The solution has been figured out by the company decades ago. The drinks are concentrated a massively and only mixed and the bottler, which is also the biggest plastic polluter on the planet. Have reusable containers people can buy from the company if they want to and set up dispensing machines at any location. Even better - rent those containers to the customer when they buy the drink and charge if they don’t return the container. But the logistics of all of that worldwide are more expensive than making ferrying and polluting with plastic. Move the bottling to the edge - to the consumer.

I think the challenge here is maintaining carbonation. Soda I buy already in bottles and cans maintains carbonation for years. Soda bottled into reusable containers lasts a couple days at best. I suspect in many cases the soda would go flat prior to consumption resulting in more wasted resources.

Aluminum cans are plastic lined.

> Banning soda entirely

I mean... is it a climate emergency or not? Do we really need to haul tons of sugary water up and down the highway? Not to mention the plastic.

There is alternative btw: soda stream and syrups. Apparently a 440ml bottle of syrup makes up to 9 litres of pepsi.

> Banning soda entirely?

You'd be doing literally everybody (except soda company shareholders) a favor.

Aluminum cans

They're plastic lined. So how is that better?

On a basis of grams of plastic to grams of product, I don't see how anyone can claim that they aren't better than plastic bottles.

If that's an invalid basis for comparison between plastic bottles and aluminum cans, I'm probably not the only person who'd like to know more.

Ok, but why not use glass instead? That's even lower. With cans you'll still end up with microplastics and chemicals leaching into the soda. You still have the potential for microplastics in the environment even if it's 50% since one side is coated (surface area might be a large factor compared to overall mass if most particles are shed from the top layers. I don't know).

Yeah, I'm not really up to speed on how plastic turns into microplastic and how that might work with coated cans either, but it's a fair question to ask.

I think one argument against glass is the transportation cost (dollars or carbon, take your pick) on a grams of packaging to grams of product basis. Plus the added volume of both the glass and the packaging required to keep breakage manageable, which is volume that isn't being devoted to product either. A case of wine is 6^H (edit: can't math) 9 liters of wine, whereas a 24 pack of beer in 350ml cans is 8.5 liters is less overall volume and mass.

It seems insane to me that you can get a glass bottle of wine from another hemisphere for a single-digit or low double digit number of dollars. Just melting the sand to make the glass seems like it should cost a couple bucks.

It's possible they're reusing the bottles instead of melting them down. That's what was done a long time ago, and isn't an option with plastic or metal cans.

I can see how shipping could be more especially if it needs a cardboard case. Perhaps shipping would be negligible if we had more localized production and less long distance shipping. Rail shipping would likely have a negligible shipping cost difference. Even something like increasing the use of concentrated syrups and fresh made sodas could be a benefit for packing reduction and shipping costs.

They have less plastic, which is better than more plastic when it comes to disposable items.

Aluminum can actually be recycled. The plastic lining is problematic but not strictly required.

I've never heard of it not being required. What cases can it be avoided?