The Knowledge
The Great American Soda Divide: How Geography Shapes What We Call Our Fizzy Drinks
Last Updated on June 28, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Two smiling young women standing and drinking soda outdoors
Ever wonder why your friend from Chicago calls it “pop” while your cousin in California says “soda”? Or why someone from Atlanta might ask for a “Coke” when they actually want a Sprite? Welcome to one of America’s most fascinating linguistic divides – the regional terminology for carbonated soft drinks.
The Big Three: Soda, Pop, and Coke
Across the United States, three main terms dominate the carbonated beverage conversation, each with its own distinct geographical footprint and cultural identity.
“Soda” – The Coastal Choice
Where it’s used: Northeast, West Coast (especially California), most of Florida, and pockets around Milwaukee and St. Louis
The term “soda” has its roots in “soda water” and represents the more formal, urban approach to naming carbonated beverages. This terminology dominates in major metropolitan areas and coastal regions, reflecting the historical influence of early soda fountains and urban development patterns.
Demographics: Typically used in densely populated urban areas, college towns, and regions with higher levels of formal education. The Northeast corridor from Boston to Washington D.C. is solidly “soda” territory.
“Pop” – The Heartland Standard
Where it’s used: Midwest (Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Pennsylvania), Mountain West, and Pacific Northwest
“Pop” gets its name from the distinctive sound a bottle makes when opened – that satisfying “pop!” This term reflects the more casual, down-to-earth culture of America’s heartland and has strong ties to working-class communities and rural areas.
Demographics: Predominantly used in smaller cities, rural communities, and blue-collar neighborhoods. The Great Lakes region is the epicenter of “pop” usage, where it’s not just preferred – it’s practically mandatory.
“Coke” – The Southern Phenomenon
Where it’s used: Throughout the American South, with strongest concentration in Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and parts of Texas
Perhaps the most unique of the three, “Coke” represents a fascinating linguistic phenomenon where a brand name becomes the generic term for an entire category. In the South, you might hear someone say, “I’ll have a Coke,” followed by “What kind?” – leading to responses like “Dr Pepper Coke” or “Sprite Coke.”
Demographics: This usage spans across all socioeconomic levels in the South but is particularly strong in rural areas and among older generations who remember when Coca-Cola truly dominated the regional market.
The Cultural Stories Behind the Words
These regional differences aren’t just random – they tell the story of American migration, industrialization, and cultural identity.
Historical Migration Patterns: The soda/pop divide often follows the paths of 19th-century migration. German and Scandinavian immigrants who settled the Midwest brought linguistic patterns that favored “pop,” while the more formal “soda” took hold in established Eastern cities.
Industrial Influence: The dominance of “Coke” in the South directly reflects Coca-Cola’s Atlanta headquarters and the company’s early marketing dominance in the region. The brand became so synonymous with carbonated drinks that it absorbed the entire category.
Urban vs. Rural Dynamics: “Soda” tends to cluster around major metropolitan areas, while “pop” dominates in smaller cities and rural areas. This reflects broader cultural patterns about formality, tradition, and regional identity.
The Demographics Tell a Story
Recent linguistic studies reveal interesting demographic patterns:
- Age Factor: Older Americans are more likely to use regionally traditional terms, while younger generations show more mixing due to increased mobility and social media influence.
- Education and Income: Higher education levels correlate with “soda” usage, even in traditionally “pop” regions, possibly due to exposure to more diverse linguistic communities.
- Urban Migration: People who move from rural to urban areas often switch from “pop” to “soda,” while the reverse is less common.
Cheerful young man holding bottle of soda nad showing thumbs up over blue background
Modern Mixing and Future Trends
Today’s America is more mobile than ever, and these linguistic boundaries are becoming more fluid. College campuses often become melting pots where students from different regions negotiate these differences. Social media and national advertising campaigns using terms like “soft drinks” or “beverages” are also creating more neutral ground.
However, regional pride keeps these terms alive. Many people view their soda terminology as a badge of regional identity – something that connects them to their hometown and cultural roots.
Why This Matters
This linguistic divide represents something deeper than just word choice. It reflects how geography, history, and culture shape our daily language in ways we rarely notice. Whether you say “soda,” “pop,” or “Coke,” you’re participating in a rich tradition of American regional identity.
The next time you’re traveling and hear someone use a different term, remember – you’re witnessing American linguistic diversity in action. And maybe, just maybe, you’ll appreciate how something as simple as ordering a fizzy drink can connect us to the fascinating tapestry of American culture.
What do you call it in your region? The great American soda debate continues, one fizzy drink at a time.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Local News
Why Arizona Republicans Are Pushing Back on Light Rail to the State Capitol — and What It Means for the West Valley
Arizona’s debate over a proposed light rail extension to the State Capitol has intensified. Supporters argue it promotes connectivity and equity, while Republicans oppose it due to cost concerns and a preference for car-centric infrastructure. The outcome will impact future west-side transit expansions and shape regional transportation priorities.
Arizona’s long-running debate over public transit has flared up again, this time over a proposed Valley Metro light rail extension that would bring rail service closer to the Arizona State Capitol complex. While Phoenix and Valley Metro leaders argue the project is a logical next step in regional mobility, Republican leaders at the state Capitol have mounted strong opposition — creating uncertainty not just for this segment, but for future west-side expansions.
The Case for the Capitol Light Rail Extension
Supporters of the project, including Valley Metro officials, Phoenix city leaders, transit advocates, and many west Phoenix residents, argue that extending light rail toward the Capitol area is both practical and symbolic.
From a planning standpoint, the Capitol is a major employment center that draws thousands of workers, visitors, and students. Transit planners say rail access would reduce congestion, improve air quality, and provide reliable transportation for residents who already depend heavily on public transit.
Proponents also emphasize equity. West Phoenix has historically received fewer infrastructure investments than other parts of the metro area, despite strong transit ridership. For supporters, extending rail service westward is about connecting communities to jobs, education, and government services — not politics.
There is also a broader regional argument: light rail lines function best as part of a connected network. Leaving a gap near a central civic destination, supporters say, undermines long-term system efficiency.
Why Republican Lawmakers Are Opposed
Republican leaders in the Arizona Legislature see the project very differently.
One major issue is cost. GOP lawmakers frequently point to the rising price of light rail construction, which has increased significantly over the past decade. They argue that rail projects deliver limited benefit compared to their expense and that bus service or roadway improvements could move more people at lower cost.
Usage is another concern. Critics note that light rail serves a relatively small percentage of total commuters in the Phoenix metro area and requires ongoing public subsidies to operate. From this perspective, expanding rail further — especially into politically sensitive areas like the Capitol — is viewed as fiscally irresponsible.
There is also a political and legal dimension. In recent years, Republican lawmakers passed legislation restricting light rail construction near the Capitol complex. While framed as a land-use and security issue, critics argue it reflects deeper ideological opposition to rail transit and urban-oriented infrastructure.
Finally, some GOP leaders simply prefer different transportation priorities. Arizona remains a car-centric state, and many Republican officials believe future investments should focus on highways, autonomous vehicle technology, or flexible transit options rather than fixed rail.
A Political Standoff with Real Transit Consequences
The dispute has become a high-stakes standoff between the Republican-controlled Legislature and Democratic leaders at the city and regional level. While lawmakers may not be able to directly cancel the project, they have significant leverage through funding approvals, oversight committees, and future legislation.
This uncertainty creates challenges for Valley Metro, which relies on long-term planning, federal funding commitments, and voter-approved local taxes. Transit systems work best with predictability — and political volatility can drive up costs or delay construction.
What This Means for West Valley Light Rail Expansion
The biggest question is what happens next for west Phoenix and the broader West Valley.
If the Capitol-area extension is altered or blocked, Valley Metro may be forced to redesign routes that avoid the restricted area, potentially making service less direct or less useful. That could weaken the case for future westward expansions toward areas like Maryvale or even farther west.
On the other hand, the controversy has also drawn renewed attention to west-side transit needs. Some advocates believe the political fight could energize local support, leading to stronger community backing and clearer messaging about why rail matters in west Phoenix.
Long term, the outcome may set a precedent. If state lawmakers successfully limit rail construction through legislative action, it could signal tighter constraints on future expansions. If cities push forward despite opposition, it may reaffirm local control over transportation planning.
The Bigger Picture
At its core, the debate over light rail to the Arizona State Capitol reflects a broader clash of visions for the region’s future: one focused on dense, transit-oriented growth, and another centered on fiscal restraint and automobile mobility.
For residents of the West Valley, the stakes are tangible. The decision will shape access to jobs, education, and public services for decades. Whether the project moves forward as planned, is rerouted, or delayed entirely, it will leave a lasting imprint on how — and for whom — the Valley’s transit system grows.
As Phoenix continues to expand westward, the question remains unresolved: will light rail be allowed to follow?
Further Reading & Context
- KJZZ Phoenix – State Politics & Transportation Coverage
In-depth reporting on Arizona legislative actions, Valley Metro planning, and Capitol-area transit disputes. - Valley Metro – Capitol / West Extension Project Page
Official project updates, maps, timelines, and explanations from the regional transit authority. - City of Phoenix Public Transit Department
City-level planning documents and policy perspectives on light rail expansion and transit equity. - Arizona State Legislature – Transportation & Infrastructure Bills
Primary source for legislation affecting light rail construction near the Capitol and statewide transit policy. - Cronkite News (Arizona PBS)
Nonpartisan reporting on Arizona infrastructure, urban growth, and political power dynamics. - Axios Phoenix
Concise breakdowns of Phoenix City Council decisions and regional transportation debates. - Federal Highway Administration – Public Transportation Planning
Federal perspective on transit funding, cost comparisons, and long-term mobility planning.
Authors
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Knowledge
Metro Board Advances Sepulveda Transit Corridor as C Line South Bay Extension Remains Under Review
The Los Angeles Metro Board meeting addressed progress on two key rail projects: the approved underground Sepulveda Transit Corridor, enhancing regional connectivity, and the debated extension of the Metro C Line into the South Bay, which remains undecided.
The future of Los Angeles transit was the focus of a recent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board meeting, where directors considered progress on two major rail projects: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor and the long-planned extension of the Metro C Line into the South Bay.
While the meeting resulted in a decisive vote on one project, the other continues to generate debate among Metro officials, local cities, and residents.
Sepulveda Transit Corridor: Underground Heavy Rail Moves Forward
The Metro Board unanimously approved the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, marking a major milestone for a project that has been discussed for decades.
The approved alternative calls for a fully underground heavy rail subway connecting the San Fernando Valley to the Westside, running from the Van Nuys Metrolink Station to the Metro E Line’s Expo/Sepulveda Station. The line would pass beneath the Sepulveda Pass, UCLA, and other high-demand travel areas.
Metro officials emphasized that the underground alignment offers the fastest travel times, highest passenger capacity, and the fewest surface-level impacts when compared with earlier aerial or monorail alternatives. The project is expected to significantly reduce congestion along the 405 Freeway corridor and improve regional connectivity.
With the LPA now selected, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor advances toward final environmental clearance, engineering, and eventual construction — a process that will continue over the coming years.
Metro C Line Extension: South Bay Alignment Debate Continues
The Board also discussed the Metro C Line extension into the South Bay, a project intended to extend light rail service approximately 4.5 miles from the current Redondo Beach station to the Torrance Transit Center.
Metro has released the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which incorporates years of technical analysis and public input. However, unlike the Sepulveda project, the Board did not take final action to certify the FEIR or formally adopt a locally preferred alignment at this meeting.
Hawthorne Boulevard vs. Metro Right-of-Way
At the center of the C Line discussion is the question of alignment.
Metro staff has identified a “hybrid” alignment using an existing Metro-owned rail right-of-way as the preferred option. This route would largely follow the historic Harbor Subdivision corridor, minimizing new street disruptions while blending at-grade, elevated, and below-grade segments.
Some South Bay cities, however, continue to advocate for a Hawthorne Boulevard alignment, which would place rail tracks within the median of the busy commercial corridor. Supporters argue it offers better street-level access, while Metro has cited higher costs, longer construction timelines, and greater traffic impacts as key concerns.
Metro officials indicated that additional coordination with local jurisdictions and further Board action will be needed before a final decision is made.
What This Means for LA Transit
The contrast between the two projects was clear at the meeting: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor is now firmly on a defined path forward, while the C Line extension remains in a critical decision-making phase.
Together, the projects highlight both the ambition and complexity of expanding transit in Los Angeles County — balancing regional mobility goals, neighborhood impacts, and long-term funding realities.
Further Reading & Official Project Information
Metro Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Page
– Official Metro overview of the Sepulveda Pass project, including alternatives, maps, timelines, and environmental documents.
Metro Board Considers Locally Preferred Alternative for Sepulveda Corridor
– Metro’s summary of the Board action and rationale behind selecting the underground heavy rail option.
Metro C Line Extension to Torrance Project Page
– Background, station concepts, and status updates for the South Bay light rail extension.
Final Environmental Impact Report: C Line Extension
– Details on the Final EIR, public comments, and next steps toward Board certification.
Metro Project Updates – The Source
– Ongoing Metro blog updates covering major transit projects, board actions, and construction milestones.
LA Metro Board of Directors
– Information on Metro Board members, meeting schedules, agendas, and voting records.
STM Daily News will continue to follow both projects closely, providing updates as Metro moves toward final approvals, construction timelines, and funding decisions that will shape how Angelenos travel for decades to come.
For ongoing coverage of Metro projects, transportation policy, and infrastructure across Southern California, visit STM Daily News.
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
News
From FIFA to the LA Clippers, carbon offset scandals are exposing the gap between sports teams’ green promises and reality
Under Steve Ballmer’s ownership, the LA Clippers have made strides in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, yet concerns arise over the efficacy of their carbon offsets, especially following issues with their partner, Aspiration. Many sports organizations face scrutiny for their offset claims, highlighting a need for transparent, verified carbon reduction strategies and a reassessment of sustainability practices in the industry.
Brian P. McCullough, University of Michigan and Edward Carrington, University of Michigan
If you go to a pro sports event today, there’s a good chance the stadium or arena will be powered at least in part by renewable energy. The team likely takes steps to reduce energy and waste. Some even claim to have net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, meaning any emissions they still do produce they offset by paying for projects, such as tree-planting, that reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere.
The venue upgrades have been impressive – Seattle’s hockey and basketball arena runs on 100% renewable energy, makes its rink ice from captured rainwater, and offers free public transit for ticket holders.
But how much of the teams’ offset purchases are actually doing the good that they claim?
It’s an important question, in part because fans may ultimately pay for those offsets.
The cost of carbon offsetting in sports varies by organization, with no industry standard for who pays. Some teams and leagues absorb costs through their operational budgets, treating carbon neutrality as a core responsibility. Others pass costs to consumers: Some teams add sustainability fees to ticket prices to offset each attendee’s carbon footprint. The payment model ultimately reflects whether an organization views offsetting as an institutional obligation or a shared responsibility with fans.
Carbon offsets in sports are also in the news, with scandals erupting around them in connection with sports from FIFA’s 2022 World Cup to basketball’s LA Clippers.
As sport management researchers, we have been following offset agreements and other sustainability commitments that teams and sports leagues such as FIFA have been making to see whether they translate into measurable environmental outcomes. We see lots of good intentions but also a disturbing amount of failures and outright fraud.
Where sports teams’ emissions come from
The vast majority of a sports team’s climate footprint comes from team’s and fans’ travel, which they have little control over. Leagues can reduce teams’ travel somewhat with creative scheduling, but unlike other industries, sports teams have few ways to reduce the bulk of their emissions.
What many of them do instead is offset those travel emissions by buying carbon credits.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/C9q2E/1
Carbon credits are generated by projects that reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere or prevent greenhouse gas emissions. Many of those projects involve planting trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere; others expand clean energy to reduce fossil fuel use. Each carbon credit is supposed to represent the reduction or prevention of one metric ton of carbon dioxide.
However, carbon offset projects have come under scrutiny in recent years. Tree-planting projects, the most common type, take time to meet their promise as the trees grow, and wildfires and logging can wipe out the benefit. Studies have found that companies tend to buy cheap, low-quality carbon credits, which run a risk of exaggerating their carbon reduction claims or providing results that would have happened anyway, leaving no real climate benefit.
Unfortunately, several teams, perhaps unknowingly, have been purchasing fraudulent or low-quality credits.
Reputations at risk
FIFA brought the sports world’s carbon offset problem into the spotlight during the 2022 Qatar World Cup.
FIFA claimed the event would be carbon neutral, but that claim relied on creative accounting that understated the event’s construction and travel emissions. Organizers also used low-quality offsets. Many of those offsets were renewable energy projects with a high likelihood of being built anyway.
A year after the tournament, FIFA had completed offset purchases for less than a third of the World Cup’s estimated emissions, the nonprofit Carbon Market Watch found. And Switzerland’s advertising regulator ordered FIFA to stop claiming the World Cup had been “carbon neutral.”
The Clippers and baseball’s Boston Red Sox ran into problems when they publicly partnered with Aspiration, a now-bankrupt finance technology company and carbon credit broker, to meet their “carbon neutral” claims.
The Clippers had a US$300 million partnership with Aspiration that included paying the company at least $56 million for carbon credits in mid-2022, The New York Times reported. Both teams also had plans with Aspiration to offer fans a way to buy carbon credits to cover their own travel when purchasing tickets.
However, Aspiration officials claimed to have supported millions more tree-plantings than what had actually happened, a ProPublica investigation found. Aspiration co-founder Joe Sanberg pleaded guilty in 2025 to wire fraud involving false statements about financing to secure loans and attract investors, who lost at least $248 million.
The Aspiration partnership is also under investigation by the NBA over an endorsement deal the company made with Clippers all-star Kawhi Leonard at about the same time and questions about whether it was used to violate the league’s salary cap. Team owner Steve Ballmer, who personally invested at least $50 million in Aspiration, told ESPN he and the team did nothing wrong. “They conned me,” he said.
While the scandal focused on financial fraud and the salary cap, it also raised questions about the team’s sustainability claim.
Without verification, who knows?
In some cases, the value of offset projects is difficult to verify, even when trees are being planted nearby.
The Seattle Sounders FC declared itself the first carbon-neutral professional soccer team in North America in 2019 by cutting its waste, water and energy use and offsetting its remaining emissions through the nonprofit organization Forterra, which plants trees in the Puget Sound region.
While the effort positioned the club as a sustainability leader, the offsets lacked what’s known as third-party verification. Similar to how organic food must be certified by reputable agencies, third-party validation of carbon credits ensures credits truly represent the removal of carbon from the atmosphere or avoided emissions.
Without verification, it’s unclear whether claimed emission reductions are permanent, accurately tracked and transparently reported.
Potential legal consequences
Even the most prominent venues are susceptible to issues with unreliable credits.
Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle has been celebrated as the world’s first “zero-carbon” certified arena, with electric Zambonis, recycled materials, renewable energy and free public transit. It represents one of the most ambitious pushes to develop sustainable sport infrastructure globally.
To offset unavoidable construction emissions, the arena’s owner relied on carbon credits tied to projects meant to reduce rainforest loss in Colombia. However, an analysis by the carbon rating company Calyx Global found that while the arena’s credits may prevent some deforestation, the numbers likely overstate the benefits.
A 2023 report suggested that over 90% of rainforest carbon credits from the leading certifier of offsets lack evidence that they reduced deforestation. The certifier disputed that conclusion but is working to revise its review process.
When credits fail to offset real emissions, that erodes public trust and can expose organizations to potential legal consequences.
Delta Air Lines, for example, is facing a lawsuit over its carbon neutrality claim. The suit alleges that Delta misled passengers by describing itself as a “carbon-neutral airline” while relying on carbon offset projects that were ineffective or “junk.”
Time for some strategic reassessment
These and other failures in the carbon credit market suggest the industry needs to fundamentally reassess how sports teams achieve their climate goals.
To provide meaningful sustainability commitments, sports organizations and facilities can start at home by lowering their fossil fuel use and increasing their energy efficiency. Many arenas do this.
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/O1mkr/1
Leagues can design game schedules to reduce team and fan travel. Many of the Paris Olympics venues in 2022, for example, were connected by subway or bus. The 2026 FIFA World Cup, in contrast, has venues hundreds of miles apart across North America, meaning potentially higher emissions from fan travel.
Where offsets will still play a role, teams can ensure that they partner with verified carbon credit providers that deliver measurable, transparent carbon reductions.
In a field where public trust and reputation matter as much as performance, the sports industry cannot afford foul play on climate. We believe a shift toward strategies that cut emissions first, and then use only the most credible offsets, will be the difference between striking out and leading the sustainability game.
Brian P. McCullough, Associate Professor of Sport Management, University of Michigan and Edward Carrington, Assistant in Research in Sports Management, University of Michigan
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Author
Discover more from Daily News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
