Coke’s WWF cash machine

White Coke Cans Fund Polar Bear Myths

Guest post by by Paul Chesser

For years Coca-Cola has given millions of dollars to eco-extreme group World Wildlife Fund, whose alarmism and perpetration of falsehoods are unmatched among its cohorts in climate activism. Now Coke has initiated a new campaign with WWF that features its iconic advertising species in an effort to drive more funding to the international nonprofit group to “protect the polar bears’ Arctic home.”

The promotion will include new packaging for Coke over the holiday season, changing its familiar red cans to white, and featuring an image of a mother polar bear and her cubs on the side. Coke says it will donate $2 million over five years to WWF for “polar bear conservation efforts,” and will also match donations made at iCoke.ca. Last year Coke gave WWF $1.64 million for its various activities globally.

“The planet is changing very quickly, and nowhere more quickly than in the Arctic,” says Gerald Butts, president of WWF-Canada.

“It’s really important that we all understand that they need our help,” he added. “Climate change is changing livelihoods, it’s changing migration patterns for species, and we want to plan ahead. We want a future for the Arctic where the communities of people who live there are vibrant and sustainable, and the iconic species – in particular the polar bear – has a long-term future on the planet.”

Butts speaks so little truth.

Read the rest here:

http://bit.ly/vRVnmK

About these ads
This entry was posted in Current News and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to Coke’s WWF cash machine

  1. Lawrence says:

    Smart move by Coke, it’ll boost their sales no end amongst the enlightened young.

  2. Not to mention the blatant inaccuracy of polar bears partying it up with penguins, further cementing the glurgy cute-factor image of a top predator funning it up with prey….from the opposite hemisphere. Coke, basically toxic High-fructose corn syrup, ‘flavor’, ‘color’, and phosphoric acid, buying brownie points with the WWF, the paragon of environmental ‘health’…

  3. Juraj V. says:

    http://oi56.tinypic.com/vfv70g.jpg
    Arctic is changing in the same manner as before. Has that crook ever seen lets say GIPS2 core data from Greenland?

  4. Hyperthermania says:

    As a diarrhetic, Coke is useful to people who are full of sh*t.

  5. ew_3 says:

    Another reason to buy Pepsi.

  6. …oh, yeah, forgot to mention that the corn syrup comes, in all likelyhood, from genetically-modified corn….high on WWF’s list of nasties.

  7. Clive says:

    Bah! Humbug …
    Had to stop watching the ad after a few seconds. Gak!
    There will be no more Coke products in this home.

  8. Jeremy says:

    I have to contradict those coke commercials with something:

  9. HankH says:

    What’s also ironic is the white background on the can is supposed to represent snow. You know, that wintery white stuff that was supposed to be a thing of the past but keeps coming sooner and in larger quantity every year since it was placed on the endangered precipitation list.

  10. F. Ross says:

    I can live without another Coke.
    Generic cola will be fine with me.

  11. ddpalmer says:

    I had already sent Coke an email stating there would be no Coke products in my house until the polar bears can are extinct.

  12. Brandon Caswell says:

    I will still buy coke. Not because I support this, but because I like coke.

    If there is a choice between a white can and A red one….I would buy the red. But lets be honest, the board at coke just sat down and said “how can we buy votes from these tree hugger morons?”. They don’t think they are changing anything. They know it costs millions for add campaigns and a couple million to WWF is just part of an add campaign cost. They will probably spent 50-100 million in advertising this year, so this is nothing but flipping a few coins to the homeless man while the camera is rolling to pretend that you care. Cant be a corporation these days without some form of a “we care about the ______” campaign, just the cost of doing business in our current world.

  13. Simple do not buy any Coke product that includes from stores, vending machines, restaurants and taverns. If you want to make your economic/social/political statement listened to hurt the local bottlers in the pocket book.

  14. steve salter says:

    $2 Million over 5 years? This wouldn’t begin to cover the damage caused by HFCS. They should be contributing $2 Million a week to healthcare research to discover ways to counteract the devastation caused by sugar and especially high fructose corn syrup in our daily soda pop intake.

  15. Douglas DC says:

    No more coke, but I haven;t bought any soft drinks for 20 years….
    This is as stupid as it gets…
    Facts are irrelevant..

  16. Wait a minute – they’ll give 2M$ no matter how many cans they sell. It’s boycott-independent.

  17. I predict that the results of this ad campaign will be very disappointing to Coke. With the economy the way it is, most people will be making their purchases based on cost and will have little interest in paying more to save a few more polar bears. I don’t think their white cans will last five years and the amount raised from their sales will be far less than their goal.

  18. Smokey says:

    Lawrence says:

    “Smart move by Coke, it’ll boost their sales no end amongst the enlightened young brainwashed juvenile moron crowd.” There. Fixed it.☺

  19. Paul Hooks says:

    Have they removed the Carbon Dioxide from these cans, or do you purchase them but never open as a primitive form or Carbon Capture ?

  20. Latitude says:

    Children will not know what Coke is.
    Coke will be a thing of the past…………………

  21. AlexW says:

    In my opinion the WWF is one of the more reputable environmental groups. Back in june there was a large capain against them in germany. The WWF was accused of making too much compromise in environmental terms because of its collaboration with large evil corporations.

    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX31mT8j-Gk (German only)

  22. petermue says:

    I stopped my donations to WWF 15 years ago, because they don’t do what they should do – care about wildlife.
    They turned into politics and lots of other things they don’t have to concern.
    And now Coke jumps the bandwagon.

    Please, anyone of the readers here:
    Show me one photograph, only ONE, of a drowned polar bear.

    After all, – alarmists are so quickly to present thousands of graphs and photos, until now I’ve seen not a single one. Even Google has none. But thousands of photos of dead polar bears from hunting!

    This whole polar bear story is one large-scale fraud, I tell you.
    Only good to flush lots of $$$ into their coffers.

    Oh, and no more Coke now. There are many other good and cheaper drinks.

  23. John T says:

    Interesting. No mention of exactly what that money is going to be used for other than maintaining their habitat. I even checked the iCoke.ca site. They don’t say what’s actually going to be done with the money. What are they actually going to do that could be considered protecting/maintaining the habitat for polar bears?

    The best thing man can do to help the polar bears is just leave them alone. Period.

  24. Dr. Dave says:

    Paul Hooks has the right idea. The white Coke cans should also contain no carbonation. I mean…why take half measures?

  25. Vince says:

    “The planet is changing very quickly, and nowhere more quickly than in the Arctic,” says Gerald Butts, president of WWF-Canada.

    Now we all know what comes out of “butts”, now don’t we?

  26. Allan M says:

    I don’t drink the stuff (the fizz doesn’t do the hiatus hernia much good), so I can’t stop buying it. But I’ll try to spread the word.

    Seems they are still selling snake oil, like when it was Pemberton’s Nerve Syrup, or whatever.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pemberton

  27. DesertYote says:

    Lawrence says:
    October 31, 2011 at 10:32 am
    Smart move by Coke, it’ll boost their sales no end amongst the enlightened young.
    ###

    You must have ment “indoctrinated” young.

  28. mkelly says:

    steve salter says:
    October 31, 2011 at 10:55 am
    $2 Million over 5 years? This wouldn’t begin to cover the damage caused by HFCS. They should be contributing $2 Million a week to healthcare research to discover ways to counteract the devastation caused by sugar and especially high fructose corn syrup in our daily soda pop intake.

    Don’t worry about the fructose from corn it will all be gone in a couple of years getting burned in the engines of people like, well, you. No frustose for soda pop, less food for people and animals to eat, and no change in the temperature.

    By the way if people drink soda pop it is because they want to not because of Coke or Pepsi etc.

  29. DesertYote says:

    Vince
    October 31, 2011 at 11:26 am
    “The planet is changing very quickly, and nowhere more quickly than in the Arctic,” says Gerald Butts, president of WWF-Canada.

    Now we all know what comes out of “butts”, now don’t we?
    ####

    Greenhouse gasses?

  30. Allan M says:

    John T says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:21 am

    What are they actually going to do that could be considered protecting/maintaining the habitat for polar bears?

    A 5,000,000 cubic mile fridge.

  31. AnonyMoose says:

    What wildlife organization can I donate to where the money won’t be wasted? I think Ducks Unlimited is fine for their limited focus, but what others?

  32. jorgekafkazar says:

    AGW and the WWF are highly politicized. I’d guess that Coke’s contributions should not be tax deductible. I think I’ll write my congressman. Needless to say, I won’t be buying Coke, and I’ll mention to others that Coke is funding financial ecoterrorists.

  33. Betapug says:

    WWF President Yolanda Kakabadse, (Doctor in Science (ScD) Honoris Causa from the University of East Anglia (2008), is a member of the Environmental Advisory Board of CocaCola, and between 1998 and 2000 was the Minister of Environment for Ecuador.

    It is important for “charities” like WWF to maintain the profit making sector and according to WWF, drinking Coke apparently helps conserve water…

    “Since 2007, we’ve been working with Coca-Cola to conserve freshwater resources
    around the world. We’ve worked within the company’s manufacturing operations
    to improve water efficiency and reduce carbon emissions, throughout their supply
    chain to promote sustainable agriculture, and on the ground to conserve important
    river basins. We’ve seen notable success – restoring wetlands and rivers, reducing
    agricultural impacts in Australia, and improving the company’s water efficiency
    13 per cent since 2004.”
    …and must have broken the Australian drought!

    Surely the concentration of advertising and PR people in the eco industry must outrank any other.

    “A ‘brand’… ” says WWF
    “• much more than a logo
    • made up of opinions and beliefs, reputation and behaviour – not facts
    • exists in the minds of audiences, customers, supporters, staff…
    • differentiates from the competition … a most valuable asset
    …but also the most vulnerable”

    http://www.uneptie.org/scp/compact/dialogue/2004/pdf/WWF.pdf

    “Ogilvy Advertising, one of the world’s largest communications agencies, has provided us
    with free support for over three decades. Their creativity has helped make WWF one of
    the world’s leading brands and attract worldwide public support for our campaigning.
    We also work with media agency Mindshare, part of the same group, who place WWF
    advertising free of charge in leading in international media.”

    See Ogilvies work in the 2010 report: http://wwf.panda.org/who_we_are/organization/finance/

  34. Kev-in-Uk says:

    That’s Ok as I don’t drink that acidic tooth rotting stomach churning stuff anyways. The next thing will be how the Polar Bear population has been ‘saved’ thanks to Coca friggin Cola and the bleedin World Wildlife Fund……..yawning in advance ….

  35. Jeff in Calgary says:

    I would like to stop buying Coke, but Rye and Coke is too good!! Rye and Pepsi dosen’t work. Too sweet. Maybe I will just try to reduce my Coke products consumption. Maybe switch to beer.

  36. JohnM says:

    Neither cola-company comes across as particularly savoury:
    http://www.transnationale.org/companies/
    All that has to be done is find who works for which company AND for the wwf.
    All together now:
    Wwf: Watermelon organisation

  37. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Hey, just a thought – maybe Coke will put twice as much CO2 in each can to remove it from the atmosphere? – just sayin…as I’m sure many AGW eco-nuts will see that as a good thing!
    (do I really need to put /sarc off?)

  38. Peter Miller says:

    I spent several days up in the ‘high Arctic’ a few months ago. It’s a big place with not much in it – basically, it is not a place where any sane person would want to live.

    I simply cannot see how you could spend money on supposedly protecting the polar bears’ environment – it is simply too huge an area.

    My guess is the dough will be given to WWF to fund the bloated salaries of their senior executives and fees of their greenie approved consultants. Still, if it gives the great unwashed a warm fuzzy feeling by buying coke, it will have proven to have been a brilliant marketing strategy.

    Does anyone really think Coca Cola’s executives give a rat’s xxxx about the supposed plight of the polar bears? If you do, you probably also believe in the tooth fairy and the inherent honesty of all politicians.

  39. DrDavid says:

    Can I get carbon credits for sequestering unopened Coca Cola?

  40. Henry Galt says:

    Jeff in Calgary says:

    That rye and Coke will kill ya.

    Some dihydrogen monoxide with your rye and you could live forever ;-)

  41. old44 says:

    HankH says:
    October 31, 2011 at 10:44 am
    “endangered precipitation list.”
    Love it.

  42. dwright says:

    So the whole “polar bears are dying because the WWF says so” meme is nothing more than an ad campaign for Coca Cola? (that was rhetorical)
    I guess selling product to brainwashed zombies by making them feel good and helpful about a non-existent problem is highly profitable.

  43. TRM says:

    In the late 1960s there were 5,000 polar bears left. They restricted hunting and killing them and now we have 25,000 polar bears. Gun kill polar bears not climate!

    The whole polar bear species is less than 150,000 years old. They are really one of the newest evolved species on the planet.

    They survived the much warmer temperatures that we had in the last 10,000 years so they will be fine.

  44. ScottD says:

    AnonyMoose says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:38 am

    What wildlife organization can I donate to where the money won’t be wasted?

    Buy a gun and some ammo, or a tent, or backpack. As an added bonus you get to have fun plinking away at tin cans in the backyard. :D
    Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
    http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html

  45. Tez says:

    Hypocritical Coca Cola used to lace their product with cocaine, now they just lace it with poisonous C02, the gas considered to be responsible for the irreversible death of our planet.

    This is what The Daily Bayonet has to say about it:

    What is the WWF, an environmental outfit, doing with an evil CO2-intensive industry like Big Soda?

    According to the EPA, CO2 is a dangerous pollutant. Yet Big Soda puts it into drinks which our children consume.

    That’s not the worst of it, Tom Nelson found another five ways Coca-Cola hates Gaia:

    Coca Cola sponsors CO2-spewing NASCAR races.
    Coca Cola sells allegedly planet-killing bottled water.
    Coca Cola is said to own the second-largest CO2-spewing truck fleet in the world.
    Coca Cola requires their CEO to use a CO2-spewing private plane for all business and personal travel.
    Coke uses 300,000 tons of aluminium for its cans every year just for its US operations. That’s equal to 17.4% of what the entire US aluminum industry produces. Aluminum smelting has been targeted by climate change protestors as an extremely energy intensive, CO2-spewing industry

    The WWF should hang its panda-bear head in shame at its cozy relationship with planet-killer Coca-Cola, which pumps 99,280,000 tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year.

    Unless of course CO2 is a harmless trace gas essential to life on Earth and global warming is just a huge scam. Big Coal should paint its product white and call the WWF, they’ll approve anything for a buck:

  46. Ellie V says:

    OK, I have done a bit of Google research and discovered that a 330ml can of coke has a carbon footprint of 170g CO2 equivalent. Google reliably informs me that the US consume 216 litres of soft drink per person per year. Based on a US population of 307,006,500 this is a total of 66,313,414,800 lites of soft drink per year. Given that cokes domestic market share is around 43% of the market this gives us 28,514,768,364 litres of coke a year. Divide that by 330ml and times that by it’s carbon footprint, I estimate that if you were to ban coke in the US you could save 14,689 tonnes CO2 equivalent. Would a more effective environmental campaign be to ban coke, nay all carbonated drinks in the US?

    (Maths is not my strong point, please feel free to point and laugh)

  47. Robert Austin says:

    AnonyMoose says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:38 am
    “What wildlife organization can I donate to where the money won’t be wasted?”

    Many organizations associated with hunting and fishing are devoted to wildlife conservation and use donations directly towards that purpose. For example, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters played a major part in the reintroduction of wild turkeys into Ontario.

  48. Bomber_the_Cat says:

    So, the answer is easy. Don’t buy the brand name coca-cola; nor contribute to WWF or Greenpeace collections. Once these marketing organisations realise that they can lose more than they gain from this anti-science bandwagon – they will soon come to their senses.
    So, it’s up to you. Don’t buy these products,

  49. DirkH says:

    AlexW says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:16 am
    “In my opinion the WWF is one of the more reputable environmental groups.”

    They are so reputable that a third of the IPCC lead authors work for them.

  50. Pure marketing, they don’t give a shit about bears. 2 million over 5 years, I suppose that globally they spend more on toilet paper.

  51. Allan M says:

    Allan M says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:32 am

    I don’t drink the stuff (the fizz doesn’t do the hiatus hernia much good)

    I penny just dropped. At last I’ve found something harmful from CO2.

  52. MattN says:

    Well, this is a real shame since I prefer Coke over Pepsi. I guess I’ll have to switch to store brand, or maybe Jones Soda if I can find it…

  53. Ralph says:

    >>Lawrence says: October 31, 2011 at 10:32 am

    “Smart move by Coke, it’ll boost their sales no end amongst the brain-dead young.”

    Fixed that for you.

  54. Bob Diaz says:

    Well, drinking soda is NOT good for you. Even diet soda tricks the body into wanting more food; resulting in weight gain.

    So we have an interesting match, a company that produces a product that’s not good for you, supporting a cause that’s also not good for you!

  55. Uzyourbrain says:

    Boycott Coke

  56. Uzyourbrain says:

    Coke Contains CO2, Which is listed on the EPA’s hazardous chemical list.

  57. Ray says:

    Maybe they just wanted to do their part to change the albedo of the earth. This is why they are putting more white on their cans.

  58. E.M.Smith says:

    Pepsi is good… I like Pepsi ;-)

  59. timg56 says:

    What Brandon says.

    Can’t get upset at Coca-Cola for making PR decisions that sell their product. It is the responsibility of the customer to make informed choices. In this case I think most customers will buy Coke for the same reason they always have – they like how it tastes. I doubt even the most rabid WWF supporter is going to switch from Pepsi to Coke because of a can redesign.

  60. timg56 says:

    I also think Paul Hooks is on to something. Perhaps he should convince Coca-Cola to pursure a carbon capture campaign – which would encourage every Coke buyer to buy one additional can of their product for every can they consume. The additional can would remain un-opened. Customers could have the option of taking the extra can home and burying it, or just paying for the can and having Coke store it. Throw in a tax credit for each un-opened can and you have a real world policy.

    Make sure you pay attention to Ellie’s comment. It provide’s a great spin point – Coke needs to do this before someone points out how naturally distructive of the environment their product is.

    PS – Paul, if you (or anyone else) follows through on this, can you let me know in advance? I want to make sure I buy Coca-Cola stock first.

  61. Russ Blake says:

    This past weekend I read in the Sacramento Bee where the Inuit Indians have just increased the quantity of hunting permits they will issue for Polar Bears. They must not know what dire straights the bears are in.

  62. UK Sceptic says:

    I don’t drink the stuff anyway. I prefer Pepsi.

  63. William Mason says:

    I was until today a heavy coke drinker. Won’t buy another 24 pack ever. Done! Finally. Some way to rail against the madness.

  64. GeologyJim says:

    To be consistent, boycotting Coca Cola would also mean boycotting:

    Cristal, Dasani, Dr Pepper, Fanta, Fresca, Hi-C, Minute Maid, mr Pibb, Nestea, Odwalla, Powerade, Schweppes, Sprite, Squirt and many, many more products in extra-US markets.

    Plus Coca Cola’s foods division products and all the fast-food chains that have exclusive arrangements with Coca Cola, plus . . . . etc

  65. Common Sense says:

    Coke does have many brands, but they do not have a food division, you’re thinking of Pepsi which owns KFC, A&W, and FritoLay, among others.

    It’s too bad that Coke has bought into the globull warming religion, but they are still a far better company than Pepsi.

    Both my husband and my youngest son work for Coke now that they’ve purchased their largest distributor, Colca-Cola Enterprises. They are a good, non-union company to work for with good pay and benefits. The Coke headquarters (Atlanta) does have some stupid policies, like not letting the semi drivers idle for more than 5 minutes (doesn’t work so well with diesel trucks when it’s 9 below in Denver in the winter), but we’re pretty happy with them over all.

    Another funny tidbit… so-called ‘healthy’ stores like Whole Foods and Vitamin Cottage order Coke products like Vitamin Water all the time but Coke has to deliver in the middle of the night so customers can’t see the Coke truck making the delivery. My son is a relief merchandiser and is currently stocking the shelves of stores in the People’s Republic of Boulder. Boy does he have interesting stories!

  66. Mike McMillan says:

    Pepsi generation, comin’ atcha’, goin’ strong.

  67. Jay Davis says:

    Called Coke today and spoke to a totally clueless nice young woman who insisted Coke is merely teaming with the WWF to help preserve the polar bears’ habitat. She had no idea that WWF was promoting the AGW bs that the bears’ habitat was shrinking due to AGW. Informed her that the AGW hoax was siphoning off hundreds of billions of dollars of disposable income through higher energy costs from the people who buy Coke’s products. Went over her head. Also informed her I was no longer buying Coke’s products, and would tell everyone I know to boycott Coke also. Least I could do.

  68. Kev-in-Uk says:

    Jay Davis says:
    October 31, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    excellent !

  69. keith says:

    Funny, has no one at Coke realized the complete foot in mouth event by making COKE cans white – like the street drug of the same name??

  70. Philip Bradley says:

    I watched David Attenborough’s Frozen Planet the other day and he corrected observed the reason there are penguins in the SH is there are no Polar Bears.

    Otherwise, WWF’s concern for native peoples in the north of Canada rings particularly hollow, as it was environmentalists who led the campaign against wearing fur and devastated
    northern native communities whose economies were largely based on fur trapping and hunting.

  71. Gives new meaning to the term “Coke Zero.” as in the IQ of Coke executives and the amount of Coke I will purchase ’till this charade ends.

  72. Peter Wilson says:

    Quite apart from anything else, Pepsi tastes better!

  73. Kaboom says:

    I can’t make up my mind about how to conserve polar bears. Pickled? Dry-freeze? More good choices than caffeinated beverages to pick from!

  74. MikeB says:

    So exactly how much CO2 is released daily by beverages being opened by consumers and how come no one has started whinging about this.

    In light of that, doesn’t anyone else see the hypocrisy of a manufacturer (whose very product releases CO2 every time it is consumed) donating funds to a project that is supposedly helping something caused by excessive amounts of CO2?

  75. Kaboom says:

    @GeologyJim Turns out I am already boycotting those, albeit for health reasons

  76. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    I’ve given up on soda cans. If it’s getting consumed at home, then the 2 liter bottle in the fridge is good enough. Those little empty cans take up lots of space unless you squash them, that’s a lot of squashing, then they have to be stored for recycling… and the ants and other insects will swarm to them, even after you’ve wasted good potable water to rinse each and every one. I’ve long been told assorted charities want the little pull-top piece thus they have to be removed and saved… which I just found out is a bunch of malarkey according to Snopes.

    And the difference in the per-volume price is outrageous, with the cans costing around three times as much, and that’s without any per-can deposit locally like they have in Kalifornia and elsewhere. Looking at the prices of metals these days, I’m wondering how much more they’re charging for aluminum over plastic.

    Besides, the bottles are much more handy. You can use them storage, emergency building materials, inexpensive solar heating projects… Can you use an empty soda can for an impromptu flotation device, or build a entire raft with them? Nah, didn’t think so.

  77. Gail Combs says:

    No more Coke products in this house!!!! Back to home made sun tea or hot tea.

    For those who think WWF is sweetness and light: http://www.ogiek.org/indepth/whit-man-game-wwf.htm

    Then follow the strings….
    Prince Bernhard Former President WWF => part owner Royal Dutch Shell Oil => Marlan Downey, Former President of the international subsidiary of Shell Oil => Marlan Downey, currently on Advisory Board of Muller & Associates => Dr. Richard Muller, President and Chief Scientist and
    Elizabeth Muller, CEO => BEST

  78. Pete Olson says:

    I thought I posted this, but maybe not…

    This is an email I sent to Coke’s feedback address @ crreview@na.ko.com:

    Dear Coca Cola decisionmakers,

    One would assume that the reason Coke has affiliated itself with the World Wildlife Fund is to impress potential or current customers with Coke’s corporate responsibility, and thereby enhance Coke’s bottom line. Coke is growling up the wrong tree here. WWF is a radical organization that has thoroughly misrepresented and exploited the so-called plight of polar bears – who have survived ice-free arctic conditions, likely more than once, since emerging from the Brown Bear species 150,000 years ago – and whose populations have been growing since the 1950s according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

    “The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs,’”.

    The author of the study suggesting that polar bears may be endangered by global warming – the one that got this whole polar endangerment ball rolling? – is the subject of an investigation by the agency that he works for into his integrity and the validity of his paper.

    Coke has placed itself squarely in the middle of a political controversy, aligning itself with the demographic least likely to buy its product, and insulting to those of the demographic that are its most likely current and future consumers. You’ve lost me, for sure.

    Sincerely,

    Pete Olson

  79. john the sceptic says:

    Google ” polar bear hunting licenses) to see how endangered the bears are…for a small fee you can shoot your very own polar bear rug.

  80. AnonyMoose says:

    I think Coke is using CO2 extracted from air, so its release is neutral… and what hasn’t been opened has been sequestered.

  81. DesertYote says:

    john the sceptic
    October 31, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    Google ” polar bear hunting licenses) to see how endangered the bears are…for a small fee you can shoot your very own polar bear rug.
    ###

    And do you know were the money for that tag goes?

  82. PaulID says:

    OK no more Coke products for me I am more of a diet Mountain Dew person.

  83. Jaye Bass says:

    “maths” is not a word.

  84. JPeden says:

    Thank God for high fructose corn syrup! Fructose is mixed with glucose to get most of the sweetness into table sugar. Otherwise, it would probably taste more like pulverized potatoes – since the starch in potatoes is polymerized glucose.

    But who could argue with a “Coke free zone” or “Down with Coke”? Don’t really drink much of any of that stuff, though. I’m happy enough already.

  85. Larry Kirk says:

    According to the esteemed Professor Robert H Lustig, Professor of Clinical Pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, Coca Cola are more probably the most proactive organisation on the planet when it comes to the preservation of wildlife and their natural habitats. Their strategy is simple: bait the young of the human race with an addictively tasty poison that slowly but surely removes them from the face of the earth. Well, if it works for rats..

    (The biochemistry of it all about 1 hour in is the clincher..)

  86. Roger Knights says:

    Clive says:
    October 31, 2011 at 10:41 am
    Bah! Humbug …
    Had to stop watching the ad after a few seconds. Gak!
    There will be no more Coke products in this home.

    “Can” Coke!

    There’s a DIY soda-making gadget that’s caught on in a big way recently, called SodaStream. It allows people to “home brew” their soda (50 flavors available) at a low cost, with no lugging from the store, no problem if the drink goes flat, and no bottles–hence a lower environmental impact. Here’s their home page: http://www.sodastreamusa.com/

    Here’s their Amazon page: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_0_8?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sodastream&sprefix=sodastre

    And here’s their environmental claim:

    Because SodaStream uses water straight from the tap, the system makes traditional store-bought beverage bottles obsolete. That means less plastic manufactured, less plastic waste is created, and fewer bottled beverages must be transported from manufacturers to distributors to stores to homes.

    Globally, 206 billion liters of bottled water were consumed in 2008 (Zenith International Global Bottled Water Report, 2008). The energy required to make water bottles in the US only, is equivalent to 17 million barrels of oil (Container Recycling Institute, 2002).

    According to the US Recycling Institute, more than 80% of bottles in the US do not get recycled and end up in landfills. Also, an estimated 4.7 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions were produced in the process of replacing the 134 billion bottles and cans not recycled in 2005.

    Using your own home carbonation system means:
    Less packaging waste from cans and bottles.
    Less pollution caused by transport of bottled beverages.
    One SodaStream carbonator makes 60 or 110 liters, equivalent to 170 or 310 aluminum cans! When empty, the carbonator is refilled and reused, ready to make more fizzy and tasty soda whenever you want it.

  87. Roger Knights says:

    GeologyJim says:
    October 31, 2011 at 2:09 pm
    To be consistent, boycotting Coca Cola would also mean boycotting:

    Cristal, Dasani, Dr Pepper, Fanta, Fresca, Hi-C, Minute Maid, mr Pibb, Nestea, Odwalla, Powerade, Schweppes, Sprite, Squirt and many, many more products in extra-US markets.

    One more reason to get the SodaStream system, with its 50 flavors.

    Incidentally, the cost of the setup is about $100. But it gets amortized quickly, thanks to the low cost of the syrup & charger canister. The equivalent of a can of soda costs about a quarter, the company claims. There are retail supply sources all over.

  88. Roger Knights says:

    Jaye Bass says:
    October 31, 2011 at 9:13 pm
    “maths” is not a word.

    Not here in the colonies, anyway.

  89. EternalOptimist says:

    I am probably alone here in thinking this is a good idea. Surely the increased albedo from the white cans will reduce the heat budget by 0.5W m2, making the arctic colder and three times bigger.
    or something

  90. Jer0me says:

    Roger Knights says:
    October 31, 2011 at 11:29 pm

    There’s a DIY soda-making gadget that’s caught on in a big way recently, called SodaStream.

    We had one when I was a kid, must be thirty years ago or more. That was in the UK – perhaps it has only recently moved to the US.

    Works fine, lots of flavours etc. Bonus: when high, you can ‘fizz’ any liquid to see what it tastes like. We found milk to be the oddest for some reason.

  91. Bob Layson says:

    Charity execs believe the problem to be not in natural processes but in the behaviour of people, and therefore their work, as they see it, is to get governments to tax, subsidize, prohibit and prescribe – and to indoctrinate the young. To this end the holy lie will do as well as honest error: ‘Even if we have misjudged the danger of greenhouse gases and the need to de-carbonize it will only mean that things which need doing will have been done for the wrong reasons, but with a beneficial result’.

    I do not agree that fossil-fuel driven industrialisation makes the world a less inhabitable place. More humans can live in more regions of the world than ever.

  92. I’ll drink Pepsi in future ( or rola Cola for fans of Peter Kay!)

  93. brc says:

    >“maths” is not a word.

    What, do you mean my maths competition certificate has a spelling mistake on it?

    I’ll tell you something ‘color’ is not a word. And neither is ‘aluminum’. So there!

  94. Greg Holmes says:

    Polar bears? Coca Cola? a wonderful marketing ploy, you can hear the tills ringing as the dollars roll in. Bears! big white agressive beasties, which eat cute seal pups, Narwhals and any trash they can raid. Recent studies state that the population is increasing, Coca Cola do not read scientific literature I guess. I suppose when some poor schmuck gets eaten we could put a “sponsored by Coke” sign over the site where it happened.(sarc)
    Nuts

  95. Aunty Freeze says:

    Its not just coke. Last night I nearly choked on a penguin bar when i read the wrapper. Yep its WWF again…..

    http://www.penguinbiscuits.com/penguins

  96. ahtnamas42 says:

    I didn’t know Coca-Cola was in bed w/the lefty extremist enviros. Now that I do, I’ll boycott, as much as I can, all Coke products. I will NOT help them support a lie. (By the way: It’s come out that the person who wrote the report that Al Gore’s global-warming screed is based on, about the allegedly dying polar bears, didn’t actually SEE any dead polar bears – he saw WHITE BLOBS below him FROM AN AIRPLANE; he ASSUMED that the “white blobs” WERE dead polar bears (not ice chunks, the most likely thing); he “extrapolated” (his word) the LIKELY number of “dead polar bears” based on his imperfect count of “white blobs” in one small area. AND HE’S AN AVIAN EXPERT! He studies BIRDS! AND – polar bear populations are large & growing in all geographic areas but one – & in that area, the population is stable. AND – there was a recent report that polar bears are in danger in one area BECAUSE THERE’S TOO MUCH ICE! The Arctic seals are moving out to thinner ice, further away from the polar bears, thus causing some of them to starve.

  97. MattN says:

    You know what? I brew my own beer and I have seen multiple kits to brew my own cola. I think I’m going to make the leap and do just that! How hard can it be?

  98. observa says:

    I can only hope and pray Coke take the fizzy out of it-
    http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/fizzy-drinks-linked-to-aggression-20111025-1mh6q.html
    Gawdelpus all if they don’t-
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/a_wrath_more_hellacious_than_satan_himself/
    About 30 secs of our ‘friend’ is all the convincing you’ll need (gulp!!)

  99. G. Karst says:

    Unless you support the WWF, skeptics should boycott, any cans with the false message, on it.

    When Coke detects a drop in sales and revenue, they will desist from lying propaganda and support from such organizations. Do NOT buy such labeled products. How we spend our money is the most effective vote, in a citizens, democratic arsenal. GK

  100. Pull My Finger says:

    Coke has always been a marketing juggernaut, and since they have been using the Polar Bear in ad campaigns since 1922, this makes perfect sense for them. Dubious science, excellent marketing. I’m still waiting for McDonalds or Starbucks to declare them self the Official sponsor of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

    I think the cans look pretty cool myself. Anyhow, boycotting Coke for this is like Christians boycotting Coke for using Santa Claus in its ads. It doesn’t mean Coke really believes Santa Claus exists.

  101. Gail Combs says:

    Bob Layson says:
    November 1, 2011 at 3:06 am

    ……….I do not agree that fossil-fuel driven industrialisation makes the world a less inhabitable place. More humans can live in more regions of the world than ever.
    ________________________________________
    Only the privileged super market predators of the EU, British Common Wealth and the USA think like that.

    Anyone who has had to follow the north end of a south facing mule all day appreciates todays world of conveniences, indoor plumbing and heating among others.

    The CAGW types want to decrease CO2 emissions by 80% that puts civilization back to before the 1800 roughly no matter how you slice it because the population has grown drastically and the 1800 CO2 emissions were twice the target. Rough Calculations HERE

  102. Robroy says:

    If polar bears drank this crap, they would die from obesity, just like people. All sugar soda is bad for you, even if you’re a polar bear.

  103. kim;) says:

    OT BUT Ha ha ha ha ha

    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/a_wrath_more_hellacious_than_satan_himself/

    I can’t leave at Tips :(
    [ Dial-up just won't finish loading pages once they get so heavy ]

    REPLY: Time to get into the 21st century and off dialup then. Look into satellite if DSL isn’t available. – Anthony

  104. Eve Stevens says:

    Had a fun chat with Andrew, the writer of one of the articles about the demise of the polar bear.
    Polar Bears Inbox
    Eve Stevens

    [snip- better check with the author of this email for permission before you post it ~mod]

  105. Henry chance says:

    Pepsi spun off its restaurants to YUM brands. Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut and 2 more. None of them serve Coke. If you get hungry, those choices are predictable.

  106. Brian H says:

    To make a genuine statement, white coke cans should contain only non-carbon(dioxide)ated brown stuff.

  107. kim;) says:

    Mr Watts:
    REPLY: “Time to get into the 21st century and off dialup then. Look into satellite if DSL isn’t available. – Anthony”

    I relayed your suggestions to my folks, Thank you :)
    So far, the only response [ toward your recommendations ] I got was…”Who is this Mr Anthony Watts?”.

    Soooo…I shared your blog with them. I think, they are impressed – however, at times in my life, I’ve misread them entirely. They have a habit of skewing my best laid plains. Its quite eerie at times, how they are able to go from point one – straight to the conclusion of where I’m trying to drive their participation [ usually, it results in a fail for my endeavorers - when they skip the middle points ].

    In the mean time, please remember: The Great Climatologist in the sky – loves those of us on dialup – as we work harder to read your excellent blogs! :)

  108. Ryan says:

    One wonders what WWF is going to do with that money? Perhaps create artificial ice floes for the bears to float on when there isn’t enough real ice about? Maybe using recycled polystyrene?

    Or maybe they will just pocket it and hope nobody notices. It’s not like anybody really likes to take too much notice of “charities” and how they spend their money. It would seem, well, uncharitable?

  109. Roger Knights says:

    Fatty Foods as Addictive as Cocaine in Studies
    By Robert Langreth and Duane D. Stanford – Nov 2, 2011

    Cupcakes may be addictive, just like cocaine.

    A growing body of medical research at leading universities and government laboratories suggests that processed foods and sugary drinks made by the likes of PepsiCo Inc. and Kraft Foods Inc. (KFT) aren’t simply unhealthy. They can hijack the brain in ways that resemble addictions to cocaine, nicotine and other drugs.
    ………….
    The idea that food may be addictive was barely on scientists’ radar a decade ago. Now the field is heating up. Lab studies have found sugary drinks and fatty foods can produce addictive behavior in animals. Brain scans of obese people and compulsive eaters, meanwhile, reveal disturbances in brain reward circuits similar to those experienced by drug abusers.

    Twenty-eight scientific studies and papers on food addiction have been published this year, according to a National Library of Medicine database. As the evidence expands, the science of addiction could become a game changer for the $1 trillion food and beverage industries.

    If fatty foods and snacks and drinks sweetened with sugar and high fructose corn syrup are proven to be addictive, food companies may face the most drawn-out consumer safety battle since the anti-smoking movement took on the tobacco industry a generation ago.

    “This could change the legal landscape,” said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity and a proponent of anti-obesity regulation. “People knew for a long time cigarettes were killing people, but it was only later they learned about nicotine and the intentional manipulation of it.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2011-11-02/fatty-foods-addictive-as-cocaine-in-growing-body-of-science.html

  110. chuck Bradley says:

    Here in New England, a local soda pop company,, Polar Beverages, had a polar bear as a symbol or trade mark for years before Coke started using the cuddly carnivore.. Polar complained. Coke explained: Our lawyer budget is bigger than your company budget. So there is at least one polar bear they will not protect.

  111. Don Penim says:

    Coca-Cola found a marketing idea in the Arctic that combined its red-canned product with saving the snow-white polar bears. It turned its red Coke cans white for the holidays. But it has apparently backfired.

    They’re dumping the white cans and switching back to red, sending them to stores next week

    http://blog.sfgate.com/hottopics/2011/12/01/see-the-new-coke-can-that-caused-a-national-outcry/?tsp=1

    From the Wall Street Journal:

    “A Frosty Reception for Coca-Cola’s White Christmas Cans”

    Coca-Cola Co. is switching back to its time-honored red just one month after rolling out its flagship cola in a snow-white can for the holidays. New seasonal cans in red will start shipping by next week, as white cans—initially expected to be in stores through February—make an exit.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577070521211375302.html?fb_ref=wsj_share_FB

  112. Brian H says:

    Pull My Finger says:
    November 1, 2011 at 10:16 am

    Anyhow, boycotting Coke for this is like Christians boycotting Coke for using Santa Claus in its ads. It doesn’t mean Coke really believes Santa Claus exists.

    But the WWF definitely exists, and gets part of the proceeds. I take it you’re OK with that?

    What word starts with ‘L’ and rhymes with snoozer?

Comments are closed.