Bottled water vs. tap water: what you need to know

Speaking of bottled water (see last post), I might as well take this opportunity to talk about something I feel really strongly about.

People in the United States needs to stop buying into common insinuations that tap water is dirty, unhealthy, bad tasting, or unsafe. It's virtually all myth, propagated by well-intentioned but ignorant health-conscious people and probably encouraged by the bottled water industry, all mixed with a good dose of groupthink. And it drives me nuts.

The facts, as far as I can see, are this:

In the US, tap water is regulated at a very, very high standard on a federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a utility, mandating constant testing for bacteria, microbes, and anything else harmful to human health. Any municipal water system serving over 25 people must meet federal standards, according to this article from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website, and those standards are very scrupulous. People in urban areas see their dirty rivers and get extra scared of what might come out of the tap, but the EPA's mandatory standards and rigorous testing, if anything, is even more strictly enforced in higher density areas, I bet. (I couldn't find any hard evidence online to back up what I've heard about New York City's water being the cleanest in the country, but its certainly a common belief among many people I know.) Virtually anything you need to worry about coming out of your tap, whether it be lead, brown water, or other contaminants, is most likely coming from your home or building's plumbing, which is something you should be calling your landlord about, not your senator.

Bottled water, regulated by the FDA under the umbrella of "food," also maintains high standards, but at the very least it can be said that what exactly those standards are is under debate. That FDA article I mentioned seems to suggest that bottled water is "providing a service for those whose municipal systems do not provide good quality drinking water" - useful for developing nations, but that conditional doesn't actually apply to anyone in the United States. This long, extensive article from emagazine seems to suggest otherwise though, calling the bottled water industry "largely self-regulated." Both articles agree that by law the FDA's bottled water standards have to meet EPA's tap water standards, but emagazine adds a pretty crucial detail:

...the FDA is allowed to interpret the EPA’s regulations and apply them selectively to bottled water. As Senior Attorney Erik Olson of the NRDC explains, “Although the FDA has adopted some of the EPA’s regulatory standards, it has decided not to adopt others and has not even ruled on some points after several years of inaction.” In a 1999 report, the NRDC concludes that bottled water quality is probably not inferior to average tap water, but Olson (the report’s principal author) says that gaps in the weak regulatory framework may allow careless or unscrupulous bottlers to market substandard products.

In the end though, I feel like a nalgene and a Brita (if you're really worried about tap water) should be just as good a substitute to a bottle as any. But I'm not writing this so you can find the cleanest possible water to drink - that's not what this blog's for. I'm writing because I just read this article about how the "drink local" movement is catching on in California and elsewhere following all of the talk (and actions) of "eat local," something you've probably heard of which I'll be devoting more space to in the future. Essentially, the article covers how some restaurants are switching (back) to bottled water for a variety of reasons. What stood out to me though was the thoughts of New York restaurateur Joseph Bastianich, who named one of the biggest and most obvious ones.

“Filling cargo ships with water and sending it hundreds and thousands of miles to get it around the world seems ridiculous,” Mr. Bastianich said. “With all the other things we do for sustainability, it makes sense.”

Emagazine's article I quoted earlier goes into way more detail on this and the whole issue in general - seriously, you should read the whole thing - but it does make sense at a pretty lowest common denominator level. Why are we shipping water from France and Switzerland and Fiji when everyone in the US has clean water sources within their state, if not their county? Not to mention the cost of refrigeration and the huge toll of all those millions of bottles filling up landfills which aren't biodegradable. Recycling is promising, but 9 out of 10 bottles aren't recycled, and in my opinion I don't see why anyone should be giving the bottled water industry another cent anyway. Just thinking about their profit margins makes my head spin.

I think the kicker for me is not even the fact that Americans are choosing the vastly inferior, more environmentally harmful, and more expensive option of tap water over bottled water. It's the attitude with which we scorn the rarity which is provided to us for next to nothing, an opinion shared by a New York Times op-ed piece from two years ago I found:

Of course, tap water is not so abundant in the developing world. And that is ultimately why I find the illogical enthusiasm for bottled water not simply peculiar, but distasteful. For those of us in the developed world, safe water is now so abundant that we can afford to shun the tap water under our noses, and drink bottled water instead: our choice of water has become a lifestyle option. For many people in the developing world, however, access to water remains a matter of life or death.

And of course, I'm not even going to get into the "duh" factor of outrageous bottled water prices. A bottle of Evian costs the same as 1,000 gallons of tap water in most American homes, but apparently Americans prefer paying that thousand-fold difference, something which I'm sure everyone, developing world or not, would find pretty peculiar if they just thought about it for a few minutes.

In the end, I just feel like there is so much misinformation and rumor-spreading that bottled water, with its familiar packaging and comforting brand image, will always win over a consumer who is afraid of all the tap water rumors and can't see exactly where it's coming from. But it doesn't have to be this way. From where I'm standing, I'd even rather be (hypothetically) wrong about tap water's cleanliness and be drinking slightly dirtier water that is so infinitely more environmentally friendly than be giving loads of money to something as irresponsible and harmful as bottled water. When you add up in your head the money and energy that goes into shipping all that plastic just to have it discarded and clog landfills, it makes sense. Think about it!

Hopefully the stigma on tap water's reliability will end as green living choices become more and more of a necessity for everyone. I remember once a friend of mine got super mad when I told him it was fine to fill up their cup with bottled water from my bathroom sink and he came back with a glass full of cloudy water. "See? You actually drink this? You're going to kill yourself! I knew it" he said (or something along those lines), left his glass on my desk, and went downstairs to find a Brita jug before I could respond. And I could see even then why many Americans felt the same way he did, trusting their gut. But by the time he was back upstairs, the cloudiness (just tiny bubbles probably from the tap's mesh, it turned out) had dissipated, leaving an identical glass of water to the new one he was holding in his hand. I'm sure I was annoyingly smug about it.

Photo by Flickr user Scott Wills.

The New York Times on the ideology of recycling

The New York Times Magazine recently did a long article on a history and analysis of American "bottle bills" and the way that the growing bottled water market will factor into possible future recycling legislation. It's #6 on the Most Emailed list right now, and actually quite a good read. The best parts highlight the ideological and cultural struggles at work:

By now the players on both sides, in each state, all know one another. They issue reports. They recite dueling statistics. But the debate, wherever it happens to flare up in a given year, is essentially a philosophical one. While recycling advocates rail against society’s wastefulness as a solemn problem, so much of that society relies on the freedom to throw things out as a solution to problems. As naïve as it looks, the bottle bill forces the very contemporary environmental question of whether those who sell a product, not to mention those who use it, should be accountable for its mess — and just how accountable, and at what cost. By Day 3 in Salem, one dumbstruck grocer, pressed after his testimony, finally blurted out: “Are we responsible for all the containers and all the garbage we sell?” He meant it as a rhetorical question. But it’s precisely the question that, for 36 years, everyone has been getting together to hash out.

and later:

“A good number of the Redeemers [those who scour the city for bottles and cans for a living] see that they’re doing a real service,” Kooperkamp said, “cleaning up after us, taking care of the environment.” Some come to see picking up a can — replacing it into the cyclic narrative from which it strayed — “as running totally opposite to our egocentric, convenience-driven, disposable culture.” It can be a deeply connective act. “I went to seminary,” Kooperkamp told me. “I learned all about redemption. Redemption is about taking something that is worthless and giving it value, about taking that worthless thing and changing it into something life-sustaining.” Jean Rice, a canner in the Bronx, summed it up this way: “Five years ago, I used to call myself a canner. But now I call myself an ecological engineer.”

It's good to see that some people are starting to see recycling as more than just "canning," but it's pretty clear especially by this article that the industry, and the legislation, still has a long way to go.

Photo by David Tames.

I meant to post earlier this article by the BBC about how the polar oceans, one of the world's most significant carbon sinks, is soaking up less and less CO2. It's just another example of how global warming hurts the earth's carbon sinks in general. Which is a downer, since essentially the more carbon we're releasing, the less carbon the earth itself can compensate for.

Lots, lots more about carbon sinks here. And while we're on the subject of fantastic Wikipedia posts, here are a few of the best in terms of comprehensive overviews of climate change information:

Mitigation of global warming ("taking actions aimed at reducing the extent of global warming")
Adaptation to global warming ("taking action to minimize the negative effects of global warming")
Global warming

Blogs can be fun and all, but sometimes a healthy dose of Wikipedia is pretty crucial for educating yourself.

Sorry!

I know I fell off the face of the earth - I just moved and started working and class full time, so things might not be as frequently updated. But I promise they will be.

In the news: Smithsonian singing a different tune

Smithsonian "toned down" Arctic climate change exhibit last year. "The obsession with getting the next allocation and appropriation was so intense that anything that might upset the Congress or the White House was being looked at very carefully." Pretty sad stuff. Contents of the exhibit are still online, but the exhibit itself closed in November of last year.

The BoGo Light: solar-powered poverty aid

It's ideas like the BoGo Light that make me think that the world might not be such a bleak place after all. A New York Times article - have you guessed what my favorite newspaper is yet? - featured it, and I have to say, it's a pretty brilliant idea.

The invention is essentially just a quality made solar-powered flashlight. But it's not just designed to reduce environmental impact - the idea is that for every flashlight bought, one is donated to people around the world who need it.

Two billion people living in the developing world rely on kerosene lanterns, candles, and single-use battery flashlights for light at night. Not only are these options expensive, dangerous, and harmful to the environment, they also negatively impact health, education, and security.

[...] The donated lights are distributed to needy individuals and families by organizations that are established and working in the developing world. These organizations include Feed The Children, Samaritan's Purse, UNHCR, and Invisible Children, as well as many other international assistance groups. Our lights have also been bulk purchased by multinational corporations such as Exxon Mobil and Perenco, as part of their community assistance programs.

Providing people with this basic amenity means more education, better health, safer living (especially for women and families), less energy consumed, and a cleaner environment - not bad. Bravo to Mark Bent and the creators of the BoGo Light for taking such a bold step at the intersection of environmental awareness and poverty relief. Buy one for yourself (think of how useful it could be) and think of the difference its donated counterpart could make for someone across the world.

GM sticking to the "too little, too late" strategy.

General Motors' vice chairman has "electric conversion," redefines "hypocrite." This is the guy who called the Prius a PR stunt. He still questions the existence of global warming and owns two jets, but now that he sees that green industry is where the money's going he's hopping on the bandwagon. He claims this car will do 151MPG when the battery isn't even in development? I'm skeptical.

gahhhhh....

If the layout starts to look really weird or ugly, it's because I'm messing with it. Things will be back to normal soon.

Edit: New redesign is up.... hope you like it. It might take me a few days to get everything back to normal, so be patient.

The New York Times Magazine's "eco-tecture" issue

Sweet. The New York Times magazine's latest issue is combining my two of my greatest loves - snazzy architecture and green living. You can access a good deal of the magazine online here (if not the whole thing) and in the meantime, I'll be eagerly reading it myself.

In the news: green politics, "off the grid" living, new EPA hybrid perks

Momentum for bigger and better climate change legislation continues to grow. "Energy companies, automakers, alternative-fuel interests, environmentalists and other key players already are poised to slug it out, experts say, as lawmakers work up measures intended to curb future greenhouse-gas emissions tied to global warming."

Most '08 candidates agree that global warming will play a significant part of the next administration, but differ on strategies. The denial game seems to finally be on its last legs. The article's a good summary of the attitudes and approaches of the presidential candidates' opinions and ideas about how to deal with energy and climate change.

"Off the grid" living edging into American mainstream. A small but growing number of people are trying out partial or total independence from power companies, with mostly positive results. "The change is popular in the West because people are moving into remote areas beyond the reach of commercial power. Others point to environmental conscientiousness and the Westerner's traditional independent streak."

The EPA is proposing federal rules allowing hybrid drivers to use highway carpool lanes even without a passenger. Only the most efficient hybrids would be permitted: "The proposal seeks to balance the government's interest in promoting the fuel-efficient vehicles with concerns that an influx of hybrids could clog up car pool lanes in congested cities." This would be similar to legislation already in effect in AZ, CA, FL, UT, and VA.

Photo by Flickr user ehpien.

The power of the compact fluorescent light bulb

Perhaps one of the most visible steps that have been taken by people worldwide is the gradual switch from old-style incandescent light bulbs to the more energy-efficient, longer lasting compact fluorescent lamps, or CFLs. Most people by now are aware of the fact that CFLs save energy and last longer than incandescent bulbs. But while a significant number have completely made the switch, many others have not for a number of reasons - the light was too cool or "blue", the bulbs still too expensive by comparison, and sometimes too buzzy while switched on.

What the skeptics may not realize is that CFLs have been significantly improved upon in the past several years, even since they started appearing on store shelves a few years ago.

• While CFLs are still more expensive than incandescent bulbs, the price has lowered significantly in recent years. In 1999, a single compact fluorescent bulb cost $12.48, while today a 6-pack costs around $10, or $2.50 a bulb (source). It's obviously tempting to go for the cheaper option when comparing two bulbs on a store shelf, but compact fluorescent bulbs have gotten significantly cheaper, and will undoubtedly continue to do so as demand continues to grow.
• While a lot of people used to complain about the cooler, "bluer" tones of CFL bulbs, new Energy Star certified CFLs must "fall within a warm color range or be otherwise labeled as providing cooler color tones." Most bulbs in stores today should be much more clearly labeled than their predecessors with respect to how cool or warm the light is. I distinctly remember going to IKEA a year ago and being unable to distinguish between the incandescent and compact fluorescent bulbs on display, so if nowhere else you should definitely be able to find warmer CFLs there.
• Newer Energy Star bulbs are also required to turn on instantly, as opposed to the gradual "fade-in" of earlier models, and are completely silent as well.
• CFLs today generate 70% less heat than incandescent bulbs, reducing the risk of a fire hazard as well as the cost of climate control indoors.
  

All of these improvements are insignificant, of course, when you simply look at the amount of money and energy saved by switching to CFLs. According to Energy Star's CFL information page CFLs pay for themselves very quickly, saving "$30 or more in energy costs" per bulb, while using 2/3 less energy than a standard bulb to produce the same amount of light.

In addition, Wikipedia says that CFLs on average last anywhere from 8,000 to 15,000 hours, versus incandescent bulbs which have a life span of 750 to 1000 hours. That means each CFL will last 10 to 15 times longer than normal bulbs! Energy Star more conservatively estimates that Energy Star qualified CFLs last "up to 10 times longer", but the point is clear - these things are built to last much longer than incandescents, saving you the time of changing each bulb in your house nine times as frequently.

In fact, the only downside as far as I can see to CFLs is that some older bulbs contain small amounts of mercury in them, making them difficult to dispose safely - although an Earthtalk Q&A shows that that more mercury is released just from coal plants powering incandescents, ironically.)

The best way to dispose of burned-out or broken compact fluorescent bulbs is to take or mail them (in the sealed plastic bag) to a mercury recycling facility. The website of the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers provides contact information for locating such facilities state by state.

I believe that statement is referring to this map of member recyclers.

If mercury recycling is not an option in your area, the bulb or fragments should be placed in sealed plastic bags and disposed of at your local Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) collection site.

Disposal probably won't be an issue for long though - Wal-Mart announced just last week that they plan to significantly cut mercury levels in CFL bulbs, and in the meantime, the article also states that every IKEA store in the world provides disposal and recycling for used or broken bulbs.

Not a bad deal, any way you look at it - there's really no reason why you shouldn't replace all of your incandescents with CFLs as soon as they run out. Even with the potential for added hassle with disposal, incandescents really aren't worth spending an extra $30 per bulb in energy costs, and having to replace your bulbs ten times as frequently, are they?

Switching your bulbs to CFLs should be the first and easiest choice you make in choosing to live a greener lifestyle.

Photo by Tiago Silva.

In the news: C40 Cities summit, household energy standards, antarctica melting, no Europe ice age, Bush and fuel efficiency

Mayors, bankers, CEOs, and Bill Clinton: C40 Cities have been holding their second summit in New York for the past three days.

Under a plan developed through the William J. Clinton Foundation, participating banks would provide up to $1 billion each in loans that cities or private landlords would use to upgrade energy-hungry heating, cooling and lighting systems in older buildings.

The loans and interest would be paid back with savings accrued through reduced energy costs, organizers of the initiative said at a news conference in Manhattan. Typically, such upgrades can cut energy use and costs by 20 percent to 50 percent, they said.

More about C40 Cities here. There's also an interview with Bill Clinton at the first link.

Study: new energy standards needed for household items.

Large parts of Antarctica melting, says satellite. "[...] at least once in the last several years, masses of unusually warm air pushed to within 310 miles of the South Pole and remained long enough to melt surface snow across a California-size expanse."

Theory of a European mini-ice age dispelled. Looks like Europe's just going to get plain old hotter with the rest of us.

Bush calls for work for higher fuel efficiency. "Environmental groups, which have long called for substantial increases in the government-mandated fuel standards, expressed skepticism that the administration would enact new standards without Congressional action, and dissatisfaction that Mr. Bush had not offered specifics. And Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, called the announcement 'a stall tactic.'"

Photo by Flickr user ehpien.

In the news: Jerry Falwell, 1933-2007

What can be said about Jerry Falwell that hasn't already been said?

While I certainly have a strongly-held set of political views, I believe that this should be a space outside of the back-and-forth of political discourse as much as possible. Climate change is not a Republican problem or a Democratic problem, and I will support anyone who is for educating Americans about the truths of what is happening to our planet and what should be done about it.

If only he felt the same way. From a November 2002 CNN interview:

But I can tell you, our grandchildren will laugh at those who predicted global warming. We'll be in global cooling by then, if the lord hasn't returned. I don't believe a moment of it. The whole thing is created to destroy America's free enterprise system and our economic stability. [...]

I am an environmentalist in the sense that I love this Earth. But I don't worship it. I don't observe Earth Day. And I don't listen to the animal activists. [...] I urge everyone to go out and buy an SUV today.

For anyone in his position to dismiss the importance of environmentalism so readily, and with such disdain, is more than ignorant - it's recklessly irresponsible. When I think about the leadership role he played in the politics and faith of so many Americans, and the number of people he could have educated about climate change (including himself!) without having to contradict even his brand of Christianity, it makes me feel sick.

Media Matters - admittedly not my favorite source, but probably accurate here - quoted a March 2006 sermon in which he expanded on those thoughts. It's obvious that he let his politics get in the way of his openness to accept global warming as an actuality, which is far worse, in my opinion, than simply denying it out of ignorance.

Then there's the myth of global warming. Recently, 86 religious leaders, some of them evangelicals, signed an environmental document for the government, calling upon the government to stop all the carbon emissions and so forth. I mean just, they didn't mean, some of the guys are real good guys, just naïve. We found out last week that the study was funded by the Hewlett Foundation, which is the Number 1 funder of pro-abortion organizations in America. They give Planned Parenthood millions of dollars every year, and they got some of our guys to sign on.

When they called and said, "Will you sign this?" I said, "No". Why? I said because I don't believe in global warming in the first place, and I don't believe we caused it, and I don't think the science supports it. And Number 2, I don't want to put my name on the same thing Ron Sider has his name on, and some of these other left-wing people, and that reminds me I'll preach Sunday on the myth of global warming. And a lot of my friends signed it, and now they're embarrassed about it.

If you don't believe what a petition says, then why would the other people who sign the petition matter to you?

I could go on, but I won't. Being an ultra-partisan's no fun, but refusing to educate yourself about this stuff when you're as powerful as him is unacceptable no matter what your politics are.

The obligatory "hello world"

You'd think with the way information moves so fast around the internet today that there would already be a huge influx of blogs and other sites helping show us how to take matters into our own hands with regards to leaving cleaner and more environmentally friendly lives. You'd think we'd be hearing about it every day, and not just on the internet - in newspapers, on TV, in classrooms. To a certain extent our society (and by that I mean American society) is becoming more and more aware of it daily, but I think we can all agree that not enough is being said or done. I think the media is primarily to blame for this, considering the clout they hold not only over the hearts and minds of the public, but over lawmakers and powerful businesspeople too.

Hopefully that's where this will come in. The philosophy behind my decision to write about these things is hopefully obvious, but I'm sure I'll expand on it more as time goes by.

I feel like most typical first blog entries are either some variation on "WHEEEE HELLO WORLD!" or a comprehensive list of everything that they (the author) would like to accomplish in his or her blog. I'm not going to opt for either strategy here, though.

I'd rather just get on with it.