BURLINGTON, Vt. — On the University of Vermont campus, where nature seems to beckon from everywhere, bottled water has been unceremoniously lumped with the likes of sugar-laced Twinkies.
It’s not that water is bad for us; it’s that water bottles, from manufacture to disposal, are bad for the environment, activists say.
Comments
Be prepared for a nice spread of diseases on campus as reusable bottles that are not cleaned come into contact with the refill stations and then the next bottle touches it.
When did people decided they need to have a bottle with them constantly
Anybody tried to figure out expense of manufacturing water bottles? And what's the average period of use before they are lost/damaged/thrown away? And what was the recycling rate of plastic bottles? And as the previous comment mentioned - what about mainaining your bottle in sanitary conditions? Maybe the next step you'll mandate water bottle checks at the filling stations? And that everybody on campus has one? Water bottle police, anybody?
I'm all for being environmentally freindly. Let people know the drawbacks and advantages and let them chooze. Of you're effective in proving your point - bottled water sales would go down. But forcing everybody to do it "the right way" - sorry, I can't agree.
$100,000 to "upgrade" water fountains? First world idiocy
Last week guns, this week water bottles. What's next, incandescent light bulbs? Oooops. Forgot. Those are on the soon to be banned list too.
Water is not free.
In general I agree that rules should not be made to ristrict consumer choice because a choice may be unhealthy. It's you're body/your money -- dispose of it as you see fit. But I am very much for bans on the sales of materials that through the ingnorance and indifference of a few can negatively alter the lanscape for the majority. Sure, grabbing an Aquafina is cheap, quick, convenient, and you can just toss the bottle when you're done. But the additional cost is proxied out to dirtier air and soil, [and the greater healthcare costs that result], and tax revenues wasted to subsidize litter and pollution cleanup, not to mention the disposable plastic eyesores we see, and now take for granted, in our trees sewers and gutters.
The article mentions that "activists say" plastic is bad for the environment throughout its lifecycle. This is objectionable verbage. It is not an *opinion* of activists. It is a fact.
I am discouraged that all of the comments up till now have been in opposition to the ban. I am all for liberty, but things like pollution are too profitable to wait for the market to correct. Plastic is not disposable, and shouldn't be used in single-use situations. That Aquafina bottle you sipped from for 15 minutes will outlive you.
This action puts the blame on the product, not the behavior. Making clean public water available and encouraging students to use it is a great idea. Banning a healthy, safe, desired product that is contained in the same plastic as all other beverages is not. UVM has great recycling, and PET #1 is one of the most valuable and easily-recyclable materials around ... just throw it in the bin!
Congratulations, UVM!
One of the "costs" cited near the end of the article is a substantial reduction in the kickback from Coca-Cola to the university. Coke was pouring $500,000 into the university, ostensibly because of its commitment to education. The threatened reduction reveals the real nature of this payment: it is in return for giving the company exclusive and wide access to the students, staff, and the wallets of both. Less access, less kickback.
It is fascinating that in a country literally willing to go to war to keep gasoline under $4/gallon, water at $8-10/gallon is considered a matter of personal freedom.