Editor's Note: In an ideal world, this kind of thing would happen... My first sentence obviously wasn't clear enough, so I'll scratch it and try again.... Coca Cola has not offered refueling assistance, and if they did, should it be accepted? Comments on Reddit were very interesting, with some even keen to purchase Coca Cola as a result of this 'good deed'. Is corporate vigilantism acceptable, and would such an act actually 'offset' their regular daily environmental destruction? If the oil industry lies about climate change, and destroys rainforests on the one hand, but donates the tiniest percentage of its immense profits to some noble cause for good PR, who are the real beneficiaries? Should we 'have a coke to save a whale'? Apologies for playing with your minds, but I hope this makes you think... Actually, technically, in an ideal world, this kind of action would not be necessary. Other hoaxes you may enjoy - here, here, and here.

Originally published on TypingIsNotActivism

Greenpeace's Arctic Sunrise

In a dramatic move earlier this evening, Terry Davis, the boss of Coca Cola’s Australian division, announced that the frequently maligned multinational would throw financial weight behind the battle for whale protection in the Australian seas off Antarctica.

Tasmanian brewer Bluetongue Beer was recently purchased by Coca Cola Amatil. During last year’s whaling season, the company donated $250,000 to Sea Shepherd, enabling the group to acquire and operate remote communications equipment, as well as airing the following commercial in Japan:

Davis, recently returned from a holiday to Africa, tonight declared that “having just returned home after a holiday in Africa, my personal view is that killing whales in Australian waters is no different to poaching elephants: unacceptable. We are currently reviewing our brand strategy for 2008. Nothing is being ruled in or out.”

Shortly after this initial comment to media, a release was issued stating that

Captain Paul Watson and the Farley Mowat

“Coca Cola Amatil has reviewed Bluetongue Beer’s policy of support for anti-whaling activists operating off the coast of Antarctica. We recognize the valid work that these volunteers do, and the challenges that they face.

The whaling fleet have a distinct advantage, recently demonstrated, in being able to refuel at sea. We think it only fair that the committed environmentalists of Greenpeace’s Esperanza and Sea Shepherd’s Steve Irwin show what they can do given the same opportunity.

We will be making the necessary arrangements with the two captains over the coming days. By our estimates, this kind of support from Coca Cola should help prevent at least 40 days of whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary, thereby sparing the lives of at least 400 whales.”

Such a move might have been too risky for the transglobal corporation just a few weeks ago, but the Australian Federal Court recently issued an injunction banning further whaling by the Japanese fleet in Australian waters. The move by Coke is certainly bold and sure to be widely applauded, and should not significantly compromise any of their international relationships.

Humane Society International’s Nicole Beynon today served Australian papers on Japan’s whaling company at their head office in Japan. Company representatives assured Ms Beynon that they would throw out the papers from the Federal Court of Australia after she left.

In such a climate, the direct action of Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace with the unexpected support of Coke may be the best hope yet of survival for the ocean’s iconic giants.

Further Reading:

• Eco-Policing, and what it means for modern environmentalism