Introduction
People at various levels are waking up to the reality of the impact of carbon emission. It was in this context that PepsiCo undertook a study to find out how green its orange juice was. This paper gives a summary of the study and the significant resolutions that were made as was reported by Bryan Walsh.
Article Summary
Walsh gave a brief report of the findings of a study carried out by Columbia University’s Earth Institute and a firm called Carbon Trust. The study was carried out on behalf of PepsiCo, and it was aimed at assessing the carbon footprint of its orange juice. The study showed that the complete process of juice production to the point of customer acquisition, for a 64-oz carton, led to an emission of 3.75 Ib. of greenhouse gases. Against the majority expectation, the study pointed out the single most significant contributor to the emission of greenhouse gases as the fertilizers used in the farming of the orange trees used for the production of the juice; fertilizers contributed approximately a third (35 percent) of the total emission. The fertilizers used were inorganic, and consequently, they were very carbon intensive. Manufacturing of inorganic fertilizers required natural gas, and this made them very expensive. It was reported that nitrogen fertilizers were extremely used in the U.S. farms and therefore, if alternative fertilizers could be developed then the war on the carbon footprint could enjoy a significant victory. This study, therefore, evidently showed that there was a need for a change in the farming technique used especially the fertilizers used if at all PepsiCo was committed to producing green juice. This led to PepsiCo undertaking tests on two low-carbon fertilizers. One of the fertilizers was calcium-nitrate based and was manufactured by Yara International. This fertilizer was said to emit less nitrous oxide, and fortunately, it had a powerful greenhouse effect than that of carbon dioxide. It was reported that the production of the new fertilizer could cut the emission in the production process of fertilizers by up to ninety percent. The other fertilizer under PepsiCo’s test was an organic product fertilizer. This organic fertilizer was manufactured by Outlook Resources, which was based in Toronto. The company aimed at avoiding the use of natural gas as a raw material and substituted it for locally available resources that have less carbon emission. Instead of using natural gas, Outlook Resources used food waste, and bio fuels among other renewable materials to manufacture the organic fertilizers. It was reported that the fertilizer made by Outlook Resources was efficient as compared to the conventional fertilizers and thus less of its volume was used in farming. The test on the two fertilizers ran by PepsiCo was to last for five years after which the company was to assess the impact on the orange production and carbon footprint.
Conclusion
The need to find ways of reducing greenhouse gases emission is urgent. All the stakeholders need to engage each other in a collaborative manner towards seeking a solution to emission of rare gases. If the two fertilizers tested by PepsiCo will give positive results then it would be a huge victory for PepsiCo but more significantly for the whole world as the same will be emulated all over the world to eventually reducing, by a significant factor, the emission of greenhouse gases and making the world a better place to live.