Weighing the pros and cons of bottled and tap water

Bottled water has become something of a lightning rod for environmental scorn, and for good reason in many cases. While many manufacturers do conduct activities to help lessen their environmental impact, the fact remains that the environmental — and social — costs are high.

On July 4, Elizabeth Royte, author of Bottlemania: How Water Went on Sale and Why We Bought It, was interviewed on the Science Friday edition of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation.” (To listen to the interview, click here.

Royte researched the history of bottled water in the United States and explored the environmental and social issues involved in the industry, including the privatization of water supplies around the country and around the globe. Certainly many people are aware of the petroleum and energy costs that go into manufacturing plastic water bottles and transporting the finished product to market. Some things the average consumer might not consider, however, are contaminants in the plastic water bottles themselves, advances made in bottle production to “lightweight” bottles and lessen costs, and how communities are affected by corporations buying up water sources.

Not everyone finds the water business evil, Royte pointed out in her interview. Even she finds it comparatively “not the worst thing in the world.” When asked whether she found people worried about losing their local water supplies, Royte responded that some people do and some don’t. While there are so-called water wars with angry people protesting and going to court, others welcome the jobs brought by the bottled water business and view it as a clean industry.

Royte does advocate tap water, explaining that the vast majority of community water supplies meet or exceed federal standards. She did note in her interview, however, that some 29 million Americans do not have municipal water that meets federal standards. Because many people are concerned about what’s in their water (and because the water industry has marketed their products in ways to make us be afraid of our water supply), Royte suggests two things:

1. Check your local Right to Know or Consumer Confidence report to see how clean your water is. These reports come in the mail every year, but you can also find them online for your community.
2. Optionally, you can collect a water sample from your tap and have it tested.

Once you know what is (or isn’t) in your water, you can then filter your water through either a carbon filter or a reverse osmosis filter, which removes industrial and agricultural contaminants.

For more information about Bottlemania and for extensive links to a variety of resources about water, visit Elizabeth Royte’s Bottlemania web site.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Do green products really have to cost more?

Hardly a day goes by when I don’t see a headline about how consumers will or won’t pay more for a particular kind of green product or service. It makes me wonder where this question came from, and why it is so pervasive. Certainly some “green” products cost more; we see this on shelves all over the country. But is it really necessary for green products to cost more, or have we all just been conditioned to think that they have to?

Hardly a day goes by where I also don’t see an article about the financial benefits of sustainable business practices (for example, the cost savings realized by becoming more energy efficient). If “going green” puts a company more firmly in the black, are higher prices still justified?

Some people point to the higher cost of organic food ingredients or to paying a proper wage to fair trade producers. Others will cite employers who foot the bill for a solid benefits package for their employees or other socially-forward thinking activities. And there is merit in those arguments, no question.

Still, there are companies that seem to manage to have sustainable business practices while being priced competitively. One company that comes to mind in this regard is the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which was recently recognized by the Environmental Defense Fund in its 2008 Innovations Review. Sierra Nevada does some amazing things in their plant, currently generating 80% of their own electricity, having one of the largest fuel cell installations in the country, and reusing their waste methane among them. The company is also a leader in recycling, winning Waste Reduction Awards Program awards from the state of California every year since 2001.

I popped down to the corner store before writing this post to check the price of Sierra Nevada compared to other beers on the shelf. Despite its green innovations (I’m sure the fuel cell installation didn’t come cheap), Sierra Nevada was no more expensive than other beers of its category, and in some cases was even less expensive. Other examples of comparably priced products that are greener include Stonyfield Farm and Trader Joe’s yogurt, which have reduced packaging, General Mills, which reduced the shape of noodles in Hamburger Helper to reduce packaging volume by 20%, and Procter & Gamble and Unilever, in association with Wal-Mart, which changed their liquid detergents to concentrated formulas to reduce water, plastic, and cardboard consumption.

Hopefully I won’t be surveyed with the question “Are you willing to pay more for a green product?” because my answer is not a simple Yes or No. It’s an “It Depends,” and the dependency is not whether the product is a computer or shampoo.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::