The Contribution That Bottled Water Has on Climate Change - Essay Example

The Contribution that Bottled Water has on Climate Change The Contribution that Bottled Water has on Climate Change Introduction The scientific community agrees that global temperatures are rising due to the burning of fossil fuels which are damaging the protective atmospheric Ozone layer by changing its composition. Human pollution is changing the climate of our earth and has increased global warming in the past half century. We are already feeling the heat. Four of the five warmest years for more than three centuries have occurred in the last 10 years. Scientists predict that in 50 years, annual temperatures could be 2 degrees warmer, on average, than they are now (Climate Crisis 2000). Global warming is further evidenced by the well-documented melting of glaciers along with thermal expansion of the oceans, have contributed to an increase in sea level over the past century of about 15 cm. (Trenberth 1997). It might be considered that something as small as a water bottle may not be all that great a concern in the grand scheme of things, but in truth, the trend that has everyone and their neighbor sucking on water bottles all day long could actually have a very detrimental effect on the environment, contributing a great deal to the global warming crisis. The Problem In response to a growing weight problem in developing countries and an increased focus on environmentalism, more and more people have taken to drinking bottled water, perceiving it as healthier than tap water and more convenient. “Bottled Water – often considered a ‘healthy alternative’ is very popular in the States – we currently drink about 8 million gallons of it each year” (Makay, 2007). True environmentalists have been arguing for years against the trend, but the case is a hard one to make because it is attacking a favorite product. According to Geller (2007), U.S. consumers spent about $15 billion dollars on 2.6 billion cases of bottled water in 2006 alone. “Consumers have an affection for bottled water. It’s not an issue of taste or health, it’s about convenience … Try walking up (New York City’s) Third Avenue on a hot day and getting a glass of tap water” (John Sicher cited in Geller, 2007). However, those against the use of bottled water have valid points as the process is highly environmentally toxic. Beginning with the production of the product, consisting of the making of the bottle and the concerns regarding the water supply, progressing through the transportation of the product to market and then ultimate disposal of the empty bottles, the best environmental action people can take is to ditch the bottle and turn on the tap. Production Bottles Although it may not be, it should be well known that the production of plastic bottles is very harmful to the environment. To begin with, “plastic is made from petroleum, so we are depleting our non-renewable resources for a bottle that will be used once” (Makay, 2007). Specifically, Poor (2007) explains that polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is the primary ingredient in plastic water bottles and PET is produced with oil. It is estimated that the bottles produced for bottled water consumption in the United States alone requires approximately 17 million barrels of oil each year (Makay, 2007). Poor (2007) cites approximately 18 million barrels of oil were used in 2005 to produce more than two million tons of water bottles that ended up in landfills. Paulson (2007) seems to disagree with these numbers, giving a number of 1.5 million barrels of oil used to produce plastic water bottles, but the length of time (whether this is per week, per month, per year or within a particular state) used for this estimate is not provided. However, Paulson indicates that this amount is “enough to power 100,000 cars for a year” (Paulson, 2007). If Makay is correct about the amount of oil used to produce the bottles and Paulson is right about the number of cars that could be powered by the amount, then the resources used to produce bottles for packaging water could potentially power 1,130,000 cars for one year assuming they aren’t hybrids, in which case this number may stretch even higher. In addition to the amount of oil it takes to produce the bottles, it also requires a great deal of water, approximately 3-5 times more water than what will actually fit within the bottle. “Considering each bottle should only be used once (to prevent the leeching of phthalates), that is a lot of water that is wasted for each bottle we drink” (Makay, 2007). As will be seen in other parts of the bottled water production and distribution process, some water companies have taken the initiative to reduce or repay their environmental impact, one of which has attempted to reduce its impact by using a new type of biodegradable plastic made principally from corn. “However, the increased demand for corn for ethanol has led to a doubling of the price of corn in the United States, thereby increasing the price of other products based on corn” (Poor, 2007). This illustrates some of the difficulties companies have faced in trying to ‘go green’, but has not gone far enough yet to truly solve the problem. Water Source One of the problems with bottled water is the lack of control over the quality and source of the water used. Thanks to much relaxed regulations regarding content claims, while bottled water companies can produce product packaging that suggests the water is pure and straight from some virgin mountain spring, the source of the water may be straight out of the New York public water supply or anywhere else. “Regulations are the teeth of the law – and tap water’s teeth are stronger than bottled water’s, translating to higher safety standards and better monitoring. That doesn’t mean they are tough enough, and they do leave a wide range of contaminants uncovered (from rocket fuel to the gasoline additive MTBE), but they are nevertheless the tougher of the two, and better enforced besides” (Eisenberg, 2007). The water coming straight out of the tap and into the bottle, to be purchased by the wealthier portion of the population, undermines the ability of the public water utilities to maintain high standards. “One particular strength of tap water regulations is that they guarantee the consumer’s right to know what’s in his or her water. Utilities must issue annual ‘Water Quality Reports’ … identifying the source of the water and contaminants in it” (Eisenberg, 2007). As Eisenberg (2007) points out, the end effect is that the poorer segments of society are given undrinkable water while the rich struggle to pay for a purity that is often much more perception than reality. The reality of the situation has become clearer in recent years with ‘watch dog’ reports indicating that many bottled water companies do, indeed, use public water supply systems as the source of their ‘sparkling pure’ water. The first sentence in a recent article stated it clearly, “PepsiCo Inc. will spell out that its Aquafina bottled water is made with tap water, a concession to the growing environmental and political opposition to the bottled water industry” (Geller, 2007). Coca Cola is another company that admits it uses tap water in the production of its water product while other companies use the well water systems in their location. This not only forces the consumer to pay twice for their water, once through their taxes for the development of water treatment for their tap water, but then again, at an astronomical rate and tremendous environmental cost, when they purchase the same product neatly packaged with pretty pictures on the labeling. It also has been reported that this kind of practice reduces the available water supply for residents living near the bottling plants. Transportation While the production of the product has been costly enough, the true cost of bottled water has only just begun to add up. The transportation of bottled water has a significant impact on the environment as can be seen in the example of a bottle of water moving from France to Chicago. As is reported in Horng (2007), the trip from France to Chicago is more than 5,000 miles of trucking, warehousing, lifting, loading, shipping, unloading, more lifting and more trucking, most of which require large quantities of fossil fuels to operate. “Filling cargo ships with water and sending it hundreds and thousands of miles to get it around the world seems ridiculous” (New York restaurant owner cited in White, 2007). The fuel required to make this transfer is indeed quite ridiculous: “ABC News crunched the numbers – taking into account mileage and fuel requirements – and found that even before you drink that one-liter (33.8 ounce) bottle of French water in Chicago, you’ve already consumed roughly 2 ounces of oil. And that doesn’t include the oil used to make the plastic” (Horng, 2007). Another aspect of the transportation issue is the transportation of the empty bottles, whether they are shipped to China for recycling or shipped out of crowded urban centers to the closest available landfill area. Waste Brett Anderson (2007) suggests that the problem of bottled water is not limited just to the problems discussed thus far regarding the production, packaging, distribution and material sources of bottled water. Before an investigation into the contribution bottled water makes on global climate change, it is necessary to investigate the impact bottled water waste has on the world’s landfills versus the number of bottles recycled and what the recycling process represents in terms of further pollution. “In the U.S. alone, 30 million bottles a day, billions of bottles a year get tossed out. Recycling them costs another small fortune in gasoline to haul them to plants” (Caplan, 2007). Ruth Caplan (cited in Horng, 2007) reports that four out of five plastic end up in landfills. “If you put them end to end, it would go around the world more than 150 times” (Horng, 2007). The number of plastic bottles found in landfills is a problem acknowledged and reported in other sources as well. “Major population centers are already drained of landfill space. They don’t need the additional strain placed by millions of plastic water bottles” (Eisenberg, 2007). Bottled water manufacturers will argue that the bottles are completely recyclable and they cannot be responsible for the actions of their consumers. It is also true that bottled water manufacturers have been active in reducing the harm they represent to the environment. “Kay said the bottled water industry has, actually, been a good steward of the environment by actively promoting recycling and introducing lighter and even biodegradable plastics. Some brands also donate a portion of sales to water projects in developing countries” (Horng, 2007). In addition, the bottling companies point out that they are not the only product on the market that use plastic packaging and must ship long distances to satisfy the market. “To single out bottled water ... is really to miss an opportunity to engage in a comprehensive dialogue and take all-inclusive action to protect and sustain the environment” (Horng, 2007). This is further supported by recognition gained by watering companies for their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint. Icelandic Glacial (2007) announced earlier this year that it was “the first super-premium bottled water distributed in the United States to be recognized for its ongoing commitment to reduce its overall carbon imprint on the environment.” The company was awarded CarbonNeutral Certification from one of the world’s leading climate change company, The CarbonNeutral Company. “As part of the certification process, Icelandic Glacial was recognized for its ongoing efforts to continually measure and reduce its carbon emissions and offset any remaining environmental impact that contributes to global warming” (“Icelandic”, 2007). There are other bottled water companies that do what they can to ‘make up for’ the environmental damage by using the proceeds of their water sales to benefit social issues or provide relief to underprivileged areas. Ethos Water, a subsidiary of Starbucks, was founded as a means of bringing water projects to people in third world countries. They report donating five cents for every bottle sold to water projects. The funds thus raised have already been used to bring water improvement projects to Bangladesh, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Honduras and India (Paulson, 2007). Athena Bottled Water was started by a breast cancer survivor who began selling water as a means of raising money for women’s cancer research. According to the founder, “We give every penny of our profits to cancer research” (cited in Paulson, 2007). However, these two companies are relatively rare in the field. Despite the idea that there are some water bottling companies that claim and are recognized for good deeds, in most cases, there is also often reason for doubt. For example, Ethos Water, a subsidiary of a legendarily profit-driven corporation, reports that it donates only five cents of each bottle sold to charity, but does not indicate how much of each sale is profit, making it difficult to determine just how extensive their humanitarian concerns are. Even when companies do prove their humanitarian efforts are sincere, such as in Athena Water, the damage to the environment in the process remains irreversible. Even the award-winning Icelandic Glacier has been called into question regarding its carbon-neutral status. While the company claims the fact that the bottles they produce are 100 percent recyclable and therefore, conscientious consumers must take the responsibility of equaling out the production process, there is not an equal energy exchange involved between the production and the recycling of the bottles. Moreover, while the company does use renewable geo-thermal energy to power the bottling process, they still depend upon standard shipping and transportation venues (Poor, 2007). Although they are doing much more than most other companies, the argument remains that the production of plastic bottles for the bottling of water consumes more resources than is justifiable when one could gain the same product at a fraction of the cost by simply opening the faucet. Conclusion As has been shown, there is very little true benefit to society or environment in the continued use of bottled water. People who drink bottled water typically do so because they feel they are gaining benefit from having access to a purer or more enhanced product than what they can receive through the tap, but in many cases, they are wrong. Investigation has shown that several companies actually pull their water out of the public water supply or from ordinary community wells. The production of the bottles wastes numerous resources, including oil in the production of the bottles and water itself as it takes as much as five times as much water to create a bottle than it does to fill that bottle. Once this process has been completed, often through processes powered by yet more wasted natural resources, the heavy bottles must be packaged, shipped and transported all over the globe, sometimes traveling more than 5,000 before reaching a store shelf. Once the water is consumed, most of the bottles are thrown away to occupy space in the landfills. Some are recycled, but this, too, requires the use of resources in transporting the containers to the recycling plants. “The containers mean oil in the shipping, oil in the refrigerating and oil in the recycling, not to mention the oil that’s also needed in the manufacturing of plastic bottles. That’s a whole lot of oil to quench your thirst in a most unethical way” (Caplan, 2007). For most, the entire process is difficult to keep in the head at one time and therefore difficult to visualize the water bottle’s contribution to the global warming issue. “Gleick offered a simple way to visualize the average energy cost to make the plastic, process and fill the bottle, transport bottled water to market and then deal with the waste, ‘It would be like filling up a quarter of every bottle with oil’” (Paulson, 2007). Visualizing a quarter of the bottle filled with oily sludge whenever a bottle of water is reached for should encourage reaching for the tap more often. References Anderson, Brett. (July 31, 2007). “Bottled Water and Global Warming.” Global Warming. Accuweather. Available November 11, 2007 from < http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/07/bottled_water_and_global_warmi.html> Caplan, Arthur. (August 3, 2007). “Pour the Bottled Water Trend Down the Drain.” MSNBC. Available November 11, 2007 from “Climate Crisis: All Change in the UK?” (November 12, 2000). BBC News. Available November 12, 2007 from Eisenberg, Sheryl. (September 2007). “The Future of Water.” This Green Life. Natural Resources Defense Council. Available November 11, 2007 from Geller, Martinne. (July 28, 2007). “Aquafina to Clarify Water’s Source.” Reuters. Available November 11, 2007 from < http://news.aol.com/story/_a/aquafina-to-clarify-waters-source/20070727092309990001> Horng, Eric. (July 8, 2007). “Ditching Bottled Water to Go Green.” ABC News. Available November 11, 2007 from “Icelandic Water Holdings ehf. Announces CarbonNeutral Certification.” (2007). 2007 News Updates. Icelandic Glacial. Available November 11, 2007 from Makay, E.N. (October 15, 2007). “The War Against Bottled Water.” TUSB: The Unofficial Stanford Blog. Stanford University. Available November 11, 2007 from Paulson, Tom. (April 19, 2007). “Thirst for Bottled Water May Hurt Environment.” SeattlePI. Available November 11, 2007 from Poor, Jeff. (August 3, 2007). “A Bottled Water the Media Almost Like.” Business and Media Institute. Available November 11, 2007 from Trenberth, Kevin E. (1997). “Global Warming: It’s Happening.” National Center for Atmospheric Research. Available November 12, 2007 from White, D. Alexander. (November 8, 2007). “Americans Could Finally be Catching on to the Great Bottled Water Hoax?” Planetwatch. Available November 11, 2007 from < http://www.planetwatch.org/index.htm#TGT_Water> Read More