6 ms·

Is there some political reason people go after the bottled water companies than the other water users? Does it poll well with focus groups or something similar?

colecut 7y ago
With bottled water companies, I think people hate the plastic waste more than the water use.. so there's two reasons to go after them. Plastic bottles are the only things a bottled water company actually produces.
MereInterest 7y ago
For wafer from an aquifer, uncertain. For water from the Great Lakes, because bottled water is shipped outside of the Great Lakes watershed, and therefore does not return to the Great Lakes.
- corodra 7y ago
  Why you're getting downvoted is beyond me. Because yes, same point. It's a water resource that's being exported at a potential unsafe rate compared to it being replenished. Which can have devastating impact on the environment. We already have sinkhole problems here in Florida. Hell, look at water exported for LA and Las Vegas. Actually, just look up water exportation in general and see a lot of the problems it develops. It's not just an American thing.
  - MereInterest 7y ago
    I tend to figure that all posts will have some amount of downvotes, and that if I complain about them, it would just add noise to the conversation. I think most differences arise from the source of water that is present, and how that affects people's thinking of water usage. With rivers, water is seen as a resource that replenishes at a certain rate. Whether you use it for irrigation or let it flow into the sea, it is lost. Therefore, if water usage is restricted, the end result is a loss of fresh water. Maximal usage implies maximal societal benefit. The Great Lakes are a rather unique situation, because they are the among the largest freshwater bodies in the world. So long as water being returned to the lakes is properly treated, you can use as much water as is desired without affecting the storage of water. So long as it stays within the Great Lakes watershed, rivers will quickly bring the water back to the lakes. The only way that the water will decrease substantially is if it is exported outside of the watershed entirely. Maximal societal benefit is gained by maximizing water usage within the watershed, and minimizing water usage outside. It is these two mentalities that are in conflict, more than anything else. From the perspective of those using river water, the Great Lakes looks like hoarding, rather than appropriate management of a finite resource.
paggle 7y ago
I don't know about the political reason but the logical reason is that piped water users generally end up putting that water back into Northern Florida, either the ground or the air.
notquiteacop 7y ago
The people making the bulk of the money have the greater role in taking responsibility. It's always been like this. And by all comparisons and contrasts, buying water in plastic bottles is a losing proposition. 99% of consumers lose money by buying water this way.
hoorayimhelping 7y ago
It's a stupid, inefficient, and wasteful use of water. If almond growers want to use a ton of water to grow almonds, fine. At least we get almonds, almond milk, almond oil, etc from that water usage. Bottled water gets us nothing because most places it's getting shipped to already have clean, potable water available. It's a waste of water first and foremost. (Obviously this argument is against wealthy first world nations drinking bottled water. It's totally reasonable to ship clean water to the 2nd and 3rd world). It's doubly offensive when you factor in the fact that most bottled water is transported in single use plastic containers that don't fall apart. There weren't any empty water bottles washed up on lakes in the 90s. They're everywhere now. It's triply offensive when you consider this water is transported using pollution emitting vehicles. It's 3x the waste for 1x the benefit. The final straw is that a company is getting rich doing this but not paying for the externalities they're creating.
- peteey 7y ago
  Almonds, meat, and golf courses are exorbitant consumers of water which no one needs to survive. You absolutely need water to survive. One liter of bottled water requires 1 liter of water. One liter of almond milk requires 384. It is absurd that you justify almost 400x water consumption because "at least we get almonds". I live in Florida. The amount of water I need is independent of bottles. If I drink a gallon of water from a pipe or bottle, I take a gallon of water out of the springs. If I drink a gallon of almond milk, I take 400 gallons from somewhere in California. Your argument against plastic applies to almost all other things in grocery stores. The argument is specifically applied to water because everyone seems to have a personal grudge against Nestle. Is bottled water wasteful? Yes. Should we dedicate more energy towards 400x wasteful activities in the same grocery store? Only if you want to be taken seriously.
  - ChrisLomont 7y ago
    Where do you think those 384 liters of water to produce a liter of almond milk go? Back into the environment, mostly the ground. Water is not being consumed or destroyed. There’s the same 384 liters left.

colecut 7y ago

With bottled water companies, I think people hate the plastic waste more than the water use.. so there's two reasons to go after them. Plastic bottles are the only things a bottled water company actually produces.

MereInterest 7y ago

For wafer from an aquifer, uncertain. For water from the Great Lakes, because bottled water is shipped outside of the Great Lakes watershed, and therefore does not return to the Great Lakes.

corodra 7y ago
Why you're getting downvoted is beyond me. Because yes, same point. It's a water resource that's being exported at a potential unsafe rate compared to it being replenished. Which can have devastating impact on the environment. We already have sinkhole problems here in Florida. Hell, look at water exported for LA and Las Vegas. Actually, just look up water exportation in general and see a lot of the problems it develops. It's not just an American thing.
- MereInterest 7y ago
  I tend to figure that all posts will have some amount of downvotes, and that if I complain about them, it would just add noise to the conversation. I think most differences arise from the source of water that is present, and how that affects people's thinking of water usage. With rivers, water is seen as a resource that replenishes at a certain rate. Whether you use it for irrigation or let it flow into the sea, it is lost. Therefore, if water usage is restricted, the end result is a loss of fresh water. Maximal usage implies maximal societal benefit. The Great Lakes are a rather unique situation, because they are the among the largest freshwater bodies in the world. So long as water being returned to the lakes is properly treated, you can use as much water as is desired without affecting the storage of water. So long as it stays within the Great Lakes watershed, rivers will quickly bring the water back to the lakes. The only way that the water will decrease substantially is if it is exported outside of the watershed entirely. Maximal societal benefit is gained by maximizing water usage within the watershed, and minimizing water usage outside. It is these two mentalities that are in conflict, more than anything else. From the perspective of those using river water, the Great Lakes looks like hoarding, rather than appropriate management of a finite resource.

paggle 7y ago

I don't know about the political reason but the logical reason is that piped water users generally end up putting that water back into Northern Florida, either the ground or the air.

notquiteacop 7y ago

The people making the bulk of the money have the greater role in taking responsibility. It's always been like this. And by all comparisons and contrasts, buying water in plastic bottles is a losing proposition. 99% of consumers lose money by buying water this way.

hoorayimhelping 7y ago

It's a stupid, inefficient, and wasteful use of water. If almond growers want to use a ton of water to grow almonds, fine. At least we get almonds, almond milk, almond oil, etc from that water usage. Bottled water gets us nothing because most places it's getting shipped to already have clean, potable water available. It's a waste of water first and foremost. (Obviously this argument is against wealthy first world nations drinking bottled water. It's totally reasonable to ship clean water to the 2nd and 3rd world). It's doubly offensive when you factor in the fact that most bottled water is transported in single use plastic containers that don't fall apart. There weren't any empty water bottles washed up on lakes in the 90s. They're everywhere now. It's triply offensive when you consider this water is transported using pollution emitting vehicles. It's 3x the waste for 1x the benefit. The final straw is that a company is getting rich doing this but not paying for the externalities they're creating.

peteey 7y ago
Almonds, meat, and golf courses are exorbitant consumers of water which no one needs to survive. You absolutely need water to survive. One liter of bottled water requires 1 liter of water. One liter of almond milk requires 384. It is absurd that you justify almost 400x water consumption because "at least we get almonds". I live in Florida. The amount of water I need is independent of bottles. If I drink a gallon of water from a pipe or bottle, I take a gallon of water out of the springs. If I drink a gallon of almond milk, I take 400 gallons from somewhere in California. Your argument against plastic applies to almost all other things in grocery stores. The argument is specifically applied to water because everyone seems to have a personal grudge against Nestle. Is bottled water wasteful? Yes. Should we dedicate more energy towards 400x wasteful activities in the same grocery store? Only if you want to be taken seriously.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago
  Where do you think those 384 liters of water to produce a liter of almond milk go? Back into the environment, mostly the ground. Water is not being consumed or destroyed. There’s the same 384 liters left.