Grist: Coke, BPA, and the limits of ‘green capitalism’

[marmar]

Coke, BPA, and the limits of ‘green capitalism’

by Tom Philpott
3 May 2011 7:00 AM


"Coca-Cola goes green," announced a 2010 Forbes article. Indeed, the beverages giant maintains partnerships with Big Green groups like Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund. It recently even completed its takeover of Honest Tea, an organic bottled-tea company. It would clearly like to be seen as a paragon of "green capitalism" -- the idea that doing good and doing well go hand in hand.

Let's put aside questions over what can possibly be "green" about a business model geared to sucking in huge amounts of drinking water, blasting it with what are probably toxic sweeteners and other dodgy substances, and then packaging it in little aluminum cans and plastic bottles and sending them far and wide, to be chilled (using fossil energy) before consumption.

OK, so within those tight constraints, Coca-Cola says it wants to be a "green company." So ... WTF? Last week, Coca-Cola shareholders voted by a 3-to-1 margin to continue using BPA, a toxic industrial chemical, in the lining of its soft-drink cans.

According to an account in Food Production Daily, a company executive assured shareholders that "if we had any sliver of doubt about the safety of our packaging, we would not continue to use (BPA)." So, we're supposed to believe that Coke execs have weighed the evidence and found BPA to be safe -- and that they will immediately banish it if they decide otherwise. .................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.grist.org/scary-food/2011-05-03-coke-bpa-and-the-limits-of-green-capitalism

[hatrack]

1. Which pretty much defines how "green" companies like Coke can become

They'll green it up until it begins to cost them serious money, at which point further "green" changes will end.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Coke and its other products are dead to me.

BPA is just the beginning. High Corn Fructose Syrup. Cane sugar wasn't the greatest, but mix in HCFS made with genetically modified corn, and game over.

[DCKit]

3. BPA is bad enough, but the chemical listed as "Caramel Coloring" is also carcinogenic. nt

[ThomCat]

4. As long as they have a legal mandate to pursue short term profits

above all else, claims to care for the environment will be a lie.

If caring for the environment costs money and cuts into profits, they will always fail to care for the environment. They will be required to fail to care for the environment, and this will be called "good business."

This will not change until:

• Corporate charters begin to require that corporations must prove they provide for the public good, and do not cause pubic harm, while they strive for their profits.
  
  
• Corporate charters require renewals periodically, and are reviewed by a committee or jury of the public to ensure that the comply with the need to provide for the public good and cause no public harm. Corporations that fail this review loose their charter and are forced to go out of business.
  
  
• Law and governments recognize that it is an inherent conflict of interest for corporations to ever advocate for any changes to law or public policy because they will always advocate only for that which increases their own power, ability to make profit, and ability to externalize costs. Corporations do not have mercy, empathy or compassion. They do not have multitudes of conflicting needs and loyalties like people do, and cannot be swayed by emotions, arguments and debates. They act solely in the best interest of their business needs. With their great wealth and influence corporations have the potential, as we clearly see in modern politics, to drown out the voices of the entire population of real people.