Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

After 2 years, Coca-Cola’s promise to scale up reusable packaging is dead

News Feed
Friday, December 13, 2024

Despite growing public scrutiny and legal challenges over its use of plastic, Coca-Cola appears to be moving backwards on packaging sustainability. Earlier this decade, the soda giant publicly pledged to decrease its use of virgin plastic and boost the share of its beverages sold in reusable containers. But in a blog post last week, the company quietly dropped those targets. Coca-Cola’s “evolved” plastics strategy now seems to rest almost entirely on cleaning up existing plastic waste and recycling — though its recycling targets are now weaker than they were before. “We remain committed to building long-term business resilience and earning our social license to operate,” the company’s executive vice president for sustainability, Bea Perez, said in a statement. Coke’s announcement is part of a broader trend of companies walking back or falling short of their plastics sustainability targets. Last month, a progress report from the nonprofit Ellen MacArthur Foundation — a nonprofit that advocates for a “circular economy” in which resources are conserved — showed that hundreds of companies had collectively fallen short of the progress needed to meet a range of voluntary plastics commitments by 2025. The companies pledged to cut virgin plastic use by 18 percent below 2018 values, but have only achieved a 3 percent reduction as of 2023. They said they would totally eliminate polyvinyl chloride — a type of plastic suspected of leaching hazardous chemicals — but have only used 1 percent less by weight. They promised to increase the amount of reusable packaging they offered, but have made no progress toward that goal. Clayton Aldern / Grist Sam Pearse, plastics campaign manager for the nonprofit Story of Stuff — which advocates for reusable alternatives to single-use plastics — said the trend suggests companies aren’t serious about their plastics targets. A pledge is “this thing they might try to do if the stars align, … but it’s not core to the business operation. “Once you start seeing that cycle a number of times, it’s hard to not be skeptical about the intention,” he added. Coca-Cola is one of the largest food and beverage companies on the planet. It sells products in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide (there are only 195 United Nations-recognized countries) and last year made $46 billion in net revenue. In addition to its eponymous soda, the company also makes Dasani bottled water, Fanta sodas, and Sprite, as well as some 200 other food and beverage brands. Coca-Cola also makes a lot of plastic packaging: about 3.5 million metric tons of it per year, almost entirely out of fossil fuels. Much of this plastic ends up in the environment. For six years running, Coca-Cola has been named the “top global plastic polluter,” based on beach cleanups coordinated by the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic. Last year, volunteers collected some 500,000 pieces of plastic trash and identified Coca-Cola branding on about 33,000 of them, spread out across 40 countries.  “In each one of the cleanups that we organize — not only beach cleanups but in mangroves, rivers, mountains, and volcanoes — we find Coca-Cola bottles,” said Cecilia Torres, the director of an Ecuadorian ocean protection nonprofit called Mingas por el Mar, which participates in Break Free From Plastic’s global brand audit. She said Coca-Cola’s plastics are even reaching the remote Galápagos Islands, where they may be introducing invasive species. Coca-Cola and Sprite bottles from a 2022 brand audit by Break Free From Plastic. Courtesy of Break Free From Plastic Scientists and advocates say that replacing single-use plastics with reusable alternatives and capping virgin plastic production are two of the best ways to reduce plastic-related emissions and pollution. ​​If reuse offset the need for just 10 percent of single-use plastic consumption, research suggests it could halve the amount of waste reaching the ocean. Meanwhile, scientists say capping virgin plastic production is the most straightforward way of reducing plastic pollution — and potentially more desirable than trying to boost the recycling rate, because recycled plastics can contain a greater number and higher concentration of hazardous chemicals. Last month, a study in the journal Science found that a global plastic production cap would also result in greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050 than seven other policies, including targets for more recycling and recycled content. Coca-Cola made its two pledges on virgin plastics reduction and reusable packaging in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The pledges followed resolutions filed by shareholder advocacy groups, organizations that buy stocks in companies in order to influence corporate management.  The 2020 resolution, written by Green Century Capital Management, highlighted the “reputational, market, regulatory, operational, climate and competitive risks” stemming from Coca-Cola’s association with plastic pollution. It asked Coca-Cola to set a goal for reducing its plastic use — which Coca-Cola did, in exchange for the withdrawal of the resolution before it was presented to shareholders. Coca-Cola said that, by 2025, it would use 3 million metric tons less virgin plastic “derived from nonrenewable sources.” The second resolution was filed in 2021 by Green Century and another shareholder advocacy group called As You Sow. It made a similar argument and resulted in Coca-Cola’s pledge to sell 25 percent of its beverage volume in a reusable format — whether in glass or plastic bottles, or from soda fountains — by 2030. Read Next A new report looks at major companies’ efforts to address plastic waste — and finds them lacking Joseph Winters When Coca-Cola made its reuse pledge in 2022, it was hailed as a first-of-its-kind, industry-leading approach to the plastics problem. The company already had a robust reuse network, particularly in South America, where it had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in designing a refillable bottle that could be used across its various brands, and in the infrastructure needed to collect, clean, and refill bottles. As of last year, returnable glass and durable plastic bottles represented more than half of the company’s beverage sales in 20 markets. After announcing the pledge, the company launched reuse programs in bigger markets. In North America, Coca-Cola last year launched a partnership with the company r.Cup to serve its beverages in reusable plastic cups at sports and entertainment venues. It was working with A&W Canada on an “exchangeable cup” program, and said it was distributing beverage dispensers instead of vending machines at some theme parks and university campuses. In El Paso, Texas, Coca-Cola has been working since 2022 on a pilot program to sell more of its beverages in returnable glass bottles. Once empty, the bottles are sent across the border to Mexico to be cleaned, and then they’re returned to the U.S. to be refilled and sold again.  A beverage dispenser in Toronto, Canada, where Coca-Cola has experimented with packaging-free formats for its sodas. Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket via Getty Images Coca-Cola promoted its reuse initiatives in quarterly earnings reports as recently as this July, and it mentioned its quantitative target to boost refillable options in communications from late 2023. But as of late November, both the reuse pledge and the virgin plastic pledge had disappeared from portions of the company’s website, along with the homepage of the Coca-Cola’s World Without Waste initiative, which launched in 2018 and claimed to support a “circular economy” for packaging.  In its blog post, the company also announced less stringent benchmarks for recycling. Coca-Cola now plans to make 30 to 35 percent of its plastic packaging out of recycled materials by 2035, instead of 50 percent by 2030. And instead of making 100 percent of its packaging recyclable by 2025 and collecting one bottle or can for each one sold, Coca-Cola now says it will “help ensure the collection” of just 70 to 75 percent of the number of bottles and cans it produces, also by 2035. The new approach is “informed by learnings gathered through decades of work in sustainability, periodic assessment of progress, and identified challenges,” according to the blog post.  Reduce, rephrase, reevaluate Coke has softened its recycling targets. Focus area Previous goal New goal Recycling Make 100% of packaging recyclable by 2025; collect or recycle one bottle or can for each sold Help ensure collection of 70-75% of the equivalent number of bottles and cans introduced into the market annually by 2035 Recycled content Use 50% recycled content by 2030 Make 35-40% of primary packaging (plastic, glass, aluminum) out of recycled material by 2035 Reuse/refill Serve 25% of total beverage volume in reusable formats by 2030 None Virgin plastic Reduce use of virgin plastic derived from non-renewable sources by cumulative 3 million metric tons between 2020 and 2025 None Source: The Coca-Cola Co. Amy Larkin, founder of an organization called PR3 that’s developing standards for reuse systems, declined to comment on Coca-Cola specifically, but she said that consumer brands often have difficulty building reuse infrastructure because they “continue to think about it as a new product line, instead of a system that they have to develop.”  “Most of these companies have deployed reuse pilots on their own. That won’t work,” she added. Instead, Larkin thinks companies need to collaborate to build robust reuse systems that work with multiple brands. “Any new system takes time, attention, and early investment.” Matt Littlejohn, senior vice president of strategic initiatives for the nonprofit Oceana, said Coca-Cola’s move away from its reuse target seemed not to have resulted from external factors, like a lack of interest among the public. “This is an active decision by Coca-Cola management that, for whatever reason, they’re not going to pursue the strategy that actually results in them using less plastic.”  Coca-Cola declined to explain to Grist why it decided to scrap its reuse target instead of revising it downward, as it did with its recycling goals. It’s possible that Coca-Cola was responding to anti-greenwashing legislation approved by the European Union earlier this year, which broadly prohibits businesses from making environmental claims that are out of sync with their business practices. Since Coca-Cola made its reuse pledge in 2022, it has actually decreased the fraction of its beverages sold in a reusable or refillable format, with growth in single-use categories outstripping its reuse efforts. And it increased virgin plastic use between 2018 and 2023. In a statement to Grist, a Coca-Cola spokesperson acknowledged that “laws and policies in the markets we operate in are always changing.” According to a survey released earlier this year by the Swiss consulting firm South Pole, 70 percent of “climate-conscious” companies are being quiet about their climate and environmental commitments in order to comply with new regulations and avoid public scrutiny. South Pole defined a “climate-conscious” company as one with more than 1,000 employees and a sustainability-focused director-level position — a definition that Coca-Cola meets.  Overpromising may create regulatory risks, but pledging too little risks backlash from investors and consumers, as demonstrated by the resolutions from Green Century and As You Sow that led Coca-Cola to create its reuse and virgin plastic targets in the first place. For six years running, Coca-Cola has been named the “top global plastic polluter,” based on beach cleanups coordinated by the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic. Hector Retamal / AFP via Getty Images “That Coca-Cola has abandoned its refillable commitment is alarming, regrettable, and regressive,” said Frances Fairhead-Stanova, a shareholder advocate for Green Century. She added that the company is “likely to face heightened regulatory and reputational risks due to its new approach to plastic packaging, which is unduly reliant on recyclability over plastic reduction and reuse.”  Kelly McBee, circular economy manager for As You Sow, also said Coca-Cola’s new focus on recycling alone is “an ineffective strategy” for tackling plastic pollution. “In effect,” she added, “Coke is embracing the linear ‘take-make-waste’ mindset that created the global plastic pollution crisis in the first place.” Coca-Cola’s deadline for filing shareholder resolutions was November 18, so it’s too late to file one asking the company to reinstate its reuse target this year. Fairhead-Stanova and McBee declined to say whether their organizations would file any plastics-related resolutions with Coca-Cola next year. A spokesperson for Coca-Cola said the company intends to “continue to invest to expand the use of refillable packaging in markets where infrastructure is in place to support this important part of the company’s portfolio.” They also said that the use of recycled content and more efficient packaging could indirectly reduce the company’s use of virgin plastic. Meanwhile, Coca-Cola is already facing a slew of legal challenges related to its plastics use. Last month, Los Angeles County sued the company, along with PepsiCo, for contributing to plastic pollution and for implying that plastic bottles could be recycled an infinite number of times. In a press release, the county specifically called out the beverage companies for making “false promises that they would increase the use of recycled plastic by certain percentages and eliminate the use of virgin plastic.” According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, Coca-Cola has only increased the fraction of its plastic packaging made from recycled content by 8 percentage points, half of the 16 percentage points it had pledged by 2025. PepsiCo also fell short of its recycled content goal by 15 percentage points.  The Ellen MacArthur Foundation did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. A PepsiCo spokesperson said that the company “made progress on reducing virgin plastic use in 2023 year-over-year” — although its 2023 use was six percent higher than in 2020 — and called this issue “a complex challenge.” Read Next What will it take to get companies to embrace reusable packaging? Joseph Winters The city of Baltimore filed its own complaint against Coca-Cola and other food and beverage companies earlier this year for “creating products that they know will cause significant environmental harms.” The nonprofit Earth Island Institute has two ongoing lawsuits against the company: one over the “public nuisance” created by Coca-Cola’s plastic pollution, and another over the way the company represents itself as “sustainable and environmentally friendly.” In Europe last year, an umbrella group representing 44 consumer advocacy organizations submitted a formal complaint to European Union authorities over Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestlé, and other companies’ representation of their plastic bottles as sustainable. They are still awaiting a response. Meanwhile, advocacy groups that celebrated Coca-Cola’s erstwhile plastics sustainability goals are coming to terms with the corporation’s about-face. Pearse and his team at the Story of Stuff had been working on a short film about Coca-Cola’s refillable pilot program in El Paso — they released the film this week — and it came as a surprise to them that the company was abandoning its reuse target. “I’d like to see more of the left hand talking to the right,” Pearse told Grist. “If you are really serious about these kinds of pledges, you need to ensure that they run through the way that a business is doing its practices and operations.”  This story was originally published by Grist with the headline After 2 years, Coca-Cola’s promise to scale up reusable packaging is dead on Dec 13, 2024.

The pledge was born out of shareholder activism — and was withdrawn as regulators crack down on greenwashing.

Despite growing public scrutiny and legal challenges over its use of plastic, Coca-Cola appears to be moving backwards on packaging sustainability.

Earlier this decade, the soda giant publicly pledged to decrease its use of virgin plastic and boost the share of its beverages sold in reusable containers. But in a blog post last week, the company quietly dropped those targets. Coca-Cola’s “evolved” plastics strategy now seems to rest almost entirely on cleaning up existing plastic waste and recycling — though its recycling targets are now weaker than they were before.

“We remain committed to building long-term business resilience and earning our social license to operate,” the company’s executive vice president for sustainability, Bea Perez, said in a statement.

Coke’s announcement is part of a broader trend of companies walking back or falling short of their plastics sustainability targets. Last month, a progress report from the nonprofit Ellen MacArthur Foundation — a nonprofit that advocates for a “circular economy” in which resources are conserved — showed that hundreds of companies had collectively fallen short of the progress needed to meet a range of voluntary plastics commitments by 2025.

The companies pledged to cut virgin plastic use by 18 percent below 2018 values, but have only achieved a 3 percent reduction as of 2023. They said they would totally eliminate polyvinyl chloride — a type of plastic suspected of leaching hazardous chemicals — but have only used 1 percent less by weight. They promised to increase the amount of reusable packaging they offered, but have made no progress toward that goal.

A bar chart comparing virgin plastic use and packaging goals for Global Commitment signatories versus the global plastic packaging market. Signatories have made more progress than the market, but they're still far behind their 2025 goals.
Clayton Aldern / Grist

Sam Pearse, plastics campaign manager for the nonprofit Story of Stuff — which advocates for reusable alternatives to single-use plastics — said the trend suggests companies aren’t serious about their plastics targets. A pledge is “this thing they might try to do if the stars align, … but it’s not core to the business operation.

“Once you start seeing that cycle a number of times, it’s hard to not be skeptical about the intention,” he added.


Coca-Cola is one of the largest food and beverage companies on the planet. It sells products in more than 200 countries and territories worldwide (there are only 195 United Nations-recognized countries) and last year made $46 billion in net revenue. In addition to its eponymous soda, the company also makes Dasani bottled water, Fanta sodas, and Sprite, as well as some 200 other food and beverage brands.

Coca-Cola also makes a lot of plastic packaging: about 3.5 million metric tons of it per year, almost entirely out of fossil fuels. Much of this plastic ends up in the environment. For six years running, Coca-Cola has been named the “top global plastic polluter,” based on beach cleanups coordinated by the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic. Last year, volunteers collected some 500,000 pieces of plastic trash and identified Coca-Cola branding on about 33,000 of them, spread out across 40 countries. 

“In each one of the cleanups that we organize — not only beach cleanups but in mangroves, rivers, mountains, and volcanoes — we find Coca-Cola bottles,” said Cecilia Torres, the director of an Ecuadorian ocean protection nonprofit called Mingas por el Mar, which participates in Break Free From Plastic’s global brand audit. She said Coca-Cola’s plastics are even reaching the remote Galápagos Islands, where they may be introducing invasive species.

Scientists and advocates say that replacing single-use plastics with reusable alternatives and capping virgin plastic production are two of the best ways to reduce plastic-related emissions and pollution. ​​If reuse offset the need for just 10 percent of single-use plastic consumption, research suggests it could halve the amount of waste reaching the ocean. Meanwhile, scientists say capping virgin plastic production is the most straightforward way of reducing plastic pollution — and potentially more desirable than trying to boost the recycling rate, because recycled plastics can contain a greater number and higher concentration of hazardous chemicals. Last month, a study in the journal Science found that a global plastic production cap would also result in greater greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050 than seven other policies, including targets for more recycling and recycled content.

Coca-Cola made its two pledges on virgin plastics reduction and reusable packaging in 2020 and 2022, respectively. The pledges followed resolutions filed by shareholder advocacy groups, organizations that buy stocks in companies in order to influence corporate management. 

The 2020 resolution, written by Green Century Capital Management, highlighted the “reputational, market, regulatory, operational, climate and competitive risks” stemming from Coca-Cola’s association with plastic pollution. It asked Coca-Cola to set a goal for reducing its plastic use — which Coca-Cola did, in exchange for the withdrawal of the resolution before it was presented to shareholders. Coca-Cola said that, by 2025, it would use 3 million metric tons less virgin plastic “derived from nonrenewable sources.”

The second resolution was filed in 2021 by Green Century and another shareholder advocacy group called As You Sow. It made a similar argument and resulted in Coca-Cola’s pledge to sell 25 percent of its beverage volume in a reusable format — whether in glass or plastic bottles, or from soda fountains — by 2030.


When Coca-Cola made its reuse pledge in 2022, it was hailed as a first-of-its-kind, industry-leading approach to the plastics problem. The company already had a robust reuse network, particularly in South America, where it had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in designing a refillable bottle that could be used across its various brands, and in the infrastructure needed to collect, clean, and refill bottles. As of last year, returnable glass and durable plastic bottles represented more than half of the company’s beverage sales in 20 markets.

After announcing the pledge, the company launched reuse programs in bigger markets. In North America, Coca-Cola last year launched a partnership with the company r.Cup to serve its beverages in reusable plastic cups at sports and entertainment venues. It was working with A&W Canada on an “exchangeable cup” program, and said it was distributing beverage dispensers instead of vending machines at some theme parks and university campuses.

In El Paso, Texas, Coca-Cola has been working since 2022 on a pilot program to sell more of its beverages in returnable glass bottles. Once empty, the bottles are sent across the border to Mexico to be cleaned, and then they’re returned to the U.S. to be refilled and sold again. 

A red beverage dispenser with buttons and a slot where beverages come out
A beverage dispenser in Toronto, Canada, where Coca-Cola has experimented with packaging-free formats for its sodas. Roberto Machado Noa / LightRocket via Getty Images

Coca-Cola promoted its reuse initiatives in quarterly earnings reports as recently as this July, and it mentioned its quantitative target to boost refillable options in communications from late 2023. But as of late November, both the reuse pledge and the virgin plastic pledge had disappeared from portions of the company’s website, along with the homepage of the Coca-Cola’s World Without Waste initiative, which launched in 2018 and claimed to support a “circular economy” for packaging. 

In its blog post, the company also announced less stringent benchmarks for recycling. Coca-Cola now plans to make 30 to 35 percent of its plastic packaging out of recycled materials by 2035, instead of 50 percent by 2030. And instead of making 100 percent of its packaging recyclable by 2025 and collecting one bottle or can for each one sold, Coca-Cola now says it will “help ensure the collection” of just 70 to 75 percent of the number of bottles and cans it produces, also by 2035.

The new approach is “informed by learnings gathered through decades of work in sustainability, periodic assessment of progress, and identified challenges,” according to the blog post. 

Reduce, rephrase, reevaluate

Coke has softened its recycling targets.
Focus area Previous goal New goal
Recycling Make 100% of packaging recyclable by 2025; collect or recycle one bottle or can for each sold Help ensure collection of 70-75% of the equivalent number of bottles and cans introduced into the market annually by 2035
Recycled content Use 50% recycled content by 2030 Make 35-40% of primary packaging (plastic, glass, aluminum) out of recycled material by 2035
Reuse/refill Serve 25% of total beverage volume in reusable formats by 2030 None
Virgin plastic Reduce use of virgin plastic derived from non-renewable sources by cumulative 3 million metric tons between 2020 and 2025 None
Source: The Coca-Cola Co.

Amy Larkin, founder of an organization called PR3 that’s developing standards for reuse systems, declined to comment on Coca-Cola specifically, but she said that consumer brands often have difficulty building reuse infrastructure because they “continue to think about it as a new product line, instead of a system that they have to develop.” 

“Most of these companies have deployed reuse pilots on their own. That won’t work,” she added. Instead, Larkin thinks companies need to collaborate to build robust reuse systems that work with multiple brands. “Any new system takes time, attention, and early investment.”

Matt Littlejohn, senior vice president of strategic initiatives for the nonprofit Oceana, said Coca-Cola’s move away from its reuse target seemed not to have resulted from external factors, like a lack of interest among the public. “This is an active decision by Coca-Cola management that, for whatever reason, they’re not going to pursue the strategy that actually results in them using less plastic.” 


Coca-Cola declined to explain to Grist why it decided to scrap its reuse target instead of revising it downward, as it did with its recycling goals. It’s possible that Coca-Cola was responding to anti-greenwashing legislation approved by the European Union earlier this year, which broadly prohibits businesses from making environmental claims that are out of sync with their business practices. Since Coca-Cola made its reuse pledge in 2022, it has actually decreased the fraction of its beverages sold in a reusable or refillable format, with growth in single-use categories outstripping its reuse efforts. And it increased virgin plastic use between 2018 and 2023. In a statement to Grist, a Coca-Cola spokesperson acknowledged that “laws and policies in the markets we operate in are always changing.”

According to a survey released earlier this year by the Swiss consulting firm South Pole, 70 percent of “climate-conscious” companies are being quiet about their climate and environmental commitments in order to comply with new regulations and avoid public scrutiny. South Pole defined a “climate-conscious” company as one with more than 1,000 employees and a sustainability-focused director-level position — a definition that Coca-Cola meets. 

Overpromising may create regulatory risks, but pledging too little risks backlash from investors and consumers, as demonstrated by the resolutions from Green Century and As You Sow that led Coca-Cola to create its reuse and virgin plastic targets in the first place.

A man holds two large empty Coca-Cola bottles that are slightly crumpled.
For six years running, Coca-Cola has been named the “top global plastic polluter,” based on beach cleanups coordinated by the nonprofit Break Free From Plastic. Hector Retamal / AFP via Getty Images

“That Coca-Cola has abandoned its refillable commitment is alarming, regrettable, and regressive,” said Frances Fairhead-Stanova, a shareholder advocate for Green Century. She added that the company is “likely to face heightened regulatory and reputational risks due to its new approach to plastic packaging, which is unduly reliant on recyclability over plastic reduction and reuse.” 

Kelly McBee, circular economy manager for As You Sow, also said Coca-Cola’s new focus on recycling alone is “an ineffective strategy” for tackling plastic pollution. “In effect,” she added, “Coke is embracing the linear ‘take-make-waste’ mindset that created the global plastic pollution crisis in the first place.”

Coca-Cola’s deadline for filing shareholder resolutions was November 18, so it’s too late to file one asking the company to reinstate its reuse target this year. Fairhead-Stanova and McBee declined to say whether their organizations would file any plastics-related resolutions with Coca-Cola next year.

A spokesperson for Coca-Cola said the company intends to “continue to invest to expand the use of refillable packaging in markets where infrastructure is in place to support this important part of the company’s portfolio.” They also said that the use of recycled content and more efficient packaging could indirectly reduce the company’s use of virgin plastic.


Meanwhile, Coca-Cola is already facing a slew of legal challenges related to its plastics use. Last month, Los Angeles County sued the company, along with PepsiCo, for contributing to plastic pollution and for implying that plastic bottles could be recycled an infinite number of times. In a press release, the county specifically called out the beverage companies for making “false promises that they would increase the use of recycled plastic by certain percentages and eliminate the use of virgin plastic.”

According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation report, Coca-Cola has only increased the fraction of its plastic packaging made from recycled content by 8 percentage points, half of the 16 percentage points it had pledged by 2025. PepsiCo also fell short of its recycled content goal by 15 percentage points. 

The Ellen MacArthur Foundation did not respond to Grist’s request for comment. A PepsiCo spokesperson said that the company “made progress on reducing virgin plastic use in 2023 year-over-year” — although its 2023 use was six percent higher than in 2020 — and called this issue “a complex challenge.”

The city of Baltimore filed its own complaint against Coca-Cola and other food and beverage companies earlier this year for “creating products that they know will cause significant environmental harms.” The nonprofit Earth Island Institute has two ongoing lawsuits against the company: one over the “public nuisance” created by Coca-Cola’s plastic pollution, and another over the way the company represents itself as “sustainable and environmentally friendly.”

In Europe last year, an umbrella group representing 44 consumer advocacy organizations submitted a formal complaint to European Union authorities over Coca-Cola, Danone, Nestlé, and other companies’ representation of their plastic bottles as sustainable. They are still awaiting a response.

Meanwhile, advocacy groups that celebrated Coca-Cola’s erstwhile plastics sustainability goals are coming to terms with the corporation’s about-face. Pearse and his team at the Story of Stuff had been working on a short film about Coca-Cola’s refillable pilot program in El Paso — they released the film this week — and it came as a surprise to them that the company was abandoning its reuse target.

“I’d like to see more of the left hand talking to the right,” Pearse told Grist. “If you are really serious about these kinds of pledges, you need to ensure that they run through the way that a business is doing its practices and operations.” 

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline After 2 years, Coca-Cola’s promise to scale up reusable packaging is dead on Dec 13, 2024.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

OpenAI’s Secrets are Revealed in Empire of AI

On our 2025 Best Nonfiction of the Year list, Karen Hao’s investigation of artificial intelligence reveals how the AI future is still in our hands

Technology reporter Karen Hao started reporting on artificial intelligence in 2018, before ChatGPT was introduced, and is one of the few journalists to gain access to the inner world of the chatbot’s creator, OpenAI. In her book Empire of AI, Hao outlines the rise of the controversial company.In her research, Hao spoke to OpenAI leaders, scientists and entry-level workers around the globe who are shaping the development of AI. She explores its potential for scientific discovery and its impacts on the environment, as well as the divisive quest to create a machine that can rival human smarts through artificial general intelligence (AGI).Scientific American spoke with Hao about her deep reporting on AI, Sam Altman’s potential place in AI’s future and the ways the technology might continue to change the world.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]How realistic is the goal of artificial general intelligence (AGI)?There is no scientific consensus around what intelligence is, so AI and AGI are inherently unmoored concepts. This is helpful for deflating the hype of Silicon Valley when they say AGI is around the corner, and it’s also helpful in recognizing that the lack of predetermination around what AI is and what it should do leaves plenty of room for everyone.You argue that we should be thinking about AI in terms of empires and colonialism. Can you explain why?I call companies like OpenAI empires both because of the sheer magnitude at which they are operating and the controlling influence they’ve developed—also the tactics for how they’ve accumulated an enormous amount of economic and political power. They amass that power through the dispossession of the majority of the rest of the world.There’s also this huge ideological component to the current AI industry. This quest for an artificial general intelligence is a faith-based idea. It's not a scientific idea. It is this quasi-religious notion that if we continue down a particular path of AI development, somehow a kind of AI god is going to emerge that will solve all of humanity's problems. Colonialism is the fusion of capitalism and ideology, so there’s just a multitude of parallels between the empires of old and the empires of AI.There’s also a parallel in how they both cause environmental destruction. Which environmental impacts of AI are most concerning?There are just so many intersecting crises that the AI industry’s path of development is exacerbating. One, of course, is the energy crisis. Sam Altman announced he wants to see 250 gigawatts of data-center capacity laid by 2033 just for his company. New York City [uses] on average 5.5 gigawatts [per day]. Altman has estimated that this would cost around $10 trillion —where is he going to get that money? Who knows.But if that were to come to pass, the primary energy sources would be fossil fuels. Business Insider had an investigation earlier this year that found that utilities are “torpedo[ing]” their renewable-energy goals in order to service the data-center demand. So we are seeing natural gas plants and coal plants having their lives extended. That’s not just pumping emissions into the atmosphere; it’s also pumping air pollution into communities.So the question is: How long are we going to deal with the actual harms and hold out for the speculative possibility that maybe, at the end of the road, it’s all going to be fine? There was a survey earlier this year that found that [roughly] 75 percent of long-standing AI researchers who are not in the pocket of industry do not think we are on the path to an artificial general intelligence. We should not be using a tiny possibility on the far-off horizon that is not even scientifically backed to justify an extraordinary and irreversible set of damages that are occurring right now.Do you think Sam Altman has lied about OpenAI’s abilities, or has he just fallen for his own marketing?It’s a great question. The thing that’s complex about OpenAI, that surprised me the most when I was reporting, is that there are quasi-religious movements that have developed around ideas like “AGI could solve all of humanity’s problems” or “AGI could kill everyone.” It is really hard to figure out whether Altman himself is a believer or whether he has just found it to be politically savvy to leverage these beliefs.You did a lot of reporting on the workers helping to make this AI revolution happen. What did you find?I traveled to Kenya to meet with workers that OpenAI had contracted, as well as workers being contracted by the rest of the AI industry. What OpenAI wanted them to do was to help build a content moderation filter for the company’s GPT models. At the time they were trying to expand their commercialization efforts, and they realized that if you put text-generation models that can generate anything into the hands of millions of people, you’re going to come up with a problem because it could end up spewing racist, toxic hate speech at users, and it would become a huge PR crisis.For the workers, that meant they had to wade through some of the worst content on the Internet, as well as content where OpenAI was prompting its own AI models to imagine the worst content on the Internet to provide a more diverse and comprehensive set of examples to these workers. These workers suffered the same kinds of psychological traumas that content moderators of the social media era suffered.I also spoke with the workers that were on a different part of the human labor supply chain in reinforcement learning from human feedback. This is a thing that many companies have adopted where tens of thousands of workers have to teach the model what is a good answer when a user chats with the chatbot.One woman I spoke to, Winnie, worked for this platform called Remotasks, which is the backend for Scale AI, one of the primary contractors of reinforcement learning from human feedback. The content that she was working with was not necessarily traumatic in and of itself, but the conditions under which she was working were deeply exploitative: she never knew who she was working for, and she also never knew when the tasks would arrive. When I spoke to her, she had already been waiting months for a task to arrive, and when those tasks arrived, she would work for 22 hours straight in a day to just try and earn as much money as possible to ultimately feed her kids.This is the lifeblood of the AI industry, and yet these workers see absolutely none of the economic value that they’re generating for these companies.Some people worry AI could surpass human intelligence and take over the world. Is this a risk you fear?I don’t believe that AI will ultimately develop some kind of agency of its own, and I don’t think that it’s worth engaging in a project that is attempting to develop agentic systems that take agency away from people.What I see as a much more hopeful vision of an AI future is returning back to developing AI models and AI systems that support, rather than supplant, humans. And one of the things that I’m really bullish about is specialized AI models for solving particular challenges that we need to overcome as a society.One of the examples that I often give is of DeepMind’s AlphaFold, which is also a specialized deep-learning tool that was trained on a relatively modest number of computer chips to accurately predict the protein-folding structures from a sequence of amino acids. [Its developers] won the Nobel Prize [in] Chemistry last year. These are the types of AI systems that I think we should be putting our energy, time and talent into building.Are there other books on this subject you read while writing this book or have enjoyed recently that you can recommend to me?I’d recommend Rebecca Solnit’s Hope in the Dark, which I read after my book published. It may not seem directly related, but it very much is. Solnit makes the case for human agency—she urges people to remember that we co-create the future through our individual and collective action. That is also the greatest message I want people to take away from my book. Empires of AI are not inevitable—and the alternative path forward is in our hands.

Costa Rica’s Nayara Resorts Plans Eco-Friendly Beach Hotel in Manuel Antonio

Nayara Resorts, known for its high-end hotels and focus on green practices, has revealed plans for a new property in Manuel Antonio. The beach resort aims to open in mid- to late 2027 and will create about 300 direct jobs. For those familiar with the area, the site sits where the Barba Roja restaurant once […] The post Costa Rica’s Nayara Resorts Plans Eco-Friendly Beach Hotel in Manuel Antonio appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

Nayara Resorts, known for its high-end hotels and focus on green practices, has revealed plans for a new property in Manuel Antonio. The beach resort aims to open in mid- to late 2027 and will create about 300 direct jobs. For those familiar with the area, the site sits where the Barba Roja restaurant once stood. Nayara bought the land and has woven environmental standards into every step of design and planning. Blake May, the project director, noted that the company holds all required permits and has worked with authorities to meet rules on protected zones and coastal setbacks. Construction will blend with the surroundings, keeping trees, palms, and bamboo in the layout. Rooms will use natural airflow to cut down on air conditioning. Bars will have plant-covered roofs to lower emissions and clean the air. The resort will also run its own system to turn wastewater into reusable water for gardens. Before any building starts, Nayara hired a soil expert to protect the ground during demolition. Trees on the property get special attention too. The team is studying species to decide which stay in place and which move elsewhere for safety. This fits Nayara’s track record, like at their Tented Camp in La Fortuna, where they turned old pasture into forest by planting over 40,000 native trees and plants. Beyond the environment, Nayara commits to local people. They plan to share updates on progress, hire from the area for building and running the hotel, and buy from nearby businesses. Demolition of the old restaurant is in progress, with full construction set to begin early next year. This move grows Nayara’s footprint in Costa Rica, where they already run three spots in La Fortuna: Gardens, Springs, and Tented Camp. The new hotel marks their first push into the Pacific coast, drawing on their model of luxury tied to nature. Locals in the area, see promise in the jobs and tourism boost, as Manuel Antonio draws visitors for its parks and beaches. Nayara’s approach could set an example for other developments in the area. The post Costa Rica’s Nayara Resorts Plans Eco-Friendly Beach Hotel in Manuel Antonio appeared first on The Tico Times | Costa Rica News | Travel | Real Estate.

In Colorado Town Built on Coal, Some Families Are Moving On, Even as Trump Tries to Boost Industry

The Cooper family has worked in the coal industry in Colorado for generations

CRAIG, Colo. (AP) — The Cooper family knows how to work heavy machinery. The kids could run a hay baler by their early teens, and two of the three ran monster-sized drills at the coal mines along with their dad.But learning to maneuver the shiny red drill they use to tap into underground heat feels different. It's a critical part of the new family business, High Altitude Geothermal, which installs geothermal heat pumps that use the Earth’s constant temperature to heat and cool buildings. At stake is not just their livelihood but a century-long family legacy of producing energy in Moffat County.Like many families here, the Coopers have worked in coal for generations — and in oil before that. That's ending for Matt Cooper and his son Matthew as one of three coal mines in the area closes in a statewide shift to cleaner energy. “People have to start looking beyond coal," said Matt Cooper. "And that can be a multitude of things. Our economy has been so focused on coal and coal-fired power plants. And we need the diversity.” Many countries and about half of U.S. states are moving away from coal, citing environmental impacts and high costs. Burning coal emits carbon dioxide that traps heat in the atmosphere, warming the planet.That's created uncertainty in places like Craig. As some families like the Coopers plan for the next stage of their careers, others hold out hope Trump will save their plants, mines and high-paying jobs. Matt and Matthew Cooper work at the Colowyo Mine near Meeker, though active mining has ended and site cleanup begins in January.The mine employs about 130 workers and supplies Craig Generating Station, a 1,400-megawatt coal-fired plant. Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association is planning to close Craig's Unit 1 by year's end for economic reasons and to meet legal requirements for reducing emissions. The other two units will close in 2028.Xcel Energy owns coal-fired Hayden Station, about 30 minutes away. It said it doesn't plan to change retirement dates for Hayden, though it's extending another coal unit in Pueblo in part due to increased demand for electricity.The Craig and Hayden plants together employ about 200 people.Craig residents have always been entrepreneurial and that spirit will get them through this transition, said Kirstie McPherson, board president for the Craig Chamber of Commerce. Still, she said, just about everybody here is connected to coal.“You have a whole community who has always been told you are an energy town, you’re a coal town," she said. “When that starts going away, beyond just the individuals that are having the identity crisis, you have an entire culture, an entire community that is also having that same crisis.”Coal has been central to Colorado’s economy since before statehood, but it's generally the most expensive energy on today's grid, said Democratic Gov. Jared Polis.“We are not going to let this administration drag us backwards into an overreliance on expensive fossil fuels,” Polis said in a statement. Nationwide, coal power was 28% more expensive in 2024 than it was in 2021, costing consumers $6.2 billion more, according to a June analysis from Energy Innovation. The nonpartisan think tank cited significant increases to run aging plants as well as inflation.Colorado’s six remaining coal-fired power plants are scheduled to close or convert to natural gas, which emits about half the carbon dioxide as coal, by 2031. The state is rapidly adding solar and wind that's cheaper and cleaner than legacy coal plants. Renewable energy provides more than 40% of Colorado’s power now and will pass 70% by the end of the decade, according to statewide utility plans.Nationwide, wind and solar growth has remained strong, producing more electricity than coal in 2025, as of the latest data in October, according to energy think tank Ember.But some states want to increase or at least maintain coal production. That includes top coal state Wyoming, where the Wyoming Energy Authority said Trump is breathing welcome new life into its coal and mining industry.The Coopers have gone all-in on geothermal. “Maybe we’ll never go back to coal," Matt Cooper said. "We haven’t (gone) back to oil and gas, so we might just be geothermal people for quite some time, maybe generations, and then eventually something else will come along.”While the Coopers were learning to use their drill in October, Wade Gerber was in downtown Craig distilling grain neutral spirits — used to make gin and vodka — on a day off from the Craig Station power plant. Gerber stepped over his corgis, Ali and Boss, and onto a stepladder to peer into a massive stainless steel pot where he was heating wheat and barley.Gerber's spent three decades in coal. When closure plans were announced four years ago, he, his wife Tenniel and their friend McPherson brainstormed business ideas.“With my background in plumbing and electrical from the plant it’s like, oh yeah, I can handle that part of it,” Gerber said about distilling. “This is the easy part.”He used Tri-State's education subsidies for classes in distilling, while other co-workers learned to fix vehicles or repair guns to find new careers. While some plan to leave town, Gerber is opening Bad Alibi Distillery. McPherson and Tenniel Gerber are opening a cocktail bar next door.Everyone in town hopes Trump will step in to extend the plant's life, Gerber said. Meanwhile, they're trying to define a new future for Craig in a nerve-wracking time.“For me, my products can go elsewhere. I don’t necessarily have to sell it in Craig, there’s that avenue. For someone relying on Craig, it's even scarier,” he said. Questioning the coal rollback Tammy Villard owns a gift shop, Moffat Mercantile, with her husband. After the coal closures were announced, they opened a commercial print shop too, seeing it as a practical choice for when so many high-paying jobs go away. Villard, who spent a decade at Colowyo as administrative staff, said she doesn't understand how the state can throw the switch to turn off coal and still have reliable electricity. She wants the state to slow down. Villard describes herself as a moderate Republican. She said political swings at the federal level — from the green energy push in the last administration to doubling down on fossil fuels in this one — aren't helpful.“The pendulum has to come back to the middle," she said, “and we are so far out to either side that I don’t know how we get back to that middle.”The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

1803 Fund unveils renderings of $70 million investment for Portland’s Black community

Initial site work, including permitting, is expected to take roughly two years, with construction scheduled to take another two years after that.

The 1803 Fund, an organization working to advance Portland’s Black community, unveiled new renderings Tuesday for a combined ten acres it purchased on the banks of the Willamette River near the Moda Center and in the lower Albina neighborhood.The organization, formed in 2023 with a $400 million pledge from Nike co-founder Phil Knight and wife Penny Knight, said last month it was spending $70 million on several Eastside properties. It said the redevelopment of those sites would have a tenfold economic impact via the hundreds of local jobs it expects to generate. The total projected outlay for the redevelopment remains unclear.Project leaders say they expect initial site work for what they’re calling Rebuild Albina, including permitting, to take roughly two years, with construction scheduled to take another two years after that.At a Tuesday press conference, organization leaders detailed plans for two sites: a set of grain silos on three acres formerly owned by the Louis Dreyfus Co. and now called Albina Riverside; and a seven-acre property in the lower Albina neighborhood south of the Fremont Bridge and west of Interstate 5, in a district once known as The Low End.“We intend to give that name back to the community,” Rukaiyah Adams, chief executive of the 1803 Fund, said Tuesday of The Low End district, as a carousel of renderings flashed on a wide screen behind her.The group has said it wants to see those seven acres become a neighborhood gateway that connects the Black community to downtown. The Low End is slated to become a mixed-use neighborhood with housing and public spaces with art, businesses, culture and community initiatives, according to a factsheet provided by the 1803 Fund, while plans for Albina Riverside are still in the works. Still, the Albina Riverside renderings show a reuse of the grain silos, a basketball court and what appear to be community-access steps down to the waterfront.Properties in The Low End require environmental cleanup, which project officials say they are coordinating with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. It’s not clear at this point what environmental remediation the Albina Riverside site may need, officials said.On Tuesday, project leaders said $30 million went toward properties in The Low End, while they spent $5 million on Albina Riverside. Another $35 million in Albina-area property investments are forthcoming, according to the factsheet.Mayor Keith Wilson and City Council member Loretta Smith took turns at the lectern heaping praise on Adams for her leadership of the fund.Wilson said he was committed to supporting the 1803 Fund’s “transformational projects” as the redevelopment of Albina bolsters Portland’s broader renaissance. “I keep wanting to cry every time I look at you, Rukaiyah,” the mayor said. “It’s personal for me, and I know it is for you, as well.”Smith told attendees that whenever she travels to another city, there’s a district called The Low End where members of the Black community live and gather.“It had a stigma to it, and it does have a stigma to it,” Smith said. “Now you’re taking that stigma away and saying, come on down to Albina to The Low End. It’s a cool thing to do. So thank you very much for giving us back that history and that culture.”Retaking the stage, Adams said part of what prompted the purchase of the grain silo was stories she heard years ago from former state Sen. Avel Gordly – the first Black woman sworn into the Oregon Senate – of Black men who used to work and died in the silos.Gordly implored Adams to take more of a leadership role in helping to clean up the Willamette, Adams said. “The connection of Black folks who migrated here from watersheds in the Jim Crow South to that Willamette River watershed is deep and spiritual,” Adams said. “My family left the Red River watershed in Louisiana to come to the Willamette River watershed here. “Our stories are often told as the movement between cities, but we are a people deeply connected to the water,” she said. “We wade in the water.”--Matthew Kish contributed to this article.

Colorado mandates ambitious emissions cuts for its gas utilities

Colorado just set a major new climate goal for the companies that supply homes and businesses with fossil gas. By 2035, investor-owned gas utilities must cut carbon pollution by 41% from 2015 levels, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission decided in a 2–1 vote in mid-November. The target — which builds on goals…

Colorado just set a major new climate goal for the companies that supply homes and businesses with fossil gas. By 2035, investor-owned gas utilities must cut carbon pollution by 41% from 2015 levels, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission decided in a 2–1 vote in mid-November. The target — which builds on goals already set for 2025 and 2030 — is far more consistent with the state’s aim to decarbonize by 2050 than the other proposals considered. Commissioners rejected the tepid 22% to 30% cut that utilities asked for and the 31% target that state agencies recommended. Climate advocates hailed the decision as a victory for managing a transition away from burning fossil gas in Colorado buildings. “It’s a really huge deal,” said Jim Dennison, staff attorney at the Sierra Club, one of more than 20 environmental groups that advocated for an ambitious target. ​“It’s one of the strongest commitments to tangible progress that’s been made anywhere in the country.” In 2021, Colorado passed a first-in-the-nation law requiring gas utilities to find ways to deliver heat sans the emissions. That could entail swapping gas for alternative fuels, like methane from manure or hydrogen made with renewable power. But last year the utilities commission found that the most cost-effective approaches are weatherizing buildings and outfitting them with all-electric, ultraefficient appliances such as heat pumps. These double-duty devices keep homes toasty in winter and cool in summer. The clean-heat law pushes utilities to cut emissions by 4% from 2015 levels by 2025 and then 22% by 2030. But Colorado leaves exact targets for future years up to the Public Utilities Commission. Last month’s decision on the 2035 standard marks the first time that regulators have taken up that task. Gas is still a fixture in the Centennial State. About seven out of 10 Colorado households burn the fossil fuel as their primary source for heating, which accounts for about 31% of the state’s gas use. If gas utilities hit the new 2035 mandate, they’ll avoid an estimated 45.5 million metric tons of greenhouse gases over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Colorado Energy Office and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. They’d also prevent the release of hundreds more tons of nitrogen oxides and ultrafine particulates that cause respiratory and cardiovascular problems, from asthma to heart attacks. State officials predicted this would mean 58 averted premature deaths between now and 2035, nearly $1 billion in economic benefits, and $5.1 billion in avoided costs of climate change. “I think in the next five to 10 years, people will be thinking about burning fossil fuels in their home the way they now think about lead paint,” said former state Rep. Tracey Bernett, a Democrat who was the prime sponsor of the clean-heat law. Competing clean-heat targets Back in August, during proceedings to decide the 2035 target, gas utilities encouraged regulators to aim low. Citing concerns about market uptake of heat pumps and potential costs to customers, they asked for a goal as modest as 22% by 2035 — a target that wouldn’t require any progress at all in the five years after 2030. Climate advocates argued that such a weak goal would cause the state to fall short on its climate commitments. Nonprofits the Sierra Club, the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project, and the Western Resource Advocates submitted a technical analysis that determined the emissions reductions the gas utilities would need to hit to align with the state’s 2050 net-zero goal: 55% by 2035, 74% by 2040, 93% by 2045, and, finally, 100% by 2050. History suggests these reductions are feasible, advocates asserted.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.