MySpace


Do Not Buy Bottled Water



Last Updated: 3/21/2009

Send Message
Instant Message
Email to a Friend
Subscribe

Gender: Male
Status: Single
Age: 102
Sign: Aquarius

Country: US
Signup Date: 9/14/2007

Blog Archive
[Older      Newer]
 /  / 
Friday, July 17, 2009 

Category: Goals, Plans, Hopes

Small Australian Town Stands Up for the Tap

by Meraiah Foley

BUNDANOON, AUSTRALIA - When the residents of Bundanoon voted last week to stop selling bottled water in town, they never expected to be thrust into the global spotlight.
[Locals in this tourist town touched off a worldwide debate about the social and environmental effects of bottled water that has put the beverage industry on the defensive. (Adam Ferguson The International Herald Tribune)]Locals in this tourist town touched off a worldwide debate about the social and environmental effects of bottled water that has put the beverage industry on the defensive. (Adam Ferguson The International Herald Tribune)
With a nearly unanimous show of hands at a community meeting on July 8, locals in this tourist town touched off a worldwide debate about the social and environmental effects of bottled water that has put the beverage industry on the defensive.

State and local officials across the United States have been phasing out the use of bottled water at government workplaces in recent years, citing a range of concerns including the energy used to make and transport the bottles and an erosion of public trust in municipal water supplies. But as far as campaigners are aware, Bundanoon is the first town in the world to stop all sales of bottled water.

Set in the cool highlands southwest of Sydney, Bundanoon is a sleepy village of tidy gardens and quaint cottages surrounded by the weekend estates of wealthy urbanites. It is the sort of place where strangers strike up conversations on park benches along the picturesque main street and townsfolk leave fresh flowers on the local war memorial.

According to Huw Kingston, the owner of Ye Olde Bicycle Shoppe and a leader of the "Bundy on Tap" campaign, the ban did not begin as an environmental crusade. It started when a Sydney-based bottling company sought permission to extract millions of liters from the local aquifer.

At first, residents were upset at the prospect of tanker trucks rumbling through their quiet streets. But as opposition grew, Mr. Kingston said many began to question the "bizarre" notion of trucking water some 160 kilometers, or 100 miles, north to a plant in Sydney, only to transport it somewhere else - possibly even back to Bundanoon - for sale.

"We became aware, as a community, of what the bottled water industry was all about," said Mr. Kingston. "So the idea was floated that if we don't want an extraction plant in our town, maybe we shouldn't be selling the end product at all."

A dozen or so activists got together and called a community meeting. Of the 356 locals who turned out to vote by a show of hands, only one objected.

The ban is entirely voluntary. But with the support of the public, the town's six food retailers have agreed to pull bottled water from their shelves starting in September. They plan to recoup their losses by selling inexpensive, reusable bottles that can be filled at drinking fountains and filtered water dispensers to be placed around town.
Some of the town's 2,500 residents say they support the plan because they worry about the effects of chemicals in plastic bottles; some view it as a positive demonstration against the water plant. Others, however, are skeptical that the cash-strapped local council will be able to maintain the new drinking fountains. And others worry about the health implications of leaving only sweetened alternatives on refrigerator shelves.

"I don't see why water should be picked on," said Trevor Fenton, a retired Bundanoon resident. "What I'd like is to see them get rid of all the soft drinks, but they'd never do that."

Environmentalists have been gaining traction in the fight against bottled water. In addition to the new restrictions by state and local governments in the United States, many high-profile restaurateurs have also begun replacing fancy imported water with tap water.

The attention has irked the industry, which is worth around $60 billion a year worldwide and about $400 million a year in Australia. Industry groups say it is unfair to single out bottled water when many other consumer goods - like disposable diapers and imported produce, cheese and wine - have an equal or greater impact on the environment.
In Australia, most bottled water is produced domestically, in recyclable bottles that make up a very small proportion of landfill waste, according to Geoff Parker, the chief executive of the Australasian Bottled Water Institute, which represents giants like Coca-Cola and Schweppes.

"We need to keep the product in perspective," said Mr. Parker. "There are tens of thousands of products in the fast-moving consumer goods sector, and we would suggest that there are a vast number that would have a larger carbon footprint than bottled water."

The issue has touched a nerve. The day of the Bundanoon vote, the state government in New South Wales announced that it would stop buying bottled water, prompting the federal environment minister to urge other states to follow suit. The moves set off a flurry of newspaper editorials over the weekend and set the lines ablaze on talk radio shows across Australia.

The bemused shopkeepers of Bundanoon say they have been swamped with calls from international news outlets and have even been offered a supply of specially branded reusable water bottles from a major European supplier.

Outside his newspaper and magazine store, Peter Stewart said the extra focus on Bundanoon is worth the $1,200 a year he expects to lose on bottled water sales.
"That a group of people can get together over a few months and make headlines all over the world, it's just amazing," he said. "There's a lot of pride in town."
Saturday, August 09, 2008 

Category: News and Politics
Published on Tuesday, August 5, 2008 by Environmental News Service (ENS)

California Fights Nestle's Plan to Bottle Pristine Waters

SACRAMENTO, California - The State of California will challenge the environmental plan for a bottled water plant that Nestle Waters North America intends to build in Siskiyou County if the company does not revise its contract to pump water from the McCloud River, says the state's top lawyer.0805 02 1

"It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States," said California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr.

"Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles," Brown warned in a letter to the company July 28.

On the same day, the company issued a press release agreeing to a study and evaluation of the intended primary source of water for the project, Squaw Valley Creek, a tributary of the McCloud River.

Nestle has contracted with North State Resources to conduct the study, while scientists from the University of California-Berkeley and UC Davis will supply data and oversight of the evaluation.

Data on the existing hydrology and biology of the Squaw Valley creek watershed will be used to develop baseline information to improve understanding of the watershed.

"Nestle Waters is committed to ensuring that our projects are consistent with the sustainability and long-term availability of water in the communities in which we are located," said Nestle project manager Dave Palais.

"We are excited to get this important work started to help us better understand the watershed. The combination of North State Resources understanding and expertise in Northern California with the knowledge of some of California's leading scientists from the University of California will result in the development of valuable data that will benefit the McCloud Community for years to come," said Palais.

The press release states that Nestle will conduct further studies on air and water quality, traffic conditions, hazardous materials and also will explore the potential impact of climate change on water supply which will be included in a new draft environmental impact report.

Nestle, the biggest food company in the world, signed a water supply contract with the town of McCloud in 2003, but many residents oppose the deal, which they contend was signed without public participation.

The attorney general said the company's draft environmental impact report, DEIR, "fails to address in any meaningful way the project's likely environmental impacts."

"The DEIR fails to analyze the global warming impacts of the project even though bouling and transporting water are highly energy-intensive," wrote Brown. "Nor does the DEIR adequately examine the impacts of the project on air quality, water quality of the McCloud River and its tributaries, biological resources, or solid waste.

The McCloud River is unique among California's larger rivers in that most of its water derives from springs and underground lava aquifers rather than from rainfall or snowfall. The river and its associated riparian area provide habitat for over 200 wildlife species. The Lower McCloud has been designated a Wild Trout Stream by the state Department of Fish and Game.

As originally proposed. the project would allow Nestle to bottle 520 million gallons of spring water, and potentially unlimited groundwater, from the McCloud River watershed each year for the next 50 years for sale and distribution. Nestle would construct a one million square foot water bottling facility on the site of a former lumber mill, where it would bottle spring water and other beverages.

Nestle recently indicated that its revised proposal will reduce the size of the facility to 350,000 square feet and the annual water take from 1,600 acre fect per year to 600 acre feet per year - a reduction of approximately 60 percent

In a letter sent to Siskiyou County Planning Department Interim Planning Director Terry Barber on July 28, the attorney general said that "the environmental review for the previously proposed project had serious deficiencies."

Brown said "the suggested changes would require significant revision of the contract between Nestle and the McCloud Community Services District, a new, formal project proposal, and circulation of a new Draft Environmental Impact Report."

Brown also said the environmental analysis fails to consider the global warming impacts of producing and transporting millions of gallons of water including greenhouse gases from producing the plastic bottles, electrical demand for the project, and diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions from trucks transporting the bottled water to market.

The attorney general has asked Siskiyou County to revise its environmental impact report and circulate a new draft of the environmental impact report.

Saturday, August 09, 2008 

Category: Life
Take Back The Tap: 50,000 People Say No To Bottled Water At Slow Food Nation

Largest Food Gathering in America Educates Consumers on Health, Environmental Impacts of Bottled Water
.. --> EndEditable --> .. --> BeginEditable "Body" -->

WASHINGTON - August 5 - According to a new guide released by Food & Water Watch, event organizers, whether throwing garden parties, conferences, or citywide street festivals, can join the growing movement against bottled water. The national consumer advocacy group, which is working with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the design firm SMWM to provide tap water for the inaugural Slow Food Nation event over Labor Day weekend, has been working with restaurateurs and city mayors across the country. Now, the group is aiming to help event planners and caterers break the bottled water habit and join their Take Back the Tap campaign.

"Slow Food Nation will be a model for caterers, conference planners or anyone who wants to plan an event that excludes bottled water and will be the perfect opportunity to show how much difference people can make with a change of habit on a large-scale," says Wenonah Hauter, Food & Water Watch Executive Director.

"We want people to make the connection between the plate and the planet, and that includes drink," says Anya Fernald, executive director of Slow Food Nation. The non-profit organization is with a subsidiary of Slow Food USA, part of a growing global movement dedicated to deepening people's understanding of the environmental connection to food.

The Slow Food Nation event will showcase sustainable agriculture and healthful eating, and offer tap water at various water distribution stations set up throughout the facilities. Food & Water Watch developed a how-to guide in response to a growing trend in bottled water-free event planning, including trade shows, conferences, and university events, as well as festivals and specialty events.

The guide, "Free Your Event from Bottled Water," breaks down the planning process into ten key steps, offering useful tips such as how to calculate the amount of water an event requires and deciding which water filtration device to use. The guide will supplement other resources created by Food & Water Watch to help educate consumers and businesses about why choosing tap water is better for people's health, their pocketbooks, and the environment.

"Serving tap water at events like Slow Food Nation is clearly economically and environmentally beneficial," states Hauter. "Not only does it save money, but it also saves your event from being littered with empty water bottles that may end up clogging our landfills."

Anya Fernald agrees. "Tap water is the slow water equivalent of slow food. The goal is for people to leave the event with one, two or three things they can do to change the way they're eating and interacting with the environment. Tap water is one way to do that."

"Free Your Event from Bottled Water" is available online, at http://foodandwaterwatch.org/free-your-event-from-bottled-water

Food & Water Watch is a nonprofit consumer rights organization based in Washington, D.C. that challenges the corporate control and abuse of our food and water resources. Visit www.foodandwaterwatch.org.
Friday, July 04, 2008 

Category: Food and Restaurants

Message in a Bottle

By: Charles Fishman
FastCompany.com



Americans spent more money last year on bottled water than on ipods or movie tickets: $15 Billion. A journey into the economics--and psychology--of an unlikely business boom. And what it says about our culture of indulgence.


The largest bottled-water factory in North America is located on the outskirts of Hollis, Maine. In the back of the plant stretches the staging area for finished product: 24 million bottles of Poland Spring water. As far as the eye can see, there are double-stacked pallets packed with half-pint bottles, half-liters, liters, "Aquapods" for school lunches, and 2.5-gallon jugs for the refrigerator.

Really, it is a lake of Poland Spring water, conveniently celled off in plastic, extending across 6 acres, 8 feet high. A week ago, the lake was still underground; within five days, it will all be gone, to supermarkets and convenience stores across the Northeast, replaced by another lake's worth of bottles.

Looking at the piles of water, you can have only one thought: Americans sure are thirsty.

Bottled water has become the indispensable prop in our lives and our culture. It starts the day in lunch boxes; it goes to every meeting, lecture hall, and soccer match; it's in our cubicles at work; in the cup holder of the treadmill at the gym; and it's rattling around half-finished on the floor of every minivan in America. Fiji Water shows up on the ABC show Brothers & Sisters; Poland Spring cameos routinely on NBC's The Office. Every hotel room offers bottled water for sale, alongside the increasingly ignored ice bucket and drinking glasses. At Whole Foods, the upscale emporium of the organic and exotic, bottled water is the number-one item by units sold.

Thirty years ago, bottled water barely existed as a business in the United States. Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets--$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year.

Bottled water is the food phenomenon of our times. We--a generation raised on tap water and water fountains--drink a billion bottles of water a week, and we're raising a generation that views tap water with disdain and water fountains with suspicion. We've come to pay good money--two or three or four times the cost of gasoline--for a product we have always gotten, and can still get, for free, from taps in our homes.

When we buy a bottle of water, what we're often buying is the bottle itself, as much as the water. We're buying the convenience--a bottle at the 7-Eleven isn't the same product as tap water, any more than a cup of coffee at Starbucks is the same as a cup of coffee from the Krups machine on your kitchen counter. And we're buying the artful story the water companies tell us about the water: where it comes from, how healthy it is, what it says about us. Surely among the choices we can make, bottled water isn't just good, it's positively virtuous.

Except for this: Bottled water is often simply an indulgence, and despite the stories we tell ourselves, it is not a benign indulgence. We're moving 1 billion bottles of water around a week in ships, trains, and trucks in the United States alone. That's a weekly convoy equivalent to 37,800 18-wheelers delivering water. (Water weighs 81/3 pounds a gallon. It's so heavy you can't fill an 18-wheeler with bottled water--you have to leave empty space.)

Meanwhile, one out of six people in the world has no dependable, safe drinking water. The global economy has contrived to deny the most fundamental element of life to 1 billion people, while delivering to us an array of water "varieties" from around the globe, not one of which we actually need. That tension is only complicated by the fact that if we suddenly decided not to purchase the lake of Poland Spring water in Hollis, Maine, none of that water would find its way to people who really are thirsty.

A chilled plastic bottle of water in the convenience-store cooler is the perfect symbol of this moment in American commerce and culture. It acknowledges our demand for instant gratification, our vanity, our token concern for health. Its packaging and transport depend entirely on cheap fossil fuel. Yes, it's just a bottle of water--modest compared with the indulgence of driving a Hummer. But when a whole industry grows up around supplying us with something we don't need--when a whole industry is built on the packaging and the presentation--it's worth asking how that happened, and what the impact is. And if you do ask, if you trace both the water and the business back to where they came from, you find a story more complicated, more bemusing, and ultimately more sobering than the bottles we tote everywhere suggest.

In the town of San Pellegrino Terme, Italy, for example, is a spigot that runs all the time, providing San Pellegrino water free to the local citizens--except the free Pellegrino has no bubbles. Pellegrino trucks in the bubbles for the bottling plant. The man who first brought bottled water to the United States famously failed an impromptu taste test involving his own product. In Maine, there is a marble temple to honor our passion for bottled water.

And in Fiji, a state-of-the-art factory spins out more than a million bottles a day of the hippest bottled water on the U.S. market today, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have safe, reliable drinking water. Which means it is easier for the typical American in Beverly Hills or Baltimore to get a drink of safe, pure, refreshing Fiji water than it is for most people in Fiji.

At the Peninsula hotel in Beverly Hills, where the rooms start at $500 a night and the guest next door might well be an Oscar winner, the minibar in all 196 rooms contains six bottles of Fiji Water. Before Fiji Water displaced Evian, Diet Coke was the number-one-selling minibar item. Now, says Christian Boyens, the Peninsula's elegant director of food and beverage, "the 1 liter of Fiji Water is number one. Diet Coke is number two. And the 500-milliliter bottle of Fiji is number three."

Being the water in the Peninsula minibar is so desirable--not just for the money to be made, but for the exposure with the Peninsula's clientele--that Boyens gets a sales call a week from a company trying to dislodge Fiji.

Boyens, who has an MBA from Cornell, used to be indifferent to water. Not anymore. His restaurants and bars carry 20 different waters. "Sometimes a guest will ask for Poland Spring, and you can't get Poland Spring in California," he says. So what does he do? "We'll call the Peninsula in New York and have them FedEx out a case.

"I thought water was water. But our customers know what they want."

The marketing of bottled water is subtle compared with the marketing of, say, soft drinks or beer. The point of Fiji Water in the minibar at the Peninsula, or at the center of the table in a white-tablecloth restaurant, is that guests will try it, love it, and buy it at a store the next time they see it.

Which isn't difficult, because the water aisle in a suburban supermarket typically stocks a dozen brands of water--not including those enhanced with flavors or vitamins or, yes, oxygen. In 1976, the average American drank 1.6 gallons of bottled water a year, according to Beverage Marketing Corp. Last year, we each drank 28.3 gallons of bottled water--18 half-liter bottles a month. We drink more bottled water than milk, or coffee, or beer. Only carbonated soft drinks are more popular than bottled water, at 52.9 gallons annually.

No one has experienced this transformation more profoundly than Kim Jeffery. Jeffery began his career in the water business in the Midwest in 1978, selling Perrier ("People didn't know whether to put it in their lawn mower or drink it," he says). Now he's the CEO of Nestlé Waters North America, in charge of U.S. sales of Perrier, San Pellegrino, Poland Spring, and a portfolio of other regional natural springwaters. Combined, his brands will sell some $4.5 billion worth of water this year (generating roughly $500 million in pretax profit). Jeffery insists that unlike the soda business, which is stoked by imaginative TV and marketing campaigns, the mainstream water business is, quite simply, "a force of nature."

"The entire bottled-water business today is half the size of the carbonated beverage industry," says Jeffery, "but our marketing budget is 15% of what they spend. When you put a bottle of water in that cold box, it's the most thirst-quenching beverage there is. There's nothing in it that's not good for you. People just know that intuitively.

"A lot of people tell me, you guys have done some great marketing to get customers to pay for water," Jeffery says. "But we aren't that smart. We had to have a hell of a lot of help from the consumer."

Still, we needed help learning to drink bottled water. For that, we can thank the French.

Gustave Leven was the chairman of Source Perrier when he approached an American named Bruce Nevins in 1976. Nevins was working for the athletic-wear company Pony. Leven was a major Pony investor. "He wanted me to consider the water business in the U.S.," Nevins says. "I was a bit reluctant." Back then, the American water industry was small and fusty, built on home and office delivery of big bottles and grocery sales of gallon jugs.

Fiji Water produces more than a million bottles a day, while more than half the people in Fiji do not have reliable drinking water.

Nevins looked out across 1970s America, though, and had an epiphany: Perrier wasn't just water. It was a beverage. The opportunity was in persuading people to drink Perrier when they would otherwise have had a cocktail or a Coke. Americans were already drinking 30 gallons of soft drinks each a year, and the three-martini lunch was increasingly viewed as a problem. Nevins saw a niche.

From the start, Nevins pioneered a three-part strategy. First, he connected bottled water to exclusivity: In 1977, just before Perrier's U.S. launch, he flew 60 journalists to France to visit "the source" where Perrier bubbled out of the ground. He connected Perrier to health, sponsoring the New York City Marathon, just as long-distance running was exploding as a fad across America. And he associated Perrier with celebrity, launching with $4 million in TV commercials featuring Orson Welles. It worked. In 1978, its first full year in the United States, Perrier sold $20 million of water. The next year, sales tripled to $60 million.

What made Perrier distinctive was that it was a sparkling water, served in a signature glass bottle. But that's also what left the door open for Evian, which came to the United States in 1984. Evian's U.S. marketing was built around images of toned young men and women in tight clothes sweating at the gym. Madonna drank Evian--often onstage at concerts. "If you were cool, you were drinking bottled water," says Ed Slade, who became Evian's vice president of marketing in 1990. "It was a status symbol."

Evian was also a still water, which Americans prefer; and it was the first to offer a plastic bottle nationwide. The clear bottle allowed us to see the water--how clean and refreshing it looked on the shelf. Americans have never wanted water in cans, which suggest a tinny aftertaste before you take a sip. The plastic bottle, in fact, did for water what the pop-top can had done for soda: It turned water into an anywhere, anytime beverage, at just the moment when we decided we wanted a beverage, everywhere, all the time.

Perrier and Evian launched the bottled-water business just as it would prove irresistible. Convenience and virtue aligned. Two-career families, overprogrammed children, prepared foods in place of home-cooked meals, the constant urging to eat more healthfully and drink less alcohol--all reinforce the value of bottled water. But those trends also reinforce the mythology.

We buy bottled water because we think it's healthy. Which it is, of course: Every 12-year-old who buys a bottle of water from a vending machine instead of a 16-ounce Coke is inarguably making a healthier choice. But bottled water isn't healthier, or safer, than tap water. Indeed, while the United States is the single biggest consumer in the world's $50 billion bottled-water market, it is the only one of the top four--the others are Brazil, China, and Mexico--that has universally reliable tap water. Tap water in this country, with rare exceptions, is impressively safe. It is monitored constantly, and the test results made public. Mineral water has a long association with medicinal benefits--and it can provide minerals that people need--but there are no scientific studies establishing that routinely consuming mineral water improves your health. The FDA, in fact, forbids mineral waters in the United States from making any health claims.

f the water we use at home cost what even cheap bottled water costs, our monthly water bills would run $9,000.

And for this healthy convenience, we're paying what amounts to an unbelievable premium. You can buy a half- liter Evian for $1.35--17 ounces of water imported from France for pocket change. That water seems cheap, but only because we aren't paying attention.

In San Francisco, the municipal water comes from inside Yosemite National Park. It's so good the EPA doesn't require San Francisco to filter it. If you bought and drank a bottle of Evian, you could refill that bottle once a day for 10 years, 5 months, and 21 days with San Francisco tap water before that water would cost $1.35. Put another way, if the water we use at home cost what even cheap bottled water costs, our monthly water bills would run $9,000.

Taste, of course, is highly personal. New Yorkers excepted, Americans love to belittle the quality of their tap water. But in blind taste tests, with waters at equal temperatures, presented in identical glasses, ordinary people can rarely distinguish between tap water, springwater, and luxury waters. At the height of Perrier's popularity, Bruce Nevins was asked on a live network radio show one morning to pick Perrier from a lineup of seven carbonated waters served in paper cups. It took him five tries.

We are actually in the midst of a second love affair with bottled water. In the United States, many of the earliest, still-familiar brands of springwater--Poland Spring, Saratoga Springs, Deer Park, Arrowhead--were originally associated with resort and spa complexes. The water itself, pure at a time when cities struggled to provide safe water, was the source of the enterprise.

In the late 1800s, Poland Spring was already a renowned brand of healthful drinking water that you could get home-delivered in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, or Chicago. It was also a sprawling summer resort complex, with thousands of guests and three Victorian hotels, some of which had bathtubs with spigots that allowed guests to bathe in Poland Spring water. The resort burned in 1976, but at the crest of a hill in Poland Spring, Maine, you can still visit a marble-and-granite temple built in 1906 to house the original spring.

24% of the bottled water we buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi.

The car, the Depression, World War II, and perhaps most important, clean, safe municipal water, unwound the resorts and the first wave of water as business. We had to wait two generations for the second, which would turn out to be much different--and much larger.

Today, for all the apparent variety on the shelf, bottled water is dominated in the United States and worldwide by four huge companies. Pepsi has the nation's number-one-selling bottled water, Aquafina, with 13% of the market. Coke's Dasani is number two, with 11% of the market. Both are simply purified municipal water--so 24% of the bottled water we buy is tap water repackaged by Coke and Pepsi for our convenience. Evian is owned by Danone, the French food giant, and distributed in the United States by Coke.

he really big water company in the United States is Nestlé, which gradually bought up the nation's heritage brands, and expanded them. The waters are slightly different--springwater must come from actual springs, identified specifically on the label--but together, they add up to 26% of the market, according to Beverage Marketing, surpassing Coke and Pepsi's brands combined.

Since most water brands are owned by larger companies, it's hard to get directly at the economics. But according to those inside the business, half the price of a typical $1.29 bottle goes to the retailer. As much as a third goes to the distributor and transport. Another 12 to 15 cents is the cost of the water itself, the bottle and the cap. That leaves roughly a dime of profit. On multipacks, that profit is more like 2 cents a bottle.

As the abundance in the supermarket water aisle shows, that business is now trying to help us find new waters to drink and new occasions for drinking them--trying to get more mouth share, as it were. Aquafina marketing vice president Ahad Afridi says his team has done the research to understand what kind of water drinkers we are. They've found six types, including the "water pure-fectionist"; the "water explorer"; the "image seeker"; and the "struggler" ("they don't really like water that much...these are the people who have a cheeseburger with a diet soda").

It's a startling level of thought and analysis--until you realize that within a decade, our consumption of bottled water is expected to surpass soda. That kind of market can't be left to chance. Aquafina's fine segmentation is all about the newest explosion of waters that aren't really water--flavored waters, enhanced waters, colored waters, water drinks branded after everything from Special K breakfast cereal to Tropicana juice.

Afridi is a true believer. He talks about water as if it were more than a drink, more than a product--as if it were a character all its own, a superhero ready to take the pure-fectionist, the water explorer, and the struggler by the hand and carry them to new water adventures. "Water as a beverage has more right to extend and enter into more territories than any other beverage," Afridi says. "Water has a right to travel where others can't."

Uh, meaning what?

"Water that's got vitamins in it. Water that's got some immunity-type benefit to it. Water that helps keep skin younger. Water that gives you energy."

Water: It's pure, it's healthy, it's perfect--and we've made it better. The future of water sounds distinctly unlike water.

The label on a bottle of Fiji Water says "from the islands of Fiji." Journey to the source of that water, and you realize just how extraordinary that promise is. From New York, for instance, it is an 18-hour plane ride west and south (via Los Angeles) almost to Australia, and then a four-hour drive along Fiji's two-lane King's Highway.

Every bottle of Fiji Water goes on its own version of this trip, in reverse, although by truck and ship. In fact, since the plastic for the bottles is shipped to Fiji first, the bottles' journey is even longer. Half the wholesale cost of Fiji Water is transportation--which is to say, it costs as much to ship Fiji Water across the oceans and truck it to warehouses in the United States than it does to extract the water and bottle it.

The bubbles in San Pellegrino are extracted from volcanic springs in Tuscany, then trucked north and injected into the water from the source.

That is not the only environmental cost embedded in each bottle of Fiji Water. The Fiji Water plant is a state-of-the-art facility that runs 24 hours a day. That means it requires an uninterrupted supply of electricity--something the local utility structure cannot support. So the factory supplies its own electricity, with three big generators running on diesel fuel. The water may come from "one of the last pristine ecosystems on earth," as some of the labels say, but out back of the bottling plant is a less pristine ecosystem veiled with a diesel haze.

Each water bottler has its own version of this oxymoron: that something as pure and clean as water leaves a contrail.

San Pellegrino's 1-liter glass bottles--so much a part of the mystique of the water itself--weigh five times what plastic bottles weigh, dramatically adding to freight costs and energy consumption. The bottles are washed and rinsed, with mineral water, before being filled with sparkling Pellegrino--it uses up 2 liters of water to prepare the bottle for the liter we buy. The bubbles in San Pellegrino come naturally from the ground, as the label says, but not at the San Pellegrino source. Pellegrino chooses its CO2 carefully--it is extracted from supercarbonated volcanic springwaters in Tuscany, then trucked north and bubbled into Pellegrino.

Poland Spring may not have any oceans to traverse, but it still must be trucked hundreds of miles from Maine to markets and convenience stores across its territory in the northeast--it is 312 miles from the Hollis plant to midtown Manhattan. Our desire for Poland Spring has outgrown the springs at Poland Spring's two Maine plants; the company runs a fleet of 80 silver tanker trucks that continuously crisscross the state of Maine, delivering water from other springs to keep its bottling plants humming.

We pitch into landfills 38 billion water bottles a year--in excess of $1 billion worth of plastic.

In transportation terms, perhaps the waters with the least environmental impact are Pepsi's Aquafina and Coke's Dasani. Both start with municipal water. That allows the companies to use dozens of bottling plants across the nation, reducing how far bottles must be shipped.

Yet Coke and Pepsi add in a new step. They put the local water through an energy-intensive reverse-osmosis filtration process more potent than that used to turn seawater into drinking water. The water they are purifying is ready to drink--they are recleaning perfectly clean tap water. They do it so marketing can brag about the purity, and to provide consistency: So a bottle of Aquafina in Austin and a bottle in Seattle taste the same, regardless of the municipal source.

There is one more item in bottled water's environmental ledger: the bottles themselves. The big springwater companies tend to make their own bottles in their plants, just moments before they are filled with water--12, 19, 30 grams of molded plastic each. Americans went through about 50 billion plastic water bottles last year, 167 for each person. Durable, lightweight containers manufactured just to be discarded. Water bottles are made of totally recyclable polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic, so we share responsibility for their impact: Our recycling rate for PET is only 23%, which means we pitch into landfills 38 billion water bottles a year--more than $1 billion worth of plastic.

Some of the water companies are acutely aware that every business, every product, every activity is under environmental scrutiny like never before. Nestlé Waters has just redesigned its half-liter bottle, the most popular size among the 18 billion bottles the company will mold this year, to use less plastic. The lighter bottle and cap require 15 grams of plastic instead of 19 grams, a reduction of 20%. The bottle feels flimsy--it uses half the plastic of Fiji Water's half-liter bottle--and CEO Jeffery says that crushable feeling should be the new standard for bottled-water cachet.

"As we've rolled out the lightweight bottle, people have said, 'Well, that feels cheap,'" says Jeffery. "And that's good. If it feels solid like a Gatorade bottle or a Fiji bottle, that's not so good." Of course, lighter bottles are also cheaper for Nestlé to produce and ship. Good environmentalism equals good business.

John Mackey is the CEO and cofounder of Whole Foods Market, the national organic-and-natural grocery chain. No one thinks about the environmental and social impacts and the larger context of food more incisively than Mackey--so he's a good person to help frame the ethical questions around bottled water.

Mackey and his wife have a water filter at home, and don't typically drink bottled water there. "If I go to a movie," he says, "I'll smuggle in a bottle of filtered water from home. I don't want to buy a Coke there, and why buy another bottle of water--$3 for 16 ounces?" But he does drink bottled water at work: Whole Foods' house brand, 365 Water.

"You can compare bottled water to tap water and reach one set of conclusions," says Mackey, referring both to environmental and social ramifications. "But if you compare it with other packaged beverages, you reach another set of conclusions.

"It's unfair to say bottled water is causing extra plastic in landfills, and it's using energy transporting it," he says. "There's a substitution effect--it's substituting for juices and Coke and Pepsi." Indeed, we still drink almost twice the amount of soda as water--which is, in fact, 90% water and also in containers made to be discarded. If bottled water raises environmental and social issues, don't soft drinks raise all those issues, plus obesity concerns?

What's different about water, of course, is that it runs from taps in our homes, or from fountains in public spaces. Soda does not.

As for the energy used to transport water from overseas, Mackey says it is no more or less wasteful than the energy used to bring merlot from France or coffee from Ethiopia, raspberries from Chile or iPods from China. "Have we now decided that the use of any fossil fuel is somehow unethical?" Mackey asks. "I don't think water should be picked on. Why is the iPod okay and the water is not?"

Mackey's is a merchant's approach to the issue of bottled water--it's a choice for people to make in the market. Princeton University philosopher Peter Singer takes an ethicist's approach. Singer has coauthored two books that grapple specifically with the question of what it means to eat ethically--how responsible are we for the negative impact, even unknowing, of our food choices on the world?

"Where the drinking water is safe, bottled water is simply a superfluous luxury that we should do without," he says. "How is it different than French merlot? One difference is the value of the product, in comparison to the value of transporting and packaging it. It's far lower in the bottled water than in the wine.

"And buying the merlot may help sustain a tradition in the French countryside that we value--a community, a way of life, a set of values that would disappear if we stopped buying French wines. I doubt if you travel to Fiji you would find a tradition of cultivation of Fiji water.

"We're completely thoughtless about handing out $1 for this bottle of water, when there are virtually identical alternatives for free. It's a level of affluence that we just take for granted. What could you do? Put that dollar in a jar on the counter instead, carry a water bottle, and at the end of the month, send all the money to Oxfam or CARE and help someone who has real needs. And you're no worse off."

Beyond culture and the product's value, Singer makes one exception. "You know, they do import Kenyan vegetables by air into London. Fresh peas from Kenya, sent by airplane to London. That provides employment for people who have few opportunities to get themselves out of poverty. So despite the fuel consumption, we're supporting a developing country, we're working against poverty, we're working for global equity.

"Those issues are relevant. Presumably, for instance, bottling water in Fiji is fairly automated. But if there were 10,000 Fijians carefully filtering the water through coconut fiber--well, that would be a better argument for drinking it."

Marika, an elder from the Fijian village of Drauniivi, is sitting cross-legged on a hand-woven mat before a wooden bowl, where his weathered hands are filtering Fiji Water through a long bag of ground kava root. Marika is making a bowl of grog, a lightly narcotic beverage that is an anchor of traditional Fiji society. People with business to conduct sit wearing the traditional Fijian skirt, and drink round after round of grog, served in half a coconut shell, as they discuss the matters at hand.

Marika is using Fiji Water--the same Fiji Water in the minibars of the Peninsula Hotel--because Drauniivi is one of the five rural villages near the Fiji Water bottling plant where the plant's workers live. Drauniivi and Beverly Hills are part of the same bottled-water supply chain.

Jim Siplon, an American who manages Fiji Water's 10-year-old bottling plant in Fiji, has arranged the grog ceremony. "This is the soul of Fiji Water," he says. The ceremony lasts 45 minutes and goes through four rounds of grog, which tastes a little furry. Marika is interrupted twice by his cell phone, which he pulls from a pocket in his skirt. It is shift change at the plant, and Marika coordinates the minibus network that transports villagers to and from work.

Fiji Water is the product of these villages, a South Pacific aquifer, and a state-of-the-art bottling plant in a part of Fiji even the locals consider remote. The plant, on the northeast coast of Fiji's main island of Viti Levu, is a white two-story building that looks like a 1970s-era junior high school. The entrance faces the interior of Viti Levu and a cloud-shrouded ridge of volcanic mountains.

nside, the plant is in almost every way indistinguishable from Pellegrino's plant in Italy, or Poland Spring's in Hollis, filled with computer-controlled bottle-making and bottle-filling equipment. Line number two can spin out 1 million bottles of Fiji Water a day, enough to load 40 20-foot shipping containers; the factory has three lines.

The plant employs 200 islanders--set to increase to 250 this year--most with just a sixth- or eighth-grade education. Even the entry-level jobs pay twice the informal minimum wage. But these are more than simply jobs--they are jobs in a modern factory, in a place where there aren't jobs of any sort beyond the villages. And the jobs are just part of an ecosystem emerging around the plant--water-based trickle-down economics, as it were.

Siplon, a veteran telecom manager from MCI, wants Fiji Water to feel like a local company in Fiji. (It was purchased in 2004 by privately owned Roll International, which also owns POM Wonderful and is one of the largest producers of nuts in the United States.) He uses a nearby company to print the carrying handles for Fiji Water six-packs and buys engineering services and cardboard boxes on the island. By long-standing arrangement, the plant has seeded a small business in the villages that contracts with the plant to provide landscaping and security, and runs the bus system that Marika helps manage.

In 2007, Fiji Water will mark a milestone. "Even though you can drive for hours and hours on this island past cane fields," says Siplon, "sometime this year, Fiji Water will eclipse sugarcane as the number-one export." That is, the amount of sugar harvested and processed for export by some 40,000 seasonal sugar workers will equal in dollar value the amount of water bottled and shipped by 200 water bottlers.

However we regard Fiji Water in the United States--essential accessory, harmless treat, or frivolous excess--the closer you get to the source of its water, the more significant the enterprise looks.

No, no coconut-fiber filtering, but rather, a toehold in the global economy. Are 10,000 Fijians benefiting? Not directly. Perhaps 2,000. But Fiji Water is providing something else to a tiny nation of 850,000 people, which has been buffeted by two coups in seven years, and the collapse of its gold-mining and textiles industries: inspiration, a vision of what the country might have to offer the rest of the world. Developed countries are keen for myriad variations on just what Fiji Water is--a pure, unadulterated, organic, and natural product. Fiji has whole vistas of untouched, organic-ready farmland. Indeed, the hottest topic this spring (beyond politics) was how to jump-start an organic-sugar industry.

Of course, the irony of shipping a precious product from a country without reliable water service is hard to avoid. This spring, typhoid from contaminated drinking water swept one of Fiji's islands, sickening dozens of villagers and killing at least one. Fiji Water often quietly supplies emergency drinking water in such cases. The reality is, if Fiji Water weren't tapping its aquifer, the underground water would slide into the Pacific Ocean, somewhere just off the coast. But the corresponding reality is, someone else--the Fijian government, an NGO--could be tapping that supply and sending it through a pipe to villagers who need it. Fiji Water has, in fact, done just that, to some degree--20 water projects in the five nearby villages. Indeed, Roll has reinvested every dollar of profit since 2004 back into the business and the island.

Siplon acknowledges the risk of slipping into capitalistic neo-colonialism. "Does the world need Fiji Water?" he asks. "I'm not sure I agree with the critics on that. This company has the potential of delivering great value--or the results a cynic might have expected."

Water is, in fact, often the perfect beverage--healthy, refreshing, and satisfying in a way soda or juice aren't. A good choice.

Worldwide, 1 billion people have no reliable source of drinking water; 3,000 children a day die from diseases caught from tainted water.

Nestlé Waters' Kim Jeffery may be defending his industry when he calls bottled water "a force of nature," but he's also not wrong. Our consumption of bottled water has outstripped any marketer's dreams or talent: If you break out the single-serve plastic bottle as its own category, our consumption of bottled water grew a thousandfold between 1984 and 2005.

In the array of styles, choices, moods, and messages available today, water has come to signify how we think of ourselves. We want to brand ourselves--as Madonna did--even with something as ordinary as a drink of water. We imagine there is a difference between showing up at the weekly staff meeting with Aquafina, or Fiji, or a small glass bottle of Pellegrino. Which is, of course, a little silly.

Bottled water is not a sin. But it is a choice.

Packing bottled water in lunch boxes, grabbing a half-liter from the fridge as we dash out the door, piling up half-finished bottles in the car cup holders--that happens because of a fundamental thoughtlessness. It's only marginally more trouble to have reusable water bottles, cleaned and filled and tucked in the lunch box or the fridge. We just can't be bothered. And in a world in which 1 billion people have no reliable source of drinking water, and 3,000 children a day die from diseases caught from tainted water, that conspicuous consumption of bottled water that we don't need seems wasteful, and perhaps cavalier.

That is the sense in which Mackey, the CEO of Whole Foods, and Singer, the Princeton philosopher, are both right. Mackey is right that buying bottled water is a choice, and Singer is right that given the impact it has, the easy substitutes, and the thoughtless spending involved, it's fair to ask whether it's always a good choice.

The most common question the U.S. employees of Fiji Water still get is, "Does it really come from Fiji?" We're choosing Fiji Water because of the hibiscus blossom on the beautiful square bottle, we're choosing it because of the silky taste. We're seduced by the idea of a bottle of water from Fiji. We just don't believe it really comes from Fiji. What kind of a choice is that?

Once you understand the resources mustered to deliver the bottle of water, it's reasonable to ask as you reach for the next bottle, not just "Does the value to me equal the 99 cents I'm about to spend?" but "Does the value equal the impact I'm about to leave behind?"

Simply asking the question takes the carelessness out of the transaction. And once you understand where the water comes from, and how it got here, it's hard to look at that bottle in the same way again.

Currently listening:
Hello Waveforms
By William Orbit
Release date: 2006-02-21
Friday, July 04, 2008 

Category: News and Politics

Bottled Water Industry Faces Growing Opposition

Last week's decision in York County may be part of a national backlash.

by Kevin Wack

Last week's decision by a York County water board to delay a vote on whether to sell municipal water to Nestle Corp., the owner of Poland Spring, did not happen in a vacuum.0630 11

* Last month in McCloud, Calif., after encountering opposition to what would have been the largest water bottling plant in the country, Nestle announced plans to significantly reduce the plant's size.
* Earlier this month in Enumclaw, Wash., the city council rejected a proposal to allow Nestle to build another such plant.
* And last Monday, the U.S. Conference of Mayors voted to phase out use of bottled water for municipal employees.

Across the country, opposition to bottled water is building, amid growing concerns about the industry's environmental impact and rising fears about private control of public water supplies.

"There's no question that there is a groundswell," said Ruth Caplan, coordinator of Defending Water for Life, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign that opposes the bottled water industry.

There are several reasons for the backlash to bottled water. Some of it is driven by fears about global warming - given the amount of oil needed to bottle and transport the water.

Some stems from concerns about the chemical makeup of plastic water bottles.

Some of the opposition is a byproduct of the huge price disparity between bottled water and the kind of water that comes from the tap for free.

Here in Maine, some of the local opposition to Poland Spring's operations has stemmed from the traffic generated by the trucks that transport the water.

Perhaps the biggest factor, though, is a fear that as bottled water becomes more popular, private corporations are gaining more control over a natural resource that is central to life.

"The fundamental issue is, who owns the water?" said Jim Olson, an attorney for Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation, which has been engaged in a legal battle with Nestle. "If this company gets to do it, all companies get to do it, and you're not going to be able to say no in the future."

Caplan expressed concern that the bottled water industry is turning water into a commodity, the price of which will be determined by the market.

"What they're trying to do is get us to think that drinking water comes out of their bottles, and water to wash with comes out of the tap," she said.

Tom Brennan, a natural resources manager for Poland Spring, said the company's products are not in competition with tap water. And, he said, there's enough water in the ground for both uses.

Poland Spring hopes to draw as much as 250,000 gallons per day from the Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District, which uses up to 7 million gallons per day, and has recently found sources to provide an additional 3 million gallons each day.

"We're not depleting aquifers. That would be absolutely counterproductive," Brennan said.

He and other defenders of the industry note that soda and beer also require water, but they don't provoke the same opposition as bottled water.

Brennan acknowledged that opposition to the industry is growing, but he put it in the context of growth in the popularity of bottled water.

"To be quite honest, I don't pretend to understand it," Brennan said. "I think it's isolated, yet loud."

Poland Spring currrently gets water from more than 20 wells in eight Maine communities, including Fryeburg, Denmark and Dallas Plantation. The company has bottling plants in Hollis and Poland Spring, and - in response to rising demand - plans to open a third plant in Kingfield.

In York County, the water district's recent decision to delay a vote on the Poland Spring deal followed a public meeting where more than 100 people expressed their opposition.

The water district's trustees voted to postpone their decision until after an independent scientific review of the data underlying the proposal.

Emily Posner, the state leader of Defending Water for Life, said she was heartened by the outpouring of opposition to the deal. She said that people from all over Maine came out to stand up against the corporate control of water.

Brennan, of Poland Spring, countered that many of the people protesting the deal are not from the Kennebunk area or even from Maine.

"And that in my mind is somewhat troubling," he said.

Currently listening:
House of Om
By Mark Farina
Release date: 2007-04-10
Saturday, April 26, 2008 

Current mood:  annoyed
Category: Life
America's dirty little oil secret: Plastic Bottles and BagsApril 26th, 2008

Barrels of Oil price up to $120 a barrelWith oil prices surging to almost $120 a barrel on Friday April 25th, 2008 the sky is certainly looking like the limit. There are analysts and speculators that are now saying they don't feel that $200 a barrel oil is unrealistic at this point. It's definitely easy to question who is making money here, who is laughing all the way to the bank as the price rises and who might be responsible for the meteoric price rise in the barrel of oil. An unfortunate truth to who is helping the price levels stay high could be looking back at you in the mirror.

Even the U.S. Congress is scrutinizing oil company profits and refinery production in light of the supply and demand issues that seem apparent in the oil industry. Americans often want to point their fingers at the same culprits. As much as the oil companies, a growing global economy and wars are to blame for the oil price increases but consumer consumption of plastic products is also a culprit in keeping oil prices high and environment issues shaky.

The most reliable statistics from the Pacific Institute put America's love affair with water bottles at 31.2 billion liters of water in 2006. A Sea of plastic water bottlesDue to negative press on the possible health effects of the use, most people are aware water bottles are sold in polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. In order to manufacture these bottles over 900,000 tons of plastic is needed. The mainstream manufacturing process that produces PET bottles requires a combination of natural gas and petroleum. The petroleum requirement is where the statistics show that America's obsession could be hurting their wallets at the gas pump.

Bottom line, the production of 31.2 billion liters of water for the U.S. bottled water market took roughly 17.6 million barrels of oil. The calculation is explained in more detail at the Pacific Institute's information page under the energy requirements for plastic bottles. The simple break down is 3.4 megajoules of energy to produce a water bottle, cap and packaging with a barrel of oil producing about 6 thousand megajoules. Taking those numbers into account you arrive at 17.6 million barrels of oil, enough oil to run 1.5 million cars on U.S. roadways for an entire year.

Americans are not alone in their addiction to bottled water. Although America is the number one consumer, other large consumers are Mexico, China, Brazil, Italy, Germany, France, Indonesia, Spain and India. The graph shows the difference of consumption from 1999 to 2004. A more clear version of the graph can be found here. In 2004 the previously mentioned countries consumed the following amount of liters in the billions: Worldwide Bottled Water UsageUnited States 25.8, Mexico 17.7, China 11.9, Brazil 11.6, Italy 10.7, Germany 10.3, France 8.5, Indonesia 7.4, Spain 5.5, India 5.1 and all other countries 39.9. This brings a total consumption in the billions of liters in 2004 to 154.3. Just for worldwide consumption of bottled water in 2004 alone it took roughly 87.4 million barrels of oil. You can imagine that with statistics for 2008, we have arrived at a figure in the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil being used just to produce bottled water. At 87.4 million barrels of oil, that's enough to run 7.5 million cars on U.S. roadways for an entire year.

America and the world's addiction to plastic doesn't end there. Plastic bags have become commonplace all over the world for their ease of production, cheapness compared to paper bags at 2 cents a plastic bag and 4 to 6 cents for paper bags. The plastic bags are also light weight for transporting. Plastic bags take oil, just like plastic bottles to produce. Currently the U.S. consumes 100 billion plastic shopping bags in a year and worldwide consumption is estimated to be from 500 billion to 1 trillion plastic bags a year. That is roughly 1 million plastic bags a minute being consumed and less than 1% is recycled. The oil cost? With the 100 billion bags consumed in America it takes 12 million barrels of oil a year. Taking that figure and applying it to worldwide consumption you come up with a figure around 60 million - 120 million barrels of oil a year to produce plastic bags.

US and Sweden Plastic Bottle Recycling RatesWhile it will not greatly impact the current problems we are having with oil, we can help save the environment by turning to recycling for all of the plastic products that we use. An interesting graph was provided by the Container Recycling organization showing the difference between the United States and Sweden in recycling PET bottles. In 2004 you can see that the U.S. was down to about 20% of all bottles consumed sending the rest to the landfill where they will sit for around 1,000 years.

Recycling plastic bags have not been much of a success either. In fact in the U.S. where 100 billion plastic bags are consumed it is estimated that only 1 percent to 3 percent of the bags are recycled. This leaves the rest of the bags in our landfills and other unsightly places like that plastic bag you saw blowing down the street last week.

In January of 2008 The Daily Green announced that China had made the decision to place a nationwide ban on plastic bags. Plastic Bags in a treeThe Chinese State Council set a date of June 1st, 2008 for all stores, small and large, to stop using plastic bags in the country. China was previously the largest user of plastic bags in the world using around 37 million barrels of oil for their bags. As mentioned by The Daily Green China is not alone with other large countries like Ireland and Uganda banning plastic bags. The United States is seeing similar measures in city and county government to place bans on the use of plastic bags.

The solutions are tough to swallow sometimes, especially when it could mean completely removing common and convenient plastic products out of our lives. However, even major retail outlets are trying to make it easier. During Earth Day Week this year Wal-Mart made prominent spots for their reusable $1.00 bags. Grabbing 5 - 10 of these bags can drastically change your impact on the environment by remembering to use a reusable and washable bag when shopping. The water bottle market is a little harder to deal with, especially in countries like Mexico where the public drinking water truly isn't safe in some parts of the country. Home purification and refrigerator filtering systems can make sure people in America get better quality water. Looking at recently released reports, purifying your own water is probably more beneficial than the bottled water industry's water anyway. Some reports claim that bottled water is sometimes nothing more than glorified city tap water. Sigg Reusable Water BottleIf you decide to take a step on your own to cut down on plastic water bottle usage, you could always get a reusable water bottle made by companies like Sigg. As of right now there are over 100 available on eBay that you can have shipped to your doorstep and start making a difference next week!

America and the world's dirty little oil secret seems to be that while we are unhappy with the rise in oil prices, we really can make a difference if we all take action. It's hard to change the comforts that the modern world has brought us, but you can do it in smalls steps and still have conveniences you're use to with a little change. In just America alone, we are using 29.6 million barrels of oil a year to have the convenience of plastic bags and plastic water bottles. This could literally provide enough oil to fuel 2 - 3 million cars in the U.S. every single year. If you look at world figures we are using 147.4 - 207.4 million barrels of oil to use plastic bags and plastic bottles worldwide. That alone is more than OPEC pumps in a day at 32.22 million. The U.S. imports around 13.15 million barrels of oil a day according the CIA factbook. By seeing these number hopefully you will realize that you can make a difference in our oil costs, the environment and live a greener life all around. Please let us know your thoughts here by leaving a comment...

Friday, November 02, 2007 

Category: News and Politics
Bottled water is a ridiculous extravagance. Let's all switch to tap water instead

July 10th, 2007

Dumped PET bottlesIn a bizarre turn of events, it seems that the United States is actually taking a lead on eco policies.

Environmental groups have long argued that bottled water is a ridiculous luxury at a time of global warming. The product has a huge environment footprint, given the fuel required to ship vast quantities of the liquid half way around the world, the energy required to produce all those billions of plastic or glass bottles, and the environmental costs of disposing of billions of empty plastic bottles in landfill sites a year.

Yet the popularity of mineral water shows no sign of abating, perhaps because many younger consumers have been brainwashed into being mistrustful of the stuff that comes out of the tap. In America alone, spending on bottled water has surged to $16 billion (£8bn) this year.

This is despite the fact nutritionists have been telling us for years that when tap water is, in most cases, just as good as bottled water. It is also paradoxical that the two biggest-selling brands of mineral water in the US - Pepsi's Aquafina (which has a 13 per cent share) and Coke's Dasani (which has an 11 per cent share) - are purified municipal water anyway!

Well the City of New York, led by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has now taken a stand aimed at stamping out the consumption of bottled water. According to a report by BBC News, the city authority has launched a campaign that seeks persuade New Yorkers to wean themselves off bottled drinks and to quaff tap water instead. The move is backed up by an advertising campaign and the local authority is also trying to persaude Manhattan restaurants to help out - by promoting tap water.

Some restaurants in California have already banished mineral waters from the menu and are now serving only tap water, and according to the BBC, some in New York are looking to follow suit.

This is a welcome move, which I hope will soon traverse the Pond, as I'm sick of that look on the faces of restaurateurs and bar staff here in the UK when you ask for tap water rather than the bottled variety - it's as if to say "Oh we've got a real cheapskate here".

The Bottled Water Association argues that it is unfair to single out an industry that is promoting recycling and introducing biodegradable packaging. Nonetheless, if even New York is attacking this particular industry, you can expect governments around the world to follow suit.

This could be seriously bad news for sales of bottled water. If you happen to own any shares in the world's largest pushers of bottled water - which include PepsiCo, Nestle and Coca-Cola - I would recommend offloading these quick before the mainstream fund managers catch on (it usually takes them a few weeks). It might make Coca-Cola think twice before pushing ahead with its mooted takeover of Perthshire-based Highland Spring.

Friday, November 02, 2007 

Category: Travel and Places
By Jim Wilfong

If I had any doubts about the influence of Nestle Inc., the global water giant, in my state, they were dispelled the day last June I received a communication from the Maine Secretary of State.  The SOS is elected by the majority party in the Legislature, currently Democrats, which means he is basically a functionary of the Democratic Party.  What he does is what the Democrats want.


A group of us had drafted a ballot initiative to ensure that groundwater in Maine is subject to the same degree of protection that surface waters are. As the law requires, we submitted the proposal to the SOS who then wrote the wording that would appear on the ballot. When I opened the letter from the SOS's office with the final wording, I was stunned.

The ballot question this official had drafted started this way, "Do you want to transfer private ownership of groundwater to the State?"  It was like a punch in the gut. Why didn't he just call us a bunch of commies and be done with it?

The fact is, nothing in our proposal transferred ownership of anything. To the contrary, it simply asserted the responsibility of the government to manage our water for the benefit of the real owners – us citizens, future as well as present. As I said, surface waters already get such protection. The distinction between surface and ground water that exists in current, judge-made law is antiquated, and is no longer tenable scientifically.

I made these points to the Secretary of State, but to no avail. I had a vague feeling of background voices in these exchanges, and so I asked to see the official file. There, among the other documents, I found a letter from Nestle's attorneys, who had urged specific wording for our ballot measure. "Do you want to transfer private ownership of groundwater in Maine to the State?" is the way it began.

In the new Maine, it seems, Nestle gets to draft the wording of ballot questions it opposes. This, I thought, was going to be interesting.

***

Maine is full of water. It promotes its lakes, ponds, rivers and streams as a sportsman's paradise; and our drinking water has been ranked number one in the nation. (Some 70% of people here tap directly into the aquifers through wells.)  The water is so abundant that we have tended to take it for granted; but three decades ago some far-sighted officials in our state planning office urged action while there was still time. Someday, they warned, trucks or even pipelines might take out water as far away as Boston.

Then, in 1980, a local water company by the name of Poland Springs was bought up by Perrier, the French spring water company. Twelve years later, Nestle, the Swiss mega-corporation, bought Perrier; which meant that our water now was being pumped by the largest food and bottled water company in the world. Water was becoming the world's "blue gold," as one corporate CEO put it; and Maine was, if not a Saudi Arabia, at least a Texas or Alaska.

Now there were calls for action from many quarters. "I think we will see growing pressures from outside for use of our water supplies," then-governor John McKernan warned in the late 1980s, in a remark typical at the time. "We must be ready to deal with those pressures." Added Walter Anderson, then the State Geologist :  "I believe the state should get a piece of that action."

Anderson since has become a consultant to Nestle, and his shift in allegiance was all too typical. Nestle saw what was coming; and it responded by doing what a corporation does best – namely, spreading money around the state.  Does your fire department need a new sign?  Does your school district need money?  Does your conservation or environmental group need help with land acquisition?  How about books for the library, or a new cross-country ski trail?

Whatever the problem, Nestle was there.  The Maine Nature Conservancy and the State have found Nestle especially generous with land acquisition money.  Some conservation groups in the state actually are considering conservation easements that would permit bulk water extraction combined with a direct share of the revenue flow for the group.

In Vermont last year, the Vermont Natural Resource Council helped to enact a statewide moratorium on large water extraction. In Maine, environmental groups have been pretty much silent.

***

In the late 1980s, following the initial spasm of high-level concern, the legislature created three separate commissions to study the state's water resources and recommend protective action. Each concluded that Maine needs a coordinated water management structure that provides centralized data collection and retrieval, adequate monitoring, a mechanism for dispute resolution, and a system of water allocation in the event of supply shortages. This would apply to all waters of the state, surface and subsurface.

The legislature didn't act on any of the reports – a failure the courts have interpreted, justifiably or not, as an affirmation of the legal status quo.

That status quo is a disaster.  Since colonial days, Maine courts have held that surface waters of ten acres or more ("Great Ponds") and tidal rivers fall under what is called the "public trust."  This means that ultimate ownership resides in the people of the state; and that the government has a consequent duty to protect these for future generations.  Groundwater, by contrast, has been relegated to the "absolute dominion" rule.  If there is water under your land, you can pump all you want regardless of the impact upon anyone else.

The absolute dominion rule is a relic of an age of hand pumps, when courts did not understand that all the water under ground was connected – and connected to the surface waters as well.  It is a total anachronism given the millions of gallons that Nestle is pumping from the state. (That's between 500 million and a billion gallons annually under the Poland Springs label.)  What the company touts as "the goodness of Maine" translates into some $700,000,000 in revenues each year.

Still, the Maine courts have said that their hands are tied; and the legislature has given them an excuse. When the legislature did not move on the recommendations of its own study commissions, the courts took that as a signal that things should remain as they are.  Our neighbors in New Hampshire and Vermont have abolished absolute dominion, as have most of the other states.  But Maine remains among the hold-outs, along with Texas, where it is called the "law of the biggest pump."

That is an apt description of the role of Nestle here – except that you could add "the biggest purse" as well.  In 1987, for example, the legislature roused itself enough to enact a law that supposedly restricted the transporting of water in bulk quantities.  The legislative findings declared that the transport of water for commercial purposes in large quantities away from its natural location "constitutes a substantial threat to the health, safety and welfare of persons who live in the vicinity of the water and rely on it for daily needs."

Accordingly, the law prohibited the transporting of more than 10 gallons, "beyond the boundaries of the municipality or township in which water is naturally located or any bordering municipality or township," with exceptions for extraordinary hardships.  It sounded as though the lawmakers finally meant business.  But then, as if by magic, an exemption appeared.  Maine's biggest exporter of water – Poland Springs -- was effectively "grandfathered" into this legislation that supposedly was aimed at curbing the export of water.

The deed was done quietly, through an "errors and omissions" bill - a legislative act that supposedly makes technical corrections to legislation already enacted.  It had to be someone in leadership.  Other members don't have the authority or the access to do this.

Then, about ten years later, the rest of the law was gutted administratively. The bureaucracy (most certainly with instructions from above), ruled that it would be a "hardship" for Nestlé if it failed to achieve its market share targets.  Thus began a parade of "hardship exemptions" -- a dozen or so for Nestle alone.  I'm not sure why it occurs to me in this context, but the Democratic State Committee recently reported a $20,000 contribution from Nestle.

***

I learned from a recent article in the New Yorker that the Chinese symbol for political order is based on that for water.  "The meaning always has been clear," the writer observes. "Those who control water control people."

Maine today provides a case study.  In one locality after another, the polity is bending to the wishes of our new water lord.  In several towns, Nestle has managed to tap into the public water supply.  Kingfield is one of these; the Kingfield Water District is building a new pipeline from the spring to a new Nestle bottling plant.  A local newspaper there reported that the paid consultant to the Kingfield Water District also had a relationship with Nestle and may have revealed information to the corporation during negotiations.  He recently resigned, but the deal is unaffected.

There's more. The Kingfield board of selectmen called an executive session to discuss what appeared to be a large property tax break for Nestle.  A local reporter contacted the state Attorney General, who called the town to warn that it was breaking the state's right-to-know law.  Similarly, the city council in Old Orchard Beach held a private session to discuss an "in perpetuity" contract for Nestle waste water.  One council member and a local newspaper called the move "secret and illegal."  That's rapidly becoming a state slogan under our new water regime.

In yet another community, in Western Maine, Nestle is suing to get a green light for a proposed bulk water pumping station that would operate round the clock in a rural residential zone.  People there are not thrilled about this idea; but guess who can pay more for lawyers?

People don't like to be bullied like that. They also don't like the idea that a giant corporation is making millions of dollars from a resource that belongs to them, not to the corporation.  I doubt that many people here are surprised at the results of a recent Green Party poll that found that some two-thirds of Maine voters now support legislation to protect our groundwater, and a fee for the pumping of our water to sell someplace else.  (As unbelievable as it might seem, neither exists today.)

Nestle doesn't give us its bottled water for free. So why should we give Nestle our water for free, especially when it is using that water to make its executives and shareholders rich? That's the premise of a new initiative measure that would give the people first right to the water, and would establish reasonable standards for pumping and use. The measure also would create a Fresh Water Resource Board with a mandate to protect the water resource and the local environment dependant on it. The Board would be financed through a fee on bulk water extraction. The fee would pay also for the scientific studies necessary to protect the rights of all users of the water, present and future.

Even with public support this will not be an easy fight. Nestle has retained Frank Luntz, President Bush's spinmeister. It has the state power structure wired several times over. On our side is the desire of people here to control their own water and to pass it along undiminished to their kids and grandkids. As I said, it is going to be interesting.

 

Jim Wilfong is director of H20 for Maine, a group of concerned citizens working to protect Maine's aquifers. Its website is http://www.h2oforme.org.