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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
116 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Kaboom
October 31, 2011 4:25 pm

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

kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 31, 2011 5:18 pm

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.

Gail Combs
October 31, 2011 6:16 pm

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

Pete Olson
October 31, 2011 6:23 pm

I thought I posted this, but maybe not…
This is an email I sent to Coke’s feedback address crreviewna.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

john the sceptic
October 31, 2011 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.

AnonyMoose
October 31, 2011 6:53 pm

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

DesertYote
October 31, 2011 7:46 pm

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?

October 31, 2011 9:07 pm

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

Jaye Bass
October 31, 2011 9:13 pm

“maths” is not a word.

JPeden
October 31, 2011 10:06 pm

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.

Larry Kirk
October 31, 2011 10:51 pm

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..)

Roger Knights
October 31, 2011 11:29 pm

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.

Roger Knights
October 31, 2011 11:46 pm

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.

Roger Knights
October 31, 2011 11:55 pm

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

Not here in the colonies, anyway.

EternalOptimist
November 1, 2011 1:19 am

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

November 1, 2011 1:54 am

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.

Bob Layson
November 1, 2011 3:06 am

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.

Editor
November 1, 2011 3:12 am

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

brc
November 1, 2011 3:50 am

>“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!

Greg Holmes
November 1, 2011 4:17 am

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

Aunty Freeze
November 1, 2011 4:55 am

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

ahtnamas42
November 1, 2011 7:25 am

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.

MattN
November 1, 2011 7:41 am

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?

observa
November 1, 2011 8:24 am

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!!)