6 ms·

In my country (Iceland) everyone uses their own containers and nobody drinks bottled water but tourists. In fact you never even saw still bottled water in store

In my country (Iceland) everyone uses their own containers and nobody drinks bottled water but tourists. In fact you never even saw still bottled water in stores up until just a few years ago. The water that comes out of the tap is some of the most pristine stuff in the world, but you still see tourists loading several 2 liter bottles of the stuff into their shopping carts because they don't know any better.. It makes me sad to see the waste created in the environment due to ignorance. It's common practice to use re-usable drinking containers.. and you can do this while traveling as well. It's like bringing your own shopping bag, people didn't used to do this often, but now it's become more of a trend and it's good for the environment. Now we just need to get people to realize that it's perfectly fine to re-use the same drinking container. It's not a hard concept, it's just laziness and apathy that drive these profits.

tiku 9y ago
Almost the same here in the Netherlands. I guess the north of Europe has enough money for nice water filtration. One big thing is that we use the clean drinking water for showering and flushing our toilet also, this could be a great water saver for the future if we could have a substream of lesser quality water to use for these purposes.
- blubb-fish 9y ago
  > Almost the same here in the Netherlands. I guess the north of Europe has enough money for nice water filtration. I doubt that water filtration is particularly expensive compared to stuff like defense expenses or buying out banks. It's more about whether a government cares about providing an egalitarian long term solution for clean water. The US government doesn't care about black people being unjustly shot dead by police or for providing health care. Of course they don't care about something as abstract as clean water.
  - teekert 9y ago
    I think it is also about the insanely large network in the US compared to tiny Netherlands (Netherlands is about 300 km by 150 km). Water has more time to go bad in those long pipes. to see how small the Netherlands is: https://mapfight.appspot.com/texas-vs-nl/texas-netherlands-size-comparison https://mapfight.appspot.com/texas-vs-nl/texas-netherlands-s...
    - kbart 9y ago
      Usually, even small towns have their own water extraction and purification facilities, so the size of a country doesn't have any influence (at least directly). Bar rare occasions with extreme climates, where no local water source is available.
- phicoh 9y ago
  The practical problem with having two qualities of water in a home is that the contractors who are working on water installations are not careful enough. Obviously you want to have zero risk that drinking water gets contaminated with less clean water. So in some projects where they started out with such a dual water quality setup, they have revered to only drinking water.
- misja111 9y ago
  Not everywhere in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam there are even a couple of specialized Water Shops. Which is really a lot like selling air if you think about it, considering that tap water is almost free and has often a better quality than what is sold in those bottles.
- Someone 9y ago
  I see that as a way to clean up rivers. If you’re environmentally conscious, let your tap run 24 hours a day :-) Seriously: I don’t think separate quality sources makes much sense. Firstly, citizens would have to be aware that there is tap water they cannot drink (where can you safely use it, and be sure kids wouldn’t drink it? Showers and garden hoses definitely are out. Farming and industry probably are the only use cases that make sense, and those already can have separate lower quality feeds, if they want it), and secondly, the effort needed to keep the streams separate and the impact of that going awry would make it difficult. On the exit side, there is discussion about keeping runoff water separate from more contaminated water (greywater vs blackwater. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste)). That already is done a bit in new neighborhoods by having separate pipes for rainwater runoff and sewage. Possible problem there is that adding rainwater to sewage helps it flow through the system. Also, again, constructors would have to conscious about never feeding blackwater into a greywater pipe.
  - aplummer 9y ago
    My old school used grey water for sprinkler systemss It was like 99% clean but not “drinkable”. Big red signs everywhere, seems fine. I would think golf courses must do something similar but don’t know
new299 9y ago
> It makes me sad to see the waste created in the environment due to ignorance. It's common practice to use re-usable drinking containers.. and you can do this while traveling as well. It's like bringing your own shopping bag, people didn't used to do this often, but now it's become more of a trend and it's good for the environment. I feel like many environmental actions that governments support are taken because they are easy, not because they have the highest impact. In your example of re-usable shopping bags, most items use more packaging that the bag itself. The environmental impact of mandating bag re-use seems minimal, compared to the packaging used for fruit, meat, vegetables, and all other common commodities. In the case of re-usable water bottles. Yes, they can be useful no doubt. There are situations and people for whom this doesn't work well. For example, a re-usable bottle should be washed with soap once a day [1] and that might not always be possible. So suggesting that all or most users of bottled water are "lazy of apathetic" does not seem justified. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wait-youre-supposed-to-wash-your-water-bottle-how-often_us_57a357b2e4b04414d1f3bf3a http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wait-youre-supposed-to-w...
- new299 9y ago
  If I'm going to be downvoted... some kind of counterpoint or explanation would help progress the discussion, and avoid my making similar errors in the future.
  - nkrisc 9y ago
    I wasn't one who downvoted you but it might be because it sounds as if you're suggesting that there's something wrong with taking an easy and less impactful action when there are more impactful, but much harder actions. One does not preclude the other. Yes, targeting plastic shopping bags is easy, and yes the packaging the items come in is probably worse, but why not take the easy action anyway? What's your point?
    - new299 9y ago
      Ah, if that's the case I guess I didn't make my point clearly. Absolutely, it's fine and I personally feel, a great idea to use reusable bags (and water bottles). The difficulty comes if people apply social pressure and say "why are you still using non-reusable bags that you are lazy and apathetic, and it's a sign of societies mental decline" (those are rephrased statements used elsewhere in this discussion). Because there can be good reasons for using a non-reusable bags (or water bottles) in certain situations, and there are likely value judgments you make that have equal (or greater) environmental impact which have similar utility.
teekert 9y ago
If I'm driving around your beautiful country, I didn't bring my own containers and I can't bring them back on the plane. Your own containers are much more expensive than the bottled water is. So no wonder tourists buy bottled water.
- rando444 9y ago
  Of course you can take your water bottles on the plane, you just can't take them with liquid in them. Just empty them and refill them. When traveling there are faucets at every restaurant, gas station, campsite, or pretty much any place you can think of. It's even safe to drink from the streams out in the nature. In speaking with tourists it's clear that the main reason they buy water (and in the quantities they do) is that they just don't know any better.
  - new299 9y ago
    > Of course you can take your water bottles on the plane In terms of energy, that plane flight likely used 1000s to millions of times more energy than that used to create a bottle of water. Running the numbers from [1] and [2], I came up with about 200 bottles of water per mile of air travel. Was that trip necessary? What do we think of people who take an "unnecessary" flight (or perhaps a cheaper one because it takes a longer, less desirable route)? Do we consider them to be in "mental decline" or "apathetic" as other commenter have suggested. In comparison to the flight, the bottle of water seems quite insubstantial. So if they found the water bottle more convenient in this scenario, I can't see a major objection. [1] https://phys.org/news/2009-03-energy-bottle.html https://phys.org/news/2009-03-energy-bottle.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
  - OscarCunningham 9y ago
    Last time I travelled from the UK I was allowed to take empty bottles with me, but there's no "of course" about it. For example you can take a full 50ml bottle, but not a 500ml bottle with 50ml of water in it. It's best just to check in advance.
dTal 9y ago
I know Icelanders are proud of their drinking water but most people's definition of "pristine" doesn't include "caked with minerals and stinking of sulphur". Is it silly and wasteful to avoid drinking it? Absolutely. But don't assume it's based on ignorance - plenty of people have tried it and found the strong taste off-putting.

tiku 9y ago

Almost the same here in the Netherlands. I guess the north of Europe has enough money for nice water filtration. One big thing is that we use the clean drinking water for showering and flushing our toilet also, this could be a great water saver for the future if we could have a substream of lesser quality water to use for these purposes.

blubb-fish 9y ago
> Almost the same here in the Netherlands. I guess the north of Europe has enough money for nice water filtration. I doubt that water filtration is particularly expensive compared to stuff like defense expenses or buying out banks. It's more about whether a government cares about providing an egalitarian long term solution for clean water. The US government doesn't care about black people being unjustly shot dead by police or for providing health care. Of course they don't care about something as abstract as clean water.
- teekert 9y ago
  I think it is also about the insanely large network in the US compared to tiny Netherlands (Netherlands is about 300 km by 150 km). Water has more time to go bad in those long pipes. to see how small the Netherlands is: https://mapfight.appspot.com/texas-vs-nl/texas-netherlands-size-comparison https://mapfight.appspot.com/texas-vs-nl/texas-netherlands-s...
  - kbart 9y ago
    Usually, even small towns have their own water extraction and purification facilities, so the size of a country doesn't have any influence (at least directly). Bar rare occasions with extreme climates, where no local water source is available.
phicoh 9y ago
The practical problem with having two qualities of water in a home is that the contractors who are working on water installations are not careful enough. Obviously you want to have zero risk that drinking water gets contaminated with less clean water. So in some projects where they started out with such a dual water quality setup, they have revered to only drinking water.
misja111 9y ago
Not everywhere in the Netherlands, in Amsterdam there are even a couple of specialized Water Shops. Which is really a lot like selling air if you think about it, considering that tap water is almost free and has often a better quality than what is sold in those bottles.
Someone 9y ago
I see that as a way to clean up rivers. If you’re environmentally conscious, let your tap run 24 hours a day :-) Seriously: I don’t think separate quality sources makes much sense. Firstly, citizens would have to be aware that there is tap water they cannot drink (where can you safely use it, and be sure kids wouldn’t drink it? Showers and garden hoses definitely are out. Farming and industry probably are the only use cases that make sense, and those already can have separate lower quality feeds, if they want it), and secondly, the effort needed to keep the streams separate and the impact of that going awry would make it difficult. On the exit side, there is discussion about keeping runoff water separate from more contaminated water (greywater vs blackwater. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greywater, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_(waste)). That already is done a bit in new neighborhoods by having separate pipes for rainwater runoff and sewage. Possible problem there is that adding rainwater to sewage helps it flow through the system. Also, again, constructors would have to conscious about never feeding blackwater into a greywater pipe.
- aplummer 9y ago
  My old school used grey water for sprinkler systemss It was like 99% clean but not “drinkable”. Big red signs everywhere, seems fine. I would think golf courses must do something similar but don’t know

new299 9y ago

> It makes me sad to see the waste created in the environment due to ignorance. It's common practice to use re-usable drinking containers.. and you can do this while traveling as well. It's like bringing your own shopping bag, people didn't used to do this often, but now it's become more of a trend and it's good for the environment. I feel like many environmental actions that governments support are taken because they are easy, not because they have the highest impact. In your example of re-usable shopping bags, most items use more packaging that the bag itself. The environmental impact of mandating bag re-use seems minimal, compared to the packaging used for fruit, meat, vegetables, and all other common commodities. In the case of re-usable water bottles. Yes, they can be useful no doubt. There are situations and people for whom this doesn't work well. For example, a re-usable bottle should be washed with soap once a day [1] and that might not always be possible. So suggesting that all or most users of bottled water are "lazy of apathetic" does not seem justified. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wait-youre-supposed-to-wash-your-water-bottle-how-often_us_57a357b2e4b04414d1f3bf3a http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/wait-youre-supposed-to-w...

new299 9y ago
If I'm going to be downvoted... some kind of counterpoint or explanation would help progress the discussion, and avoid my making similar errors in the future.
- nkrisc 9y ago
  I wasn't one who downvoted you but it might be because it sounds as if you're suggesting that there's something wrong with taking an easy and less impactful action when there are more impactful, but much harder actions. One does not preclude the other. Yes, targeting plastic shopping bags is easy, and yes the packaging the items come in is probably worse, but why not take the easy action anyway? What's your point?
  - new299 9y ago
    Ah, if that's the case I guess I didn't make my point clearly. Absolutely, it's fine and I personally feel, a great idea to use reusable bags (and water bottles). The difficulty comes if people apply social pressure and say "why are you still using non-reusable bags that you are lazy and apathetic, and it's a sign of societies mental decline" (those are rephrased statements used elsewhere in this discussion). Because there can be good reasons for using a non-reusable bags (or water bottles) in certain situations, and there are likely value judgments you make that have equal (or greater) environmental impact which have similar utility.

teekert 9y ago

If I'm driving around your beautiful country, I didn't bring my own containers and I can't bring them back on the plane. Your own containers are much more expensive than the bottled water is. So no wonder tourists buy bottled water.

rando444 9y ago
Of course you can take your water bottles on the plane, you just can't take them with liquid in them. Just empty them and refill them. When traveling there are faucets at every restaurant, gas station, campsite, or pretty much any place you can think of. It's even safe to drink from the streams out in the nature. In speaking with tourists it's clear that the main reason they buy water (and in the quantities they do) is that they just don't know any better.
- new299 9y ago
  > Of course you can take your water bottles on the plane In terms of energy, that plane flight likely used 1000s to millions of times more energy than that used to create a bottle of water. Running the numbers from [1] and [2], I came up with about 200 bottles of water per mile of air travel. Was that trip necessary? What do we think of people who take an "unnecessary" flight (or perhaps a cheaper one because it takes a longer, less desirable route)? Do we consider them to be in "mental decline" or "apathetic" as other commenter have suggested. In comparison to the flight, the bottle of water seems quite insubstantial. So if they found the water bottle more convenient in this scenario, I can't see a major objection. [1] https://phys.org/news/2009-03-energy-bottle.html https://phys.org/news/2009-03-energy-bottle.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport
- OscarCunningham 9y ago
  Last time I travelled from the UK I was allowed to take empty bottles with me, but there's no "of course" about it. For example you can take a full 50ml bottle, but not a 500ml bottle with 50ml of water in it. It's best just to check in advance.

dTal 9y ago

I know Icelanders are proud of their drinking water but most people's definition of "pristine" doesn't include "caked with minerals and stinking of sulphur". Is it silly and wasteful to avoid drinking it? Absolutely. But don't assume it's based on ignorance - plenty of people have tried it and found the strong taste off-putting.