In Quebec the Jean Charest government (Liberal party incumbent) appears if the ComedyNetwork commercials are accurate trying to pass a tax on bottled water (about 20 cents) to make several hundred millions of dollars in surplus revenue as well as other water related taxes.
On one hand I accept this is probably being required to provide the government additional revenue.
On the other hand I don't think I like the idea of even indirectly taxing fresh water which is the distinctive "Canadian" resource that my principle of the matter is 'owned by the people of Canada' taxing it is kinda like having us pay the government money to drink water...
I haven't looked up the details, but it comes down to do I want more money for government programs or do I want cheaper bottled water, the latter complicated over what the relationship between us and our nations resources.
I'll probably support it.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Uh, you don't have potable tap water in Quebec?
Perhaps your argument makes sense if you don't, but it if you do, I'm not seeing the issue.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My tap water is disgusting its like drinking lead wrapped in depleted uranium, its pumped from the river and I live in Montreal so yeah.
Not that I don't have some kind of access to fresh water my dad collects gallons of the stuff in 4 gallon jugs and I get one for about a weeks worth of water.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Get a Brita filter Blayne, that will solve your problem.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
So you're complaint is that they're taxing the yummy water, and if you don't want to pay the tax, you have to drink the water that tastes bad?
Cry me a river.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
I didn't ask if it tasted good. I asked if it was safe to drink. That's a huge difference. As BB pointed out, you can easily effect the taste with a decent filter. So as before, I'm not seeing the issue.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Bottled water is just stupid to start with. First there's the bottle itself, which is just extra garbage to put in a landfill, then they truck the water hundreds of miles, just so you can imagine that it tastes better because it comes from Maine or Vermont of somewhere. Why? Because local water tastes funny?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think bottled water is just a symptom of how our economy works. We identify and fill ever finer niches. Largely, new products and services are fulfilling needs we never knew we had (until we saw the solution). Most kitchen gadgets invented in the last 50 years are about as stupid as bottled water, including some popular ones. The storage container industry thrives on the secondary effects of the barely-useful item industry.
Bottled water is marginally more convenient than carrying around a reusable container and filtering your tap water to your taste. That's all it takes - a slight margin.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Blayne -
Taxing bottled water in many places is an attempt to discourage the use of bottled water. Bottled water is bad. You're dramatically overpaying for something you can produce yourself at home with a good water filter, and doing tons of damage by using and discarding plastic bottles, even if you recycle them.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: So you're complaint is that they're taxing the yummy water, and if you don't want to pay the tax, you have to drink the water that tastes bad?
Cry me a river.
Now if we bottled the water from that river, what would the tax be on that? Bottle human tears? That has to be worth something.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Not after you run it thought a desalination process.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But then you can advertise them as "purified human tears: The best in reverse osmosis and hopelessness that money can buy."
Throw the word premium in their. Premium purified human tears. People love things that are premium. For example. Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Not to mention bottled water when it's thrown into landfills takes water out of the grid, as the droplets inside can't go anywhere. Not a whole lot of ways to accomplish the same feat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Aw, sorry Blackblade, I ruined your joke. Good point about water capture though, I forgot about that. You also have to include the waste water used in the recycling process.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Not to mention bottled water when it's thrown into landfills takes water out of the grid, as the droplets inside can't go anywhere.
'Cuz if there's one thing that's in short supply on the surface of the earth, it's H20. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Fresh water is headed that direction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
MPH -
I know/hope you're kidding, but I'd be careful. Potable water isn't a laughing matter for billions of people. Also, I'd point out that joking like that to the wrong person is going to make that person think "Gee, you're right, that IS a silly complaint," when in fact, it's perfectly valid.
[/buzzkill]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The water that's left over at the bottom of the bottle isn't potable anymore.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And you're not making my point for me...how?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh?
BB says that bottled water is bad because because those droplets inside cannot evaporate and therefore are no longer a part of the water cycle.
I do not see how this is a problem. We've got plenty of water in the water cycle.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's not just droplets. There are literally billions of plastic water bottles in landfills, and many of those billions don't just have droplets, they're a quarter full, or half full, or totally full. That's millions of gallons of fresh water sequestered away in landfills that won't be released for thousands of years through decomposition.
And depending on where you live, you do not have plenty of water in the water cycle. I live in Michigan, so I'm pretty much set until either we all die from an asteroid strike or I leave the state. But out west, and down south, drought is an issue increasing in its severity. Watershed management issues are bad enough at the local level, but bottled water removes massive quantities of fresh water from a supposedly renewable system.
That's ignoring all the other water costs involved in bottled water, which are substantial, and that at least a third of the world's population does not have access to potable water on a regular basis.
It's a bit of a chore, but if you'd like evidence I can try to look something up this weekend. I don't have anything on hand at the moment.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
1) I'm pretty sure in Canada that we do a much more thorough job recycling it.
2) I'm also decently sure that bottled water is more stringently tested and is as safe to drink as municipal water, correct me if I'm wrong.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think you'll find that a used bottle is rarely gas-tight; consequently the water inside evaporates and leaks out into the atmosphere on a rather faster timescale than the decomposition of the bottle. And, in any case, some millions of gallons is not, actually, a large amount in this context.
What's more, there is some equilibrium between fresh and salt water, and the salt water is the reservoir; take fresh water out of the system and it refills, after a bit of energy input, from the salt-water reservoir. I must say this looks like a fake problem to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I didn't say it was a big, world shattering problem, or that it was the biggest. The argument against bottled water can survive just fine on its own without this. It exists though, and I think it's something to consider when we talk about ecosystem management.
Again though I worry about the basis of your argument, which lends support to those who oppose water conservation and responsible watershed and ecosystem management. To a degree, it IS a renewable system, but then, so is our climate. I guess we shouldn't be complaining about fossil fuel emissions either.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: 2) I'm also decently sure that bottled water is more stringently tested and is as safe to drink as municipal water, correct me if I'm wrong.
You're wrong. Arsenic has been found in batches of bottled water, bacterial contamination is more common, and the relative cutoffs for acceptable levels of contaminants is higher for bottled than for most municipalities (although laws vary).
On average, tap water is (slightly) safer than bottled water. Filtered tap water even more so.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Are you arguing that this is the case for both the US and Canada? If I recall your American from California I'm not sure if your in a position to comment on Canadian water treatment.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Could just check:
quote:Industry observers say advertising by bottled water companies gives consumers the impression their product is safer and healthier than tap water. Municipal water, however, is more stringently tested.
In Canada, local water supplies are inspected every day, whereas bottled-water plants are inspected at three-year intervals.
I can only argue one thing against taxing bottled water.
It is usually the Government's responsibility to provide tap water to the community.
The government will be making revenue from those who drink water that is not what they are providing.
Where is the incentive to make that tap water more palatable?
Oh, I don't mean they will drop standards or endanger lives, but a few bits of something that would be safe, but add an unpleasant taste or odor to the water would result in an increase in govt. revenues.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
hmm. interesting point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Are you arguing that this is the case for both the US and Canada?
Considering how much of the water supplies of the two countries (bottled and otherwise) intermingle, yes. But I think Mucus did a better job of proving my point.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The government shouldn't tax water. If the government is going to provide anything to people as guaranteed right, it should be water. You can live a month without food and decades without healthcare but only three days without water. Why is there a healthcare debate while I'm still paying $100 a month for water? Wait, my $100 a month for water goes to the city.
You don't need bottled water. That's a luxury,...a Cadillac tax of sorts. You can drink the $100 a month government provided tap water like the rest of us. They should impose a global warming tax on the oil it took to make the bottle as well.
[ March 14, 2010, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Where do you live that you're paying $100 a month for water/sewage? Atlanta?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Tampa $100 a month and I rarely water my yard. It's a good thing the government took over this necessity to make sure the consumer's aren't overpaying. My brother had a well with water treatment and septic system installed in his custom built home. The city expanded three years later and they were looking out for his best interests as well. He had $20k tacked to his mortgage to be forced to pay for the city hookups that were forced upon him. Now he gets to pay his $100 a month and has a higher mortgage to boot. I like gardening but grew up with a well. The only thing that stops me from growing my own veggies is the water would cost more than purchasing Mexican tomatoes from the store.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Water around here is expensive, which is ironic given we're a peninsula surrounded by fresh water. The suburbs around Detroit all get their water through Detroit, which bilks the suburbs at an exorbitant markup for what's literally the state's most plentiful natural resource.
Mal -
It's no wonder you have the views you have. You have a life story for EVERY possible situation that makes the government look bad. I was having a mental chicken or the egg debate regarding why you argue what you argue, and the way you argue it, and if even half of what you say is true, I think my questions are answered.
BTW, happy one year anniversary this month.
Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Are you arguing that this is the case for both the US and Canada? If I recall your American from California I'm not sure if your in a position to comment on Canadian water treatment.
This response only matters if you hold the opinion that Canadian municipal water is held to lower standards than that of the US.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Water around here is expensive, which is ironic given we're a peninsula surrounded by fresh water. The suburbs around Detroit all get their water through Detroit, which bilks the suburbs at an exorbitant markup for what's literally the state's most plentiful natural resource.
Mal -
It's no wonder you have the views you have. You have a life story for EVERY possible situation that makes the government look bad. I was having a mental chicken or the egg debate regarding why you argue what you argue, and the way you argue it, and if even half of what you say is true, I think my questions are answered.
BTW, happy one year anniversary this month.
All of us have a "life story" pertaining to these arguments. Most people just simply accept the government intrusion as a fact of life.
Water is a utility controlled by the government. It was one of the earliest "necessities" the government justified taking over. Thank you for helping me prove my point by stating "expensive, which is ironic given we're a peninsula surrounded by fresh water".
It's expensive, despite it's abundance due to the fact that the government controls it. It's such a fundamental need, it was taken over many decades ago. Social Security was also provided for our needs many decades ago. Unfortunately, they have a general fund. Water revenues don't only pay for water, just as social security payments have been spent on other entitlements. The same will happen with socialized medicine. Insurance companies have a 2% profit margin. I guarantee your city water provider's profit margin is higher than 2%. It pays for other city programs and an inefficient bureaucracy.
The government deals with a "general fund" and if higher water bills can aid the schools, so be it. Private water companies wont rape you on water to pay another companies bills. Private water would be cheaper. Unfortunately, it's too important to trust the private sector to provide. The only reason we have a future funding problem for social security is the payments went into the federal general fund. A private investment company that took as much, for so many years, only paid at the age of 65 with such meager returns, would be prosecuted for fraud. A private investment of that magnitude would make huge profits for the investor and manager.
[ March 20, 2010, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I didn't say it was a big, world shattering problem, or that it was the biggest. The argument against bottled water can survive just fine on its own without this. It exists though, and I think it's something to consider when we talk about ecosystem management.
Again though I worry about the basis of your argument, which lends support to those who oppose water conservation and responsible watershed and ecosystem management. To a degree, it IS a renewable system, but then, so is our climate. I guess we shouldn't be complaining about fossil fuel emissions either.
There's such a thing as a priority. You have only so much attention and money. Climate change is a big problem; the contribution of bottles to freshwater management issues is a small problem. It's important to keep the eyes on the dang ball.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: Where do you live that you're paying $100 a month for water/sewage? Atlanta?
My parents would pay that. They are on well and septic, but that is about what their neighbors are paying that went with a company that hooked up their neighborhood.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)