Latest Offers
Questions over ratings as Coke publishes carbon footprint
March 9th, 2009 by
One is a fruit drink made by a boutique company with a clutch of foodie awards and an impeccable ethical brand, which even boasts a halo on its logo. The other is a fizzy pop, famous for rotting teeth, made by a corporate giant almost synonymous with globalisation.
But when it comes to the environmental issue of the moment – the carbon footprint of their products – the bottle of Innocent smoothie comes off worse than a can of Coke. At least at first glance.
Coca-Cola today becomes the biggest global brand to publish the greenhouse gases produced by making, packaging, transporting, chilling, and disposing of their most popular products. The study, done with the government-funded Carbon Trust, shows a standard 330ml can of Coke embodies the equivalent of 170g of carbon dioxide (CO2e), and the same sized Diet Coke or Coke Zero 150g.
Coke’s UK business follows Innocent, which helped the Carbon Trust pioneer its footprinting, and whose 250ml bottle of mango and passion fruit smoothie has a carbon footprint of 209g.
Source and full article: The Guardian
Posted in Carbon Footprint, Food | Tags: Carbon Footprint, carbon trust, coke-cola, innocent| 1 Comment »
One Response to ' Questions over ratings as Coke publishes carbon footprint '
Leave a reply
Of course Coke will have less of a carbon footprint than a drink made from pure fruit! ‘Soft’ drinks are almost completely water, with a dash of sugar and some chemicals. It’s hardly comparable to fresh fruit which has to be transported to the smoothie maker.
Maybe Innocent can look at ways of lowering their ‘carbon calories’ by spreading production between smaller factories around the country. This would at least cut some of the food miles out of the carbon count.
Also, is it just me, but aren’t carbonated drinks rammed with CO2 anyway? Where does this come from and is it counted in this calculation at all?