wrote

Isnt it the ‘people’ or a country who is the biggest pollutor. Is coke sapossed to hire people to follow people around and make sure they recycle their product?


Malawi_no t1_ivtsjy1 wrote

It's weird that so many countries don't have a refund on the bottle.


Saith_Cassus t1_ivtyhx7 wrote

It largely boils down to economics. Plastic recycling facilities operate on a shoestring budget, and often can’t or don’t turn a profit. It also doesn’t help that we’re only allowed to use a relatively small percentage (~30%) of recycled materials in containers intended for human consumption, like soda or water bottles. That reduces the profit margin even further.

I’m not going to pretend that I’m an expert on the subject matter and have the solutions. But the simple fact of the matter is, there’s a reason that the three R’s list “recycle” after reduce and reuse.


Malawi_no t1_ivumhbw wrote

The main goals of refunds are to take the bottles away from the regular waste-stream, avoid littering and possibly reuse them.

Here in Norway we have had refunds for a long time. In the time of glass bottles, it meant that they were reused. Now we have kinda gone full circle, and many bottles (like all from Coca Cola) are made from 100% recycled material.

It's basically about nudging the companies towards the goal of lowering waste.


Saith_Cassus t1_ivunkfp wrote

Ah, I see the reason for the confusion.

Coca-Cola actually has a large number of seats in our Congress and dictates policy for the US government on a regular basis. They’ve bought and paid for almost all of our congressional res in some capacity or another, typically with gifts of just a few thousand dollars.


Malawi_no t1_ivuokxk wrote

In normal US fashion I guess.

Anyways, if they say they cannot recycle the plastic bottles, they already do over here.


LacedVelcro t1_ivu8alq wrote

It is up to governments to set appropriate regulations that reduce and limit plastic pollution.

These companies are not going to do it by themselves.

It is your job to make sure that you vote, and that you let your elected officials know what you think is important that they work on. Because you know that these companies are talking to your elected officials.


leatherneck0629 t1_ivudh5j wrote

biproducts from manufacturing or waste from people buying it and not being responsible? who's at fault?


LiteVolition t1_ivthnk4 wrote

What is the role of “sponsor”? Is it merely giving lots of money in exchange for visibility? If so, wouldn’t you in fact want to extract as much value out of the worst polluters and direct it towards change efforts?

I feel like people often miss the fact that data is only so useful in analysis. Analysis is where you’d decide, in our less than perfect world, that you want the biggest polluters supporting the biggest changes.

If anyone has evidence that the cocoa cola company was able to convince panelists, speakers, representatives and attendees that they shouldn’t talk about plastic or water issues we have journalistic awards standing by.

Don’t forget that Coca Cola co. is only a syrup marketing company. Manufacturing, containers, distribution and reclamation are not handled directly by them. This is all handled regionally by separate companies under contract. If there were perfectly safe and reusable containers tomorrow they would be the first adopters because it would be good for their brand. Coca Cola exists because people can be convinced to drink sugar. They do not exist to pollute the world.

To those who will scoff at this graph, go ahead and be smug about “irony” and feel good about your own brilliance while nothing substantial gets done otherwise.


Sitting_Squirrel t1_ivtkaf1 wrote

I'm not entirely sure what this statistic actually accomplishes. If coca cola is the biggest distributor by volume, of course they're the largest contributor. If coca cola was to be broken up into small privately owned businesses, the same issue would exist, it would just be insignificant on an individual level (all business' statistics would have to be combined). This just seems like a pointless argument that really doesn't address the actual issue.

Edit: Sorry, I know I got off track


LiteVolition t1_ivtnjg2 wrote

I think it’s a fair thing to point out yes. Large company, large footprint. It’s not very useful data you’re right in my opinion.


haboo213 OP t1_ivto88b wrote

I believe the arguments that climate change activists would make is that because the company is large and have the most control over themselves, they should take the lead and be environmentally conscious, especially since they have promised it.

Comparing corporations to collective governance actions, it would be akin to saying that since international laws are at a standstill, it is those who pollute the most and make the greatest impact (eg China) who should start by reducing their carbon footprints since they have the ability to control themselves and would make a significant positive impact by doing so.

(Separately, even though I made the chart, I'm not sure if i agree with the position taken by these NGOs here and posted it with the view of hearing from Redditors and I definitely see where you're coming from.)


RW3Bro t1_ivtj4gk wrote

Are you okay brother


LiteVolition t1_ivtjz1p wrote

I am now! Finally had coffee. I took some of the original bile out of my comment. Hope it mellows out the tone a bit ☕️


Totale-Substanz t1_ivtlat1 wrote

Plastic pollution and global warming are two different issues.


mrsanyee t1_ivtv5h4 wrote

True, but single-use plastic is also made from petroleum, and prob made with non-CO2-neutral energy source.


hamcheese35 t1_ivut8k7 wrote

Petroleum byproducts, that are being produced with or without demand for plastics. In terms of emissions, all packaging is made with a non-CO2-neutral carbon energy source, and plastic is usually better than alternatives. So yes they are mostly two different issues


mrsanyee t1_ivv6ikz wrote

False. You can create biodegradable, cellulose or starch based plastics eith renewable energy.


N_Cat t1_ivw6ylz wrote

But you could also produce your non-biodegradable petroleum-based plastic containers with renewable energy too, right?

And your cellulose factory could run on coal-powered electricity.

Two mostly separate issues.


mrsanyee t1_ivx1v5k wrote

Or just dont produce waste with resources.


Merallak t1_ivtzagn wrote

how to take responsibility from the assholes that don´'t know what a fucking trash can/bin is to push your agenda.


Wise_Mongoose_3930 t1_ivucvhq wrote

American trash is often shipped to other countries on large boats. Unless you expect everything to go perfectly 100% if the time, then some % of what you throw in the trash ends up in the ocean.


BOOYAcoleXP t1_ivuyjdj wrote

This is a better metric of a brands size, imagine if brand A sold 1 million cans, but due to conservation efforts they could have only polluted 10k cans, on this graph, just due to brand A’s sheer size, smaller brands which dont take part in conservation efforts would be portrayed as doing more for the environment


[deleted] t1_ivvom9l wrote



qqoze t1_ivw5fu5 wrote

PepsiCo sells a lot of things that are not in plastic bottles though. For example at least half of their sales are snacks, which are in aluminum bags. Coca Cola is the worlds most popular soft drink company and of course that means you will find more of their bottles. They also don't produce things like snacks, only drinks of all kinds, including multiple water brands.


amrav_123 t1_ivtzvr6 wrote

It's very hard to take this report seriously considering their choice of font for the headings...


KillBroccoli t1_ivtzv72 wrote

What a dubious Graph. Is the company that is actually making plastic waste or are the consumers not recycling them properly?


lgr95- t1_ivvckmi wrote

It's not the company that pollute. It's their customers.


RevengencerAlf t1_ivvnoqt wrote

None of these companies are even remotely the largest plastic polluters. This is some seriously selective data.


Fishing gear alone dwarfs all 3 of these companies combined.


ExactBat8088 t1_ivw5xx2 wrote

What if we all just like started drinking water from Brita filters and water bottles.

We’d be healthy AND the oceans would be healthy


coolbeans31337 t1_ivwt67s wrote

I wouldn't say they are the polluter, but rather the consumer is.


[deleted] t1_ivtm13o wrote



hreloaded t1_ivtyxg6 wrote

Where can you buy a 3 liter can of coke?


korxil t1_ivu2d4o wrote

where can you buy a 3L of any soda?


hreloaded t1_ivu2m4q wrote

From many markets. Admittedly Coca Cola is usually comes in 2.5 liter bottles at most except in certain times of the year where it comes in 3 liter bottles.

Edit: So then, where can you buy 2.5 liter can of coke?


korxil t1_ivu3mp5 wrote

The largest I’ve ever seen is 2L soda bottles.

But to your point, largest can I’ve seen is a Monster around 700L


hreloaded t1_ivu57pp wrote

Google shows that while it is out of stock, walmart and amazon sold them in the USA. Amazon reviews are from 2019 though. And one website named Albertsons show them in stock. Just googled "coca cola 3 liters USA" lmao.

In my country, 2.5 liter bottles are pretty common. And only plastic bottles I saw smaller than 1 liters are those crappy 125 ml bottles they try to sell to middle schoolers lol. Everything in between are either cans or sometimes glass bottles.

Except for water which coca cola is one of the big players of. So they definitely produce a shit ton of plastic water bottles of 0.25/0.33/0.50 liters. Also maybe sports drinks.

>largest can I’ve seen is a Monster around 700L

That sounds big, half liter ones looks pretry big already. I can't imagine a 1 liter can.


[deleted] t1_ivuabdh wrote



hreloaded t1_ivur3zk wrote

You said that people buy plastic bottles instead of aluminum cans that exist as an alternative. At least where I live, most plastic bottle sizes don't have aluminum can alternatives.

I don't need to buy one, but I want to chug a 3 liter of soda to destroy my stomach and worsen my diabetes; while also complaining about pollution with less guilt than before.


[deleted] t1_ivuwkjl wrote



hreloaded t1_ivuy8ix wrote

I guess it is debatable but I don't want to google the comparison between the two.

Aluminum cans will obviously be pricier but 330 ml can is 10 bucks at the cheapest and 2.5 lt bottle is 24.

I guess it will require some considering and weighting the pros and cons of drinking coke at 3x price vs destroying the environment... 5x if you include cheaper brands(starting from 15 bucks for 2.5 liters)...

It is a tough match. I can understand why people choose to complain about pollution instead while ignoring their own contribution. Unfortunately pricing is a big factor for many people.


[deleted] t1_ivuyizy wrote



hreloaded t1_ivuz8yo wrote

But it doesn't destroy my stomach and it is actually healthy. Maybe not the tap water, though my city's water is drinkable, most of the time.

Still many people buy 19 liter bottles of water, especially in bigger cities where the water is a lil shady. Or they buy filtering systems which taste horrible but does the job. Though someone I knew couldn't get their filters changed because they didn't want to call the only service people for showing their ass cracks. I don't know why though, ass crack is a staple for many jobs, from plumbers to repair people.

Anyway, 19 liter bottles are actually heavily reused so even when you buy Coca Cola's brand of water, you may not pollute as much.


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv5gs4 wrote

You were the one proposing alternatives. Now that everyone called you stupid for an objectively dumb suggestion, you double down on the opinion that people shouldnt buy it anyway?

What a joke.


fegodev t1_ivtw6z1 wrote

Most of the plastic in the oceans comes from fishing nets, not plastic bottles. If you wanna help reducing your plastic use, not eating fish or seafood will help the most. Source


hreloaded t1_ivtzrku wrote

Shen you read about corporate social responsibility, it starts with fixing the issues you have and then making projects about the parts you cause the most harm.

While Coca Cola may fail to fix their own issues; funding events and organizations that work on environment is what they should do too.

I don't know why anyone is still surprised about this.


emptygroove t1_ivue3pu wrote

Not pertinent to this chart exactly, but the overall idea.

Don't we want the biggest contributors to a problem to be the biggest contributors toward finding a solution? Meta should be donating money to mental health research, Exxon to pollution/global warming, etc.


Aquartgift t1_ivv8e38 wrote

You mean people that leave their bottles everywhere??


AverageJak t1_ivve0o2 wrote

The UN is real world mafia


RagingCatbtt t1_ivvhv9h wrote

Any independent root beer I find is in a glass bottle. Same for any other independent soda. Same for all major beer companies.


calann1 t1_ivvls40 wrote

Damn it, I just purchased a 12 pack of metal straws for my Coke. I can't even.


AwayAd9297 t1_ivvo2fx wrote

over expensive shit product that refuses to change their bottling methods. consistently blaming consumers for the pollution they create. that and basically its poison


Thiizic t1_ivvsalz wrote

You would think coke would be able to solve this issue. Would only increase their brand perception


_AaronJ t1_ivvw2du wrote

Coca-Conflict of interest


prjindigo t1_ivvxvjt wrote

actually the CCP is, all those fishing boats with cheap nets being just dumped overboard when they wear out


Kraphtuos968 t1_ivw680d wrote

Weird, Pepsico and Coca-Cola ticked up at the same time Unilever ticked down. As far as I know they're not competitors at all, which could have explained it. Anyone have a theory?


qatamat99 t1_ivw8kwz wrote

I believe fishing nets cause more sea pollution


AmaBans t1_ivwiezt wrote

Surprised Nestle isnt on here.


lesliestandifer t1_ivwzlwz wrote

I’m no tree hugger but why not just switch to aluminum bottles really? Or just switch back to glass?


Fine_Bug_8925 t1_ivx5v3n wrote

If y’all plan on taking my tampons next - after you just took my rights - Imma menstrual-cycle bleed all over your asses.


Only_One_Kenobi t1_ivx6d31 wrote

This can very easily be curbed by simply not buying plastic bottles of coke. As long as they keep making money from it they have no motivation to change. Vote with you wallets. Coke tastes better from a glass bottle anyway


Shnast t1_ivx6isi wrote

I feel like it's time to stop producing new plastic altogether. I am sure we can get all the plastic we need through recycling everything we already have produced. Everything in the landfills. It's all so much we shouldn't really have to produce new plastic. Agree or disagree?


Msink t1_ivx9wb8 wrote

The biggest polluter only becomes that because people want to consyme their stuff. So, essentially the fault of everyone.


rammo123 t1_ivxd6xn wrote

"The World's Largest Polluter" is always such a weird framing. Of course they are, they make the most stuff!


theCroc t1_ivxk1nq wrote

More countries need a bottle deposit system. In Sweden 82% of all plastic beverage bottles are collected for recycling because you get about 10 cents back when you return them.

People who cant get off their asses to do a good thing will walk a mile to collect a nickel. And even if people do throw them out, they never last long on the ground as someone will be along to collect it in short order and grab those ten cents.

The ones who don't get collected for the deposit usually either end up in the combustible trash or the normal plastic recycling.


Eugene-Pontecorvo t1_ivy5saf wrote

And yet I’m not allowed to use a straw that keeps it’s integrity for the duration of my meal.


beelzebubby t1_ivzxn4c wrote

Captain obvious strikes again.


CAFunked t1_ivtx4d3 wrote

Is Pepsi significantly lower because of environmental efforts on their end or because they sell less?


zombietampons t1_ivu4euq wrote

Well... they have better marketing... buy less coke... a cola...


LeCrushinator t1_ivu4m0k wrote

They've doubled plastic waste in just 3 years? WTF?


WisestAirBender t1_ivur561 wrote

Or maybe people have increased consumption


Daddy_Parietal t1_ivv6ab5 wrote

Or maybe people have stopped recycling as much.

Or maybe the random places they did these studies have various other factors contributing to the disproportion of plastic waste.

This study has so much holes, you'd spend more time trying to get useful information out of it than just conducting a whole new study.


LooniexToonie t1_ivu5w8y wrote

Ill just take a shorter shower 👌 thatll help our Carbon footprint


Mason11987 t1_ivupo0k wrote

I like Coke (specifically Coke Zero)

I don’t like how much plastic it generates.

Anyone have any tips on how I can mitigate my personal impact.

I’m aware “personal carbon footprint” is a corporate scheme to make me feel bad. Nevertheless I still feel bad. Besides just choosing not to feel bad, and using my apartment complexes recycling pickup (that probably is just trashed for all I know). what can I do?


SDIR t1_ivus9ds wrote

Hmm, if you like Coke maybe buy the large packs of cans? Metal's infinitely recyclable


Kraphtuos968 t1_ivw6hw1 wrote

It also takes more energy to recycle than plastic. :/ I would buy a nalgene and refill it at gas stations. Weird to drink soda from though.


SDIR t1_ivwbqcz wrote

It does, but doesn't degrade like plastic does. As of right now, only PET, polypropylene and polyethylene are recyclable in NA, meaning that not all plastics you get as containers are recyclables. It's better to avoid using them


Kraphtuos968 t1_ivwdqbd wrote

Oh yeah, I wasn't advocating using plastic over aluminum, just avoiding both if possible


SDIR t1_ivwr89c wrote

Ah I see, honestly I have to agree. Personally I love glass, my main water bottle is a rubber and glass bottle that's super easy to clean


xXVUVXx t1_ivut3y7 wrote

Look at me now, people who mocked me for preferring Pepsi over Coke.


seansy5000 t1_ivv1tvn wrote

Probably one of the leading causes of diabetes too. That shit they sell should have a warning label. I say that while firmly entrenched in a sugar addiction I can’t kick. I’ve kicked cigarettes, but can’t seem to kick sugar, especially this high fructose corn syrup.


Fivethenoname t1_ivw5iuv wrote

This is called capturing the regulators. And now these evil fucks aren't just capturing their own countries regulation systems, but the fledgling global effort to adopt change as well. Disgusting. And even more, the UN is playing right along as if they aren't completely aware of this tactic. Just all around awful. Transparency like this is so important, thanks OP.


Gawkhimm t1_ivtp9pm wrote

make ecocide a crime against humanity and give all corporations a few years warning to change or all shareholders, CEOs etc gets charged with crimes against humanity..

I suggest lifetime sentence of hard labor cleaning pollution...