Sprite has been recognized for decades by its green cans and bottles, but it is retiring its green plastic bottles after more than 60 years.

Starting Aug. 1, the Coca-Cola Co., which produces Sprite, will package the lemon-lime drink in clear plastic bottles in North America, the company announced Wednesday. Sprite’s current plastic contains green polyethylene terephthalate(PET)(聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯), an additive(添加剂) that can’t be recycled into new bottles, a key choice for the company as it looks to reduce plastic waste.

“When recycled, clear PET Sprite bottles can be remade into bottles, helping drive a circular economy for plastic.” Julian Ochoa, CEO of R3CYCLE, a plastic group helping Coca-Cola improve its recycling, said in a statement.

Customers will also notice a revised logo and packaging design on the Sprite bottles that aims to provide a more “consistent look around the world,” the company said. The well-known green color will still be used on Sprite labels. Other beverages that use green bottles in Coke’s portfolio(系列产品), including Fresca. Seagram’s and Mello Yello, will also be replaced with clear containers in the coming months.

Coca-Cola reported higher-than-expected second-quarter earnings Tuesday, citing strong demand, and lifted its revenue forecast for the full year.

The beverage giant has often been criticized for contributing to environmentally damaging plastic waste. In 2020, the company was named as the world’s No. 1 plastic polluter by the environmental firm Break Free From Plastic. Its logos and branding were found on 13, 834 pieces of discarded plastic in 51 countries, often in public spaces such as parks and beaches.

In my everyday life, I am on an ongoing journey to figure out different ways to reduce my carbon footprint on the planet. A carbon footprint is the measure of influence our activities have on the environment, in particular climate change. It is calculated by the amount of greenhouse gas we produce in our daily lives. Fortunately, nowadays it is much easier to make eco-friendly lifestyle choices than, let’s say, 20 years ago. But one question has been on my mind a lot lately: is it better to buy new eco-friendly products or used traditionally produced goods?

After doing some research, I have decided that some things are better new and others are better used. Let me try to explain.

A carbon footprint is made up of two parts, the primary footprint and the secondary footprint. The primary footprint is a measure of our direct emissions (排放) of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the burning of fuels, including household energy consumption and transportation. The secondary footprint is a measure of the indirect CO2 emissions from the whole life cycle of products we use—those related to their production and breakdown.

Based on this understanding, we have a good deal of control and responsibility over our carbon footprint. Things like dishes, clothes and furniture fall into the “secondary footprint” group, so less is more and we can focus on finding used goods to avoid the added production. However, for the car and the other appliances (设备) that we need we can go with new, energy-saving models. I heard somewhere that electronics and appliances give off 90% of their carbon footprint after they leave the factory. So it seems most reasonable to go for the energy-saving models. The main concern here is the amount of energy that goes into the making of new products and whether or not that extra carbon is worth the footprint the product will make once it gets to you.

Let’s say you’re in the far future and you’re looking for evidence of previous civilizations. Where would you look? The first place would be in the rocks. Rocks keep time. Recently, the discovery of rocks made from plastic debris (碎片) in Brazil’s volcanic Trindade Island is sparking alarm. Melted plastic has become twisted with rocks on the island, which researchers say is evidence of humans growing influence over the Earth’s geological cycles.

Plastic rocks have been previously found in various parts of the world. Researchers documented plastiglomerates-rock, sand and other debris fused together by melted plastic-in Hawaii in 2014, for instance. Another human-made and plastic-based rock is pyroplastics. Described in 2019 from the shores of Cornwall in southwest Britain, pyroplastics form from burned plastic waste. In laboratory experiments with white or colored plastic pieces, if burned, the plastic melts and forms a gray or black mass. resembling at first glance a rocky pebble. According to geophysicist Douglas Jerolmack, “all around the world where there’s trash being openly burned in mass quantities, you can imagine there are even larger melted plastic deposits” where plastiglomerate could form.

Plastic pollution making its way into the formation of rocks suggests humans are having an effect on what was previously considered a natural occurrence, said Santos, who along with others is continuing research into plastic pollution on Trindade Island. “This is new and terrifying at the same time, because pollution has reached geology, ”Santos told Reuters. The finding of plastic rocks also suggests, some experts say, that a new geological epoch has begun: The Anthropocene epoch. Regardless of whether this represents a new epoch, Santos said, “the pollution, the garbage in the sea and the plastic dumped incorrectly in the oceans are becoming geological material preserved in the Earth’s geological records.”

The researchers are yet unsure of the environmental impacts of plastic rocks. Burned plastic can contain high concentrations of potentially toxic elements, like lead and chromium, derived from the pigments used to dye the plastic material. Buried in the ground, plastic has the potential to survive millions of years and even enter the geological record.