Comments on: Greenwash Of The Week: Coca-Cola’s “Green” Can. http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2010/01/20/greenwash-of-the-week-coca-colas-green-can/ Sustainability, Environment, Progressive Politics, Peak Oil, Going Green. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 17:29:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: nicole http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2010/01/20/greenwash-of-the-week-coca-colas-green-can/#comment-23592 nicole Sat, 13 Mar 2010 00:43:18 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2686#comment-23592 the point of this coke can saying its green is because uncolored cans can be recycled into something else, whereas colored aluminum can only be recycled into other soda cans, if at all, and the coloring in them requires much more energy to remove and re-use. so before you go bashing so much, get ALL of the facts... the point of this coke can saying its green is because uncolored cans can be recycled into something else, whereas colored aluminum can only be recycled into other soda cans, if at all, and the coloring in them requires much more energy to remove and re-use. so before you go bashing so much, get ALL of the facts…

]]> By: Stop Worrying http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2010/01/20/greenwash-of-the-week-coca-colas-green-can/#comment-23149 Stop Worrying Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:29:45 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2686#comment-23149 Sounds pretty lame to me what companies nowadays consider to be green. Sounds pretty lame to me what companies nowadays consider to be green.

]]> By: David http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2010/01/20/greenwash-of-the-week-coca-colas-green-can/#comment-23140 David Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:13:15 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2686#comment-23140 Sorry, it's greenwashing. Your writer thinks that without ink, Coke doesn't need power to make their cans and she can then eat the can itself because there is no more toxicity. I mean, who wouldn't want to have their picture taken with this "green" can? ;) There is nothing green about this can, and it doesn't deserve to be touted as "green" on a "green" website. It's stuff like this that gives the entire movement a bad name and confuses those still trying to learn the difference between things that are actually green and those that are just washed in green. It does a disservice to those people. Sorry, it’s greenwashing. Your writer thinks that without ink, Coke doesn’t need power to make their cans and she can then eat the can itself because there is no more toxicity. I mean, who wouldn’t want to have their picture taken with this “green” can? ;)

There is nothing green about this can, and it doesn’t deserve to be touted as “green” on a “green” website. It’s stuff like this that gives the entire movement a bad name and confuses those still trying to learn the difference between things that are actually green and those that are just washed in green. It does a disservice to those people.

]]> By: Jeff http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2010/01/20/greenwash-of-the-week-coca-colas-green-can/#comment-23139 Jeff Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:06:32 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/?p=2686#comment-23139 As the Content Director for Greenopolis, I take exception to the charge of Greenwashing. This post is not greenwashing at all. It isn't a post cheerleading the work of a multinational corporation. It isn't a post about the nutritional qualities of mass-produced soda. It's a post about one designer's quest - working on his own - to improve a recyclable product by removing the need for paint and inks (and the resulting factory work involved in producing those inks and paints). Greenopolis not a "green" site that's in the business of greenwashing. We're a true green site that focuses on recycling, conservation and increasing the transformation of waste into resources. If the green movement can't see an something for what it is (and applaud any attempts by designers to move the ball down the field), but would instead prefer to simply complain about something doesn't meet a very narrow definition of "green," then nothing will ever get accomplished. As the Content Director for Greenopolis, I take exception to the charge of Greenwashing.

This post is not greenwashing at all.

It isn’t a post cheerleading the work of a multinational corporation.

It isn’t a post about the nutritional qualities of mass-produced soda.

It’s a post about one designer’s quest – working on his own – to improve a recyclable product by removing the need for paint and inks (and the resulting factory work involved in producing those inks and paints).

Greenopolis not a “green” site that’s in the business of greenwashing. We’re a true green site that focuses on recycling, conservation and increasing the transformation of waste into resources.

If the green movement can’t see an something for what it is (and applaud any attempts by designers to move the ball down the field), but would instead prefer to simply complain about something doesn’t meet a very narrow definition of “green,” then nothing will ever get accomplished.

]]>