The Coca-Cola Company, which produces billions of bottles and cans each year, announced a new set of environmental goals for 2035, reflecting shifts in its approach to sustainability. These new targets revise earlier commitments across packaging, water stewardship, and carbon emissions. It marks a recalibration of the company’s long-term environmental strategy.
While some objectives remain steadfast, others have been scaled back or removed altogether. As such, Coca-Cola has come under fire from environmental groups for scaling back its carbon emissions and other sustainability commitments.
Here are the company’s new sustainability targets, as outlined in its updated environmental goals.
Climate Action: A New Approach to Carbon Emissions
The beverage giant has set a goal to reach net zero by 2050, while Coca-Cola in Europe has a more ambitious target of achieving it by 2040.
The company has revised its climate targets. Its previous goal was to cut absolute carbon emissions by 25% by 2030, based on a 2015 baseline. The Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) classified this target as aligned with a 2°C global warming trajectory.
The updated 2035 goal, however, no longer includes an absolute emissions reduction target. Instead, Coca-Cola aims to reduce Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions in line with a 1.5°C trajectory, using 2019 as a baseline.
While this change aligns with more ambitious climate scenarios, it lacks specific percentage reductions previously outlined. This shift raises questions about Coca-Cola’s commitment to ambitious climate action, especially as the 2015 Paris Agreement calls for significant reductions to limit global warming.
As stated in the company’s 2023 environmental update, Coca-Cola has made progress in reducing its absolute carbon emissions based on original targets:
- 8% decline in absolute emissions against a 2015 baseline.
- Systemwide renewable electricity use up 24% in 2023, from 21% in 2022.
Below is the company’s greenhouse gas emissions for three years. Both Scopes 1 and 2 have decreased in 2023 compared to 2021. But Scope 3 emissions (value chain emissions) have increased.

Packaging Goals: A Shift in Focus
In 2023, Coca-Cola’s operations generated nearly 6 million tonnes of packaging. These include 137 billion plastic bottles and 74 billion aluminum and steel cans, according to company data. This is why the company must focus on this sustainability area.
Packaging has been a cornerstone of Coca-Cola’s sustainability efforts, particularly through its 2018 “World Without Waste” initiative. This program set ambitious goals:
- Ensuring all packaging is 100% recyclable by 2025,
- Using at least 50% recycled content by 2030, and
- Collecting a bottle or can for every one sold by 2030.
In 2022, Coca-Cola added a goal for 25% of its beverages to be sold in refillable containers globally.
In its latest update, Coca-Cola reported significant progress toward making all packaging recyclable, with 90% already meeting this standard. However, the company acknowledged falling short on other packaging goals.
- The recycled content target has been reduced from 50% by 2030 to a new range of 35%-40% by 2035. Similarly, its collection goal has been adjusted to 70%-75% by 2035, down from 100% by 2030.
The company also removed its goal for refillable packaging, explaining that it will focus on areas with existing infrastructure for reusable containers. Instead, Coca-Cola plans to prioritize increasing recycled content in primary packaging and improving collection rates.
Its revised efforts will center on two key pillars:
- “Design,” which involves creating packaging that is fully recyclable, and
- “Partner to Collect,” emphasizing advocacy for well-designed collection systems and investments in local recycling infrastructure.

RELATED: Apple’s iPhone 16 Slashes Carbon Footprint by 30%
The soda manufacturer also made significant changes in its water use and agricultural sourcing.
Water Stewardship: A Broadened Commitment
Water management remains a critical component of Coca-Cola’s sustainability framework. The company reaffirmed its commitment to replenish more than 100% of the water used in its finished products globally, a milestone it has consistently achieved since 2015.
- Additionally, Coca-Cola expanded its focus on water in high-risk locations. Previously, the goal was to return 100% of water used in 175 high-risk sites by 2030.
Now, the target encompasses all high-risk locations—more than 200 sites—by 2035. This broader commitment reflects the company’s growing emphasis on supporting local ecosystems and communities where water resources are under stress.
Agriculture and Sustainable Sourcing
- Coca-Cola has removed its goal to source 100% of its priority agricultural ingredients according to its Principles for Sustainable Agriculture.
Despite this, the company pledged to continue working with suppliers and third-party stakeholders to advance sustainable sourcing practices. Efforts will focus on reducing water use, lowering emissions, preventing deforestation, and conserving high-risk areas in its supply chain.
From Ambition to Adjustment: A Strategic Recalibration
Coca-Cola considered these adjustments a strategic recalibration based on decades of sustainability work, assessments of progress, and emerging challenges. In its press release, the company acknowledged the complexity of these issues and the need for more efficient resource allocation to deliver meaningful impact.
Bea Perez, Coca-Cola’s Executive Vice President and Global Chief Communications, Sustainability & Strategic Partnerships Officer, emphasized the importance of collaboration in addressing these challenges.
“We remain committed to building long-term business resilience and earning our social license to operate through our evolved voluntary environmental goals. These challenges are complex and require us to drive more effective and efficient resource allocation and work collaboratively with partners to deliver lasting positive impact.”
Yet, critics argue the adjustments undermine progress in combating pollution and climate change. Moreover, advocacy groups call on the company to uphold stronger environmental standards.
Revised Targets, Renewed Criticism: What’s Next for Coca-Cola?
Coca-Cola’s retreat comes at a time when global negotiations on reducing plastic pollution face significant hurdles. Talks for the world’s first legally binding UN treaty on plastics recently stalled, reflecting broader challenges in tackling the plastics crisis.
Environmental organizations have strongly criticized Coca-Cola’s revised carbon emissions, packaging, and water management goals. Oceana’s Matt Littlejohn labeled the new approach “short-sighted” and warned it could exacerbate the flood of single-use plastics entering waterways and oceans.
Further, Coca-Cola’s softened sustainability stance coincides with growing legal pressures on beverage companies for their plastic waste. In October 2024, Los Angeles County sued Coca-Cola and PepsiCo for misleading claims about the recyclability of their products, arguing that most plastics cannot be disposed of without harmful environmental effects.
The controversy arising from this environmental update underscores the tension between corporate sustainability promises and the practical challenges of implementing them. Coca-Cola’s revised goals reflect a more cautious approach, but the backlash highlights the growing demand for bold action in addressing global environmental and sustainability crises.
- FURTHER READING: McDonald’s Balances Sales Decline with Bold Sustainability Goals
The post The Bottled Truth: Coca-Cola’s New 2035 Environmental Goals Face Sustainability Backlash appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

