Ban on Single Use, Plastic Water Bottles in U. S. National Parks Removed

[Caveeagle]

There are a lot of places that charge a deposit on bottles. I'm guessing it's effective. Deposit, tax, whatever--something needs to be done.

Ohh. Good one. I have actually done a fair amount of work in logistics for both bottle-bill and non deposit states. There is no evidence to prove recycling rates are higher in bottle bill states. And huge inefficiencies are created when consumers are forced to collect and return used containers to either retail origin, or deposit collection centers. And yes, I have lived and worked in both environments. I see just as much pollution on the streets of New York and Michigan as Texas and Florida, with no such deposits, and where (in FL), curbside recycling has been very effective.

For example: I lived in Dutchess county, NY from 01-05 which has a bottle deposit and curbside recycling (at cost to home owner). I had to collect deposit-bottles, sort out then out of state ones that don't count, and drive 13 miles once or twice a months to return these items. Cost of gas, wear on vehicle etc. ...Now living in FL I can put everything in my recycle bin and somehow the locals can make the financials work without charging me an additional fee.

 

[JohnN]

I don't like the public policy ramifications of bottled water, which are far broader than the waste they generate when the bottle is empty.

But I never thought that restricting bottled water sales at a handful of parks was a useful step towards solving the problem.

"the perfect is the enemy of the good" -- Voltaire

Are you certain you're not being a pissy 4 year old ?

 

[doctormike]

I see just as much pollution on the streets of New York and Michigan as Texas and Florida, with no such deposits.

 

[doctormike]

So some mother who wants purified water to mix up formula in a baby bottle has to just tolerate your new rule

Yeah, it's amazing how many babies survived before we all had access to "purified" water and had to use tap water to make formula. Putting the tap water in a plastic bottle, charging a 30,000% markup (about 300x cost), and shipping it a thousand miles makes it MUCH safer for babies...

 

[Caveeagle]

Yeah, it's amazing how many babies survived before we all had access to "purified" water and had to use tap water to make formula. Putting the tap water in a plastic bottle, charging a 30,000% markup (about 300x cost), and shipping it a thousand miles makes it MUCH safer for babies...

Ok, I get exaggerating to make your point, but that's a bit rediculous. The reality is that landed floor cost for a case of bottled water is not that much less than your favorite soda. The cost of flavoring and sugar for most beverages is a small % of the raw material cost. And most drinking water is bottled regionally, so although shipping is costly, it's hardly as you describe.

I tend to agree re the "need" for purified water for things like baby bottles, but we survived before all the gluten crazed thing too. I have a sister who was a bit nutty about boiling water for her new borns and would only use bottled when away from home. Extreme, sure.. but so are the folks who carry around hand sanitizer everywhere.

I think my point is being missed. I will try to summarize:
1) I don't like Government or activists extending power over citizens and their purchasing decisions.
2) I am especially opposed when I think the motives are suspect and their methodology is flawed and inconsistent.

 

[Skeptic14]

As someone who enjoys reading @Caveeagle 's posts because they are logical and clearly well thought out, I can say with confidence that none of your response relates to anything he said regarding purified water. The usual exaggerate/caricature someone's position into a strawman for easing beating...

 

[doctormike]

Ok, I get exaggerating to make your point, but that's a bit rediculous. The reality is that landed floor cost for a case of bottled water is not that much less than your favorite soda. And most drinking water is bottled regionally, so although shipping is costly, it's hardly as you describe.

I tend to agree re the "need" for purified water for things like baby bottles, but we survived before all the gluten crazed thing too. I have a sister who was a bit nutty about boiling water for her new borns and would only use bottled when away from home. Extreme, sure.. but so are the folks who carry around hand sanitizer everywhere.

Again, I don't see what is ridiculous about my point. You said that it was not good to limit access to bottled water because some mother might need it to make formula for her baby. Now maybe I don't have your experience with the beverage business, but I am a pediatric ENT doc. I'm saying that to imply that there is a health reason why you need to have access to bottled water is simply wrong. It might be true during a disaster with sewer water contaminating the water supply, or in someplace like Flint, but tap water is generally safe. And if you think that it isn't, putting it in a plastic bottle and charging a huge markup for it doesn't make it safer.

Once more, bringing up irrelevant things like the cost of soda and gluten doesn't change the fact that less plastic bottles are better, and if you have a perfectly good alternative to plastic bottles for people who just want a drink of water, why all the pushback?

I don't like Government or activists extending power over citizens and their purchasing decisions.

The entire point of government is to extend power over citizens, even in the pursuit of the common defense. You may disagree with specific decisions, but a sweeping generalization like that doesn't make sense to me.

I am especially opposed when I think the motives are suspect and their methodology is flawed and inconsistent.

What do you think are the suspect motives are of people who want less plastic bottles in the world? You think that they are just shills for the big companies that make water fountains and reusable containers?

 

[doctormike]

I can say with confidence that none of your response relates to anything he said regarding purified water.

Here's a good example. What does purified water have to do with anything? We are talking about bottled water.

 

[Skeptic14]

Again, I don't see what is ridiculous about my point. You said that it was not good to limit access to bottled water because some mother might need it to make formula for her baby.

He actually said want...

very different from need and of course the first exaggerated response you had.

Here's a good example. What does purified water have to do with anything? We are talking about bottled water.

I think his point has been pretty clear throughout that feel good measures aren't always useful, helpful and can have other consequences.

Well that's what I've taken from all his posts at least.

 

[doctormike]

I think his point has been pretty clear throughout that feel good measures aren't always useful, helpful and can have other consequences.

Totally agree. And if you want to trivialize any attempt to improve the marine environment that we all dive in by calling it a "feel good" measure, or imply that it's not helpful, that's up to you. But I'm not sure why a voluntary effort to encourage less disposable plastic bottles fits into that category.

Of course, I certainly understand why it would be a political team-sport football.