More on Bottled Water! - Sunita Narain

In my Independence Day post, I had mentioned 'Freedom from Bottled Water' as one aspiration statement for an Independent Nation. Here is Sunita Narain, Editor of Down To Earth on the same subject in the recent issue.

=================================

Editorial: Bottled water costs us the earth

=================================

By Sunita Narain

The bottled water industry is global in nature. But it is designed to
sell the same product to two completely different markets: one water
rich and the other water scarce. The question is whether this industry
will have different outcomes in these two worlds. Or will we, for two
opposite reasons, agree that their business costs us the earth and that
it is not good for us?

In the water and economically-rich world, bottled water started as a
luxury-a non-essential item of desire, health and status. The water came
from fancy mountain streams: they were packaged and sold as
mineral-filled sparkling water. It was different from tap water and a
healthy (and snobbish) alternative to sweet and street smart colas. But
soon, the industry grew. In most cases, the companies sold water that
was not sourced from mountain springs but from public water: municipal
water sources. Once the snob habit was formed and the market created,
the companies simply packaged tap water in most cases into plastic
bottles and sold it from supermarkets.

Like nobody said the emperor had no clothes on. Nobody asked why they
were buying water for ten times the municipality's price. Call it a
great advertising success, but this non-essential industry is growing
exponentially. In 2006, Americans paid over US $11 billion to buy 31
billion litres of bottled water, and they are thirsting for more.

But the bubble is bursting. Last month, San Francisco's mayor banned the
use of bottled water in government buildings, incriminating billions of
disposed plastic bottles that filled landfills. In the us, a staggering
60 million plastic bottles are thrown away each day, a miniscule
proportion of them are recycled. Greenhouse gas emission from trucks
which transported the bottles across the state-and often across
countries-was also a reason for the ban.

But equally importantly, the mayor stressed that his city's municipal
water came from pristine sources inside a national park. This was as
good, if not better, than the bottled water sold by companies, he said.

He is not alone. Last year, Salt Lake City's mayor asked public
employees to stop supplying bottled water at official events. New York
has launched a US $1 million campaign to encourage people to drink its
famously clean public water. Another slap has come from top-notch
restaurants, which-in reverse snobbery-are refusing to serve bottled
water. The worst is coming. Last week, junk food giant Pepsi was forced
to admit in the us that Aquafina, its bottled water, is nothing more
than tap water. It has agreed to label its bottles to say what it
doesn't want to: that Aquafina is tap water from a public water source.

The bottled water industry is in damage control mode. But I believe that
this scream could easily become a shout as people realise the
environmental cost of this product and realise the sheer stupidity of
paying dearly for something that is cheaper and readily available.

Bottled water is also growing big time in our world. India is said to be
the 10th largest bottled water consumer in the world. The demand has
increased from two million cases in 1990 to an estimated 68 million
cases by 2006. But in India, bottled water is growing as an item of
necessity: private industry is meeting the drinking water demand that
public utilities don't meet. People are paying prices that they cannot
afford because they have no alternative.

In India, this water does not come from municipal taps but from
groundwater. Companies simply drill a hole in the ground, pump and clean
(some-times) to bottle it and then transport it to cities. Simply put,
this is the privatisation of drinking water.

The business is a rip-off. Take for instance the case of Coca-Cola's
bottling plant in drought-prone Kala Dera near Jaipur. Coca-Cola gets
its water free except for a tiny cess (for discharging wastewater) it
pays to the state pollution control board: a little over Rs 5,000 a year
during 2000-02 and Rs 24,246 in 2003. It extracts half a million litres
of water every day-at a cost of 14 paise per 1,000 litres. In other
words, raw material costs of the Rs 12 per litre Kinley water sold to
you and me is just 0.02-0.03 paise.

Add to it treatment costs. Even with the state-of-the-art treatment
system with reverse osmosis and membranes, the cost of treatment is Rs
0.25 per litre at the most. Plastic bottle is what costs the
company-between Rs 3-4 for a one-litre container. Transportation-from
the bottling plant to our cities and homes-adds significantly to the
costs as does all the sales and advertising pitch. But add up all costs
and it is still a dream business, especially in a country with failing
public water supply.

The fact is that bottled water is no different from water that should
come from our taps. The only difference is it is packed in plastic and
not conveyed in pipelines. But, while the Indian rich can afford to buy
bottled water, the poor cannot. The rich have the choice and they opt
out of the failing municipal systems. What is forgotten is that Indian
water systems are failing because the rich in the country-who can afford
bottled water-are still supplied water at a tenth of what it costs the
municipality. Worse, our wastewater is conveyed and pumped from our
homes and even treated (at times). None of this cost is recovered. In
other words, it is our subsidy which is leading to poorer and poorer
delivery from water agencies. It is the rich, who have options to drink
bottled, who are failing the system.

I am not even talking here of the mountains of plastic waste, the
disposal of which isn't paid for. I am talking here of the imperative
that we should fix water for all in all taps. Water in bottles costs the
earth everywhere.

Read editorial online >>
www.downtoearth.org.in/cover_nl.asp?mode=2

To comment, write to >>
editor@downtoearth.org.in

Understanding Nuclear Energy and Weapons

Further Reading on the Nuclear Energy Issue:
1. 'Say No to US-Indo Nuclear Deal', 'this weakens the global resolve on NPT and sets a bad precedence for other countries' - http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2006/04/26_krieger_granoff_no-us-india.htm
2. An Australian point of view, 'it is all about US, Japan, Australia trying to rope in India so as to contain China, this entire deal is a strategy for the US against China and for India, an acceptance as a significant player in global politics' - http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/08/india_as_a_great_nuclear_power.php
3. Weapons of Mass Destruction (where are Nuclear Weapons across the World), trust Greenpeace to come up something as innovative as this - http://archive.greenpeace.org/wmd/
4. Nuclear Waste – A global problem with only one answer: Stop producing it!, How Market is rigged in favour of Nuclear Subsidies - both articles in the website, no2nuclearpower.org
5. A Background Paper on why Nuclear Energy is not the Solution for the future - http://archive.greenpeace.org/comms/no.nukes/nenstcc.html
6. Nuclear Power - not worth the risk, based on the UK experience - http://www.cnduk.org/pages/campaign/npwr.html
7. A Passionate Pleading by Toshiyuki Toyoda, a nuclear physicist -No to nuclear energy, http://www.thebulletin.org/columns/toshiyuki-toyoda/20070212.html

The Voice of (some) People on Nuclear Deal...

Hot Press...just now got to see this Rediff Article by Sandeep Pandey, Medha Patkar and Aruna Roy (read full story at http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/aug/23guest1.htm)

...The deal is part of a successful attempt by the United States to build a strategic relationship with India, in confronting the rising capitalist challenge from China where India will be used as its client in the region. Directly or indirectly, the US will also enter the Indian subcontinent, to manage intra-regional, inter-country relations. This whole process is likely to escalate the arms race between Pakistan and India, sabotaging the India-Pakistan peace process. How can we ignore that fact the US sells arms to both India and Pakistan? and I add, how can you ignore the fact that unless India were to enter into such an exclusive relationship, how can Pakistan be cajoled to enter into one too and thereby ensure continuous market for nuclear based technology in the sub-continent for the USA.

The agreement also facilitates a full-fledged international exchange of nuclear fuel and technology with insufficient caution and control. There will no doubt be a corporate rush to extract, export and misuse nuclear fuel and technology, and it will be very difficult to prevent misuse even for the arms trade. Highly superficial clauses don't instill any confidence against such a possibility.

However, our basic objections to this deal stem from our opposition to the production and use of both nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. The irreversible dangers of radioactivity and its ongoing impact on health, water, and the environment are factors that are being summarily dismissed in an irresponsible manner. The whole cycle of nuclear production beginning with uranium mining, is fraught with catastrophic dangers, and as a nation we cannot use the decisions of another country as justification for our own. Places like Jaduguda in Jharkhand, Kota and Pokhran in Rajasthan, have already demonstrated the ongoing dangers of nuclear use to the common citizen.

We, in India, have inherited rich renewable sources of energy, which are environmentally benign and abundantly available. The solar, wind, and ocean waves along with human power need to be fully tapped and put to use with people's control. Appropriate technology, research and development for production of cheaper equipment and tools, need to be combined with just distribution, for the right priorities. There is no political will for this in the ruling establishment. Estimates show that India can generate far more energy through alternative, environmentally sound sources. The nuclear energy option should be put up for widespread public debate giving citizens a full opportunity to make an informed choice.

This deal, however, raises questions beyond nuclear energy, opening up large spaces for US government and corporate control in India. This, no doubt, is a symbol of imperialism already demonstrated through the Iraq war and the obvious links of US policy with corporate control over resources. With unbound exchange of information, data and material, knowledge and technology the dominant global power is all set to encroach upon Indian reserves and impinge upon our sovereignty. The deal ensures supply of sufficient nuclear material to nuclear reactors in India for the next 40 years, but the precautionary agreements to negotiations and consultations are only promises for the future. All this is subject to approvals and conditions to be monitored by the US Congress, while sidelining Indian Parliament....

Ditto. Though I have little doubt about demanding tall order such as amending constitution. my earlier blog posting...

Politics of possessing arms

To me the entire nuclear deal with the US of A looks rather uninteresting and I have not bothered to follow the news stories. But, few amusing things that I observed which I wanted to share:
1. The entire deal seems to be about India'a ability to produce nuclear arms, or to put it in Bush lingo, Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and the American need to control Indian ability to create these WMD
2. America is willing to share some knowledge or skill or whatever if India will tell them what it does with the raw material that it used to make WMD. The American policy seems to say that 'as long as we know what you are doing, its fine with us'. What about the WMD of America, would they in return inform India what they do with their raw material or for that matter any other country? Seems rather unlikely.
3. Now there is a news that Australia who is one of the suppliers of the raw material with which we can make arms, wants to compel India to sign-up with America for them to supply us. In this day of free market economy, it looks childish. Australia should be happy to sell their raw material to whomsoever is willing to pay the highest price, what is their business what is done with these materials and how are the WMD to be deployed. Do they insist on such deals with all those people they supply stuff. In return can India too can ask Australia what the hell goes into the strange shining red un-edible thing the export to us in the name of Apple? Why not?
4. Our own political fight to me looks even more funny, the Commies want the ability to test shoot weapons, like the hero in old movies, they can once in a while target practice the WMD without being inspected by Uncle Sam. Some representative of Uncle Sam says, 'no go' for this, don't understand what is his problem. They should know that commies have never ruled India and are most unlikely to do anything on their own ever beyond street theater. And it is so harmless, after all Americans test shoot at real targets like Iraqis or Afghan mountain goats.
5. Now why would the commies be interested to WMD target practice is beyond my understanding. If it is deterrence, then against whom? Only Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka don't have nuclear weapons among our immediate neighbours. Bhutan is too small, Nepal are commie friends for now, Bangladesh are bengalis and hence friends of 80% of the commie leaders of India and that leaves Sri Lanka which has enough problems of its own for it to be deterred by a nuclear practice shot from India. The commie heads of India can be pre-occupied with meaningless banter endlessly.
6. What is the Congress' problem? It seems to be saying 'look we made a deal, we don't care what anyone thinks, we go ahead with', I suppose this is the PMs idea of 'inclusive growth' which is so much tom-toms these days.
7. And finally, Georgie old man, where were you all these days, we missed you. What an amusing analysis, if only Pranab and others in the Cabinet had any sense of humour they would have laughed their hearts out with his analysis. What is he supposed to have said, 'that in the US the head of the state cannot bluff so much' and, 'in China for such a deal the PM would have been shot'. That is by far the boldest reality statement on the two super powers by any politician in India today. Georgie's best since the time he (rather late in the day) admitted to being frisked on arrival at the US airport when he was a minister in the cabinet. At one stroke, he had lampooned the US President (how much Bush has bluffed in the US over the WMD among other things in the last few years is well recorded) and on the other, done a provocation on the Chinese, who have been doing a major PR as a built up for the Olympics.
8. P.S. - I think the only sad part of this entire comedy show being enacted is the non-participation of the old bunch of BJP jokers. Poor sods, they are so much caught up in self doubt these days.

Maybe my understanding is simplistic, but, I think realist. The US will prevail is foregone conclusion. Communists don't have the guts to pull the plug on the Congress, they have never had it going so good for them, they will eventually settle for some face saving formula. The congress does not care one way or the other, even if there were by-elections tomorrow, with no visible opposition, they perhaps can win with a better majority. Ultimately nuclear technology is the power and politics of possessing arms, the powerful and vulnerable want to own, possess, create, sustain as much arms as possible as they consider themselves weak without the weapons. The politicians don't understand arms, but, think it is their right to control them. Arms are no great development priority, inclusive or otherwise, nuclear arms are extremely destructive and there is no logic for nuclear energy for a poor country as the technology for it is extremely costly. We can live peacefully without both, but, we may then miss all the comedy!

Freedom from the Bottled Water

Ninety Four years old Seetharam Iyer is one of the frequent visitors to my office, many times just to say 'hello' if he is passing by. Couple of weeks back in one of his visits, I was pouring out drinking water from the jug on to a tumbler, when he sharply said, 'enough, stop', and went on to explain, 'don't you buy this water?', 'yes', I said. So, 'it is enough to pour out as much water as is required for me, why fill up the glass every time and then the remaining water will be wasted any way, today it is all money'. A moment for stopping and pondering over for me, a learning.

We are so much used to throwing the left over water from a glass when we want to either empty it or clean-up or wash, most of us have not realized that water is no longer free, indeed it is getting costlier by the day. I often wonder why meetings, particularly, seminars and conferences are so proud of the plastic water bottle so much that they give it the most prominent place in the table. In every public meeting, on the podium or on the table in front of the dignitaries this cheap plastic bottle has come to adorn almost flaunting our ignorance as much as our indifference. I have repeatedly seen even in meetings where speakers talk of the corporate take over of water and how water is costlier than milk, etc., there is a bottled water on the dais. Do we wait for a day to ban bottled water in public like it is happening for cigarette for us to understand that the utter un-ethics of the entire water trade, but, also the magnitude of the incidental plastic garbage that is generated out of it?

Recently PepsiCo acknowledged that the 'Aqua Fina' with the mountain image was not to be taken at face value and that it is actually only selling 'tap water' in the bottle. Related News Item
A group in the US has been fighting the corporate take over for quite some time, pointing out how the per capita consumption there is 400 litres per day as against 10 litres in countries like ours. But, we are a country of 1 billion people and do not have to wait for international consultants to descend on us and teach us how to reduce plastic garbage by reducing bottled water usage. Can we declare freedom from bottled water in our events and travels, if not in our homes and offices?

Independence Day Morning

Sixty years of Independence, rough roads reflect the ups and downs,
Newspaper is large this morning 60 extra pages of words,
Delivered by the same boy, same cycle, same road.