Australians ban bottled water

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...BrandChannel=0

I like this idea, as stock piles of plastic bottles are a terrible sight. I've been to beautiful jungles, only to have the experience ruined by the sight of mounds of used plastic bottles dropped off and forgotten about.
One the flip side, my city's water tastes really bad. Chalk full of chemicals that leave a bad after taste. I would hate to have my Culligan water source disappear because city hall made a similar move.
I refill an 18 liter jug of purified water about once a month at my local grocery store, and it costs me less than $5. Even though the price is meager, it still causes me to drink more water, which is a good thing. Whenever I go to yoga, or climb, bike, hike whatever, I just fill my Nalgene bottles at home and I'm all set.

I don't think that the big bottles of water is the problem here; it's the thousands of little ones that is. You already are doing what they want us to do and thats reuse a bottle, such as a nalgene or other. bring your water with you and don't be buying a new bottle every time you get thirsty.

I like the way this is looking!

An alternative suggestion: make wanton littering and trash dumping illegal.

Quote:

---

An alternative suggestion: make wanton littering and trash dumping illegal.

---

Good in theory, but how do you enforce this?

Banning things is stupid, if we must prevent use (and I'm not convinced it matters), it should be taxed at a high rate. That way if you really want bottled water or lightbulbs or whatever you can still get them, just be prepared to sacrifice.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Blog
Banning things is stupid, if we must prevent use (and I'm not convinced it matters), it should be taxed at a high rate. That way if you really want bottled water or lightbulbs or whatever you can still get them, just be prepared to sacrifice.

---

That's really a regressive solution which punishes people who can't afford the tax hike way more than it does people who can.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Malacasta
That's really a regressive solution which punishes people who can't afford the tax hike way more than it does people who can.

---

So the people who can't afford the new tax are the first to stop using the thing that's being discouraged? Big deal.

However, I don't think taxation is the right solution in this case. Bottled water is already stupidly expensive compared to the alternatives (apart from the obvious tap water, I can get a 1.5L bottle of lime lemonade for 89c or 82c, and pop-top reusable bottles come in all shapes and sizes at not much more than their contents would justify), and people buy it, so adding a punitive tax won't stop that.

But there's a question here of where you draw the line. For instance, I'm sure people will agree that the bottle of lemonade I mentioned above is NOT bottled water, even though it's perfectly reasonable to treat it as a drink bottle and not something to decant from. What about those flavored waters though? Are they bottled water, or are they some other drink that happens to be more watery than most? What _exactly_ is restricted (or taxed, as the case may be)?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kestra
Good in theory, but how do you enforce this?

---

Anyone who gets caught doing it gets prosecuted.

People who litter are already fined pretty heavily, and millions of people still do it.

I'm not saying I have a better idea, and I like that ignorant and selfish arseholes get punished in the pocket, just saying that it doesn't appear to be terribly effective as a deterrent.

Banning things like this is stupid.

For one thing, when people find themselves in need of a cool drink and go to a vending machine, the ban has removed the choice of (healthy) water and allows only for (unhealthy) pepsi, etc.

Secondly, I've been doing a lot of travelling lately and when away from home, buying a bottle of water at a shop is the only way to stay hydrated (unless I want to pay a 2 euro cover charge just to be able to sit in a restaurant that sells water for 4 euros per glass).

I've also read in the news about a town in the (I think) USA that implemented a similar ban, and it prevented firefighters from bringing bottles of water with them on the job.

All three of these points tend to characterize what is almost a universal problem with zero-tolerance type bans - they ignore common sense. I also don't buy the argument that this is at all related to litter, or the environment. Plastic bottles are one of the easiest things in the world to recycle, and enforcing a ban on a product in order to reduce litter seems just as problematic as enforcing a ban on litter itself.