8 ms·

> ...the company has permits for two wells to extract a total of 499,918 cubic meters of water per year, or 499.9 million liters. In 2016, the company extracted

by wyc 9y ago

> ...the company has permits for two wells to extract a total of 499,918 cubic meters of water per year, or 499.9 million liters. In 2016, the company extracted 78.8 percent of the permitted total. So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. > "The city has been growing significantly since the 1970s," he says in an interview at his office, which has a view of Huitepec mountain, where Coca-Cola extracts its water. "But in San Cristobal, there was no urban planning. And that's been aggravated by public policies that don't pay attention to the Indigenous people of the state." That sort of gets at the real problem. There are a lot of questions. Would things would actually get better if Coke were to shut down operations? How many people would stop drawing salaries? How much tax revenue loss does the government face with halted operations? Would the freed up water volume be enough to avert disaster? Does the drought affect everyday citizens or farmers the most? Are there any other environmental externalities that result from the Coke plant? These are some of the tough questions that we need to answer before we can readily assign blame to megacorps. It's easy to hate large companies, and I dislike my fair share, but boiling this situation down into a headliner shaming corporate avarice may not be the best way to make progress. Maybe they should shut down the plant, or maybe they shouldn't--I don't know, and it shouldn't be for armchair economists thousands of miles away to decide. It just seems more complicated than the solicited visceral emotions may suggest.

clarkevans 9y ago
In many cases, getting a government permit doesn't necessarily mean assent of the population. This divergence of representation is a pretty important problem. How could we use technology (and/or novel organizational structures) to help... without making things worse? Could we, for example, have a "PolicyBook" that connects people to their representatives in a way that gives responsible politicians (who aren't corrupt) credibility, and makes those who play for private benefit of their friends easily recognizable?
- koolba 9y ago
  > In many cases, getting a government permit doesn't necessarily mean assent of the population. That's the real problem in a lot of these situations and really with any long term obligation or resource grant bestowed by a government to a private entity. It doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the people in the future or, in many cases particularly in the third world, the present. Short of restricting the maximum duration for such a grant, I don't see many ways to avoid this situation. Even that may have negative consequences as a company wouldn't want to invest in a municipality if the resources it'll be leveraging may not be available in the future. The uncertainty may make it a non starter.
panarky 9y ago
Coke is huge in this part of Chiapas, especially in indigenous areas. I was there last spring, and my guide said Coca-Cola bribed the village curanderos (spiritual healers) to increase the consumption of Coke, so they incorporated it into religious rituals [0]. The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so many moms feed their babies Coke instead [1]. The point is, when the megacorp has subverted democracy from the national leaders [1] to the regional leaders all the way down to the village healers, how can you not hold the megacorp accountable? [0] https://costumbresporelmundo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tumblr_mbhn3smhdm1qa3j75o1_500-all-things-mexico.jpg https://costumbresporelmundo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tum... [1] http://robinewing.com/2013/09/22/cola-consumption-and-the-chamula-indians/ http://robinewing.com/2013/09/22/cola-consumption-and-the-ch... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox
- randlet 9y ago
  > The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so some moms feed their babies Coke instead. Fucking hell that's awful.
  - brianwawok 9y ago
    idiocy playing out in real life
    - dajohnson89 9y ago
      It's not idiocy, it's lack of health education which is a luxury that many talk for granted.
  - artursapek 9y ago
    Does coca-cola charge for breast milk over there?
    - randlet 9y ago
      Breast feeding is preferred but not always possible for a variety of reasons. Having to fall back on fucking Coke is a pretty grim reality to contemplate.
pstuart 9y ago
> So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. Do you think the government acting for the people made the agreement or a government official(s) accepted bribes to make it happen. Hmmmmmmm....
what-no-tests 9y ago
> How many people would stop drawing salaries? Oh of course through wealth redistribution policies. At least until that well runs dry also. /s
hwillis 9y ago
> So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. The government being at fault doesn't change the problem. It's a small city in rural Mexico- you can't expect much. Calling it a "severe utilities planning blunder" implies absolute agency by the local government, which just isn't always true. The government sold a local resource with the expectation that it would be safe and that may have been foolish but we can't tell from the outside in this case. Take examples of Polynesian islands being strip-converted into farmland as the inhabitants sell to corporations. The natives were one step above tribal, and had no idea that would collapse the local ecosystem, and they're now forced to import all their food. It destroyed their health and economy- that wasn't a "severe utilities planning blunder", they were directly taken advantage of. It's pretty clear that Coca-Cola is deeply entwined with Mexican governance at all levels, so it probably doesn't even make sense to blame the government. Coke may very well be making all the choices, when former presidents of coke become presidents of the country. > There are a lot of questions. Would things would actually get better if Coke were to shut down operations? How many people would stop drawing salaries? How much tax revenue loss does the government face with halted operations? Those are mostly strawmen- the choice isn't binary. A Pigovian tax maximizes value to everyone. A good question is whether that would be sufficient, but I get the impression from the article that most people think it would. Since that region is the biggest water source in Mexico you'd think they have at least a little extra water.
snambi 9y ago
It is easier to convince(or bribe) the government officials and get the permission. The govt is too dumb or weak or corrupt. Later it is easier to blame the govt.
sliverstorm 9y ago
Shutting down may not be desirable, but water efficiency might be. I don't know Coke's manufacturing line, but in the days of cheap acre feet, many industries would go through it like it was... water. Why drip irrigate when you can flood irrigate for cheaper.
esarbe 9y ago
> So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. Qui bono? Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by corruption. Or something like that. In situations like these (international megacorp and their offspring making deals in countries with 'emerging markets') I tend to take a very cynical view. I'm pretty sure that whoever signed those deals doesn't have to rely on these wells. You raise some good points, though.
kafkaesq 9y ago
So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? No - it's how these permits are allocated -- and who pulls the strings on those making these "decisions" -- that's the crisis.
throwawaymanbot 9y ago
> d it shouldn't be for armchair economists thousands of miles away to decide. For someone who's critical of Armchair economists, you certainly are doing just that yourself in your post. And people thousands of miles away are able to discern whats morally right, and whats morally wrong. Your post reads like you are on the coke PR team.

by wyc 9y ago

clarkevans 9y ago

In many cases, getting a government permit doesn't necessarily mean assent of the population. This divergence of representation is a pretty important problem. How could we use technology (and/or novel organizational structures) to help... without making things worse? Could we, for example, have a "PolicyBook" that connects people to their representatives in a way that gives responsible politicians (who aren't corrupt) credibility, and makes those who play for private benefit of their friends easily recognizable?

koolba 9y ago
> In many cases, getting a government permit doesn't necessarily mean assent of the population. That's the real problem in a lot of these situations and really with any long term obligation or resource grant bestowed by a government to a private entity. It doesn't necessarily reflect the will of the people in the future or, in many cases particularly in the third world, the present. Short of restricting the maximum duration for such a grant, I don't see many ways to avoid this situation. Even that may have negative consequences as a company wouldn't want to invest in a municipality if the resources it'll be leveraging may not be available in the future. The uncertainty may make it a non starter.

panarky 9y ago

Coke is huge in this part of Chiapas, especially in indigenous areas. I was there last spring, and my guide said Coca-Cola bribed the village curanderos (spiritual healers) to increase the consumption of Coke, so they incorporated it into religious rituals [0]. The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so many moms feed their babies Coke instead [1]. The point is, when the megacorp has subverted democracy from the national leaders [1] to the regional leaders all the way down to the village healers, how can you not hold the megacorp accountable? [0] https://costumbresporelmundo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tumblr_mbhn3smhdm1qa3j75o1_500-all-things-mexico.jpg https://costumbresporelmundo.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/tum... [1] http://robinewing.com/2013/09/22/cola-consumption-and-the-chamula-indians/ http://robinewing.com/2013/09/22/cola-consumption-and-the-ch... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicente_Fox

randlet 9y ago
> The water isn't safe to drink, and Coke can be cheaper than milk or formula, so some moms feed their babies Coke instead. Fucking hell that's awful.
- brianwawok 9y ago
  idiocy playing out in real life
  - dajohnson89 9y ago
    It's not idiocy, it's lack of health education which is a luxury that many talk for granted.
- artursapek 9y ago
  Does coca-cola charge for breast milk over there?
  - randlet 9y ago
    Breast feeding is preferred but not always possible for a variety of reasons. Having to fall back on fucking Coke is a pretty grim reality to contemplate.

pstuart 9y ago

> So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. Do you think the government acting for the people made the agreement or a government official(s) accepted bribes to make it happen. Hmmmmmmm....

what-no-tests 9y ago

> How many people would stop drawing salaries? Oh of course through wealth redistribution policies. At least until that well runs dry also. /s

hwillis 9y ago

> So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. The government being at fault doesn't change the problem. It's a small city in rural Mexico- you can't expect much. Calling it a "severe utilities planning blunder" implies absolute agency by the local government, which just isn't always true. The government sold a local resource with the expectation that it would be safe and that may have been foolish but we can't tell from the outside in this case. Take examples of Polynesian islands being strip-converted into farmland as the inhabitants sell to corporations. The natives were one step above tribal, and had no idea that would collapse the local ecosystem, and they're now forced to import all their food. It destroyed their health and economy- that wasn't a "severe utilities planning blunder", they were directly taken advantage of. It's pretty clear that Coca-Cola is deeply entwined with Mexican governance at all levels, so it probably doesn't even make sense to blame the government. Coke may very well be making all the choices, when former presidents of coke become presidents of the country. > There are a lot of questions. Would things would actually get better if Coke were to shut down operations? How many people would stop drawing salaries? How much tax revenue loss does the government face with halted operations? Those are mostly strawmen- the choice isn't binary. A Pigovian tax maximizes value to everyone. A good question is whether that would be sufficient, but I get the impression from the article that most people think it would. Since that region is the biggest water source in Mexico you'd think they have at least a little extra water.

snambi 9y ago

It is easier to convince(or bribe) the government officials and get the permission. The govt is too dumb or weak or corrupt. Later it is easier to blame the govt.

sliverstorm 9y ago

Shutting down may not be desirable, but water efficiency might be. I don't know Coke's manufacturing line, but in the days of cheap acre feet, many industries would go through it like it was... water. Why drip irrigate when you can flood irrigate for cheaper.

esarbe 9y ago

> So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? It has the markings of some severe utilities planning blunder. Qui bono? Never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by corruption. Or something like that. In situations like these (international megacorp and their offspring making deals in countries with 'emerging markets') I tend to take a very cynical view. I'm pretty sure that whoever signed those deals doesn't have to rely on these wells. You raise some good points, though.

kafkaesq 9y ago

So the government gave Coke the permits, Coke used under 80% of the agreed amount, and now it's a crisis? No - it's how these permits are allocated -- and who pulls the strings on those making these "decisions" -- that's the crisis.

throwawaymanbot 9y ago

> d it shouldn't be for armchair economists thousands of miles away to decide. For someone who's critical of Armchair economists, you certainly are doing just that yourself in your post. And people thousands of miles away are able to discern whats morally right, and whats morally wrong. Your post reads like you are on the coke PR team.