This [unedited] guest post is by a student in my EEP100 class (background post).
Please praise/critique/comment on its economic quality and importance to you.
Corliss Livingston says:The growing popularity and use of stainless steel water bottles, especially on the UC Berkeley campus, has always confused me for a couple reasons. Firstly, not being able to see what I am drinking makes me slightly uncomfortable. But more importantly, before these “eco-friendly” water bottles became popular, only people who were especially health conscious or active carried around bottles of water on a daily basis.
Let’s briefly discuss some water bottle history. First, bottling companies discovered that they could charge relatively large amounts of money by putting cheap tap water in bottles to provide a handy substitute to drinking fountains and water coolers. Then people started refilling those bottles with tap water, and some people even started buying Nalgene bottles, previously used almost exclusively by campers and backpackers. Recently, those reusable plastic bottles were found to start leaking carcinogens after use. The solution to this seemed to be steel. Steel bottles do not have the unhealthy BPA that plastics did. But even with this healthier material, it seems like more people have these reusable metal bottles than ever carried a reused Evian bottle or Nalgene. And the cost of a stainless steel water bottle can range from 10 to 30 dollars, not counting the special features and additions, which seems to be kind of expensive compared to water from the drinking fountain.
The choice to purchase a steel bottle can be explained economically in two ways.
- Metal water bottles are a convenient way to carry one’s beverage. The opportunity cost of getting up from the library table or leaving class to get a drink must be higher than the cost of the water bottle for those who chose to purchase them. This, however, does not explain why they have chosen an aluminum Sigg over a somewhat less but still reusable plastic bottle of Dasani.
- Having the stainless steel water bottle must have value besides its actual use. The stainless steel bottles are marketed with the idea that they are “eco-friendly” and reusable and do not use plastics. However, heavy marketing using these slogans by
companies such as Kleen Kanteen, especially among liberal and progressive college students, has only driven up demand for these products, leading to a higher quantity produced and supplied by the manufacturers, using up more of the earth’s precious, precious resources than if we had stuck to the drinking fountain or a glass from the kitchen. People buy these bottles because they give others the idea that one is environmentally friendly and “green”, part of a movement that is gaining momentum towards positive change. This issue makes me question how long it takes the metal bottle to become more environmentally friendly than using something else, and how many plastic bottles one metal one actually replaces.
9 comments:
I think the impact of a one-time purchase of a couple of ounces of metal is very very small, certainly compared with the impact of the many disposable bottles it probably replaces, but also in absolute terms.
It is a good thing to think comparatively about impact, but ultimately you need to put numbers to it. I think you'll find in this case that you should worry about bigger things.
@Michael: The NYT does an excellent analysis: "if your stainless steel bottle takes the place of 50 plastic bottles, the climate is better off, and if it gets used 500 times, it beats plastic in all the environment-impact categories studied in a life cycle assessment." Lesson: Use -- and don't lose -- your bottle!
http://aguanomics.com/2009/04/speed-blogging_8256.html
My Klean Kanteen has a slogan on it: "One less plastic bottle." While I applaud the sentiment, I'm surprised anyone would think that substituting ONE metal bottle for ONE plastic bottle is a good trade. As David said, hopefully my metal bottle with take the place of at least 50 plastic ones. I'm pleased to say that it definitely has, but still, stupid slogan.
I don't own one of those retarded bottles because as a monopolistic-ally competitive market, they're still pricing above marginal cost. Screw that, I'm better off using a plastic bottle or drinking from one of the 30,000 water fountains on campus.
How efficient is recycling from a social POV? Poor people used to recycle bottles because it was worth the benefit. Now it's a negligible amount! Is this because the costs of processing cans, plastic and glass have substantially dropped due to economies of scale? Just thinking... talk about a rebound effect!
Bottom Line: Pay people, or make them pay, to recycle and internalize that externality!!!
Another option not mentioned is glass water bottles. You can see what you are drinking, it doesn't have any nasty BPA, and it's a little less expensive than stainless steel water bottles. I like what Urban Canteen sells:
http://www.urbancanteen.com/glass_decanter.php
I'm not sure your version of the bottled water industry is very accurate, or whether that was intentional or not. It mostly started as a result of most water sources being questionable. For a good part of the first and second thousands years AD, people didn't even drink water, unless they absolutely had to. In other words, bottled water was originally a luxury item.
I got my klean kanteen free from the dumpster behind REI, I suggest everyone who can do the same. REI has a very liberal return policy, but can't resell certain items for safety reasons. I have also gotten a water purifier and ice climbing crampons this way, as well as lightly torn expensive outdoor clothing. Diver beware - make sure you clean that bottle good and check out any equipment for safety of course.
This is the classic case of saying that because it's not "no impact" on the environment, it's not worth the benefit. This isn't very rational. As Michael said, a very small amount of metal comparatively. If you want to be "no impact" then you can't even get that drink out of the water fountain or grab that kitchen glass.
For someone on the go, who wants to avoid all one-time use drinking receptacles, a stainless steel or glass bottle is best. And you should use it for as long as possible.
Alex, that is quite the stupid slogan to say that the stainless steel bottle makes one less plastic bottle. Hopefully hundreds and hundreds less.
So while it's not perfect, it's still the best available option.
Drinking fountains generally waste water. Many people turn the fountain to let the water run through, then spill a lot as they drink. As for stainless steel canteens, they are often available for less than $15; I bought mine for $7. I generally drink all my water each day and the little I do have left over waters my garden/houseplants. :-)
Post a Comment