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

[Lorenzoid]

Umm, I suggest it speaks directly to the ineffectiveness of implementing "feel good" rules that are ineffective and do little to nothing to address the root cause of the problem.

Fine, as a general principle. I disagree that banning sales of water packaged in plastic bottles has anything to do with "feeling good" and everything to do with being effective. Do you have any reason to believe that less plastic sold does NOT result in less plastic in the landfill and ocean?

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

I don't know anything about baby formula, so perhaps that's a good point. I do know that bottled water did not exist in the US when I was a baby. Yet people visited national parks and everywhere else in the US. Perhaps they did so only after their babies were older. I don't know. I do believe there is some way to avoid this problem.

. . . even though you focus in on one item, and ignore soda, sports drinks and candy wrappers that are just as big of problem.

These are NOT "just as big a part of the problem." I don't have statistics, but I have to believe that far more plastic from bottled water is trashed than from soda bottles. I said this in a previous post. I am certain that people drink a LOT of bottled water--more than soda and sports drinks. Look around--everyone has a bottle of water these days, on their desks, in their cars, at the gym, and certainly when they're out walking in national parks. I am certain that more water is drunk than soda or sports drinks, and except for those who have finally gotten environmentally conscious about it, is drunk from single-use plastic bottles.

I find suspect, the way activist pick their battles and expect others to suspend rational thought, where skepticism and critical thinking are in very short supply.

The fact is, we don't have the numbers. I am only an "activist" because I am convinced that a lot more plastic ends up in the trash from disposable water bottles (but also plastic grocery bags) than from any other source. If that is incorrect, I would be glad to reconsider my position. I base my position on what I believe to be fact. Give me the facts.

 

[Lorenzoid]

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.

Oh well. If recycling isn't effective at reducing plastic waste, then why would increasing taxes on plastic bottles, which is what I thought you proposed (and I agreed could also be 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.

Your procedure in FL sounds like mine in GA. We don't have to separate anything. Paper, plastic of any type, glass, steel cans--everything can supposedly go in the community's recycling bin. People put all kinds of stuff in there that I can't imagine can be filtered out. Call me a cynic, but I have my suspicions that the stuff I put in my community's recycling bin ends up in the landfill.

 

[Caveeagle]

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.

Mike, it's the "voluntary" aspect that gets to my point. State or federal parks (government) are eliminating the voluntary aspect. They are eliminating them consumers decision. And why not remove all bottled beverages? Because "there is alternative" ? Well, I might point out that the water fountain is an alternative for a cola or root beer too. So why again the focus on water? Did you know that nearly all water bottles contain less PET than the corresponding carbonated beverages? Don't get me wrong, I am not sggesting extending said bans.. just pointing out more of how the logic is flawed.

I am all for moving towards better packaging for ALL consumer packaged goods. And using only methods that have a chance of improving environment through real conservator.

Perhaps you sense some strong opinions on this. That could be because I have worked in a related industry and managed sustainability and resource conservation projects for over 20 years.

No I don't think the water fountain companies are behind some plot.. But I have seen a cencerted effort by environmentalists to demonize certain industries without a sound grasp of root cause issues or realistic actions that could improve anything.

Sure.. pollution is bad! Improving our environment is hard! Can Government play a role in holding corporations and consumers accountable for improvements.. sure they can. But they can also create a quagmire of useless regulations and neat controls and limits that are ineffective and do nothing to solve the problem. And can actually make things worse in some cases.

I have suggested a couple things that I believe would be good improvements. I will continue to point out failures when I see them.

 

[The Chairman]

which seems to be encouraging a ban on bottled water sales.

I think it's a wise restriction in any sensitive environmental area. Plastic bags, bottles and the like should not be on our reefs or National Forests.

 

[Caveeagle]

Oh well. If recycling isn't effective at reducing plastic waste, then why would increasing taxes on plastic bottles, which is what I thought you proposed (and I agreed could also be effective)?

My recommendation was for a universal fee, or surcharge on ALL products with a packaging waste over a certain % of the content. This would encourage manufactureres and consumers to overlook flashy over-packaging and give a price advantage to products that produce less Waste. The caveat being that all revenue must be spent 100% on recycling and environmental cleanup. This would prevent a permanent increase to the tax base that would never diminish.

Your procedure in FL sounds like mine in GA. We don't have to separate anything. Paper, plastic of any type, glass, steel cans--everything can supposedly go in the community's recycling bin. People put all kinds of stuff in there that I can't imagine can be filtered out. Call me a cynic, but I have my suspicions that the stuff I put in my community's recycling bin ends up in the landfill.

You probably have what's called Single Stream Recycling, where they have proven that machines can do a better job sorting out your recyclables than than you can. It's a pretty cool process if you ever get a chance to see it.

 

[doctormike]

Yeah, and I don't mean to imply that you don't care about the environmental issues either, I know that we are basically on the same team here. And while I might have special insight into the medical issue that we discussed, I'm sure that you know more about the logistics and industry issues than I do.

It's just that making the case that you should drink water instead of coke is a much bigger hurdle than making the case that if you want a drink of water, there is no need to wrap it in some piece of plastic that will last for 1000 years and pay 300 times what it's worth, that's all. I think that by bringing in all these off topic considerations, we are getting off the track of the OP.

Like most things, the devil is in the details!

 

[Lorenzoid]

Mike, it's the "voluntary" aspect that gets to my point. State or federal parks (government) are eliminating the voluntary aspect. They are eliminating them consumers decision.

The consumer only has the privilege of making a decision because the parks gave it to consumers in the first place. Parks don't NEED to be in the business of selling stuff. It's a nice convenience that a visitor can buy things, but it's not a necessity. I have camped in places where I had to bring in all my water to last me a week. It's not convenient, but it can be done. If a park decides to offer visitors the convenience of buying things, that doesn't mean the park must offer everything under the sun. Maybe offering something in a disposable plastic bottle that the visitor could just as well get for free in unlimited amounts from a water fountain leans too far toward catering to convenience.

Did you know that nearly all water bottles contain less PET than the corresponding carbonated beverages?

This again goes to numbers that none of us in this discussion seem to know. Despite each water bottle containing less plastic than each soda bottle, my belief is that the number of water bottles sold dwarfs the number of soda bottles sold, with the net effect being there is a lot more plastic coming from water sales than soda sales.

 

[Caveeagle]

This again goes to numbers that none of us in this discussion seem to know. Despite each water bottle containing less plastic than each soda bottle, my belief is that the number of water bottles sold dwarfs the number of soda bottles sold, with the net effect being there is a lot more plastic coming from water sales than soda sales.

Data is a little dated , but it has not changed that much since '13

View media item 203657

 

[doctormike]

Americans Are Now Drinking More Bottled Water Than Soda

 

[Lorenzoid]

Thanks for the effort, but those are percentage of sales by dollars, not number of bottles.

By volume of liquid consumed--also not very useful--it seems bottled water has caught up to soda, and the two are about on par: Bottled water sales outpace soda for first time in U.S.