Coca-Cola, Pepsi on Bejing's worst polluter list

Oh by all means, feel free. I'm like Mr. Freedom, if you want to do that please, go right ahead. I'm merely saying that it'll take a bit more than this for me get on board.

Hey, you're a libertarian right Mr Bat (moonbat?)

What gives YOU the right to pollute the land of other people?

You're essentially committing murder by proxy, you know.

When you support a company that pollutes like Coca-Cola or Pepsi does, you are supporting the pollution.

That pollution is killing people, and decreasing the usable value of the land for those people living in that area.

Think about the lost revenues for fishing, growing crops, drinking water, etc?

You're damaging their wealth!

asherp,

where do you get your clothes, dishes, house furnishing, paints, plastics, vegetables, drinks, take-out food??

we're all consumers - so to bash on someone because they drink such a popular brand of sodas and waters is insane. you overestimate the damages of destroyed agricultural land and you don't mention the trade-off = thousands of jobs so that people can live and support families. this is all also in Beijing, mind you, so it's no in a rural area devoted to ag land. it would be like saying corporations in new york city are destroying farm land.

murder by proxy? get a grip.

and Jan for Gore,
no one told you what you could or could not boycott. my point is that if you think coca-cola and pepsi are so bad, why aren't you boycotting hundreds of other companies? where do you buy your gas and oil? are you not polluting with those purchases? what about everything i mentioned with asherp? where did you buy your computer and where do you think the hundreds of parts came from?

to be so ecclesiastically devoted to boycotting coke and pepsi without mentioning hundreds or thousands that are equivalent if not worse is nuts.

"And I will continue to do so and tell anyone I know to do the same. Don't tell me what I can or cannot boycott for the good of this Earth."

Aren't you contradicting yourself? I wouldn't ever try to tell you what to do or not do, but your first sentence says that you tell anyone you know to do the same.

My rule: do on to others as you would have them do on to you.

"we're all consumers - so to bash on someone because they drink such a popular brand of sodas and waters is insane"

Not if that brand is one of the worst polluters in the world.

'We're all voters, so bashing somebody for voting for the Nazi party is insane."

Whatever dude. I don't buy bottled water or drink soda because they POLLUTE. Yes, I'm more moral than you. Go blow. Next.

asherp, i didn't realize the nazi party was that popular and global and solicited by multiple countries to create jobs.

i guess you learn something new everyday??

you're absolutely right, boycotting is an amazing power. so much so, that you should probably not just jump to conclusions after this article, as it doesn't mention the amount, type, disposal methods, size of factory, competitors methods, past actions to correct problems... ect.

boycott at will, but not ill-informed.

i completely agree. unfortunately we are probably singing to the choir. count me in on a boycott.

I think you need to read to understand the negative impact these companies have had WORLDWIDE including right here in the United States. This is not just about ONE incident. I think it is ill informed to suggest that is what this is about.

Oh, spiteful nihilism.

I hope you bought it in India. You get special ingredients in that Coke.

Nope. I do care. About how my drinks taste for sure. And unfortunately I bought it in the good ol US of A, where I won't get to enjoy sugar thanks to the US sugar industry.

Coke and Pepsi are cancers on society. They plunder resources, exploit workers, make people fat and diabetic, promote addiction, and devastate the environment. They don't have a single redeeming quality. If they're not worth boycotting, I don't know what is.

the problem with your thinking is that it is incredibly small-minded. first, your statement is way too general and in that manner it is incorrect. i could say that about just about any multinational in the food and drink business, but then i'd be ignoring all of their contributing factors to society. you'd have to boycott thousands of companies that have negative externalities. for every case that you could bring up to support your broad statement, i could bring down multiple to support the positive side of these companies. i'd love to chat more about globalization and multinationals, but i can see that economics is not your strength.

you seem like an activist that doesn't know right from wrong. it's easy to say oh just get rid of the company until you realize you just put tens of thousands of people on the street. if you want to do something, look at the policies and realize foreign countries want these companies. think of policies that could help better the situation instead of simply discounting all of the good these companies provide - like jobs for families that can't get jobs elsewhere. look at the pay they get. it's well-documented that although pepsi and coca-cola might pay less there than in the u.s., they are paying more than competitors.

Foreign countries don't want these companies, but they're often put in positions where they need them because their economies become reliant on them. But they essentially turn workers into indentured servants, destroy the local ecology and inflict all kinds of health ailments on the populace.

We absolutely WOULD be better without these kinds of multinationals. Obviously, even in the best case scenario, they wouldn't disappear overnight thus putting "thousands of people on the streets". But, theoretically, if these kinds of companies were either phased out or reformed, society would certainly benefit. The nations that rely on the work that they provide would regain their sovereignty and be in a position to develop economies that work for them rather than ones that primarily serve US interests.

It's true that these problems are widespread and inherent in our economic system, where costs to society can be externalized to increase profits. But, if examples were made of the biggest and worst offenders, change could be made. There's no reason we should tolerate such flagrant abuses on human rights or the environment so that we can feed a habit that we're better without.

Arguments like yours that suggest that such abuses are okay so long as they serve The Economy make me cringe and despair for humanity.

numinant - i never claimed this was great for The Economy. I said it is economics - which deals with much more than your label. It deals with immigration, infrastructure, human rights, property laws, environment, money - including gov't revenue, jobs... it's not just about money as you succinctly make it out to be. i am not saying horrifying abuses are okay. i'm saying look at the extent of the problem and what companies are doing to fix it. look at the government and what they are doing to fix it. look at international agencies and the laws they propose to fix it. your hardline approach can't be used multilaterally for all multinationals - it's selective and biased as you leave out multitudes of other and worse polluters.

it's cost versus benefits. and yes, these countries do fight for the companies to take up shop there. i study this full-time and know how and why multinationals end up where they do. if you'd like to take up a human rights approach to this, pick on the chinese companies that pay less than multinationals and have way less rights for workers.

you must have misunderstood what i was saying...i never said that i didn't think the companies don't have a negative impact...all i'm trying to convey is how blind the masses are to what these companies are doing...it think alot of people might believe that these big companies are not doing what is right but!!!! they do not care....and further more the people in Washington are completely brainwashed into thinking its just the cost of business....for one thing our own cell phones are responsible for deaths and habitat destruction in certain places in the world ( for rare metals in micro-chips) all over the amazon people are destroying rain forest looking for gold.....so which battle are you going to fight?
but like i said before...personal responsibilty....it's a shame more people don't have it

Drink what? Milk? There were more dairy producers on the list than soft drink makers.

Apologists make me sick.

I don't know how people drink milk without some tinge of regret either, for a multitude of reasons. Dairy ought to be shunned too. Water is the superior beverage (sans bottles).

Wow you're pretty passionate about this. I gotta say though, there's nothing wrong with drinking some milk. It's good for the bones and body.

Actually, it's pretty terrible for your bones and body. You're just regurgitating dairy industry propaganda, along with phlegm.

Hmmm true, but that's mainly due to a cold. If i remember correctly...pretty sure you know, this thing called the medical community says calcium is pretty beneficial. Why do you not like milk? Please, please don't say because it's inhumane to cows...

Osteoporosis is extremely rare in societies that don't consume dairy, and highest in populations that consume the most. Animal protein leaches calcium from your bones. Plant sources of calcium are much more beneficial.

And you answered your own question. The dairy industry is terribly inhumane.

So what are you? A biological egalitarianist? There's nothing wrong with pumping some milk out of a cow just to drink. It's just a simulation of an already natural process. Also, that's a nice little fact, but that hardly means A correlates to B. There's a million other different factors that distinguish those societies.

Because of industrial mechanics, cow and dairy products are inferior to grass fed cows. Udders of the cows are pus filled and infected. Also, the improper diet of the cow causes the milk to be a concoction of chemicals, blood and pus.

mmm, puss.

Actually , If I recall , research was done by John Hopkins U , over 20 years , 8000 people . Results in about 8 years back . Only 14 % of the worlds population have the digestive enzymes to digest dairy at all . 3% absolutely cannot , in any form digest dairy . Even fewer can digest all components of it . Lactose (sugars), casin (proteins) and the fats . Cows have 3 stomachs , remember ? That is why the calcium does not get absorbed from milk . Even those who can get it can only absorb 200 mg at best , in their youth . All enzymes decrease with age . Hemp milk , almond milk are superior sources of calcium , even soy , which has it's own problems , is a better source , due to the fact the minerals and vitamins are in a digestible balance . Everyone knows you cannot absorb calcium with out D , few realize you also need potassium , magnesium and and essential fats ... all in a good balance . When you are young you may be able to handle it , that does not make it good for you .

Soy milk?

Question: If high protein diets are bad then why do so many bodybuilders not have brittle bones?

May I request that the milk debate be carried on here:

http://current.com/items/90740567_how-dairy-actually-causes-osteoporosis.htm

?

Righto

understand that many people are without knowledge of these issues. If people only knew, they wouldn't be doing. plain and simple.

Why the fuck are you all arguing about milk, when the article is about coke and pepsi? I actually had to use firefox's search feature for the word "milk" just so I could see where it was said in this article and the relevance of it. I thought I had completely missed something. Turns out I hadn't:

"...several major Chinese dairy producers made the list of major water polluters."

Wow, what a great statement to start a bitch fight over; milk and it's health properties. Irrelevant. So, anyway, back to Coke and Pepsi...