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:
“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?
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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/
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 ….
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.
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
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?)
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.
Can I get carbon credits for sequestering unopened Coca Cola?
Jeff in Calgary says:
That rye and Coke will kill ya.
Some dihydrogen monoxide with your rye and you could live forever 😉
HankH says:
October 31, 2011 at 10:44 am
“endangered precipitation list.”
Love it.
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.
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.
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. 😀
Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/federalaid/pittmanrobertson.html
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:
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)
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.
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,
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.