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

L.A. County sues oil companies over unplugged oil wells in Inglewood

The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court charges four oil companies with failing to properly clean up at least 227 idle or exhausted wells in the oil field near Baldwin Hills.

Los Angeles County is suing four oil and gas companies for allegedly failing to plug idle oil wells in the large Inglewood Oil Field near Baldwin Hills.The lawsuit filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court charges Sentinel Peak Resources California, Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, Plains Resources and Chevron U.S.A. with failing to properly clean up at least 227 idle and exhausted wells in the oil field. The wells “continue to leak toxic pollutants into the air, land, and water and present unacceptable dangers to human health, safety, and the environment,” the complaint says.The lawsuit aims to force the operators to address dangers posed by the unplugged wells. More than a million people live within five miles of the Inglewood oil field. “We are making it clear to these oil companies that Los Angeles County is done waiting and that we remain unwavering in our commitment to protect residents from the harmful impacts of oil drilling,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the oil field, in a statement. “Plugging idle oil and gas wells — so they no longer emit toxins into communities that have been on the frontlines of environmental injustice for generations — is not only the right thing to do, it’s the law.”Sentinel is the oil field’s current operator, while Freeport-McMoran Oil & Gas, Plains Resources and Chevron U.S.A. were past operators. Energy companies often temporarily stop pumping from a well and leave it idle waiting for market conditions to improve. In a statement, a representative for Sentinel Peak said the company is aware of the lawsuit and that the “claims are entirely without merit.”“This suit appears to be an attempt to generate sensationalized publicity rather than adjudicate a legitimate legal matter,” general counsel Erin Gleaton said in an email. “We have full confidence in our position, supported by the facts and our record of regulatory compliance.”Chevron said it does not comment on pending legal matters. The others did not immediately respond to a request for comment.State regulations define “idle wells” as wells that have not produced oil or natural gas for 24 consecutive months, and “exhausted wells” as those that yield an average daily production of two barrels of oil or less. California is home to thousands of such wells, according to the California Department of Conservation. Idle and exhausted wells can continue to emit hazardous air pollutants such as benzene, as well as a methane, a planet-warming greenhouse gas. Unplugged wells can also leak oil, benzene, chloride, heavy metals and arsenic into groundwater. Plugging idle and exhausted wells includes removing surface valves and piping, pumping large amount of cement down the hole and reclaiming the surrounding ground. The process can be expensive, averaging an estimated $923,200 per well in Los Angeles County, according to the California Geologic Energy Management Division, which notes that the costs could fall to taxpayers if the defendants do not take action. This 2023 estimate from CalGEM is about three times higher than other parts of the state due to the complexity of sealing wells and remediating the surface in densely populated urban areas. The suit seeks a court order requiring the wells to be properly plugged, as well as abatement for the harms caused by their pollution. It seeks civil penalties of up to $2,500 per day for each well that is in violation of the law. Residents living near oil fields have long reported adverse health impacts such as respiratory, reproductive and cardiovascular issues. In Los Angeles, many of these risks disproportionately affect low-income communities and communities of color.“The goal of this lawsuit is to force these oil companies to clean up their mess and stop business practices that disproportionately impact people of color living near these oil wells,” County Counsel Dawyn Harrison said in a statement. “My office is determined to achieve environmental justice for communities impacted by these oil wells and to prevent taxpayers from being stuck with a huge cleanup bill.”The lawsuit is part of L.A. County’s larger effort to phase out oil drilling, including a high-profile ordinance that sought to ban new oils wells and even require existing ones to stop production within 20 years. Oil companies successfully challenged it and it was blocked in 2024. Rita Kampalath, the county’s chief sustainability officer, said the county remains “dedicated to moving toward a fossil-fuel free L.A. County.”“This lawsuit demonstrates the County’s commitment to realizing our sustainability goals by addressing the impacts of the fossil fuel industry on frontline communities and the environment,” Kampalath said.

California’s last nuclear power plant faces renewed scrutiny as it gains latest permit

A state regulator is requiring California’s last nuclear power plant to conserve 4,000 acres of surrounding land to keep operating until 2030.

In summary A state regulator is requiring California’s last nuclear power plant to conserve 4,000 acres of surrounding land to keep operating until 2030. California’s last nuclear power plant overcame a regulatory hurdle on Thursday when the California Coastal Commission voted to approve keeping the plant open for at least five years. It was one of the final obstacles the controversial Diablo Canyon Power Plant had to clear to continue operating amid renewed opposition. The decision was conditioned on a plan that would require Pacific Gas & Electric, which owns the plant, to conserve about 4,000 acres of land on its property. That would prevent it from ever being developed for commercial or residential use. The plant, located along the San Luis Obispo shoreline, now awaits federal approval for a 20-year relicensing permit. “I don’t think, unfortunately, that anything will be happening to Diablo Canyon soon,” due to the growing energy demands of artificial intelligence, Commissioner Jaime Lee said before voting to approve the permit. Nine of the 12 voting members approved the plan.  The deliberations reignited decades-old concerns about the dangers of nuclear power and its place in the state’s portfolio of renewable energy sources. Diablo Canyon is the state’s single-largest energy source, providing nearly 10% of all California electricity. Defeated in their earlier attempts to shut the plant, critics of Diablo Canyon used months of Coastal Commission hearings as one of their last opportunities to vocalize their disdain for the facility. Some Democratic lawmakers supported the plant but pushed for PG&E to find more ways to protect the environment. Sen. John Laird, Democrat of San Luis Obispo County and former secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency, said on Thursday he approved of the new plan but pushed the commission to require the utility to conserve even more of its total 12,000 surrounding acres. “If what comes out of this is the path for preservation for 8,000 acres of land, that is a remarkable victory,” Laird said. Democratic Assemblymember Dawn Addis, whose district encompasses the plant, had also urged the commission in a letter to approve a permit “once it contains strong mitigation measures that reflect the values and needs of the surrounding tribal and local communities who depend on our coastal regions for environmental health, biodiversity and economic vitality.”  A long history of controversy Founded in 1985, the plant’s striking concrete domes sit along the Pacific coast 200 miles north of Los Angeles. The facility draws in 2 million gallons of water from the ocean every day to cool its systems  And it has remained shrouded in controversy since its construction 40 years ago. Environmentalists point to the damage it causes to marine life, killing what the Coastal Commission estimates are 2 billion larval fish a year. The commissioners on Thursday were not deciding whether to allow the plant to stay open but were weighing how best to lessen the environmental impacts of its operation. A 2022 state law forced the plant to stay open for five more years past its planned 2025 closure date, which could have led to significant political blowback against the Coastal Commission if it had rejected the permit. Learn more about legislators mentioned in this story. John Laird Democrat, State Senate, District 17 (Santa Cruz) Dawn Addis Democrat, State Assembly, District 30 (San Luis Obispo) Gov. Gavin Newsom reversed a 2016 agreement made between environmental groups and worker unions to close the plant after the state faced a series of climate disasters that spurred energy blackouts. Popular sentiment toward nuclear energy has also continued to grow more supportive as states across the country consider revitalizing dormant and aging nuclear plants to fulfill ever-increasing energy demand needs. The 2022 law authorized a $1.4 billion loan to be paid back with federal loans or profits. Groups such as the Environmental Defense Center and Mothers for Peace opposed the permit outright, citing concerns about radioactive waste, which can persist for centuries, and its cost to taxpayers. “We maintain that any extension of Diablo is unnecessary,” and that its continued operations could slow the development of solar and wind energy, Jeremy Frankel, an attorney with the Environmental Defense Center told the commission Thursday.  The California Public Utilities Commission last year approved $723 million in ratepayer funds toward Diablo Canyon’s operating costs this year. It was the first time rate hikes were spread to ratepayers of other utilities such as Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric and was authorized by lawmakers because the plant provides energy to the entire state. How the plant will be funded has also garnered scrutiny in the years since Newsom worked to keep it open. Last year, the Legislature nearly canceled a $400 million loan to help finance it. As much as $588 million is unlikely to come back due to insufficient federal funding and projected profits, CalMatters has reported. Proponents of the plant pointed to its reliability, carbon-free pollution and the thousands of jobs it has created. Business advocacy groups emphasized their support for the plant as boosting the economy.  “It is an economic lifeline that helps keep our communities strong and competitive,” Dora Westerlund, president of the Fresno Area Hispanic Foundation, said at a November meeting.

Shade Equity: To Understand the Problem — and the Solutions — Look to Tucson

Heat deaths here have soared 650% in the past decade. Addressing inequality will save lives. The post Shade Equity: To Understand the Problem — and the Solutions — Look to Tucson appeared first on The Revelator.

Residents of Tucson all know the relief of stepping into the shade on a hot desert afternoon. In Tucson, where summer temperatures often soar above 110 degrees, shade can feel like a lifeline. Yet in too many parts of our city, especially on the Southside, shade is scarce. Concrete and gravel dominate yards, streets, and gathering places, while tree canopy coverage remains limited. For residents who rely on walking and public transit, the absence of shade turns a simple errand into a serious health risk. In 2023 alone there were 990 heat-related deaths in the state of Arizona. Compared to a decade ago, this is a 650% increase in the number of preventable fatalities attributable to extreme heat exposure. This risk is compounded by the heat records being broken in the spring and fall, exacerbating the risk of heat exposure. We’re a group of graduate students in the field of public health at the University of Arizona who have learned how infrastructure directly affects health outcomes. Living, working, and studying in Tucson has made us aware of how urban planning can either protect or endanger communities. Affluent neighborhoods often enjoy tree-lined streets and shaded bus stops, while historically marginalized communities endure relentless sun exposure. This is not just an inconvenience; it’s an environmental justice problem that compounds existing health disparities. Tucson’s Million Trees initiative has made significant strides thanks to the local leadership and a $5 million federal grant. However, recent actions by the Trump administration have halted this progress and more initiatives in the city. Cuts to diversity and equity programs have led to the cancellation of a $75 million urban forestry grant nationwide, potentially limiting future support for cities like Tucson. On top of that, efforts to boost domestic timber production and recent layoffs in the U.S. Forest Service risk undermining tree maintenance and climate resilience. As Tucson faces increasingly severe summer heat, communities must look beyond temporary relief measures to sustainable solutions. Water stations and cooling centers have become first-line defenses, yet they operate under limited hours, require maintenance, and often go underutilized due to distance or lack of public awareness. In contrast, expanding shade through canopy trees and permanent shade structures provides passive, continuously available cooling with minimal energy demand. Funding for these projects is already supported by the city’s Green Infrastructure Fee on monthly water bills, making the investment fiscally feasible. Trees not only reduce ambient temperatures but also filter air pollutants, mitigate stormwater runoff, and enhance community well-being. Although the initial cost may seem significant, the long-term public health gains, reduced energy use, and environmental resilience far outweigh the expense. For Tucson’s future, shade must be recognized as critical infrastructure. Increased community involvement is crucial for the success of shade equity initiatives. We must empower residents to shape their environment to move beyond top-down approaches.   This can be achieved through several avenues. First we must educate residents about shade equity through accessible public awareness campaigns that highlight the tangible benefits of shade and the very real risks of heat exposure. Residents must also be directly involved in the shade infrastructure projects’ planning and design. This can be accomplished through inclusive workshops, user-friendly surveys, and the establishment of representative community advisory boards. We should create robust volunteer programs that incentivize residents to participate in tree planting, shade structure maintenance, and sustained community outreach. Genuine partnerships between government agencies, nonprofit organizations, local businesses, schools, and local artists are key to leveraging diverse resources and expertise. Perhaps most importantly, we must equip and encourage residents to become active advocates for shade equity policies and increased funding at the local and state levels by organizing community meetings and town halls and supporting the development and implementation of comprehensive shade master plans that prioritize the equitable distribution of shade resources as a matter of fundamental justice. Cities across Arizona — like Phoenix, Yuma, and Nogales — face similar patterns of shade inequity, and this issue extends nationwide. From Los Angeles to Atlanta, low-income neighborhoods, communities of color, and unhoused folks consistently have fewer trees and less shade infrastructure. Internationally, cities in the Global South are also grappling with rising temperatures but lack adequate cooling solutions. This puts the unhoused populations at risk of heat-related illness and increased risk of mortality, especially in cities like Tucson. As urban areas everywhere adapt to the climate crisis, equitable shade must be part of the conversation around sustainable, healthy city design. And as climate change intensifies and heat waves grow more deadly, access to shade must be recognized as a basic public health need. Even as the Trump administration threatens to cut funding from climate initiatives, Tucson’s commitment remains firm. Shade must be treated as essential infrastructure, not a luxury. With every tree planted creating shaded space, we take a hopeful step toward a more livable Tucson — and other overheated cities across the planet. Previously in The Revelator: As Heat Deaths Rise, Planting Trees Is Part of the Solution The post Shade Equity: To Understand the Problem — and the Solutions — Look to Tucson appeared first on The Revelator.

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.

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.