..... and not a drop to drink.
According to this from the International Herald Tribune, that is the prospect facing billions of people, especially in Asia, over the coming decades, as climate change alters rainfall patterns and increases areas that already suffer from droughts.
"global climate change takes many forms, causing droughts in some areas while increasing flooding and the severity of cyclones in others. Droughts reduce water supply, and floods destroy the quality of water. Rising sea levels, for instance, increase the salt content at the mouths of many rivers, from which many Asians draw their drinking water."
By 2080, they reckon that as many as 3.2 Billion people (that's almost half the planet's current population) could face a shortage of clean water.
Yes, I know they use that horrible word 'could', but it doesn't sound too good if true, does it?
Oh, and if you want something topical to actually drink from, how about one of these 'global warming mugs' from gadgets.co.uk?
Showing posts with label WATER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WATER. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Wet measures
Forget carbon: you should be checking your water footprint
There is actually something to this.
However, as it comes out at the same time as a few other labelling proposals I can only imagine what the poor consumer might face trying to make an informed judgement as they look at the pack of cakes on aisle 4.
waterfootprint.org - I must check to see how a bottle of water stacks up to the favoured tipple, one suspects, of those most vocal in luvvieland most vocal in advocating its banning. I am pretty sure their tables often sport a currently guilt-free glass of vino, which up to now seems...'different'.
There is actually something to this.
However, as it comes out at the same time as a few other labelling proposals I can only imagine what the poor consumer might face trying to make an informed judgement as they look at the pack of cakes on aisle 4.
waterfootprint.org - I must check to see how a bottle of water stacks up to the favoured tipple, one suspects, of those most vocal in luvvieland most vocal in advocating its banning. I am pretty sure their tables often sport a currently guilt-free glass of vino, which up to now seems...'different'.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Water, water, everywhere......
..... and but few drops of common sense in sight!
Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.
The strategy's proposals include:-
- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."
i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!
- Possible mandatory metering
Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?
- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."
'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.
And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.
But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.
All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.
Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.
The strategy's proposals include:-
- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."
i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!
- Possible mandatory metering
Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?
- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."
'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.
And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.
But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.
All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Peak oil / peak water.
An interesting article from Online Journal on how peak oil might affect America. One or two quite interesting observations and comments, not least of which is the suggestion that "Peak Oil and the steps we must take to solve its effects upon our society will naturally contribute to also slowing down the escalation of Global Warming." I also find it interesting that peak oil might just indicate the potential demise of the huge global supermarket entities.
Now peak water usage in the UK apparently occurs in the South East of England, where average use is greater than anywhere else in Europe, according to Times Online. Well, that didn't really surprise me overtly, but I was surprised to note that "the South East of England has less (water) available per person than Sudan or Syria".
Now peak water usage in the UK apparently occurs in the South East of England, where average use is greater than anywhere else in Europe, according to Times Online. Well, that didn't really surprise me overtly, but I was surprised to note that "the South East of England has less (water) available per person than Sudan or Syria".
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
The looming food crisis?
Finally, one of the UK majors has picked up on what Peter was predicting in this very blog many, many months ago. The fact is that the switch of land use to grow crops for bio-fuels rather than for foodstuffs IS having an impact on food prices already.
This from the Guardian Environment highlights just what is already happening in parts of the world. The world price of maize has doubled, whilst UK wheat prices have also doubled over the last two years, from ~£100/tonne to ~£200/tonne (admittedly part of this increase is down to this years yield, which is down from the norm). A loaf of bread in the UK has increased in cost by 20% already this year.
In the US, "where nearly 40 million people are below the official poverty line, the Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 10% rise in the price of chicken. The prices of bread, beef, eggs and milk rose 7.5 % in July, the highest monthly rise in 25 years."
'A "perfect storm" of ecological and social factors appears to be gathering force, threatening vast numbers of people with food shortages and price rises. Even as the world's big farmers are pulling out of producing food for people and animals, the global population is rising by 87 million people a year; developing countries such as China and India are switching to meat-based diets that need more land; and climate change is starting to hit food producers hard. Recent reports in the journals Science and Nature suggest that one-third of ocean fisheries are in collapse, two-thirds will be in collapse by 2025, and all major ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. "Global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record this year. Outside of wartime, they have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer," says the US Department of Agriculture.'
All in all, prospects don't look too good for the future. A substantial part of the food production in China and India is dependent on what are rapidly depleting (and non-replenishable) water sources. Experts believe that some two thirds of the planet's major fisheries are now at levels where serious and rapid decline in yields is starting to happen. When you then throw in climate change predictions from the IPCC, which suggested that some 20% of the planets crop production will be directly endangered by temperature and rainfall changes; plus the switch by major western farmers to agrofuels; the picture for the planet's poor and undernourished is beginning to look markedly bleak!
"Technologists pin their faith on GM crops, or drought- resistant crops, or trust that biofuel producers will develop technologies that require less raw material or use non-edible parts of food. The immediate best bet is that countries such as Argentina, Poland, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will grow more food for export as US output declines."
Me? I'm uncertain. I know mankind is incredibly adaptable and is capable of amazing things; but these just may be the early warning signals that our voracious appetite for food and resources is reaching the point where self-sustainability is going to become increasingly difficult.
Look what the fuel crisis (as a consequence of a handful of HGV drivers blockading refinery depots) a few years ago did to the UK economy in only a week and a half. Then imagine just what the impact would be if food was largely unavailable in the supermarkets for a similar time period.
Scary isn't it?
This from the Guardian Environment highlights just what is already happening in parts of the world. The world price of maize has doubled, whilst UK wheat prices have also doubled over the last two years, from ~£100/tonne to ~£200/tonne (admittedly part of this increase is down to this years yield, which is down from the norm). A loaf of bread in the UK has increased in cost by 20% already this year.
In the US, "where nearly 40 million people are below the official poverty line, the Department of Agriculture recently predicted a 10% rise in the price of chicken. The prices of bread, beef, eggs and milk rose 7.5 % in July, the highest monthly rise in 25 years."
'A "perfect storm" of ecological and social factors appears to be gathering force, threatening vast numbers of people with food shortages and price rises. Even as the world's big farmers are pulling out of producing food for people and animals, the global population is rising by 87 million people a year; developing countries such as China and India are switching to meat-based diets that need more land; and climate change is starting to hit food producers hard. Recent reports in the journals Science and Nature suggest that one-third of ocean fisheries are in collapse, two-thirds will be in collapse by 2025, and all major ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. "Global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record this year. Outside of wartime, they have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer," says the US Department of Agriculture.'
All in all, prospects don't look too good for the future. A substantial part of the food production in China and India is dependent on what are rapidly depleting (and non-replenishable) water sources. Experts believe that some two thirds of the planet's major fisheries are now at levels where serious and rapid decline in yields is starting to happen. When you then throw in climate change predictions from the IPCC, which suggested that some 20% of the planets crop production will be directly endangered by temperature and rainfall changes; plus the switch by major western farmers to agrofuels; the picture for the planet's poor and undernourished is beginning to look markedly bleak!
"Technologists pin their faith on GM crops, or drought- resistant crops, or trust that biofuel producers will develop technologies that require less raw material or use non-edible parts of food. The immediate best bet is that countries such as Argentina, Poland, Ukraine and Kazakhstan will grow more food for export as US output declines."
Me? I'm uncertain. I know mankind is incredibly adaptable and is capable of amazing things; but these just may be the early warning signals that our voracious appetite for food and resources is reaching the point where self-sustainability is going to become increasingly difficult.
Look what the fuel crisis (as a consequence of a handful of HGV drivers blockading refinery depots) a few years ago did to the UK economy in only a week and a half. Then imagine just what the impact would be if food was largely unavailable in the supermarkets for a similar time period.
Scary isn't it?
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
London to get huge desalination plant
Its obviously a day for water stories......
I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.
London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.
In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)
On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.
Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)
(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])
That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)
Addendum:
Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."
Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"
I think Peter (with his Civ. Eng. qualifications) could volunteer as project manager for this one from Reuters.
London is going to build a £200 million desalination plant to produce 140 million litres of drinking water a day.
In the meantime 25% (see below) of all of London's potable water is still lost through leakage. They reckon that at least 50% of London's water consumption could be saved by the simple promotion (a small financial household incentive would surely have been a better idea?) of rain water harvesting systems etc. (especially as climate change experts forecast that summer rainfall will actually increase over current levels.)
On the basis of other current grand projects initiated by our really sensible government, the final cost will, of course, be at least £450 million.
Oh, "the plant will only run on bio-diesel". So that's OK then because that's nice and green.
Oh, and its "only going to be used intermittently" - whatever that's supposed to mean! (If there is only a peak demand intermittment requirement, then why not sort out the current problems instead of throwing a massive project at a minor set of problems?)
(Just a thought, but, looking at current climatic trends, as most of London is likely to be at, or even below, sea level in 40 or 50 years time, maybe its not such a bad idea after all? [If they build it on 30 Metre stilts!])
That 25% of potable water currently lost via leakage amounts to the insignificant figure of some 702 million litres per day!! (Don't despair, it used to be a lot worse than that!)
Addendum:
Here's The Guardian's take on the proposals - "Green groups condemn water plant go-ahead."
Whilst, rather surprisingly, Christian Today heads up its article on the subject with "London Fights Climate Change to get Clean Water to Booming Population"
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Bag, bag, you're dead!
I like an industry magazine called Recycling & Waste World, and have been meaning to write in for a while. At last I have, following an editorial on plastic carrier bags.
The IPPC report barely makes a page, let alone a few broadsheet fronts, before being dropped in favour of the latest BB antics. The concert for Diana gets three times the audience of Live Earth. Nice to see we have our priorities firmly figured out. Speaking of which, witches' kickers yet again seem to be rearing their heads. No doubt inspired by Newsnight's investigation earlier in the week as to bottled water in restaurants contributing to global warming (quaffing airflown food or imported beer or wine, or simply going out to eat didn't seem to figure in the discussion), only yesterday we had an expose on BBC Breakfast of the shifty shifting habits of home delivery supermarket services. Actually it was pretty shocking, especially one chain managing to use 15 where 3 would have done, but at least we got a two-for-one deal on talking heads to explain it was being looked at... now this issue has been brought to their attention. Being such a recent thing 'n all. I await the green TVC claims to wash o'er the airwaves in due course.
Anyway, may I use these pages to ask a question of those more than able to answer. Apparently, 'we' use 290 of things annually. And with all sorts of other options available, as the editorial pointed out, that really cannot be good, or make much sense, at least environmentally. But is this really the most pressing issue we face when compared to, say, deforestation (more C02 sink lost than the USA emits in a year), or home insulation (what is it? 25% of our consumption of energy)? I was just wondering what this amount of plastic actually represented as a block, especially when most surely does get reused as bags, as a substitute for bin liners or recycled in store bins? In, say, 2L Evian bottle terms? Or 500ml sun lotion jars.
I don't know, and hence that why I ask. Because I simply wonder if all this effort, from political to corporate to media levels, is the best place to direct various energies, especially when it demands so much of consumers' attention, and diverts it from, how to put it, areas with perhaps a more significant enviROI (imposition on the planet, which can still be positive even if financially the ROI is negative. A noble call to make).
Big up to IKEA, for 'taking the plunge' I guess, and I'm sure they will assess the customer reaction as it transpires, but I really hope that such efforts, and the usually immense PR and ad cost thrown behind them (which may often be a tad more usefully invested elsewhere if the planet is the actual priority) are matched equally in areas that may produce more, and more significant results.
Your point on the actual facts of bio/compostables are well taken (a degradable bag will not do too well in your composter), vital for the consumer to be aware of and, to this one at least, almost a complete mystery still. That is woeful. On the part of all who would claim to be concerned. There's no point asking for an eco-pack/bag, or using it, if you don't know much more than it is 'green-ish',. Where it comes from and where it goes to is a critical part of the decision chain, one which the consumer is too often being dumped with handling.
The 'bag for life' story you highlight typifies the process vs. product mentality too many 'in the know' are complicit in propagating, mainly because this often means more sales or awareness boxes being ticked, even if the planet is no better off, much less the poor sap who thinks they are helping. And when 'exposed', as was the infamous version you highlight Anya Hindmarch's 'I'm not a plastic bag', imported from Asia), the backfire, and 'average' consumer's reaction to it of 'well if a bunch of rich folk are going to play silly, then why should I bother?' often makes it all simply more difficult to persuade with genuine initiatives.
Like you say, wherever possible bring your own, because if it's not always possible to remove or reduce then reuse. I reckon that's the way. But then I would, wouldn't I?
Daily Mail - The £5 a bottle mineral water - from a cloud in the South Seas - the other side of the coin
The IPPC report barely makes a page, let alone a few broadsheet fronts, before being dropped in favour of the latest BB antics. The concert for Diana gets three times the audience of Live Earth. Nice to see we have our priorities firmly figured out. Speaking of which, witches' kickers yet again seem to be rearing their heads. No doubt inspired by Newsnight's investigation earlier in the week as to bottled water in restaurants contributing to global warming (quaffing airflown food or imported beer or wine, or simply going out to eat didn't seem to figure in the discussion), only yesterday we had an expose on BBC Breakfast of the shifty shifting habits of home delivery supermarket services. Actually it was pretty shocking, especially one chain managing to use 15 where 3 would have done, but at least we got a two-for-one deal on talking heads to explain it was being looked at... now this issue has been brought to their attention. Being such a recent thing 'n all. I await the green TVC claims to wash o'er the airwaves in due course.
Anyway, may I use these pages to ask a question of those more than able to answer. Apparently, 'we' use 290 of things annually. And with all sorts of other options available, as the editorial pointed out, that really cannot be good, or make much sense, at least environmentally. But is this really the most pressing issue we face when compared to, say, deforestation (more C02 sink lost than the USA emits in a year), or home insulation (what is it? 25% of our consumption of energy)? I was just wondering what this amount of plastic actually represented as a block, especially when most surely does get reused as bags, as a substitute for bin liners or recycled in store bins? In, say, 2L Evian bottle terms? Or 500ml sun lotion jars.
I don't know, and hence that why I ask. Because I simply wonder if all this effort, from political to corporate to media levels, is the best place to direct various energies, especially when it demands so much of consumers' attention, and diverts it from, how to put it, areas with perhaps a more significant enviROI (imposition on the planet, which can still be positive even if financially the ROI is negative. A noble call to make).
Big up to IKEA, for 'taking the plunge' I guess, and I'm sure they will assess the customer reaction as it transpires, but I really hope that such efforts, and the usually immense PR and ad cost thrown behind them (which may often be a tad more usefully invested elsewhere if the planet is the actual priority) are matched equally in areas that may produce more, and more significant results.
Your point on the actual facts of bio/compostables are well taken (a degradable bag will not do too well in your composter), vital for the consumer to be aware of and, to this one at least, almost a complete mystery still. That is woeful. On the part of all who would claim to be concerned. There's no point asking for an eco-pack/bag, or using it, if you don't know much more than it is 'green-ish',. Where it comes from and where it goes to is a critical part of the decision chain, one which the consumer is too often being dumped with handling.
The 'bag for life' story you highlight typifies the process vs. product mentality too many 'in the know' are complicit in propagating, mainly because this often means more sales or awareness boxes being ticked, even if the planet is no better off, much less the poor sap who thinks they are helping. And when 'exposed', as was the infamous version you highlight Anya Hindmarch's 'I'm not a plastic bag', imported from Asia), the backfire, and 'average' consumer's reaction to it of 'well if a bunch of rich folk are going to play silly, then why should I bother?' often makes it all simply more difficult to persuade with genuine initiatives.
Like you say, wherever possible bring your own, because if it's not always possible to remove or reduce then reuse. I reckon that's the way. But then I would, wouldn't I?
Daily Mail - The £5 a bottle mineral water - from a cloud in the South Seas - the other side of the coin
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Water, water, everywhere. And yet we import so much to drink.
Maybe if flood water was made de riqueur at the table it would solve two problems at once:) H2O snobbery
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
Bless. A few weeks ago a piece in Newsnight highlights the fact that the loss of carbon sink through deforestation is in excess of the USA's entire annual output... and it gets just 30 posts, mostly shared billing with the next cold war.
But to worry about the snobbery of bottled water we're up to 130 and counting!
Still doesn't make much sense to me, but for a special non-alcoholic complement to the meal (I'm guessing all are still OK with a nice bottle of Aussie Chardonnay and some airflown whatever, drizzled in stuff and topped with a dusting of more stuff) I'm not sure the tap can quite match the sparkle of a Perrier (sans benzene, of course).
But we seem again to be getting into 'what's necessary' territory here.
As the majority are discussing the affronts endured at a dining venue that is not their home, one could possibly also ask how eco it is shunting one and all to another place to have a meal.
Bigger questions could be directed to those who know about such things as to how such imports are allowed, and what their relative carbon footprints are compared to other food and beverage options. And, if deemed acceptable in the consumer choice chain for sale (and taxing) by the authorities, why there are not better mechanisms to share the responsibility for viable, economic, decent enviROI recycling process amounts all through the delivery chain, from manufacturer (bottler), through consumer (sorry) to reclaim rather than landfill. Of course there are reuse options a wee bit higher up the waste hierarchy, and at http://www.junkk.com we have quite a few and are more than happy to see uploaded lots more.
However, to get with the flow (more water puns, sorry) of this pressing debate, just for personal fun, I have never understood paying for the still variety as I can't taste the difference. And how special an event is with a plastic bottle amidst the setting is also in my view an aspect to consider.
So... a sexy blue fizzy Ty Ant or bulbous green glass Perrier (see them made into gorgeous lights here: http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97 ) would be sadly missed.
The plastic flatties less so, for sure, though there is quite an industry out there that may have trouble surviving supplying only the needs of those with less comprehensive piped delivery systems. Me, I'd prefer to unemploy a few Amazonian or Sabah loggers before the staff of Pelegrino.
Kill plastics off if that's the priority to save the planet. But be careful what you wish for, as there is plenty more on your table that is really not necessary or ecologically that desirable either, and once the fingers get pointing, who knows where next they may get directed?
Nice to see Newsnight still tackling the big issues though, especially to let pass without much consideration as to why a few days ago the global concert to sort out climate awareness managed to score 1/3 the audience of the one from a sadly missed Princess. I guess it's all about priorities. And ratings.
Cheers!
ADDENDUM - Wow, we're well on our way to 250 posts. Meanwhile, as Dave has kindly been sharing, the whole climate change issue seems to be getting some welcome, if questionably-covered, additional focus.
I'm sorry, but the vast majority of comments in this (water) piece really seem to highlight the problem. A bunch of liberal yuppies arguing about the water they drink at the Ivy, vs. a few more significant issues that most, I'd hazard, won't even entertain forgoing. Yet these are the very minority yapping away at the majority from their pedestals of privilege and, I'm afraid, simply either p*ssing them off or causing a lot of deaf ears to be turned.
I drink bottled water once in a blue moon. And yes, it is usually when I am out and fancy a fizzy complement to a meal when wine is out and I'm driving. Have any of these folk on their high horses considered just how much beer is consumed in inefficient packaging, not to mention the numbers of pints of water required to make one? What's next? Eco-Prohibition?
Such obsession with trivia by the chattering classes is really obscuring the bigger picture I fear.
ADDENDUM:
NEWS FROM: Green Party in England & Wales
Londoners urged to get bottled water off the menu
Londoners are being urged to make a stand for the environment by
rejecting the social pressure which leads to them ordering bottled
water rather than asking for perfectly good tap water. The call comes
after city officials in New York launched a campaign to persuade
people to abandon bottled water.
Londoners drink the bottled water equivalent of just over 1 Olympic-
sized swimming pool per week, of which 25% is imported. Bottled water
is now the world’s fastest-growing drinks sector worth £1.2bn a year
and research shows that it is now outselling coca-cola in London.
Yet, new figures from the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) show that
tap water has improved and now meets stringent quality standards in
99.98% of cases.
Jenny Jones, Green Party member of the London Assembly, has warned of
the damaging ecological impact of bottled water.
Jenny Jones said:
“Londoners need to show some independence and show that ordering tap
water with your meal, or at the pub, is fashionable and the right
thing to do. Selling water in bottles and burning massive quantities
of fossil fuels for its transportation does not make economic or
environmental sense.
“Most containers for bottled water are made from non-degradable
plastics, which take a 450 years to break down when disposed of in
landfill sites. Even glass bottles of water still take a lot of
energy to crush and recycle, whereas all we do with a restaurant
glass of water is wash it up afterwards.”
Notes to Editors (and why not you, dear readers, too):
1. Defra figures on water consumption in London are available here
2. Inspectors said 99.98% of tap samples met industry standards
in 2006, up from 99.96% in 2005.
3. Bottled Water Information Office (BWIO).
4. Jenny Jones is also chair of London Food.
But.... then they should maybe resist the urge to order a perfectly good pint, glass of Chardonnay, Thai prawn...
Then I wonder how many Olympic sized swimming pools of tap water get wasted per minute through leaks.
I know it's a 'better than nothing', but this really smacks of a rather odd rallying cry to get the public on board with, in the great scheme of things, along with oh, say, plastic bags (past and future posts)!
And when people are getting blotto at the drop of a hat, do we really need to make water less attractive (without inferring anything about 'tap', of course).
I think I'm zigging while others zag.
Gaurdian - Let's lose our bottle
Friday, March 30, 2007
Hippo-crats
I'm guessing that after several sustained, and apologised for, complaints about mangled on air journalistic/editorial efforts by Breakfast TV, I suspect I am less likely to be featured on air, at least via the BBC, any more. Especially when it is to 'Defensive Declan'.
However, on a morning when our public broadcaster sees fit to publicise a hen and stag night promoter exclusively, in the guise of 'worrying whether we are spending too much money on more and more grandiose wadding-related events', I popped a mild effort in as a result of a piece on water conservation:
'Instead of an additional manufactured item such as a branded product like a Hippo, one alternative to displacing the volume of water in the WC cistern is to locate a second use item of packaging such as bottle or container selected to fit the space.'
Now the Hippo is OK. But it is frankly just a heavy duty plastic bag, and I have a small problem with new things being manufactured in the name of green that are really not helping the overall global enviROI.
However, on a morning when our public broadcaster sees fit to publicise a hen and stag night promoter exclusively, in the guise of 'worrying whether we are spending too much money on more and more grandiose wadding-related events', I popped a mild effort in as a result of a piece on water conservation:
'Instead of an additional manufactured item such as a branded product like a Hippo, one alternative to displacing the volume of water in the WC cistern is to locate a second use item of packaging such as bottle or container selected to fit the space.'
Now the Hippo is OK. But it is frankly just a heavy duty plastic bag, and I have a small problem with new things being manufactured in the name of green that are really not helping the overall global enviROI.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)