You Ought to Drink Less Coke QED

vintage Coke

The incredible influence exerted by Coke and multi-nationals of the same ilk is not restricted to “advertising”, and unfortunately the impact that the company has is never as positive or democratic as they’d have us believe, as the Coke vs. the NT government case now makes clear. When the NT government wanted to introduce a “cash for containers” recycling scheme, Coca-Cola Amatil took them to the High Court and won. So what exactly was the issue here? A green community scheme that aimed to keep Australia clean, prevent viable recycling going in to landfill and reduce the number of deaths to seabirds and other wildlife? The corpses are found with stomachs full of plastic bottle-tops which they have mistakenly swallowed and are unable to digest. The parents will even ‘feed’ the bottle-tops to their chicks in that sweet regurgitating way they do. This is the point of the Greenpeace ad which no commercial station will show: Channel 7, 9, 10 & SBS all rejected the Greenpeace ad; one channel gave the rather lame excuse that it was too offensive (to whom? The type of people who leave their rubbish lying around?) Watch it here. But lest you should wonder why I, missshitsville, have so concerned myself with the topic (aside from having worked at the zoo and being really quite fond of birds and even peacocks, despite appearances) I think it’s simply rude — selfish — pure unadulterated fuckedheadedness for any human being to trash public spaces and to make your rubbish someone else’s problem. When I go walking, high up in the hills that surround Shitsville Ranch, I see plastic bottles about the place, steamed up with condensation; they drift out of the river when it floods and end upside down in Veronica bushes, and the monkeys throw them at each other — which makes it very hard for me to go on pretending that stupid people don’t exist, the similarities are striking.

yes-girl-The-_Yes__1889733i

Coca-Cola objected to the scheme in NT on the grounds that it would make the cost of a can of Coke too prohibitive… It’s the old ‘make sure every good American Joe can get a 5 cent bottle of Coke everywhere he goes’ thing; incredibly endearing concern for the happiness and home-like comforts of the average Joe.

Articles in the Fuckwit ‘news’ pictorial rarely mention the issue without palpable anti-green bias (funnily enough they never mention the part that Coke plays in the issue); as expected they are on the side of ‘Victorians’, families of three to six children no doubt begotten while Joe and Sue screwed frantically to the sound of Cold Chisel, that’s how average and Aussie they are. The Fuckwit Newscorp called the deposit scheme a “green tax”, which is deliberately misleading and aimed to plug-in to some of the misogynist hatred surrounding the figure of Prime Minister Gillard who (apparently personally) dared to introduce a carbon tax which Joe and Sue are in strong agreement (bordering on insanity) about:  they dislike the carbon tax because it offers incentives to major polluters to reduce their emissions and average Aussies don’t give a fuck about that kind of shit; they’d rather spend those (all of ten) carbon tax bucks a week on… I don’t know. Umpteen bottles of Coke for the continued happiness of their entitled, dullard children I guess; those charming teenage boys who drink directly from “family-size” 2 litre bottles.

No doubt a lot of people are willing to argue that Joe and Sue have every right to spend their hard earned on whatever it is they want, however “inessential” hippies think that those things are; no doubt also that in other ways the same people standing up for the rights of Joe and Sue to Enjoy CokeTM are in the pay of the people who gave Joe and Sue the idea that buying Coke makes them happy in the first place. Let us just take a moment to think about how democratic it is to have our choice of government and their economic & environmental policies dictated to us by big business and a biased, censored media.

entitled, dullard children

If Joe and Sue McAverageaussie are genuinely concerned that the totally refundable $4.80 a container deposit scheme will add to the price of a slab of beer or soft drink (I’m assuming that’s 24 cans a slab calculated at the exaggerated “up to 20 cents” a bottle rate, and not 48 cans calculated at the correct 10 cent rate) will find them having to pay in excess of a totally refundable $300 a year (that’s 1500 cans/bottles a year averaging four bottles/cans a day, every single day of the year) all I can say is that I truly find the amount of soft drink and / or alcohol you consume to be not only appalling but concerning as well.  One bottle for every member of the family every day? As opposed to one bottle you could share as a family, occasionally? But hush, Joe and Sue, do not fret. You could get the ‘excess of $300-a-year’ back simply by recycling that absurdly large, teetering pile of bottles, or you could save even more money by drinking less coke.

Advertisements

One thought on “You Ought to Drink Less Coke QED

  1. Pingback: You ought to drink less Coke (Part 3) | missshitsville

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s