Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
brandx

Boycott Coca-Cola

7 posts in this topic

The recent Copenhagen Conference illustrated in no uncertain terms the real goals of the global warming zealots. The raucous attendees inside the conference halls demanded that the developed countries throttle their economies and pay trillions of dollars in tribute to the undeveloped countries. The screaming demonstrators outside the halls demanded the end of capitalism and the creation of a socialist world. What was not in evidence was any reasoned debate on the veracity of global warming and its possible impact. We are to believe that science has produced conclusive evidence that the world is in imminent danger. This, despite the revelations of manipulated data, ignored requests for full disclosure of data and models and the suppression of opposing views.

Coca-Cola is one of the three founding members of the "Hopenhagen" website (http://www.hopenhagen.org/partners). The express purpose of this site is to encourage other companies and individuals to pressure their governments to adopt a treaty that would create a new world government to control all industrial development and energy use. This would mean that unelected international bureaucrats, through cap and trade laws, would control a major portion of the American economy.

Who is supporting cap and trade legislation?

  • industries that expect to profit from trading their emissions allotments
  • cap and trade clearing houses that will arrange the trades
  • politicians who will receive kick-backs (i.e., contributions) from the distribution of allotments and gain more control of our lives
  • the main stream media that understands that hysteria sells and objective, reasoned science does not
  • environmental fanatics who have been searching for decades for the perfect cause to advance their agenda
  • demagogues world-wide who would like nothing better than to bring America to its knees

Who is opposing cap and trade legislation?

  • "We the People" - nationwide polls indicate that the majority of Americans are skeptical of the global warming claims and are aware of the massive impact that cap and trade laws will have on their well being
  • Thousands of objective scientists world-wide who deplore this blatant attempt to politicize science

More than one hundred companies have signed on as "Friends Of Hopenhagen", so why pick on Coca-Cola and why have a boycott?

  • Coca-Cola has chosen to be a principal promoter of this new world order
  • Coca-Cola has a limited line of products that are used widely and readily replaced by other products
  • No matter how many people attend demonstrations to oppose the actions of our current government, they are ignored by the press and the politicians
  • A nationwide boycott of a major company like Coca-Cola could involve millions of people and could not be ignored
  • A nationwide boycott could help kill the cap and trade legislation and convince the politicians that America is fed up with "change"

OK, so what do we do?

  • Attached is an "Open Letter to Coca-Cola"
  • Copy the letter and either email it or mail it to Coca-Cola at
    cocacolasupport@na.ko.com
    or
    The Coca-Cola Company
    P.O. Box 1734
    Atlanta, GA 30301, USA
  • Submit the letter to your local newspaper as a letter to the editor
  • If you wish to write your own letter or modify this one, feel free to do so, but keep your comments calm and factual
  • Copy this entire discussion including the letter and mail it to everyone on your email list and encourage them to join the boycott
  • If you have an appropriate website, copy this entire discussion including the letter and post it on your website

December 2009

An Open Letter to the Board of Directors

The Coca-Cola Company

Ladies and Gentlemen:

I have been a life-long consumer of your company's products. I have always considered Coca-Cola the quintessential American company. But, no more. Coca-Cola is one of the three founding members of the "Hopenhagen" website. The express purpose of this site is to encourage other companies and individuals to pressure their governments to adopt a treaty that would create a new world government. This entity would control industrial development and energy use throughout the world. Fortunately, no treaty was signed in Copenhagen, but the effort will be renewed in Mexico City in 2010.

I have no problem with Coca-Cola, as a private company, adopting whatever commercial practices you decide are appropriate for the operation of your business. If some of these practices include environmentally friendly changes to your operations, that is your choice. Of course, if your stockholders disagree, they have the option to try to change your practices or to sell your stock and move their investments into more productive ventures.

Your support of this international treaty is an entirely different matter. The basis of this treaty is the report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC purports that the global climate is warming catastrophically, and that this is caused principally by human activity (i.e., anthropogenic global warming (AGW)). The “science” behind this claim, to put it most charitably, is highly questionable.

I will not dwell on the recent revelations of manipulated data, destroyed raw data, ignored contradictory data, evasion of "Freedom of Information Act" requests and the suppression of opposing views in various scientific journals. The very idea that man's recent puny efforts have more of an impact on global temperatures than massive influences like sun spot cycles and the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere is, not only ludicrous, but also contrary to the historical record. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years without any influence by man, and it will continue to do so as long as it exists. What is more ludicrous, however, is the idea that man can model this ecosystem accurately in computer programs composed of millions of lines of code and thousands of assumptions. All he can do is try to create models that reasonably track past history. This has not been accomplished. The computer models cannot even track recent history which shows no net increase in global temperatures over the last ten years and puts the lie to the silly “hockey stick” theory of continually accelerating global temperatures. Yet we are supposed to accept the model predictions of a future apocalypse if we don't take immediate action to control and reduce man's use of fossil fuels.

The IPCC, in the latest treaty, is proposing a new governing body that would force all nations to control CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Regulations would take the form of limits on CO2 emissions, penalties for non-compliance and massive aid from the developed countries to the third world to help them develop non-carbon based infrastructure. In the United States, for instance, cap and trade laws would enrich a favored few and result in higher energy costs, increased prices for all goods, higher taxes, lost jobs and a reduced standard of living for everyone. More importantly, this would mean the end of our representative form of government. Our Constitution is already becoming a meaningless document in the hands of our elected representatives. In the hands of a world government full of unelected bureaucrats our freedom would soon be non-existent. We would be deluding ourselves to think the powers of this new entity would be long constrained to its initial purpose.

The Coca-Cola Company has decided to lend its full support and encouragement to this new world order. You are pandering to the politicians, radical environmentalists and demagogues from around the world. Contrary to these fear-mongers' claims, AGW is not proven. Also, considering the way this research has been conducted, it is not science.

Until such time as Coca-Cola renounces all attempts to create a world government to control man's future and repudiates the cap and trade proposals, I will no longer purchase Coke products. What is more, I intend to circulate this letter as widely as I can in the hope that others will join me in this boycott. I believe you will find that there are many more people in this country who cherish their freedom than there are radicals who wish to destroy it.

Signed,

An American Citizen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll never boycott a product. Especially not Coke, the leftie's natural enemy. Plus, I approve of Coke's exploiting of the weak minds of the hippies.

There are two worse offenders though: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1188829810.html

So, a website and a bit of green parading because you've spotted there are idiots out there and they buy according to fads is not much, really.

Pushing for massive eco-taxes on US manufacturing because you know full well your manufacturing is done in countries that will never follow any such system, in order to gain an extra few % margin on the competition, IS disgusting.

I still won't boycott Apple, which makes some of the best, most beautiful hardware in the world, and is one of the few truly innovative US firms left. No point. This is something to be fought at Congressional level. (same reasoning applies to Nike, but their "innovation" - add padding to running shoes to allow fat people to take small steps and call it jogging - is dangerous, at least to serious runners/triathletes who bought the padded shoes in good faith and end up with terrible leg pain due to the faulty running style; so I already don't buy Nike).

And, boycotts are SO anti-market...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll never boycott a product. Especially not Coke, the leftie's natural enemy. Plus, I approve of Coke's exploiting of the weak minds of the hippies.

There are two worse offenders though: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...1188829810.html

.

.

.

And, boycotts are SO anti-market...

Thanks for the article on Apple and Nike. I was unaware of their resignations from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. However, the article brings up one of the points I am making: "the way that Apple and Nike are putting green political correctness above the long-term interests of their own shareholders" [and the well being of all Americans].

You are assuming that the "Hopenhagen" website is Coke's only contribution to the conference: "I approve of Coke's exploiting of the weak minds of the hippies." However, this is far from being the case. Muhtar Kent is Chairman, CEO and President of Coca-Cola. Picture James Taggart, in the flesh, sucking up to all the power elite.

From an interview with Fortune: "He was one of a handful of Fortune 500 CEOs to come to Denmark to throw his support behind a global agreement to regulate carbon emissions. 'It is absolutely imperative that our commitment to a low-carbon future be fully understood,' Kent said. 'We’re here to lend a Coca-Cola voice to the public and political debate on getting to a fair framework, an inclusive framework, an effective framework so that we can achieve climate protection.'"

A boycott of Coke is not "anti-market". The Coke management has decided that it is going to support a political cause. A boycott is the simplest way to make a political response. A boycott could accomplish the following:

  • Average Coke stockholders are probably not aware that their investments are assisting in the destruction of the American economy. Perhaps, if it affects their business enough, they will decide to fire their board of directors or at least reign them in.
  • Perhaps stockholders in other companies would start forcing their managements to fight cap and trade instead of grovelling for loopholes.
  • If nothing else, being a simple action that millions of people could adopt, it would show the politicians the strength of the opposition. And we would not have to wait till the 2010 elections to get our message across.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Point to me one American company that isn't Taggart-like in at least some way.

If you boycott all such products, then you can't bank, you can't travel, you can't buy most food (enjoy shopping at Whole Foods... nice and easy on your wallet), you can't take out insurance, you can't do most things that happen in your life. Might as well kill yourself.

"the way that Apple and Nike are putting green political correctness above the long-term interests of their own shareholders"

No, they're playing a very dangerous and short term game: make sure legislation goes in their favour by making all their competitors' manufacturing suddenly a lot more expensive. It's a standard business tactic preferred by the morally repugnant. This is 100% about their shareholders' (very short term) interests. Considering Nike's track record, and Jobs' personality, I very much doubt they either buy into or care about green. It's dangerous because once you admit that green > civilisation, you're on a slippery slope to Soviet chaos.

Problem with products like Coke is that they are effectively selling a brand. The only way to increase sales - or even keep them level with population growth - is to constantly ensure this brand remains at the top of public consciousness. The strategy chosen by Coke is to go and promote this idiotic green stuff. They know full well their public has the attention span of a 3yo. This is about brand visibility and positive association for stupid irrational customers, not about saving the polar bears from drowning as their ice caps visibly melt.

Re: stockholders; management is incredibly powerful in the US. And stockholders are for the most part unwilling to get involved (that's why they hired management in the first place), or subject to terrible constraints due to the nature of THEIR industry (e.g. current market rally is in large part caused by mutual fund managers having to "catch the rise" despite knowing full well it is illusory, because on a relative basis they'll get axed otherwise). Finally, you won't have an impact on share price. Even assuming people drink Coke for ideological reasons, there are far more irrational hippies than libertarians, so this still remains a net market share gain for Coke. Coke is in the business of selling sheep food, not gourmet meals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, does this mean that 'cap-and-trade legislation' is not talking about the trading of coke-bottle caps? Maybe the Coca Cola company is just making an honest mistake. Although I'd think they would support free trade in bottle caps. I'm just sayin'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you have Coca Cola without CARBONated water? Let's write all their directors and demand the immediate withdrawl of carbonated water from all their soft drink products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, does this mean that 'cap-and-trade legislation' is not talking about the trading of coke-bottle caps? Maybe the Coca Cola company is just making an honest mistake. Although I'd think they would support free trade in bottle caps. I'm just sayin'...

Or maybe it's simply that the best way to cap a trade is to down a Coke. Nevertheless, the support of caps is bottles; trade your bottles away at your own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0