Coke was once an exemplary steward of resources and demonstrated respect for the environment and for the virtues of thrift and conservation.
Witness these two glass Coke bottles, a 6.5 oz. and a 16 oz., that are real workhorses, specifically designed for refilling and repeated reuse. They carry the words “return for deposit” on one side, and on the other, “money back bottle.”
These durable bottles show some wear, but they are ready to be washed and refilled again, and again.
Beginning in the mid-’60s, Coke (and to be fair, most other beverage makers) rejected the deposit and refill model. Because they could. Because we let them.
Now people, wildlife and the environment bear the impact of “one-way” containers.
Bottle deposit systems and refillable bottles are proven to minimize resource waste, associated pollution, litter, disposal expenses and wildlife impacts. But in Australia, Coke has tried to bring an end to the Northern Territory’s existing container deposit system. (To read more about Coke’s recent legal action check out this article: “Coke chokes the NT container deposit scheme.”) And Coke’s efforts are by no means limited to Australia. I find this attitude on Coke’s part inexcusable. They know what policies would reduce the true environmental costs of their packaging– because they used to employ them.