Part-plant bottles from Coca-Cola company...?

[Hartley Botanic]

Seeing as this is effectively recycling, I hope this post is on-topic enough to be posted here

Just thought I would share as it's quite interesting and might provoke some discussion?! (stumbled upon it on Google) ...

Coca-Cola Co., the world’s largest drink maker, is jumping on the eco-bandwagon with the "plantbottle", a plastic bottle alternative made partly from plants.

The new plant-based bottle developed by Coke is composed of 70% petroleum-based and 30% sugar-cane-based materials. The cane is crushed and mashed to produce juice, which is then fermented and distilled, producing ethanol. That ethanol is then converted through a series of chemical processes such as oxidation to a mono-ethylene glycol—a component normally derived from petroleum for use in plastic bottles. The MEG is then mixed with terephthalic acid to create PET plastic.

What does everyone think?

[clueless1]

I think they should go back to glass bottles which can be reused over and over, and if they do get broken, they are easier to recycle.

When I was a kid, you could get 10p for each pop bottle you took back to the shop. A lorry (the same lorry that delivered the new pop) would take the empties back where they would be washed, refilled and relabelled.

I also did a stint working in a nightclub. The manager had me collecting all the empty beer bottles, rinsing them, and stack them in crates so they too could go off to be refilled. Nowadays they just chuck the empties into a big bin and take great pleasure in the smashing noise they make.

Where plastics must be used, switching to biological alternatives is a good thing, but the first step should be to reduce the need for it in the first place, and it seems we had many established ways of doing that before people started to worry about the environment.

[Marley Farley]

I am all for recycling, but I worry about these "recycled plastics" & some of the new materials... How green are they..? All the processes they go through cannot all be good for us or the environment surely..!?
. I do agree with clueless & wish we could return to the days of the glass bottles which are refunded when you take them back.. Like Iron Bru still does..!!! You get 30p back per empty bottle, so if you take the empties to the chippy. 6 empty returned bottles get you a fish supper & another bottle of Iron Bru..!!!

I feel, Supermarkets could very easily set up a refunded glass bottle system on their own pops.. If they took the lead others would follow... They always do follow the supermarkets these days it seems to me..!! All frightened of being outdone by the other..! Oh well just my thoughts anyway...

[Hartley Botanic]

I have to fall in with you guys too.

It seems like this big 'green' gesture, with the nattily written press release and eveything, but when you consider all the processes needed to create this new bottle, you have to wonder about the impacts of them. It states in the article that a third party has not yet verified whether this is even economically viable and as green as they claim. Just seems like over-complicating matters, doesn't it?

Also, someone else I was discussing this with commented that they could be using the waste cane for the same purpose - but the process is a couple of cents more expensive per bottle so they don't bother.

[Alice]

I too would prefer to see glass bottles going back, cleaned and reused. All this recycling seems so wasteful to me and how green is it ?
A returnable deposit on the bottles, like we used to have, would encourage people to take the bottles back.
But there are some people who will never take them back.
Many years ago when you got money back on lemonade and beer bottles my brother in law had so many bottles in his garage that the car couldn't go in. We offered to take the bottles back for him. We got a bottle of whisky, a bottle of gin, a bottle of bacardi, a crate of coca cola and a box of crisps !

[clueless1]

I know this is slightly off topic from the coca cola bottle thing but it is kind of the same issue. We pat ourselves on the back for all the progress we've made over the last few decades compared to the bad old days when nobody cared. But it seems to me that we were more eco-friendly before all the eco words became everyday terms. Here's a few examples of what was the norm during my childhood (and I'm not that old yet):

* A neighbour would buy some new furniture. There old furniture would be offered out to whoever in the street wanted it.

* A kid wants a go-kart or a sledge or some other contraption, bits of old discarded wood, rope, busted prams did the trick.

* Toys and clothes were handed down from older kids to younger ones, rather than new stuff being bought every time.

* Most people still had open fires. Ok, untreated coal was nasty and got banned in many areas, but as I recall coal was not the most common fuel in our street. Bits of old wooden furniture that had been put out in the alley for the binmen usually didn't make it to bin day before either a kid got the wood off it for various contraptions, or someone dragged it in and smashed it up to go on the fire.

* Fruit and veg came in brown paper bags, and meat and fish was wrapped in greaseproof paper. None of this plastic packaging we see nowadays. Also if it was the wrong season for a given fruit or veg, you didn't get it.

* If it was too far to walk, you went on your bike. If it was too far to cycle, you went on the bus or the train. This applied to most adults too. You didn't dare ask for a lift to school, even if your dad had a car and wasn't at work. The only time I got a lift to school is when I'd been caught playing truant and my dad decided to physically escort me in to the head teacher's office.

* Fun did not involving a plastic box from Japan, a 42 inch plasma TV and the latest game controllers.

* In our house, Wednesday was curry day. This was because Thursday was shopping day, and the Wednesday curry was actually just everything that was still in the fridge or cupboards, chucked in a pan and spiced up so it didn't go to waste.

I could go on and on, but I'm sure everyone knows all this already.

[pete]

I seem to remember reading somewhere that plant produced ethanol, which along with other types of fuel produced from vegatable sources are actually causing loss of forest in some areas of the world, due to the forest being cleared because its more profitable to grow these crops.

Planting sugar cane to turn into ethanol must surely be the daftest idea yet, when people are starving.
When you actually explore most new green ideas they are usually flawed.

As is pointed out in this thread by others, the only green ideas, that actually are green, were used years ago, the new ones just dont add up.

[Hartley Botanic]

Yup. As I said above, I can't help but feel like this is all overblown overcomplication. When, as has been stated here, the simplest measures such as implementing and re-using glass bottles would do everyone more favours.

Urgh it's depressing!

[BigBaddad]

Pet bottles are both lighter and take up less room as the wall section is much thinner and the shape is more efficient . Thus meaning transportation is much cheeper and green per volume of drink.

My concern is that global companies like Coke, McDonalds etc arn't that green even though the PR men go to great lenghts to tell you so. I think the more demand for sugar cane will result in some forrest somewhere in the world hidden from the consumers being cleared. Just like for Mc Donald's beef cattle and for palm oil.

[PeterS]

I think that there is nothing wrong with our processes or products. Its people that aren't green. To be precise - the sheer number of them.

What is the point of the present population eeking out our raw materials, if we are just going to fill the world up with even more people that are going to consume those savings.

Its the same problem as global warming. Why bother trying to put out the fire, whilst at the same time we are feeding the flames with petrol (ie more people).

[JWK]

Well said Peter - its the sheer number of people thats the problem.

[clueless1]

What can we do about the sheer number of people?

We can't ask people over a certain age to throw themselves in the compost bin, and we can't ask people not to have kids, and we can't randomly cull people down a bit.

What if we went back to the dark ages, where if someone was sick the only acceptable treatment was to pray to god, and if you tried any medicine on someone you'd be burned at the stake for consorting with the devil? Or how about if we reintroduce capital punishment but extend it to cover every crime, no matter how petty? Or we could make room for more people by introducing new laws that compelled us to live in tiny mud huts and grow all our own food on the land where our 4 bed centrally heated semis once stood. I mean no disrespect, but while lots of people point out that there are too many people, so few seem to be willing to propose a solution to the problem, or reduce their demands so as to accomodate others.

There are too many people, this is true, but I don't think we can just say "right, we'll do as we please because there's absolutely no point trying to protect the environment". If there is a fire and petrol is being poured onto it as the firefighters work to control it, should the fire fighters just walk away, or should they try to stop the fire destroying something else while another team try to step the flow of petrol onto it?

It's not just the sheer number of people, its the increasing demands of those people too. I watched a documentary about this, presented by David Attenburgh. He said that if we all lived like US Americans, the planet would already be full to capacity, whereas if we all lived like [some African folks, can't remember which] then there would be room for the population to double before it became unsustainable.

[PeterS]

The first thing that needs to be done with any problem is to admit that there is a problem. Currently we are in denial - we are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, but no one dare suggest that the ship is sinking.

Knowing that Iran had made a concious effort to increase its population I was Googling the subject and found this:-

When the fundamentalist Mullahs seized power in Iran back in 1979 they urged the country to procreate. They wanted lots of young revolutionaries, and they wanted them ASAP. This resulted in a massive population problem - from 34 million in 1979 to over 70 million today, and over 60% are below 25 years of age. Now the Mullahs, in a remarkable display of political pragmatism, have made a complete turnabout by instituting one of the most enlightened population control programs in the world. Vasectomies are encouraged and condoms are distributed free. Even sex education classes of surprising candor are now compulsory for all couples about to get married. This program investigates a surprising development in deeply religious Iran, providing a fascinating look at the contrast between secular and traditional Iran. Produced by ABC Australia. 09DR SCA 15 min.

Countries can influence their population growth, but we need commitment.

[pete]

quote clueless "What can we do about the sheer number of people?
It's not just the sheer number of people, its the increasing demands of those people too. I watched a documentary about this, presented by David Attenburgh. He said that if we all lived like US Americans, the planet would already be full to capacity, whereas if we all lived like [some African folks, can't remember which] then there would be room for the population to double before it became unsustainable".

But those populations aspire to become more wealthy and live like we do, I cant see us wanting to go backwards and start living like them.


.





quote clueless "What if we went back to the dark ages, where if someone was sick the only acceptable treatment was to pray to god, and if you tried any medicine on someone you'd be burned at the stake for consorting with the devil? Or how about if we reintroduce capital punishment but extend it to cover every crime, no matter how petty? Or we could make room for more people by introducing new laws that compelled us to live in tiny mud huts and grow all our own food on the land where our 4 bed centrally heated semis once stood. I mean no disrespect, but while lots of people point out that there are too many people, so few seem to be willing to propose a solution to the problem, or reduce their demands so as to accomodate others".
This is how those sustainable African populations are probably living.

And do we really want or need the population to double?

I know I dont.

[clueless1]

Like I said, I fully understand that population size is a major problem, and it can only get worse I think. Advances in medical science, more awareness of health related issues, and ever tightening health and safety regulations all add up to the result of people living longer than ever before. There was a time when reaching 100 years old was so rare that if someone made it, they'd get a hand written telegram from the monarch.

Infant mortality rates were once shockingly high too. I once read that something like one in three babies would die before their first birthday, and in a high percentage of cases the mother would die during labour.

Not so many years ago, the word 'cancer' meant certain death. Nowadays, while still very serious and tragically still fatal in a lot of cases, it has been reduced from the status of death sentence to serious illness.

I'm glad medical science has reached the point where people can, in many cases, be saved from life threatening ailments, as I'm sure most people are. But it does mean that population is virtually impossible to control, at least without resorting to immoral means.

Education is good. Whether it is blatantly obviously to do with population control (as in the case in Iran - thanks PeterS for sharing that article) or whether it is disguised as something else, as in the case of the current campaign in the UK teaching youngsters about the horrible diseases they can catch if they are not careful. The trouble with relying solely on education (a powerful tool but not enough) is that some people just won't be educated. Imagine being a hormonal teenager when 'the opportunity' presents its self, but you weren't expecting it, so you weren't prepared.

Also, some religions strictly forbid contraception, yet I'm sure the followers of such religions still have the same animal urges that everyone else has.

One thing that does need to change is the perception (the incorrect perception I might add) that having loads of kids means you get loads of free money and a house. In the UK at least there are career breeders, I used to live next door to one such family. Yes the state helps out, but it is not really a living. In addition to teaching kids about horrible diseases, maybe they should also be taught how much hard work and expense it takes to raise a child. Then, if they understand (I'm sure most will agree that you can't fully understand until it happens) the implications and still want a family, then fine.

The biggest problem is that this isn't a British issue, American issue or Asian issue etc. This is a global issue. Just as we have seen so far with other environmental concerns, getting the whole world to agree to something is pretty much impossible.

I do think though that one way or another, it will sort its self out. Unfortunately I think the way that will happen is not through the collective will of the people of the world, but by a much more natural means. At some point life will suddenly become very hard, and people will start fighting over resources. At that point, Charles Darwin's famous quote, 'survival of the fittest' will become all too relevant. I hope I'm not around to see that happen.

[pete]

So I say lets stop blaming ourselves and get on with living.

Thats what every generation before us has done.

The world is very different now to how it was 50yrs ago, in another 50 it will be even more different.

If the human race is hell bent on destroying itself by overpopulation nature will "kick in" and solve the problem, but the world will go on.

[Hartley Botanic]

Originally Posted by pete

If the human race is hell bent on destroying itself by overpopulation nature will "kick in" and solve the problem, but the world will go on.

I agree. And just to clarify, not in a "we can make as much mess as we like because mother earth is going to tidy up after us" kind of way.


Some interesting discussion here, given me a lot to think about.

[pete]

Oh I think the whole point is, Mother Earth will tidy up after us.

But probably not in a way that the human race will enjoy.

[Hartley Botanic]

I love thinking about stuff like this, haha.

[Sussexgardener]

Originally Posted by pete

Oh I think the whole point is, Mother Earth will tidy up after us.

But probably not in a way that the human race will enjoy.

It's probably doing it already - earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics (although the last one turned out to be a fallacy).

Perhaps if certain religious leaders stopped telling 3rd world Christians that using a condom was a sin there might be a drop in the numbers of children born, to parents that can't look after or feed them and a drop in the spread of HIV and other STDs?

Ok, it would only be a drop in the ocean, but it would be a start.