For once Greenpeace is fighting for a good cause

It does not happen often that I find myself agreeing with something Greenpeace is doing. But in this case, I think they should be supported: 

Greenpeace has launched a new crowd-funded campaign to protest the federal court’s decision to support Coca-Cola in its fight against a Northern Territory recycling plant.

Three days ago the Australian federal court sanctioned the dismantling of a Northern Territory 10c deposit recycling scheme after Coke argued the initiative, introduced in January last year, was costly and ineffective.

The scheme was similar to one which has been running in South Australia since 1977.

The soft drink company argued the extra 10 cents added to its products was unfair to consumers, despite the fee being refundable. --

Greenpeace said that in two weeks over 50,000 people had already signed up to the campaign calling on politicians to implement a national ‘Cash for containers’ scheme.

Depicted in the ad is a flesh-footed shearwater from Lord Howe Island, which starved on a full stomach - full of plastic waste it had mistaken for food.

According to Greenpeace, two-thirds of seabirds are affected by plastic trash which pollutes our waterways, rivers and end up in the ocean.

Other species known to be impacted by plastic pollution in our oceans include turtles, whales, seals and fish and Greenpeace asserts that one of the biggest culprits is creating this plastic pollution is the beverage industry.

However, I cannot understand, why there is a need to launch a campaign in order to stop Coca-Cola from opposing the recycling plant. 

Only a few weeks ago Greenpeace International boss Kumi Naidoo boasted about his close relationship with Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent:

"A few weeks ago, the McDonald's chief executive pulled out of the Natural Refrigerants Alliance. So to get them back in, I had two options: start another campaign against McDonald's – which eats up resource time – or use another route. So I had 15 minutes with Muhtar Kent, chief executive, Coca Cola, and I said he needed to pick up the phone and call the chief executive of McDonald's, who he is friends with, and he agreed to it. Also, I am able to call Kent and say "Listen, I understand that you are a part of this association at the state level that has been lobbying against climate, and you guys have to make up your mind which side of the fence are you on because it is inconsistent. You are doing some really positive things on climate action in your practice, but actually you're part of a business coalition that is pushing in the other direction."

Why doesn't Kumi just pick up the phone, and tell Kent to stop Coca-Cola's fight against the recycling plant? Or is their relationship restricted only to the AGW hoax?