Fossil Fuels And Our Future - 1939 Words

Fossil Fuels and Our Future While the human race may believe its time on this planet will not to come to an end for a vast expanse of time, if humanity as a whole does not consider a change of behavior, then our end may come much soon than we expect. In this day and age, fossil fuels are a necessity to continue our day to day activity; without them we would eliminate a vast quantity of items that simplify tasks in everyday life. Although newer, more sustainable sources of generating power become more prevalent as time goes on, our society relies too much on plastics to be able to completely eliminate the consumption of fossil fuels. Much of our daily life depends on products made from fossil fuels, but fossil fuels are a finite resource and are currently burying us in pollution. However, the efficient use of renewable energy will sustain us far longer and still allow us to continue use of essential products from the remaining fossil fuels. Simply put, with the Earth’s fossil f uel reserves dwindling, we must emphasize the use of sustainable energy sources to buy the human race more time to find a suitable replacement for production of goods made from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are intrinsic for our daily lives as they are used in everything from general fuel that we use to power things and fertilizers to allow for expedited growth of plants, to the creation of plastic and pharmaceuticals that are essential to life in this day and age (What Are Fossil Fuels Used For). SomeShow MoreRelatedFossil Fuels Are Bad For Our Environment889 Words   |  4 Pages Fossil fuels are bad for our environment, and in a economy that is struggling, there is no point in pouring billions of dollars a year into an energy source that is killing our other resources. This kind of spending and reckless destruction of our environment will eventually have to stop. The question is, when it does what will we do? There are many other forms of alternative energy that are accessible to u s right now. These energy sources will eventually have to be used in the place of burningRead MoreNuclear Energy : Nuclear Power1251 Words   |  6 Pagesnuclear power and fossil fuels, nuclear power is the safest, most environmentally friendly and will meet our country s energy demands in the future. The arguments I will be addressing in this essay are the environment, safety, economics and energetics. The form of energy that will meet our country’s energy demands in the future is nuclear energy because our supply of fossil fuels will run out before the supply of nuclear energy. People are concerned about the renewability of fossil fuels because it isRead MoreThe Effects Of Climate Change On Fossil Fuels1431 Words   |  6 Pagesatmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels.† (Google Dictionary). Due to our dependence on fossil fuels as our main source for energy and our carbon dioxide emissions over decades, climate change has rapidly emerged on Earth. Yet, we still have those who deny any scientific evidence of the effect of the dependence on fossil fuels. Climate change is a threat one should not ignore but want to reverse with the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. An issue, which one should considerRead MoreNuclear Fusion And Nuclear Energy Essay1638 Words   |  7 Pagesnuclear installation, nuclear vessel or handling of radioactive materials. Fossil fuels are hydrocarbons, primarily coal, fuel oil or natural gas, formed from the remains of dead plants and animals. In common dialogue, the term fossil fuel also includes hydrocarbon-containing natural resources that are not derived from animal or plant sources. These are sometimes known instead as mineral fuels. The utilization of fossil fuels has enabled large-scale industrial development and largely supplanted water-drivenRead MoreNew Energy for the Future1358 Words   |  6 PagesNew Energy for the Future For years man has relied on energy in order to be successful in life. The industrial revolution relied on coal for the new inventions brought into the world. Life as has never been the same since then. However since that time, there has been little done to improve on energy efficiency and humans still primarily rely on fossil fuels for energy. For over a hundred years the Earth has become more polluted and dirtier than ever before. Now, with new, innovative technology thereRead MoreAlternative Energy And Renewable Energy1668 Words   |  7 PagesThroughout the 20th and 21st century, our knowledge about the environment and energy has steadily grown, as well as our dependence on them. Nowadays, power and electricity are in every facet of our daily lives. Due to this, we overlook several negative effects our traditional use of fossil fuels have caused. Fossil fuels are fuel deposits that were formed hundreds of millions of years ago, which is where the term fossil fuels come from. The two most common fossil fuels currently in use are coal and oilRead MoreThe Cost Of Fossil Fuels1147 Words   |  5 Pages Global Crisis Our species as a whole is very successful in many advancements such as technology, in society all together, and just overall in life but, currently we are failing our environment. Since our world is an immense place that consumes so much energy our demand is high. The ultimate goal is to no longer rely on nonrenewable energy sources, which we so strongly rely on today. Baby Steps are being taken but it is not enough. Advantages/ Disadvantages of Fossil fuels There are many advantagesRead MoreAlternative Sources of Renewable Energy Essay1629 Words   |  7 PagesWith a growing population around the world, the need for energy is growing as well. We are accustomed to using fossil fuels as our central source of energy for everyday uses. Fossil fuels are a natural matter that is found in the ground of the Earth formed in a previous time period millions of years ago that are nonrenewable and are used for energy today. Fossil fuels have to be burned in order to produce energy. When nonrenewable resources have been used, they cannot restock themselves or everRead MoreRenewable Energy Is Important For Our Environment1610 Words   |  7 Pagesin this country, but globally would be the transition from fossil fuels and coal to renewable sources of energy like solar, wind, hydroelectric, and biofuels in an attempt to reduce carbon emissions, which in turn pollute the environment and contribute to adverse climate change. Even though renewable energy is able to regenerate, does not mean that it has no ecological footprint or that renewable energy is completely sustainable for our environment (Week 14 Energy Use Transportation/RenewableRead MoreIdeological Differences On Renewable Energy1084 Words   |  5 Pageswonder what the world would be if there was no more energy, no more electricity in our household and no more gas for our car? Energy is a necessary resource that is used every day in American households and vehicles. Unfortunately, majority of the energy that is currently used comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are un-renewable energy, which means that one day that it would eventually disappear. Unlike fossil fuels, there is an alternative way to get energy, from renewable sources. I will be presenting

Cuban missile crisis Free Essays

In the entire 40 years period of cold war, Cuban missile crisis represented the only event when both USA and USSR, the two nuclear powered adversaries, came to the doorsteps of a full-fledged armed confrontation. The crisis was precipitated by USSR’s decision to built nuclear missile bases at Cuba, and USA’s unqualified opposition to the USSR’s plans. The threat perception of USA was valid as Cuba was in the very close proximity to USA mainland, had communist orientation and therefore deployment of nuclear missiles presented real risks to national security of America. We will write a custom essay sample on Cuban missile crisis or any similar topic only for you Order Now The Cuban Missile Crisis brought entire world to standstill for a week with an imminent threat of a full blown nuclear war. Finally the crisis was resolved with USSR withdrawing its missiles and USA recognizing Cuba as a non-threatening nation Cuba, Cold War and USSR American Intelligence had turned its attention to Cuba soon after Cuban Revolution of 1959 when Fidel Castro overthrew dictatorial rule to establish his own government. Despite the early period of bonhomie, USA’s perception of Castro took a negative side when he executed many supporters of former Cuban dictator who had pro US bearing, toyed with the idea of setting a date for free elections, confiscated American property without warning or paying compensation, and started his own line of dictatorship that suppressed freedom of expression and political opposition. Naturally such ostensibly anti-American theatrics endeared Cuba to communist sections of world, and it increasingly became dependent on Soviet military and economic assistance. When US spy planes and reconnaissance efforts found by October 14, 1962 that Soviet Union was on the way of preparing a comprehensive missile base in Cuba that included launch pads for ICBM and MRBM missiles, it was immediately clear that world was headed towards a big showdown between two of its most powerful nations. The news was rapidly conveyed to Intelligence heads and the office of President. It was immediately clear to every one that by placing nuclear missiles in the proximity of USA, USSR had openly challenged US influence. Many top level defense strategists felt that unless USA would act with resolution, its reputation would take a irrevocable beating from Soviet Union, providing a great impetus for growth of communist forces around the world. Whereas US defense secretary of the time, Robert McNamara, argued against taking any action and ignoring the situation altogether, many believed that political fallout of the missile crisis could be devastating for USA. The one question that had stirred everyone related to intent and purpose of Soviet Union. No body was sure whether this was a mere populist stunt by Khrushchev to humiliate USA and gain popularity, a strategic error on part of Soviet leadership, or actual preparation of an impending war that was secretly pushed ahead in Kremlin. The question of Cuba also, in way, could determine fate of John F. Kennedy who could fall out of public favor if he was perceived to be softening against the glaring communist offensive. Kennedy, in the initial phase of the situation when it was generally believed that no medium range missile base existed at Cuba, had already given vocal assurance to people that USA would not tolerate deployment of nuclear warheads in Cuba, thereby setting a yardstick for himself. On the other hand, as Kennedy and highly placed government officials knew, Soviet Union had not shown any prudence in its action so far-their very decision to bring nuclear missiles close to US mainland indicated towards their inept political and strategic acumen, and Kennedy had apprehensions that on the slightest pretexts, Soviet Union may indulge in a full-fledged Nuclear War with USA. Meanwhile defense analyst correctly pointed out missiles deployed by Soviet Union would double the number of nuclear warheads in possession of Soviets against USA. More, and even worse, once USA deliberately overlooks Soviet efforts of building the base, the Soviets would steadily reinforce the missile base and increase the number until they could easily fire multiple missiles at every city and military target in the United States. By increasing the firepower, USSR would effectively neutralize potential USA deterrent and response power and in the end, effectively routing out US’ capacity to offer any resistance. In the given circumstances, USA played its own strategic game of cover and fire. On the face of it, the government did not jump to any explosive reaction and apparently thing went smoothly even a couple days after detection of Soviet nuclear facilities. On the advises of his intelligence chiefs, Kennedy himself let the visiting Soviet foreign minister, Andrei A. Gromyko know in a dissuading manner that US possessed advanced knowledge on deployment of MRBM and ICBM in Cuba. The calmness and assured way in which the news was conveyed to Soviet minister created a false sense of security in them, as they assured themselves that USA would not take any effective action, at least until the election. Supplied with crucial information from intelligence, almost all the major facets of government pretended to carry business as usual, sending the watchful Soviet leaders in further complacency. Intelligence officers completely camouflaged their movements in and around White House, in order to avoid any suspicion on government’s next course. Most importantly, Soviets could not detect the constant flight of U2 planes over Cuba and therefore took US statements on the face of it. The Crisis and the Aftermath On October 22, 1962, President Kennedy broadcasted the knowledge of nuclear missiles discovery in Cuba, following which the crisis immediately bloomed into a full-fledged international crisis. There was immense pressure on Kennedy to launch offensive against Cuba, irrespective of USSR’s commitment. Kennedy did not heed to advises of armed conflict, but he firmly made it clear to Kremlin that unless Soviets withdrew themselves from Cuba, no meaningful line of dialogue could be established between the two countries. USA intelligence had meanwhile clarified the issue that even Khrushchev was greatly distressed by escalation in tension and searching for a mutually acceptable to diffuse the situation. Political hawks, both in USA and USSR pressed their state heads for hard and non-evasive action to utilize the situation best in their own favors. There were universal calls for naval blockade, air strike, full scale invasion of Cuba or even pre-emptive nuclear strikes. On the diplomatic channel, members of US intelligence committee, EXCOMM, were in secret conversation with UNO, where UNO would call for withdrawal of hostilities on part of both sides, thereby providing a dignified escape route to combating parties. On October 22 itself, the chief of Army Staff sent the message to US air force to get ready for full-blown strike, and the message was sent purposefully in un-coded form so that it could be captured by Soviet intelligence. The strategic inputs from all the combined intelligence heads strongly refuted the idea of any strike against Cuba. They argued that although a pre-emptive strike may be successful operationally, its long term effect would be to weaken moral grounds of USA, where it would be forever looked as an aggressor. A strike after warning, on the other hand made no sense as it would provide soviets with enough time to organize their defense. Under these circumstances, US favored strategic blockade of Cuba-a non military but very strong move against USSR. On the other hand the USSR leadership was also in a quandary due to their decision of deploying missiles and US’s tough stand that was not expected by Soviet leadership. However, now that the crisis was public and with US already taking a firm stand, USSR leadership found themselves in a very tight spot where compromise on their end would appear as victory of capitalist forces over communism. As a result Nikita Khrushchev let the perception broadcast in world media that USSR would not fire the first missile, but in case USA launches the attack on Cuba, USSR would be left with no option to strike back. USA, despite keeping its air force at DEFCON2, was also aware of the crisis which may be precipitated if it would act without thinking. Throughout 26th and 27th October, senior diplomats on both sides tried to work out a solution that would be favorable to prestige of both nations while warding off threat of impending nuclear war. USSR was willing to remove the missiles from Cuba and see the crisis over, but it said that doing so just on the face of American protest would be construed as weakness in the communist world. Therefore a trade off was reached where USA would remove the Jupiter missile system it had deployed in Turkey, following which USSR would announce the removal of its Cuban deployments. Finally the stalemate ended on 28th October with a statement by Nikita Khrushchev to the effect of destroying the launch sites in Cuba and recall of payloads back to USSR. Thus was prevented one of the most major crisis faced by World in 20th century. How to cite Cuban missile crisis, Papers Cuban Missile Crisis Free Essays Explain why relations changed between the USA and the USSR as a result of events in Cuba between 1959 and 1962 and how the Cuban missile Crisis affected relations between the USA and the USSR. The USA and the USSR never really got on after WW2 ended, it was always a competition to see who the greatest superpower was. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the nearest that both sides came to an actual nuclear war. We will write a custom essay sample on Cuban Missile Crisis or any similar topic only for you Order Now The tensions were intense for both sides, for both USA and USSR could have started a war if they wanted to because of their opponents. And in this essay I am going to explain why their relations changed and how the Cuban Missile Crisis affected relations between 1959 and 1962. One of the first reasons why relations between the USA and the USSR changed is because of Cuba, Cuba is the largest island in the Caribbean and it is situated only 90 miles from Florida, in Southern USA. Also the Americans owned most of the businesses, banks, sugar and tobacco plantations, as well as a large naval base. The Monroe Doctrine was a key part of USA’s foreign policy. This said that further efforts by European governments to colonise land or interfere with sates in the USA would be viewed by the USA as an act of aggression, requiring US intervention. The USA regarded the American continent as its sphere of influence and would not tolerate a communist government in power inside their sphere of influence. The overthrowing of the pro-American dictator, General Batista in 1959 also led to deterioration in US revelations with Cuba. The new leader of Cuba, Fidel Castro, nationalised industries and banks, and introduced land reforms. This hurt US banking interests, as it was their land and their businesses that were being taken over. In 1960 ended an argument to buy Cuba’s sugar exports, in 1961 the USA broke off diplomatic relations and cut off all trade links with Cuba. This caused relations to change because a lot of their trade was with USA and they would have lost a good sum of money. Also Cuba was economically dependent on the USA, so Castro turned to the USSR. By 1962 over 80% of Cuba’s trade was with the USSR. Cuba exported sugar, fruit and tobacco and they also exported oil and machinery. And in 1961 Castro announced that Cuba was a communist country. Of course this sent alarm bells going in USA. President Kennedy wasn’t prepared for a Russian satellite that was so close. And in April 1961 the CIA and 1400 Cuban exiles organised an invasion to overthrow Cuba’s communist leader. USA provided transport, weapons, military advisors. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a huge failure, and made Americans and especially Kennedy look foolish. Some of the Americans landing craft were wrecked by coral reefs which were mistaken for seaweed in photographs, and few people joined the uprising which was quickly crushed. So this is how Cuba’s relations changed with the USA between 1959 – October 1962. Cuba’s relation with the USSR is another reason for the relation changes between USA and the USSR. Well after USA cut diplomatic relations with Cuba, Castro edged closer to the USSR. In May 1962 the USSR agreed to supply Castro weapons to protect Cuba from future US invasions. Not only did they supply them with thousands of guns but also, patrol boats, tanks and jet fighters, all this made the Cuban army better equipped. There were also 42,000 USSR soldiers that were sent to Cuba, the Americans thought there were only 16,000 at most. In 1962, USSR was increasingly concerned at the ‘missile gap’ resulting from USA’s superiority in long – range nuclear weapons. Khrushchev was also concerned about American/NATO missiles which were in Turkey, close to the USSR. Russian influence in Cuba offered Khrushchev an opportunity to balance the threat. USSR sent technicians to secretly build silos, missile erectors and install 43 short and medium range missiles, which meant that USA were now in range of the missiles. The 13 day crisis was most likely the closest event that both sides have been to a nuclear war. On October 14th, a U2 plane got photographs of the missile sites. These photographs proved that the Russian missiles were well advanced and that most of the USA was in short and medium range of the missiles in Cuba. On October 16th President Kennedy sets up EXCOMM to deal with the crisis. On October 17th Khrushchev assures Kennedy that he will not put missiles in Cuba. On October 20th Kennedy decides that he is going to put a naval blockade around Cuba. On October 22nd President Kennedy goes on television to tell the American people about the crisis. The news shocks the world as everyone knows a nuclear war would be fatal. On October 23rd the US navy set up the blockade around Cuba. On October 24th 18 Russian ships, many carrying parts for nuclear missiles, turned back, but there were still missiles in Cuba. On October 26th Khrushchev sent the first letter to Kennedy, in it he promised to remove the missiles from Cuba if Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba. On October 27th Khrushchev sent a second letter which demanded that the US remove the missiles from Turkey as well. News had come in that a U2 plane had been shot down over Cuba and the pilot killed. The tensions were high at this point, Kennedy could have declared war on them, military chiefs advised an air strike followed by an invasion. Kennedy replied to the first letter and ignored the second letter accepting Khrushchev’s offer. He also promised to remove he missiles in Turkey but insisted this promise was to be kept a secret. And finally on October 28th Khrushchev accepted the offer and the crisis is over. The 13 day crisis was one of the biggest reasons why relations between USA and the USSR changed. The effects of the Cuban missile crisis were; Kennedy’s reputation was enhanced as he stood up to Khrushchev and held his ground. Kennedy played down any show of triumph and praised Khrushchev for compromising, as Kennedy knew if he started boasting, that it could have the potential to get Khrushchev angry and maybe even start a war. Khrushchev was criticised by the Chinese for taking the missiles out of Cuba. However, Khrushchev viewed his actions as a success as he got the missiles removed from Turkey. USA agreed that Castro could remain a communist leader. Both leaders realised how close they had actually come to a nuclear war, so a ‘hot line’ to both The White House and The Kremlin was set up in 1963. The Cuban missile crisis also showed how the need for nuclear arms control, so they brought in the ‘Test Treaty Ban’ which banned all nuclear tests except underground tests. In 1969 both signed a treaty on ‘Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’ which paved the way for a period of detente between the superpowers in the 1970’s. These are the effects of the Cuban Missile Crisis on the superpower relations. The relations changed for sure between the USA and the USSR. The events in Cuba changed their relation between them especially when Cuba turned to the USSR for help when USA cut off all trades. But the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest they were to a nuclear war and that would have been devastating. This was the biggest part of their change of relations. How to cite Cuban Missile Crisis, Papers

Coca-Cola Still Number One free essay sample

Coca-Cola has long been a world leader in cola products, with Pepsi being the only competitor coming even remotely close to removing them from their number one spot. However, with increasing globalization comes increasing fear that the success of domestic products may falter. In turn, this results in an increase in domestic producers of similar products in an effort to increase domestic success and limit control of foreign producers. Regardless of these subsequent growths in domestic competitors, Coca-Cola may never truly be outdone. In the early 2000’s, domestic competitors began to arise in Europe and the Middle East in response to Coca-Cola’s control of the cola market. Mecca Cola was launched in an effort to become the new choice of cola for Muslims worldwide, as well as to provide a substitute for the American cola product. This new company pledged to donate twenty percent of its profits to Muslim and Palestinian charities, and even sponsored the peace march in London that demonstrated against the U. S. involvement in the war against Iraq (Gillespie Hennessy, 2011). During that peace march, 36,000 bottles of Mecca Cola were given out along with 10,000 T-shirts bearing the Mecca Cola logo and anti-war slogans. They even equipped a vehicle with a twenty-foot high Mecca Cola can pulling a trailer with an advertisement board bearing the slogan â€Å"Human beings are all born free and equal†¦ and should think before they drink† (Britt, 2003). However, even with Mecca Cola’s pledge to domestic charities and its anti-war campaign, it was not strong enough to overthrow Coca-Cola’s hold on the market. Yet another European competitor was born with the creation of Qibla Cola, which launched in Britain in 2002. Like Mecca Cola, Qibla vowed to donate a percentage of its profits to humanitarian efforts worldwide, and was against the U. S. led war in Iraq. Qibla even went as far as to call for a boycott of all American-made products as a result of the Iraq war. But, like Mecca Cola, Qibla was not strong enough to compete against a world leader like Coca-Cola. Even domestic producers like Zam Zam cola, Iran’s alternative to Coke, couldn’t compete. As Zam Zam expanded further into Middle Eastern markets, Coca-Cola began reintegrate itself into Iran’s markets. None of the European or Middle Eastern producers had what it takes to compete with a global leader like Coca-Cola (Gillespie Hennessy, 2011). In Latin America, however, Coca-Cola faced a legitimate threat in Kola Real, which was produced by Peru natives Eduardo and Mirtha Aranos-Jeri, founders of the Ajegroup. Kola Real was created in response to the rebels in Latin America routinely hijacking Coca-Cola delivery trucks. As a result of these hijackings, the Ajegroup decided to produce its own cola product and distribute it locally. As they did not have the large overhead costs, such as advertising, that Coke did, they were able to sell their cola product at a price considerably lower than that of Coca-Cola. This lower price is what helped the Ajegroup to take a considerable share of the Latin American cola market out of the hands of American-made Coca-Cola. Kola Real was by far more competitive with Coca-Cola than its European and Middle Eastern counterparts (Gillespie Hennessy, 2011). There is a reason that Kola Real was more competitive than both Mecca and Qibla Colas. Compared to Coca-Cola, Mecca Cola and Qibla Cola had some strengths, but had far more weaknesses. The strengths that these two domestic producers contained were simply that they were domestic, they pledged to local charities in an effort to enhance their own communities, and they refused to support American war efforts in Iraq. These factors helped these domestic companies to have slight success in their local markets. However, their lack of price competitiveness, as well as their lack of capital, marketing plans, and knowledge of global integration strategies restrained them from becoming truly competitive with the global leader. In comparison, Ajegroup contained more of the strengths required to compete with a global producer of this magnitude. Being that it was a family business, they were able to avoid some of the costs incurred by larger corporate ventures. For instance, they did not advertise, which permitted them to avoid a considerable production cost. This was a major factor in their ability to price their cola product far below that of Coca-Cola, which in turn allowed them to be competitive in the Latin American cola markets. Also, Ajegroup distributed and sold their products in the smaller mom-and-pop stores that made up the Latin American market. In Mexico alone, these small mom-and-pop type stores make up 75 percent of all cola sales (Gillespie Hennessy, 2011). Ajegroup’s competitive pricing and its locale have contributed to its success in Latin American markets. With its competitive edge, I do think that Ajegroup’s cola product has the potential for success if expanded outside of Latin America. I think if distributed in European or Middle Eastern countries, it may have a chance at being competitive with Coca-Cola in those markets if they can continue to remain competitive with their prices. I also think that they have an opportunity to be successful in those markets as there is no animosity between the areas, whereas there is animosity between these areas and the U. S. Also, Ajegroup has the potential to be competitive if expanded into the U. S. , partially due to its competitive pricing, and partially due to the Hispanic population that would prefer to buy products from their home country. As it is, Ajegroup has already successfully expanded into sixteen different countries with its product â€Å"Big Cola,† including areas in Central and South America, as well as Southeast Asia (Positive Publications, LLC, 2012). Any company has the potential to be competitive when expanding, and with Ajegroup’s already competitive edge in the Latin American markets, I believe they just may have what it takes to expand successfully. Given Ajegroup’s success in the Latin American markets, and the threat it imposed on Coca-Cola’s share, Coke began to retaliate. Coca-Cola began to threaten some of the smaller Latin American stores, stating that if they sold this new cola product, they would pull their own product out of their stores. Coke also â€Å"bought† its distributers’ loyalty by providing things such as free refrigerators to chill their Cokes and life insurance policies for the store owners. Obviously this is something that Ajegroup was in no position to do, so many stores refused to sell their Kola Real product as a result of the threats and/or bribes from Coca-Cola (Gillespie Hennessy, 2011). Coca-Cola abused their market power over distributors in an attempt to retain their power over the Latin American cola markets. I think Coca-Cola could have retained their power over Latin American markets with several strategies that did not involve abusing their power over their distributors. For instance, Coca-Cola has the ability to mass-market, and could have retained a local celebrity or athlete to promote their product. They also could have revamped their product image, making their product more attractive in that particular market. They also could have tried discussing the possibility of partnering up with Ajegroup, which would give them the ability to have not one, but two products dominating the Latin American Markets. Although making the most of the power you already have is most likely the easier route, there are always more ethical options. In conclusion, although domestic competitors arise in response to global competition, Coca-Cola may never truly be outdone. Even though increasing globalization results in an increasing fear of domestic failure, domestic producers may never truly have what it takes to compete against the global giant. Coca-Cola has been, and continues to be the world leader of cola products in markets around the world. References