Registered: May 07, 2003
Posts: 7537
|
So I go to check my e-mail and I'm greeted with this news article: http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/mayor-bans-bott...id=NWS00010000000001Essentially, the city of San Francisco will not be premitted to purchase bottled water, including for water coolers, for their government buildings. This is an effort to both save money and to benefit the environment. Thoughts?
"Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed it is the only thing that ever has." --Margaret Mead
|
Registered: July 06, 2007
Posts: 1
|
Wait? is it just bottle water. Like they are banning soda? If so that's really a waste. However I do agree that it could benifit us very well considering that I have about 50 water bottles laying around my room just dying to be recyled
~*Rebecca*~
|
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 484
|
It makes sense to me, but if I owned Evian I'd be pretty pissed off right now.
~*The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
|
Registered: May 17, 2007
Posts: 1
|
From what i've heard/read, the issue extends beyond plastic waste to the large amount of oil it takes to transport and distribute bottled water. If that's true, then it's just one more good reason why we should all cut back.
|
Registered: April 15, 2003
Posts: 1396
|
Seems like a reasonable step to reduce plastic consumption. I thought the larger water cooler bottles were either refilled or recycled in some way, and not just tossed out like the smaller individual-use bottles, though. If that's the case, extending the ban to those seems a little excessive, as they wouldn't contribute much to plastic waste.
Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. Frederick Douglass
|
Topics 
