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

[The Chairman]

Thankfully, I only drink bottled water before they bottle. One of the great joys of living in cave country is drinking straight from the aquifer.

As a side note, my water leaves the tap with the bends from the great water pressure I enjoy. It looks almost milky at first, but then you see the eensy teensy bubbles coalesce to the surface leaving it crystal clear. Kind of cool.

 

[Skeptic14]

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.

It seemed pretty politicized from the start as are most posts from the OP.

And of course questioning the effectiveness of a particular policy at accomplishing anything real isn't the same as "trivializing any attempt to improve the marine environment", another exaggeration/caricature.

It's another much ado about nothing partisan outrage post honestly.

For starters the title is a complete misrepresentation. The Obama era administration didn't implement a ban on single use water bottles in national parks, not even a ban on their sales. As you point out it was merely a suggestion to voluntarily try to limit the sale of bottled water which was only followed (voluntarily) by a small percentage of parks, 5%.

So this "reversal" is a big nothing burger, in that the 5% of parks might go back to allowing more sales of bottled water, while still encouraging reusable bottles and of course anyone bringing their own bottled water into the parks will continue to do so entirely the same as before.

There really isn't a story here other than Trump administration did something, we need to believe it's terrible.

Now as far as actually wanting to do real things to minimize wasteful plastic use, I don't think a single person (in this thread at least) disagrees with that.

 

[Lorenzoid]

For purposes of argument, I ignored the political aspect as well as whether it was a "ban," suggestion, or whatever other degree of enforcement.

I like the OP's posts about environmental issues and how they often stimulate spirited discussions like this one. Let's all leave the political angles out of it, though.

 

[doctormike]

And of course questioning the effectiveness of a particular policy at accomplishing anything real isn't the same as "trivializing any attempt to improve the marine environment", another exaggeration/caricature.

You called it a "feel good" measure. To me, that's trivialization. You may disagree.

There really isn't a story here other than Trump administration did something, we need to believe it's terrible.

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. We live in a weird Internet culture, where everything is about going viral, making an impact and raising your voice above all of the other noise. So stuff tends to get described in terms to garner clicks. There is plenty to criticize about the current administration without considering this.

However, sometimes changes that don't need to be made are done purely for partisan reasons. Just to troll the liberals. I suspect that this might be one of those times, but who knows...!

 

[The Chairman]

However, sometimes changes that don't need to be made are done purely for partisan reasons. Just to troll the liberals.

That's an interesting thought right there.

I get that there are a number of people who want to trivialize environmental groups as being purely political, but that's definitely not true in this case. Sea Save is a grass roots organization and I feel lucky that they post about these issues here. Unlike a can, a single bubble will keep a plastic bottle afloat and on its way to the sea.

 

[doctormike]

I get that there are a number of people who want to trivialize environmental groups as being purely political,

They are and they aren't. Politics is the way that abstract thoughts get implemented in the real world.

So while the Sierra club might be involved in politics, it's not so that they can seize power or punish their opponents. It's so that they can get their goals accomplished. For example, if there were Republicans running for office today along the lines of a Teddy Roosevelt conservationist conservative, I might work for their election. Dismissing something as being "purely political" is another way of trivializing your ideological opponent.

 

[tarponchik]

And yes.. I have pulled far more beer cans and bottles from our local rivers than water bottles.

I do this too when I see trash, and somehow this is always Bud Lite or Miller Lite or Coors Lite cans or bottles. I do not see any Stella Artois cans or Sierra Nevada cans.

 

[Caveeagle]

Americans Are Now Drinking More Bottled Water Than Soda

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.

Ok. We can play this game some more. My data(I pointed) out was from '13 and based on dollars. If you have purchased a 16.9 or 20oz water lately , you would recognize the price points are often very similar.

If you want to review by gallons, you have to concede the large amount of gallon, and 5 gallon jugs that feed into that. When's the last time you saw a 5g jug of Cola in somebody's cart.

I see what you are trying to point out, that pollution is disproportionately impacted by bottled water. I think the term "dwarfed" was used.

You have failed to back up that claim.