Why bottled water is good for the environment

[Demeter]

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/why-bottled-wat.html#more


Drinking bottled water is a much more ecological choice than consuming soft drinks, coffee, fruit juice or beer. Water drinkers should be praised instead of criticized.

Bottled water is under attack from environmentalists who preach that tap water has a similar quality and saves a lot of energy since it does not need to be transported by trucks. That might be true, but bottled water is not our biggest problem when it comes to drinking habits. All other beverages consume huge amounts of water and energy during their production processes, which makes their ecological impact far more detrimental than that of bottled water. Like bottled water, most of them are distributed in bottles and cans, too. (Illustration: plan59)

The new smokers

Bottled water has become one of the most powerful symbols of unsustainable practices. Giles Coren, an English food journalist, has coined bottled water drinkers “the new smokers”. These fierce criticisms are understandable. After all, most western countries have good quality tap water, which makes bottled water (often from the same water sources) a bit of an absurdity. But, denouncing bottled water misses the point. Indeed, trucking around tap water in plastic bottles creates unnecessary energy use and waste. However, so does trucking around Coca-Cola, Stella Artois and Chivas Regal. It is unfair to solely blame water even though it also happens to be distributed via pipes.

More importantly, all other beverages use vast amounts of water and energy to produce, while water - even bottled water - does not. It takes water to grow crops, and it takes energy to fertilize, harvest and transport them. Breweries use water and energy too. It takes 35 litres of water to produce one cup of tea, and 140 litres of water to produce one cup of coffee. When you add sugar in your coffee or tea, it gets even worse: every teaspoonful of sugar requires 50 cups of water to grow. A glass of beer takes 75 litres of water to produce, while just one glass of wine asks 120 litres of water. One glass of fruit juice or milk requires 170 to 200 litres of water. A glass of brandy asks 2,400 litres of water (all numbers taken from these sources).

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a plea for everyone to start drinking bottled water instead of tap water. Drinking tap water should be encouraged. But people who prefer to drink bottled water should not be treated as pariahs, because they are making a much more ecological choice than those of us who choose to consume other beverages.

[DS1]

1. thanks for the laugh

[kirby]

2. Straw man?

I always thought the criticism against bottled water is the amount of energy required to deliver it, the petroleum used to create all the plastic bottles, and the bottle litter/waste. All for a product that is already delivered to your house via a water system that you pay for with your tax dollars. And you can always add a filter too. Not to mention that many of the bottled water is just filtered tap water.

Me personally, I don't think there is any problem with water for 'on-the-go'. But to purchase large quantities of small bottles for home use is wasteful.

[Donnachaidh]

3. with all that non-biodegradeable plastic going into our landfills?

I'm sorry, but the bottled water people SHOULD be made aware of the packaging, and stop buying the plastics. I won't get snarky if someone goes the next step and goes with a personal thermos like a SIGG.

People need to be made aware of just how much plastic is turning this planet into a blue-green garbage bin.

[Trillo]

6. In our area, all those bottles are "supposedly" recycled.

That's by the trash company. We do a preliminary sort as "recyclable", and place that trash in a different container which gets picked up as a "recyclable". Where it goes after that, I haven't a clue. One would hope that they're reusing the plastic.

[Whoa_Nelly]

4. Why I won't drink tap water from where I live

Bladder cancer case-control study in Nevada and California

The California/Nevada bladder cancer study is a population-based, case-control study that will examine the hypothesis that bladder cancer is caused by ingestion of arsenic in drinking water at relatively low concentrations. The study population includes residents of Kings County in California, and six counties in Nevada (Churchill, Mineral, Lyon, Douglas, Storey and Carson). These counties were chosen because they include water supplies which had close to 100 ug/L of arsenic, the highest level of arsenic found in major water supplies in the U.S. Other water supplies in the study region contain less than 10 ug/L and thus provide a marked contrast in exposure. Two hundred bladder cancer cases diagnosed between 1994 and 2000 are being identified from the California and Nevada Tumor Registries. Random digit dial (RDD) is being used to identify 400 controls who will be frequency matched to cases by sex and 5-year age groups. Structured personal telephone interviews are being administered to obtain lifetime residential history and detailed information on current and past water consumption patterns. Information is also being obtained regarding cigarette smoking (which may be synergistic with arsenic in causing bladder cancer), chlorination of drinking water, diet, and occupational history. Although the effect of arsenic at 100 ug/L is uncertain, this study has over 90% statistical power to detect a relative risk of 2.0, which was predicted by linear extrapolation of data from studies in Taiwan.
http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~asrg/research.html

I live in Kings County, CA, and used to live in Carson County, NV Lucky me x(

Also, the water here in Kings County smells like rotten eggs (hydrogen sulphide), and I have concerns about pesticides in the water table due to the huge agricultural industry here. I still remember when DDT was being used, even after it was banned and being bought on the Black Market by industry farmers.

[Buzz Clik]

7. You know, yours may be the only case where bottled water might be justified.

Thanks the to Bush administration, the proposed drinking water standard was bumped upward, allowing higher concentrations in water. However, considering that the Clinton-era standard had a safety marging of at 100x, I doubt that the drinking water in your area is truly high enough to cause the diseases being tracked.

These are tough to track down, and drinking bottled water beats working up an ulcer worrying about it.

[havocmom]

9. In my town, the tap is listed as unfit for stock animals

I guess my bottled water (and I have been to the source, it really is a spring) use is OK?

Since a lot of bottled water in grocery cases are just tap from somewhere else, I have several insulated stainless steel pints and quarts that I can carry with me when I am going out. The containers come apart so I can clean them. They are handy by the bed, as they don't break when I drop them if I need a sip when I have sleepy. They hold ice in summer and are great in the cup holders of the car on those rare occasions I leave the 'hood.

But my tap? A sure fire weight loss substance. Not fit to drink and often I get sick from brushing my teeth with it. When the hispanic sheep-shearing crews arrive here, they joke that it's a nice place, 'but don't drink the water.' They are only half joking.

[Whoa_Nelly]

21. Hey there, havocmom!

Have been using reusable containers, too.

I shudder to think about my use of the local water for my daily coffee, brushing teeth, and actually showering and swimming (pool) in it :scared:

Good to see you! :hi:

[depakid]

14. Hint: reverse osmosis filter

It's much cheaper in the long run- though of course, you don't know what the deal is at any given restaurant.

[Whoa_Nelly]

22. Would that remove all the decades of pesticides?

The water here is a bit yellow, and often cloudy.

[depakid]

25. The better filtration systems out there use 2 or 3 stages

so they also include activated carbon filters. Together, they cover a very broad range of organic chemical and mineral impurities.

My recollection is that they run less than $200.

[Whoa_Nelly]

26. Have seen full on filtration systems on the outside of homes here

big, but considered the best in actually making the water clean enough to drink and use.
The water here is also very hard...high mineral content.

[Trillo]

33. Hard to guess what types of systems those might be.

The smaller home units make anywhere from 2 to 50 gallons per 24 hours, this is controlled by the capacity of the RO cartridge itself, which is only part of the system.

There are larger commercial units that some wealthy people place on their whole house water supply, these started at $1500-$3000+ back in the years around 2000. They may have increased in cost, they are commonly referred to as commercial units. However, the quality of the water produced from them is not significantly different from the smaller home units, only the total amount of water they make per day.

There's also another grade of RO membrane for brackish and salt water, these require very strong electric pumps (hi psi) to push the salt water through them, and they are quite a bit different.

I have a 5-stage unit that I built myself for drinking water only, I used the 50-gallon per day membrane. I think all the parts cost somewhere around $300, so there was no real savings versus buying a system already made, except I was able to get the precise membrane I wanted, the precise types of 3 different activated carbon prefilters, etc. When buying a pre-made unit, those decisions are made for you by the manufacturer, and there can be significant differences between the qualities they choose versus what you might choose provided you learn about them in advance, and it's very difficult to get full disclosure on all of that when buying a factory assembled unit.

We only have two people that use it, so at 50-gallons per day, we use it for making coffee, water for the pets, even quick handrinsing after rinsing under tap water, if desired. It has enough excess capacity that we simply don't worry about running out of drinking water. With some prior units we'd had, that only made a few gallons per day, it was easy to run out, and it would take hours for the tank to refill.

[Whoa_Nelly]

36. Thanks for the info and input

Am currently renting from my son, so I doubt I can get him to invest in a home system. But, I can probably get the osmosis system, one way or another, such as attached to my faucet or the drip method, and that may help...especially in the areas of daily use since am the only one using the water here.

Thanks! :hi:

[Buzz Clik]

5. Dumbest rationalization ever. Consumption of bottled water in the US is indefensible.

Bottled water in NOT cleaner than tap water. Period. It is a total waste of every resource that goes into its production, distribution, sales, and cleanup/recycling of the empty containers.

[kirby]

16. That is a pretty broad brush...

I hope you didn't splash too much paint on yourself. I already posted earlier in this thread about the wastefulness of bottled water. But, I am sure there are many instances of localities where the drinking water is not safe for one reason or another. Those communities are exceptions to the rule however. The market share and volume of consumption of bottled water is indefensible.

[Buzz Clik]

17. There are communities -- usually small and rural -- where no adequate drinking water is available.

High nitrates in agricultural areas, arsenic in a small number of places in the West, selenium, and flare-ups of E. coli and other pathogens can be problems. Ready solutions exist for all these problems that don't have to include bottled water.

It's no extrapolation to say that 99+% of the bottled water consumed in this country -- at a price that exceeds that for gasoline -- is done so in communities where the drinking water is of equal or better quality than the bottled water.

[kirby]

19. I agree...

I was just responding to the 'You know, yours may be the only case where bottled water might be justified' comment you made and being overly broad. As you say, most people who have poor drinking water, cannot afford bottled water either.

[here_is_to_hope]

8. My wifes sometimes buys those bottles of water...

and leave the effin' things everywhere around the house-or did till I piled them up and dumped them all over the bed...
I may sleep on the couch for some time but I wont be seeing those friggin' bottles around any more!

[frazzled]

10. I rarely drink as much Chivas Regal as I do water.

And Chivas comes in glass bottles, which can be fully reused, not plastic.

When I can get Chivas out of the tap (actually, I don't drink Chivas--I drink an Islay single-malt like Laphroaig), then maybe I'll consider this cockamamie article.

I agree that people drinking bottled water shouldn't be considered pariahs (no one should). Sometimes you need to have a bottle: hiking, on a picnic, etc. And sometimes you'd like to serve some mineral water with dinner, which doesn't come from the tap. But silly--use tap water (filtered if necessary) in most situations.

[tomreedtoon]

11. Besides bottle waste, it's egotistic pretension.

These rich yuppie bastards who toss off their bottles of spring water (which I think is sprayed through old rusty bedsprings with a garden hose) act like they're at a party with the Sun King at Versailles, sipping wine and getting ready to pee on a peasant.

For the record, I drink a lot of tap water. But I also get refillable jugs and fill up at water vending machines (5 gallons for $1.50, the cost of one crappy little foo-foo bottle) and keep it handy. (Hint; Coleman makes a collapsible cubical five gallon jug. Very handy. Also very heavy.) I drink "refined" water at a discount price. And I laugh at your hand-sized foo-foo bottles. Ha-ha!

[KaptBunnyPants]

12. Now that they have refillable filtered bottles, there really is no excuse.

We need to cut our waste drastically, and bottled water is an absolutely perfect symbol for our cultural insanity. Plastics are almost entirely derived from petroleum byproducts, they don't recycle well, and they don't bio-degrade. There are convenient alternatives for carrying drinking water around, and if we are to survive as a species, shouldn't we at least do the painless things we could do to be less environmentally destructive? And comparing your social pariah status to smokers really doesn't help you. Smoking is not only unhealthy for the smoker and the people around them, it is disgusting to the senses of most non-smokers. When I first started smoking, getting over the bad smell and taste was a serious obstacle. I got used to it after a while, but when I quit it went back to being repellant. I'm not talking about some kind of moral argument, I have no problem with smoking. It's just awful to be around when you don't smoke. That seems to be pretty universal, too. Unless you are used to the smell, it's just not pleasant to be around it. If a guy smells like butt, can you really blame people for social discrimination?

[NC_Nurse]

13. I think pointing out that none of the prepackaged drinks are good

for the environment is a good thing. Especially since some of the other drinks are using even more resources.
People need to know about what goes into everything they eat and drink so that they can make responsible choices.
There has been a lot of publicity about how bottled water drains resources, seems like it's a good idea to start illuminating
folks about those bottles of soda and tea they're drinking.

Not that anyone has to stop being judgmental or anything. I wouldn't want to rain on anyone's parade.
By all means, have at it. :D

[Buzz Clik]

15. I can't put tea and coffee on a par with bottled drinks.

Tea leaves and coffee beans are shipped dry, so transportation costs are relatively small. The packaging is minimal if you're brewing at home.

[NC_Nurse]

18. I was referring to bottled tea and coffee, not home-brewed.

So Ha! }(

on edit: That's what I meant by "prepackaged"...sorry if it wasn't clear.

[Buzz Clik]

20. Ah. Then we agree.

[NC_Nurse]

24. So it would seem.

:)

[Eileen]

23. Not good for either the environment OR the people of the world!!

Learn why there is such opposition to bottled water.

It has nothing really to do with the environment although that banning it would have a minor effect in that area.

It has everything to do with refusing to bow down to an international neo-con greed agenda that will eventually destroy what is left of civilization as we know it.

- Do a little reading -


- Do a little more reading. -(PDF)



Eileen

[MasonJar]

27. Ironically the vast majority of bottles from bottled water are not being recycled.

That is an enormous environmental problem.

[madmom]

28. I have a bottled water dispenser in my home, I but water in 5 gallon

recycled bottles, if I take any with me it's in a 1 liter bottle made for this purpose. Our tap water has so much bleach in it you can smell it, and that's when it's supposed to be "good" as in no nitrate warnings.My daughter did a science fair project a few years ago, "who has the cleanest water?" Our tap water rated at the bottom of the list, at the top was my nieces pond water. No thank you, I will stick with my bottled water.

[Two Americas]

29. agriculture

Water used to grow crops is not "consumed" and does not disappear. If plants "consumed" water, the planet's water supply would have been "consumed" and gone long ago.

Maybe the biggest damage from bottled water is the damage to people's thinking - now that water has become a packaged commodity people think that drinking water makes it disappear.

Maybe we should put big tarps over all vegetation to prevent the plants from stealing our water - then we can "save" it, put it in bottles and make even more profits off of it. Love those "green" consumer choice solutions.

[skepticscott]

30. No, it doesn't "disappear" but

it is not necessarily easily recoverable or reusable over and over. If it were, then we wouldn't be depleting our aquifers that we use for irrigation, and the levels of rivers, lakes and reservoirs wouldn't be going down. The energy stored in oil or natural gas does not "disappear" after we burn them, but that doesn't mean that those resources can't be used up. It's a little thing called entropy, and the same general principle applies to water.

[Two Americas]

31. correct

It is a management and allocation issue, not a scarcity issue.

Lake and river levels - taken in aggregate globally - are not "going down." Water is not disappearing.

Water use is not at all analogous to burning fuel, and does not involve entropy. No energy is being lost, no decay is occuring, no chemical reaction is happening, and there is no less water as a result of using it.

[skepticscott]

32. I merely said that the same general principle was involved

Energy is not destroyed when you burn gasoline or oil in an engine, but a great deal of it is converted to a form that is no longer usable and not recoverable without the expenditure of at least as much more energy. In the same way, some of the water pumped out of an aquifer and used on crops evaporates or runs off and ends up in places where it is no longer recoverable without the expenditure of large amounts of energy. Aquifers don't just refill themselves like toilet tanks when you remove their water. If the evaporated water falls as rain and is taken up by trees, for example, it still exists as water but is no longer usable for irrigation or drinking. Ditto if it falls on the ocean-yes, it's still water, but not usable in the way that water taken straight from the ground or from a river is without energy-expensive desalination.

And I can name any number of lakes, rivers and reservoirs where levels are going down (including the Great Lakes, our biggest source). How many can you name where levels are increasing?

[Two Americas]

34. right

But the water is going somewhere and it is still water. The oil is not merely going somehwhere else, it is radically changed when it is burned.

The water comes back from precipitation. Depleting water tables or rivers and lakes in one place is poor management. By the way, I think crops should be grown within naturally re-cycling watersheds. We have huge areas in the western states now that are being developed and farmed that are completely dependent upon inefficent and inappropriate water distribution. That is not because crops "use" water, though, as though that were wasting it or eliminating it somehow. We ought not be developing Arizona - Los Angeles is probably a mistake as far as that goes.

[bemildred]

35. Bullshit. nt