Geekologie I Watch Stuff The Superficial Hedonistica

Coca-Cola's Iffy Pollution-Cleaning Billboard

coke-billboard.jpg

This is a Coke billboard in the Philippines touting the company's greenliness. How earth-friendly is Coke besides the billboard? I have no clue. Probably not very. Whenever I have to guess about something like this I always err on the side of "companies really don't give a shit and will only do enough to give the appearance that they do." Hey, I could be wrong though (except there's no way because a Mountain Dew rep actually told me that).

The 60 x 60 foot living billboard in Manila is made of thousands of Fukien tea plants surrounding the iconic curvy shape of a silver Coke bottle. The project with the CO2-eating plants was created in conjunction with Coca-Cola Philippines' Live Positively sustainability program.


Pots made from recycled bottles contain the 3,600 trees, which live off a mixture of organic fertilizers. Though they are currently in the first stages of growth, the plants are expected to grow quickly, completely taking over the billboard surface, absorbing a total of 46,800 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Who knows, maybe I'm just being cynical. Well -- what's your opinion? "It'd be cooler if that was ganja growing out of it." OMG -- so we could shoot flaming arrows at it and get high?! I WAS THINKING THE EXACT SAME THING!

Coca-Cola Plant Billboard Absorbs Air Pollution [huffingtonpost]

Thanks to Pat, who agrees the best technology is green technology. Wait like earth-friendly, or alien?

There are Comments.
  • asdfasdf`

    co2 is NOT pollution, those who actually think it is should stop breathing for the greater good. if you burn something as cleanly as possible you get co2 and water. making something burn shitty and fill the air with hydrocarbons and other actually toxic chemicals to save on co2 is the reason america sucks. How did the Philippines catch on to this shit? lol

  • chessboxer

    Pollution levels: Burning cleanly > Not burning
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Fossil Fuels^,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,^Fission/Fusion/Sustainable

    CO2 causes issues in the atmosphere when emitted in massive quantities (such that the entire history of our modern civilization has been emitting)... Issues that lead to massive swings in regional temperatures globally with extremely negative impacts to the localized ecosystems.

    Take a science class. Or just pay attention in the one you're in, because you clearly have a 7th grade grasp on the subject

  • asdfasdf`

    prove it. Science. hypothesis is good. if co2 increases then global warming but wheres the data?

    __________________________________________________
    Besides, what about side effects from sustainable?
    Think there'd be no effect from pulling all that energy out of low altitude wind currents if we ever built enough windfarms to matter energy wise?
    its like with cloud seeding, it has to come from somewhere.

    solarpanels use materials you basically only get by strip mining and last about 5 years before getting replaced.

    Where does the electricity come from to run a prius? is it by burning coal? what do you do with the batteries long term?

    What do you do with spent fission materials?
    Or for easier solutions: does waste water from cooling those plants mess with streams it for some reason often gets sucked out of or dumped back into by creating hot spots? why not use wells and leeching fields? Or a holding vat to at least cool the outgoing water a little so you don't get the fish kills.

    speaking of... hydroelectric. why aren't fish ladders standard in those things?

    is drilling for geothermal even feasible in most areas? What effect does that drilling have in those areas when you have to go so deep?

    Trees are renewable, lets burn them and let them grow back, same with whale oil.

  • chessboxer

    This is seriously one of the most studied topics of the century. There is an enormous amount of data on the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere available, so much so that 98% of the scientific community is in complete agreement on the topic. The problem is that the data comes from various different fields - scientists of those fields collaborated and lent their expertise to one another, and in this practice they've reached a conclusion based on their evidence that this is fact.

    I'm sure you fancy yourself a genius, but all of the citing data in the world would not effect this conversation because you don't have a graduate degree in environmental science and therefore would be incapable of knowing whether or not you are interpreting said data correctly. I know this might seem like a cop-out of an answer, but as an economist I've come to notice that as information becomes more complex, layman speculation becomes more prone to being incorrect and - in this case - more dangerous for us all.

  • chessboxer

    I think in this case it's as prudent as it can possibly be to express an aversion to "type I hypothesis test error" - rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true leads to the destruction of our planet.

  • asdfasdf`

    Besides there must be a better way to use nuclear than basically making a steam engine.

blog comments powered by Disqus