A week after a campaign was mounted to encourage the National Park Service to phase bottled water out of the parks, the bottled water industry pushed back a bit, saying to do so would encourage visitors to turn to unhealthy alternatives to quench their thirsts.
In a release Tuesday the International Bottled Water Association said "(E)fforts to eliminate or reduce access to bottled water in our national parks will force consumers to choose less healthy drink options that have more packaging, more additives (e.g., sugar, caffeine), and greater environmental impacts than bottled water."
According to the group, research shows that in the absence of bottled water products, "63 percent of people will choose soda or another sugared drink – not tap water."
"We expect the same consumer response if access to bottled water is restricted in our national parks," said the group in the release. "And such a response will therefore not likely reduce the presence of plastic bottles within the recycling streams of our national parks."
Corporate Accountability International, a non-profit that works to encourage cleaner environmental habits, last week sent representatives to Yosemite National Park, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Independence Hall National Historical Park, and Mount Rainier National Park with over-sized postcards encouraging park officials to commit to phasing out bottled water.
Kristin Urquiza, who oversees the "Outside the Bottle and Public Works Compaign" for Corporate Accountability International, says more parks need to follow Zion, Hawaii Volcanoes, and Grand Canyon national parks in phasing out the sale of disposable water bottles.
To get more parks to phase-out bottled water, the non-profit has been working with stakeholders in and out of national parks, including concessionaires, "to help give Park Service (superintendents) the support they need to really move forward on implementing a 'bottled-water-free' policy in their parks," she said.
While none of the four parks has given "firm commitments" to moving forward with a ban, said Ms. Urquiza, talks have been ongoing to examine the feasibility of such a ban.
"The real exciting feedback that we've been getting is that water in the parks is an incredibly important issue for superintendents," she said. "They want to figure out how to minimize the amount of waste, to promote public water."
But the water bottlers say Americans want bottled water. "Consumers choose bottled water for several reasons, including its refreshing taste, reliable quality, zero calories and additives, and convenience," the organization said. "In fact, since 1998, approximately 73 percent of the growth in bottled water consumption has come from people switching from carbonated soft drinks, juices, and milk to bottled water.
"Banning or restricting access to bottled water in the marketplace, including within national parks, directly impacts the right of people to choose the healthiest beverage on the shelf. And for many, bottled water is a critical alternative to other packaged beverages, which are often less healthy. Bottled water must therefore be available wherever packaged beverages are sold."
The group does support ongoing efforts to "further increase the availability of clean, safe drinking water in national parks, cities, towns, on college campuses, in the work place, and at home should be encouraged. This, in fact, complements the National Park Services’ own ongoing healthy foods initiative. Bottle refilling stations and water fountains throughout national parks and communities are an excellent opportunity to help promote healthy hydration. But access to bottled water is also a key component of this effort and should not be discouraged, prohibited, or overlooked when discussing water’s role in a healthier lifestyle."
Comments
Moonpie -
Check out some of our recent Alaska news sites [Anchorage Daily News, Alaska Dispatch] for even more and very current information about how incredibly subsidized the oil industry is. Our Governor Parnell is pushing through horrendous and unpopular tax breaks for them.
So what?
Pollution? Pure fiction
So what?
Tell, what percentage of landfill capacity is filled with water bottles?
How much will banning water bottles in National Parks actually reduce energy consumption or the demand for landfill capacity. The answer - virtually none.
As I figured, Justin, you are unwilling to defend any of it.
Actually by reducing, recycling and elliminating, People other than ecbuck have extended the life of many land fills. So maybe bottled water in the the NPS is only a small portion of that. But in my opinion, it is the right approach. I also would hate to be the person who has to pick up empty water bottles and other trash, and carry them from the bottom of the Grand Canyon. You cannot drive a garbage truck to the bottom and back.
So tell us David, how many bottles sold in the GCNP end up at the bottom of the canyon and are subsequently carried out?
David, justinh and others:
Thanks for making some good points, and as usual, ec's mind is made up, so don't confuse him with any information :-) He's happiest when he's found someone to argue with.
Sadly, he represents a group of Americans whose attitude is "I've got mine and life is good, and resources like water, oil and even landfill space are unlimited, so no need to give any thought to conserving anything for future generations." One of his favorite lines for any suggestion of resource conservation is it's just" anti-corporate, anti-oil, environmental extremism."
In a previous thread on this same subject, ec dismissed the amount of oil used to make plastic water bottles as "two tenths of one percent of our total consumption of oil," and therefore not worth any concern. It's all those seemingly insignificant "two tenths of one percent" that add up to account for our enormous appetite for oil and other resources ... but don't worry, he assures us, there's plenty more where that came from.
The good news is there are other points of view represented on this site and in the country, people who understand that when we can take steps that cost us little or nothing to save even a "few million" barrels of oil or gallons of water, it's worth a try. To not even make any effort is lazy and greedy ... but the status quo sure is easy and comfortable.
Yes, even if sales of plastic bottles were banned in a few more parks, in the big picture the impacts may be primarily symbolic. The hope is such efforts will get more people thinking about the kinds of impacts ec shrugs off as trivial.
It would be useful if your "information" were factual and meaningful. The problem is when you actually are asked to discuss the information or put it in context, you merely run trying to ridicule on your way. It is Saul Alinsky at his best.
Thanks, Mtnliving. Well said.