He notes that for less than a quarter of global annual spending on bottled water, clean water and adequate sanitation could be provided for everyone on earth. Standage recommends that instead of buying bottled water, people donate the money to water charities to achieve this goal.Bottled water does have one thing going for it: It's price and distribution is much less regulated than municipal water systems, which tend to heavily subsidize water, making it available for free or very nearly free regardless of what has to be done to get it to the tap. The amount of water that gets wasted would drop dramatically if tap water prices actually reflected the costs of water.
Standage also notes that much of the time the only safe water in the developing world is bottled water. This would indicate that the first world's demand for bottled water (a "lifestyle choice") makes it harder to purchase for those in the developing world, since increased demand drives up price. However, it is this very demand that makes it possible for bottled water companies to exist in the first place and drives them to continually improve the methods they use to obtain and purify water.
Comments
View as Flat
jdhlax Posted 2:50 pm
02 Aug 2005
On the other hand, buying bottled water is very environmentally destructive, due to the consumption of plastic bottles and the waste problem they create, even if "recycled." (Plastic cannot truly be recycled; in other words, a plastic bottle cannot be made into another plastic bottle, but will be made into something else.) So, one can sacrifice one's health, as we have chosen to do, by using a filter for the chloramine but subjecting ourselves to flouride, or sacrifice the environment but drink water without flouride, though it might have chemicals that leached from the plastic. Sheesh! This is another problem caused by overpopulation that has no solution except lowering the population.
Permalink
MikeCapone Posted 7:31 pm
02 Aug 2005
The biggest environmental impact of bottled water probably is its transport. Water is heavy, and carrying it around in trucks and trains takes a lot of energy (fossil fuels) and creates lots of pollution.
--
SUVs are squared-out minivans.
Permalink
GreenNick Posted 3:15 am
03 Aug 2005
*Imagine the public transportation system we could have if every consumer dollar spent on cars went there instead.
*Imagine the health care we could have if we payed for a universal health system instead of giving money to insurance companies.
*Imagine the libraries we could have if all the money spent at Barnes & Noble went there instead.
Just a few examples of why public goods are better than private ones... and why social democracy is better than capitalism.
Permalink
jdhlax Posted 5:11 pm
03 Aug 2005
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:34 pm
03 Aug 2005
http://amazngdrx.myblogsite.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/4/1107360.html
Permalink
gelfey Posted 9:10 pm
18 Jan 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 12:36 am
19 Jan 2007
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 2:09 am
19 Jan 2007
Recent studies on the aquifer itself have indicated that Fyeburg and surrounding towns are already very close to what they have determined is a sustainable level of withdrawal but studies have neglected to include negative impacts already being seen in nearby lakes and wetlands because of the designated study area (which ends where the lakes begin, like the aquifer somehow has walls around it right there.)
People who benefit from Nestle's water mining are private landowners who stand to become rich by selling land to Nestle once test wells prove there's plenty of clean water to be had.
The aquifer in question runs under the whole of the Saco River watershed. It starts at the headwaters of the Saco in Crawford Notch in the White Mountains of NH and runs though Bartlett, Conway, into Maine until it meets the ocean in Saco, ME. It is a sand and gravel aquifer which means lots of water flows freely through it. The water is very clean (Class A water, nothing needs to be done to it before bottling). Ironically, the past couple of years when most of the research on sustainability have been done, have been very wet years with rainfall above average. We have no idea what would happen if we were to have a couple of years of low rainfall or even drought, which does happen.
I have some sympathy for folks living in towns and cities with terrible water. But I agree that bottled water is no solution, the solution is to upgrade water systems so people can actually drink tap water.
Clean, potable water is more and more rare. Allowing conglomerates to pump it out and bottle it for profit is just wrong.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:40 am
19 Jan 2007
Friends of mine in New Haven, Connecticut, who had an aquarium with fish -- and of course, everyone should understand that when you have an aquarium, the "pet" that you are maintaining is really an enclosed piece of water, and the fish come second -- , needed to drop some potent chemical pill into the water, periodically, in order to neutralize something deadly in the tap water that they used to fill the tank.
Fifteen years ago, when I lived in Poplar, Montana, capital of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, on the left bank of the Missouri, the tap water was disgusting: stinky and brown and foul-tasting. I never knew why. The residents told me it was not always like that, but that not long before, on account of some super-sonic flights flown from the AF base at nearby Glasgow, some subterranean structure "cracked," and the result was some sort of unspeakable pollution. Whatever. Anyway, the water was utterly undrinkable, and shipped-in bottled water was the only solution.
Here in NYC, we have a famously high-quality water supply. My husband and I go through the motions of maintaining a Brita filtered-water tank, but I wonder if it is really necessary.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink