Environmentalists are attacking bottle water now

[Anonymouse]

This is why environmentalism along with environmentalists should all be shot. What gives? It seems all they care about is regulating the way other people live based on nothing more than ideological fanaticism.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080629/lf_af...mentwaterhealth

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A debate over water is boiling over in the United States and elsewhere amid growing environmental concerns about bottled water and questions about safety of tap water.

 

The US Conference of Mayors in June passed a resolution calling for a phasing out of bottled water by municipalities and promotion of the importance of public water supplies.

 

While largely symbolic, the vote highlighted a growing movement opposing regular use of bottled water because of its plastic waste and energy costs to transport drinking supplies.

 

Janet Larsen, director of research at the Earth Policy Institute, cites a "backlash against bottled water as more people are realizing what they get out of the bottles is not any better than what they get out of the faucet."

 

The Pacific Institute, a California think thank on sustainability issues, contends that producing bottles for US water consumption required the equivalent of more than 17 million barrels of oil in 2006, not including the energy for transportation.

 

The group says bottling water for Americans produces more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide and consumes three liters of water for each liter of bottled water produced.

 

The debate in the US mirrors that taking place worldwide in places such as Paris; Liverpool, England; Florence, Italy; Vancouver, Canada. According to the EPI, the issue making waves among policymakers in locations including Denmark and New South Wales, Australia, among others.

 

The backlash comes even amid surging sales of bottled water in the United States. Some of this is linked to concerns about contamination of public water supplies, although critics of the industry say marketing hype is a greater factor.

 

Aficionados of Evian from France or Fiji from the South Pacific swear by the taste and health benefits of those waters, but others decry the high cost of energy for a product that may not be any better than local water.

 

A Natural Resources Defense Council concluded that "most of the tested waters were found to be of high quality (but) some brands were contaminated."

 

The group said bottled waters "are subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards than those which apply to city tap water."

 

In fact, says the group "about one-fourth of bottled water is actually bottled tap water" while government rules "allow bottlers to call their product 'spring water' even though it may be brought to the surface using a pumped well, and it may be treated with chemicals."

 

Americans drank about 8.8 billion gallons (33 billion liters) of packaged water in 2007, or 15 percent of their total liquid intake, according to the Beverage Marketing Corp. Per capita bottled US water consumption is up to 29 gallons (109 liters) per year, from 20 gallons in 2002.

 

The US is the largest consumer of bottled water, but on a per capita basis it ranks far behind Italy, the leader which consumes nearly twice as much, and others such as the United Arab Emirates, Mexico and France.

 

Advocates of bottled water they the industry is being used as a scapegoat.

 

Kevin Keane of the American Beverage Association said the mayors' resolution was "just cynical politics. It's like being against rope until you need a lifeline."

 

Keane says the bottled water industry is needed for communities hit by floods or other natural disasters and compromised municipal water systems.

 

Bottled water "is convenient and a good tasting beverage, especially in this day when you have fewer water fountains and even when you have them, people are skeptical about using them."

 

Beyond questions of safety and environment, some activists say the bottled water industry is seizing a public resource.

 

In the northeast state of Maine, a battle is brewing over access to a large aquifer by Poland Spring, a large US bottler owned by Swiss-based Nestle.

 

"Nestle's water grab is ruining streams, ponds, wells and aquifers," said Judy Grant of the activist group Corporate Accountability.

 

"Nestle's practices are raising serious questions about who should be allowed to control water, our most essential resource, and to what end."

 

The mayors, meeting in Miami, approved a resolution proposed by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom along with 17 other large-city mayors to redirect taxpayer dollars from bottled water to other city services.

 

Joe Doss, president and chief executive of the International Bottled Water Association, an industry group based near Washington, said it was "unfortunate this is turning into a tap water versus bottled water debate."

 

Doss said most people drink both and that in many cases bottled water is a healthy replacement for sweetened or carbonated drinks.

 

The IBWA says the industry uses less than one percent of groundwater supplies and produces only a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases.

 

According to Doss, water bottles represent a tiny fraction of plastic waste that even if not recycled, and that any effort to improve recycling should cover all industries, not just bottled water.

[Sip]

It's kind of entertaining to see when occasionally even nature turns around and gives a switft kick into "environmentalists'" balls ... whether it's a massive flood, fire, volcano, or earth quake, it never ceases to amaze me how you still get some wack jobs that insist on camping on top of some trees in Berkeley for 2 years to somehow better the world and help their "cause".

 

But perhaps the only group that is probably even more annoying that the "environmentalists" are the PETA-types ...

[DominO123]

It's kind of entertaining to see when occasionally even nature turns around and gives a switft kick into "environmentalists'" balls ... whether it's a massive flood, fire, volcano, or earth quake, it never ceases to amaze me how you still get some wack jobs that insist on camping on top of some trees in Berkeley for 2 years to somehow better the world and help their "cause".

 

But perhaps the only group that is probably even more annoying that the "environmentalists" are the PETA-types ...

 

That's bullsh!t... You won't like it that some ignorents type few stuff on the computer keyboards and learn basic programming to be called a computer scientist the same way as you're considered?

 

But no one seems to have any problem when some yippies without proper scholarity in environmental science be called 'environmentalists' to then have people yap at the profession. What you discribe is a misconcieved belief about what an environmentalist is. Environmentalists are not those fanatics who camp in the trees, some vegee yippies who self proclaimed themselves environmentalists are. In fact, probably the majority of those yippies will drop the first course of environmental science they'll be taking when the teacher will start explaining that long term climatic variations have been happening much before man was even there.

 

I don't get why all this noise about recycling water bottles. Who in his right mind would find it to be a bad idea? That some yippies raises the issue of bottled waters doesn't undo the fact that we should find better way's then using one time used plastic bottles to then trow them.

[Anonymouse]

The one, the only, George Carlin, the legend, on the environment

 

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these ***ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the ***ing planet?

 

I'm getting tired of that shit. Tired of that shit. I'm tired of ***ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists, these white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths. People trying to make the world save for their Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

 

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are ***ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

 

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles...hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages...And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet...the planet...the planet isn't going anywhere. WE ARE!

 

We're going away. Pack your shit, folks. We're going away. And we won't leave much of a trace, either. Thank God for that. Maybe a little styrofoam. Maybe. A little styrofoam. The planet'll be here and we'll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet'll shake us off like a bad case of fleas. A surface nuisance.

 

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

 

So, the plastic is here, our job is done, we can be phased out now. And I think that's begun. Don't you think that's already started? I think, to be fair, the planet sees us as a mild threat. Something to be dealt with. And the planet can defend itself in an organized, collective way, the way a beehive or an ant colony can. A collective defense mechanism. The planet will think of something. What would you do if you were the planet? How would you defend yourself against this troublesome, pesky species? Let's see... Viruses. Viruses might be good. They seem vulnerable to viruses. And, uh...viruses are tricky, always mutating and forming new strains whenever a vaccine is developed. Perhaps, this first virus could be one that compromises the immune system of these creatures. Perhaps a human immunodeficiency virus, making them vulnerable to all sorts of other diseases and infections that might come along. And maybe it could be spread sexually, making them a little reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction.

 

Well, that's a poetic note. And it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want. Know what I call it? The Big Electron. The Big Electron...whoooa. Whoooa. Whoooa. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while.

Edited July 3, 2008 by Anonymouse

[Boghos]

Most environmentalists are fascists in disguise. Anybody that claims high moral ground, superiority of principles, etc, should be taken with caution.

[Twilight Bark]

Most environmentalists are fascists in disguise. Anybody that claims high moral ground, superiority of principles, etc, should be taken with caution.

That's a good one-liner, if one had to use one sentence to describe the situation. But I don't know what an "environmentalist" is. Is he/she some semi-literate new-age nincompoop, or a scientist studying the impact of "civilization" on environment, and say, actually has an opinion and a value-judgement (as opposed to a value-free, neutral scientific deduction) on whether a venus-like earth is a desirable long-term outcome? There is no accreditation for declaring oneself an "environmentalist". On the other hand, the so-called "free-market advocates" appear horrified at the thought of simply including more information on labels to let people make their choice when shopping, based on more information, and the choices they want to make. If some stupid laws get enacted, whether on environment or anything else, it is not because their advocates are fascistic (some or in some cases most undoubtedly are, especially when it comes to anything increasing government secrecy). It is because people running the government almost always suffer from arrogant stupidity.

Edited July 6, 2008 by Twilight Bark

[DominO123]

Most environmentalists are fascists in disguise. Anybody that claims high moral ground, superiority of principles, etc, should be taken with caution.

 

It depends on what you qualify as an environmentalist. There is very few scientific field where the title can be given to almost anyone like this.

 

Visit any environmental science faculty and see for yourself how this claim fall short.

 

The situation is at a point, that any scientist studying the impact of man on earth and publishing his result will be labelled as a fascist, and this regardles of his initial motives for having undertaken such a study. Usually, it is up to the environmentalist to do the hard job and then be shouted at and viewed as some hippy.

 

Take this pseudo intellectual like George Carlin with his not too much thought comments. The point is not whatever Earth has gone through worst than us, but the undeniable reality that Earth has never had any species prior (dinausors included) who has the power to destroy it.

[DominO123]

There is no accreditation for declaring oneself an "environmentalist".

 

And that is unfortunate, this is the case partly because some interest groups find satisfaction to throw durt on some scientist by throwing them in the same bag without having to address their arguments. Many now prefer the term Environmental scientists because it is less confusing and that calling oneself a scientist makes a distinction that he is not the hippy painted by some.

Edited July 6, 2008 by DominO

[Boghos]

That's a good one-liner, if one had to use one sentence to describe the situation. But I don't know what an "environmentalist" is. Is he/she some semi-literate new-age nincompoop, or a scientist studying the impact of "civilization" on environment, and say, actually has an opinion and a value-judgement (as opposed to a value-free, neutral scientific deduction) on whether a venus-like earth is a desirable long-term outcome? There is no accreditation for declaring oneself an "environmentalist". On the other hand, the so-called "free-market advocates" appear horrified at the thought of simply including more information on labels to let people make their choice when shopping, based on more information, and the choices they want to make. If some stupid laws get enacted, whether on environment or anything else, it is not because their advocates are fascistic (some or in some cases most undoubtedly are, especially when it comes to anything increasing government secrecy). It is because people running the government almost always suffer from arrogant stupidity.

 

I don't disagree. It is hard to tell what is worse: blind free marketeers or hysterical militants for "noble" causes. Often what passes for science in most peoples minds are urban legends that defy any serious scrutiny, be it global warming or less broad issues. Take for example the "preservation of traditional lifestyles" applied to indigenous populations from the Arctic to the edges of South America: that's plain stupidity and extreme conservatism. Some kind of horrible Disneyland created in the minds of self described "concerned and warm hearted" people. Nothing farther from the truth. Rewarding backwardness, sloth and the like has its obvious consequences, only retarded leftwingers are not mature enough to see them. Same rationale applied for those that think that the free market will solve everything. It will not.

[Twilight Bark]

Same rationale applied for those that think that the free market will solve everything. It will not.

It wouldn't be so bad if the free market fundamentalists were self-consistent. When it comes to advertising, they seem to favor it and oppose restrictions on it because it supposedly gives more "information" to the consumer, and more information means a better functioning market. But then you get all kinds of objections when it comes to including information on the label about the origin and methods of production in making a product. All of a sudden more information is "unfair burden", "tariff in disguise", or some other nonsense. I have to say I don't know what a "free-marketeer" is also. Many masquerading as such, some at very high levels, are effectively no more than lobbyists, with a principle no higher, and no less crass, than a paycheck.

[Boghos]

It wouldn't be so bad if the free market fundamentalists were self-consistent. When it comes to advertising, they seem to favor it and oppose restrictions on it because it supposedly gives more "information" to the consumer, and more information means a better functioning market. But then you get all kinds of objections when it comes to including information on the label about the origin and methods of production in making a product. All of a sudden more information is "unfair burden", "tariff in disguise", or some other nonsense. I have to say I don't know what a "free-marketeer" is also. Many masquerading as such, some at very high levels, are effectively no more than lobbyists, with a principle no higher, and no less crass, than a paycheck.

 

Yes, indeed. Both definitions are hard to pin down but I think we have a general idea of who we are talking about. Free market is a very important feature for any society but not a panacea. In order to have it functioning well we also need free men. That is much harder to get.

[nairi]

The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new pardigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn't know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, "Why are we here?" Plastic...asshole.

 

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the planet is capable of healing itself. Nature, as it stands, is not always able to heal itself. Our bodies are very resistent and can regenerate and rejuvinate even the most damaged organs, but there is a limit somewhere. Sometimes the damage is simply beyond repair.

[Twilight Bark]

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the planet is capable of healing itself. Nature, as it stands, is not always able to heal itself. Our bodies are very resistent and can regenerate and rejuvinate even the most damaged organs, but there is a limit somewhere. Sometimes the damage is simply beyond repair.

The guy was a comedian for heavens' sake. He was just messing around to make his daily bread, and was hoping to poke people into thinking a bit in the process. What he says can be interpreted in several ways, at several levels, if one actually thinks it worthwhile. And believe me, I can easily cast what he is saying into environmental advocacy. Anyway, one way to interpret what he says is as follows. Everything is part of nature, including us, so there is nothing "unnatural" about whatever we do. So we can mess it up royally and irreversibly, and that would be fine. Venus is a fine, completely natural planet, quite happy to be at the equilibrium that it is in. And who knows, Earth some day may find the same new equilbrium, completely healed, and every ugly remnant of human interference completely burned and melted away in a permament inferno. And that would be rather natural.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Twilight Bark

[nairi]

The guy was a comedian for heavens' sake. He was just messing around to make his daily bread, and was hoping to poke people into thinking a bit in the process. What he says can be interpreted in several ways, at several levels, if one actually thinks it worthwhile. And believe me, I can easily cast what he is saying into environmental advocacy. Anyway, one way to interpret what he says is as follows. Everything is part of nature, including us, so there is nothing "unnatural" about whatever we do. So we can mess it up royally and irreversibly, and that would be fine. Venus is a fine, completely natural planet, quite happy to be at the equilibrium that it is in. And who knows, Earth some day may find the same new equilbrium, completely healed, and every ugly remnant of human interference completely burned and melted away in a permament inferno. And that would be rather natural.

 

I've heard Arman's argument coming from different people for quite some time now. The "the Earth is more powerful than humans"-argument. I was responding to the claim that the planet is capable of healing itself and that it will continue to be around for a long, long time after it has expunged all form of human life. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the planet will be able to heal itself and continue to exist after all the damage that has been done and continues to be done.

 

I wasn't paying attention to whether Arman was joking or not.

[Twilight Bark]

I've heard Arman's argument coming from different people for quite some time now. The "the Earth is more powerful than humans"-argument. I was responding to the claim that the planet is capable of healing itself and that it will continue to be around for a long, long time after it has expunged all form of human life. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the planet will be able to heal itself and continue to exist after all the damage that has been done and continues to be done.

 

I wasn't paying attention to whether Arman was joking or not.

He was quoting George Carlin, the recently deceased comedian. As far as whether Anonymouse was joking or not, I don't know why you think that makes a difference.

 

As far as planet healing itself, that's just bull excrement. We are perfectly capable of destroying it irreversibly. It's not a great accomplishment, or a sign of great intellect. But we can do it. Quite easily in fact. And why should we care if it can heal itself after we are gone? That is more like Gaia new-age BS than a cool headed analysis.

Edited July 7, 2008 by Twilight Bark

[nairi]

He was quoting George Carlin, the recently deceased comedian. As far as whether Anonymouse was joking or not, I don't know why you think that makes a difference.

 

I didn't realize he was quoting someone. Should've checked the link.

[vava]

I think it's fair to say that a relatively small group of fanatical activists purporting to be "environmentalists" have thoroughly trounced the public perception of the fundamentals of environmental conservation - which although rather broad, is essentially a concern for ecology and the natural environment and how it relates to our civilization. Those whose efforts are trying to establish ways within our societies to minimize environmental impact in the face of current environmental "threats" (overpopulation, resulting over development, uncontrolled consumption, and a generally "disposable" society, to name a few) are in fact pursuing a noble cause. Environmentalists have indeed made some headway - there are pragmatic solutions, or steps towards solutions that have been established in the last 15 years or so that are relatively successful (curbside recycling programs, re-usable grocery bags etc.), not to mention general public awareness. The negative side is that with each new solution, there are a host of new problems once a critical mass is attained. Example, solar power is great, but what do you do with the batteries once they've outlived their usable life? Windfarms can generate enough power to provide energy to run entire small towns - but what is the impact of their construction (not to mention the effects of the noise etc.)?

 

It's difficult to legislate a cultural change (unless you're China) so I'm not wholly in favour of establishing a slew of new laws that will quickly become dated or obsolete as new data/technology develops. But I am in favour of consumer empowerment. New labeling guidelines will at least provide consumers with the ability top make choices - and as the greater population becomes sensitized to environmental and ecological issues, public demand will help drive innovation, responsibility and environmental sensitivity within consumer products and development in general. Utopia maybe?

 

A little anecdote: I recently purchased some organic lettuce, with a nice green label and a logo that screams environmentally responsible - I recently noticed that I'm able to find the same brand/packaging of lettuce in markets all over the province - and even in other provinces. That's a LOT of organic lettuce. How can this be? To produce that quantity of goods, regularly enough for weekly shipments (if not more), with a consistent quality - hmmm - methinks you'd need a factory like operation. Besides the individual packages are all plastic. I can't even check the provenance of the lettuce; just how "organic" can it be if they've had to ship it by truck for 3000km? For me this just illustrates the lack of information available to consumers, and highlights the gap between the socially responsible public and the profit-seeking producers/corporations. Is there a way that concerns of both parties can be met? Can we, as a society, establish a win-win?

 

 

[DominO123]

Make sure at least it doesn't come Florida or the other places where organic lettuce contains high amount of perchlorate.

 

What is the compagny on the logo? lettuce organic production is in explosion.

 

I think it's fair to say that a relatively small group of fanatical activists purporting to be "environmentalists" have thoroughly trounced the public perception of the fundamentals of environmental conservation - which although rather broad, is essentially a concern for ecology and the natural environment and how it relates to our civilization. Those whose efforts are trying to establish ways within our societies to minimize environmental impact in the face of current environmental "threats" (overpopulation, resulting over development, uncontrolled consumption, and a generally "disposable" society, to name a few) are in fact pursuing a noble cause. Environmentalists have indeed made some headway - there are pragmatic solutions, or steps towards solutions that have been established in the last 15 years or so that are relatively successful (curbside recycling programs, re-usable grocery bags etc.), not to mention general public awareness. The negative side is that with each new solution, there are a host of new problems once a critical mass is attained. Example, solar power is great, but what do you do with the batteries once they've outlived their usable life? Windfarms can generate enough power to provide energy to run entire small towns - but what is the impact of their construction (not to mention the effects of the noise etc.)?

 

It's difficult to legislate a cultural change (unless you're China) so I'm not wholly in favour of establishing a slew of new laws that will quickly become dated or obsolete as new data/technology develops. But I am in favour of consumer empowerment. New labeling guidelines will at least provide consumers with the ability top make choices - and as the greater population becomes sensitized to environmental and ecological issues, public demand will help drive innovation, responsibility and environmental sensitivity within consumer products and development in general. Utopia maybe?

 

A little anecdote: I recently purchased some organic lettuce, with a nice green label and a logo that screams environmentally responsible - I recently noticed that I'm able to find the same brand/packaging of lettuce in markets all over the province - and even in other provinces. That's a LOT of organic lettuce. How can this be? To produce that quantity of goods, regularly enough for weekly shipments (if not more), with a consistent quality - hmmm - methinks you'd need a factory like operation. Besides the individual packages are all plastic. I can't even check the provenance of the lettuce; just how "organic" can it be if they've had to ship it by truck for 3000km? For me this just illustrates the lack of information available to consumers, and highlights the gap between the socially responsible public and the profit-seeking producers/corporations. Is there a way that concerns of both parties can be met? Can we, as a society, establish a win-win?