<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>Kat, <br></span></div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>You are right of course, the problem is the burning of fossil fuels. In an ideal world, you could put CO2 in sodas without using sequestered CO2, but as we all know farming relies heavily on fossil fuels. See note below on energy required to produce food. So in effect it is sequestered CO2.</span></div><div><span><br></span></div><div><span>And of course the drinks are transported using fossil fuels. I suspect Coke would not exist in a sustainable lifestyle. We could have local soda companies but not the multi-national Coke that currently exists. Coke pretending to be green is a joke.<br></span></div><div><br><span></span></div>http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/energy/<div><br><span></span></div><div><span class="boldorange">Fossil Fuels and
                                                                Industrial Farming</span><br>

                                                                Conventional food production and distribution requires a
                                                                tremendous amount of energy—one study conducted in 2000
                                                                estimated that ten percent of the energy used annually in the
                                                                United States was consumed by the food industry.<sup>ix</sup>
                                                                Yet for all the energy we put into our food system, we
                                                                don’t get very much out. A 2002 study from the John
                                                                Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health estimated that, using
                                                                our current system, three calories of energy were needed to
                                                                create one calorie of edible food. And that was on average. Some
                                                                foods take far more, for instance grain-fed beef, which requires
                                                                thirty-five calories for every calorie of beef produced. <sup>x</sup>
                                                                What’s more, the John Hopkins study didn’t include
                                                                the energy used in processing and transporting food. Studies
                                                                that do estimate that it takes an average of seven to ten
                                                                calories of input energy to produce one calorie of food.<sup>xi</sup></div><div><br><span></span></div><div>~sanjay</div><div><span>PS - Full disclosure: I had a soda this afternoon and a beer recently </span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>  <div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"> <div dir="ltr"> <font face="Arial" size="2"> <hr size="1">  <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Kat <molasses@q.com><br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> sanjay jain <sanjayjainuk@yahoo.co.uk>; Green Building <greenbuilding@lists.bioenergylists.org> <br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Thursday, January 12, 2012 3:50 PM<br> <b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Greenbuilding] Yes, but is it Green ?<br> </font> </div> <br>
<meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="off"><div id="yiv1024980890">
  

    
  <div>
    <font face="Swis721 BT">The problem isn't really CO2 but the
      constant massive input of more CO2</font> from the burning of
    sequestered CO2 (fossil fuels).  Yeasts turning stuff into beer
    releases no sequestered CO2.  I also (not knowing the process)
    question the idea that putting bubbles in Coke releases sequestered
    CO2.<br>
    <br>
    -Kat<br>
    <br>
    On 1/12/2012 10:19 AM, sanjay jain wrote:
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;"><br>
        <div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">
          <div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">>How many Western mega-building corps
            would have the nads to put "Sustainable" in their name and
            keep a straight face ?<br>
            <br>
            Maybe not in the name... but Coke seems to be doing a lot of
            green-washing with their save the polar bears campaign with
            WWF.<br>
            <br>
            Given that Coke's main product is a greenhouse gas "Carbon
            Dioxide" it's somewhat ironic that they try to get people to
            believe they care about the environment.<br>
            <br>
            Having said that, I assume their CO2 gas comes from beer, so
            perhaps beer drinkers are more at fault!<br>
            <br>
            ~sanjay</div>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </div>
</div><meta http-equiv="x-dns-prefetch-control" content="on"><br><br> </div> </div>  </div></body></html>