Chicago To Tax Bottled Water
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 10.19.07
Trucks laden with Fiji water may not be so welcome in Chicago; according to USA Today, "Chicago Mayor Richard Daley has endorsed a proposal to add a 10-cent tax to each bottle, which would bring the city about $21 million a year.
"It's not a tax on water, it's a tax on plastic," says Alderman George Cardenas, who introduced the measure to help offset revenue declines from the city water system, reduce litter and decrease the amount of oil used to produce and transport bottled water."
Other cities striving to be green and under financial stress should take a look at this: why not tax pollutants and waste for the cost of their recovery? Why not put deposits on everything?
Note also "Every time you look, there's plastic all over."
USA today summarizes other measures that cities are taking to control the spread of bottled water:
The mayors of Los Angeles, San Francisco and Salt Lake City have asked city employees not to use bottled water or have banned city spending on it.
• The Ann Arbor, Mich., City Council this summer urged residents to tote refillable bottles and stopped buying bottled water for city functions. "We're not trying to make bottled water the bad guys," city spokeswoman Nancy Stone says. "We want to make the statement that tap water is great."
•New York Assemblyman Bob Sweeney has proposed a ban on individual bottles of water in state facilities. "This is something people can understand," he says.
• The Farmers Diner in Quechee, Vt., stopped selling bottled water a few months ago. Customers "are quite happy to get water from a well," the restaurant's Denise Yandow says.
•Santa Barbara, Calif., in April stopped buying bottled water and began serving tap water at city functions. "There's a significant amount of energy consumed to produce, store, bottle and ship the water," city spokeswoman Nina Johnson says. "This is one of the simplest ways to counter that."
I think Chicago is onto something with this; I suggest they take it further - the further the water travels the more the tax should be...
I hope many more states and countries look at this - it would save huge amounts of carbon.
I re-use a glass water bottle, but there's no way I'm filling it with tap water. I hear cities touting how pure their water source is, but they don't bother to mention how it's flushed with chlorine before it gets to your house. So, who cares how pure their water is if it is contaminated and tastes like the carcenigen it contains. I don't even cook with tap, it's good for washing and flushing, and that's about it. Even my plants get distilled or rain water.
Don't tax the disposables, ban them.
Anon, elemental chorine, which is what Chicago ads to their tap water at the distribuion plant on Lakeshore Drive, is not a carcinogen. Chloromethane, and other chlororganics that can be formed in highly organic laden public water supplies can be hazardous as you indicate. These are very easy to filter out if you so choose. Chicago water is monitored for chloro-organics and I wouldn't worry much about the risk.
Not many realize that at the turn of the last century more than 10% of Chicago's population died and many more suffered from a water born disease that spread via drinking water. Chlorination is one of the means used to prevent another such outbreak. Choose your poison.
'Don't tax the disposables, ban them.'
---Taxing is a good first step. If it doesn't achieve the desired objectives, taxes can be further increased. If higher taxes still don't work, then a ban is still an option. So don't lose hope, you may still get your wish.
Now here's a story! Finally someone in authority gets some bottle! (Sorry - an English phrase for ‘courage’.) If only more people with the power to change things would actually wield that power and get off their fat-corporate backsides and actually do something. Many things don’t need scientific studies, don’t need working parties set-up to study the problem, don’t need tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of the taxpayers money invested in ‘finding a solution’, they simply need someone with bottle and a little commonsense to say, “Come on now, ain’t that just dumb!”. I applaud Chicago’s efforts and hope the whole world follows suit. Though, as one of the other posts says, why not go the whole hog and simply ban offending items. (I’ve drunk the water in a number of US states and it didn’t taste at all bad to me, but then I never got on this bottled water kick - just didn’t see the logic in being ripped off for something so freely available.)
But it goes much further, too. Big corporations are tramping all over the human rights of ordinary people all over the world in their bid to fill those plastic bottles, not just with water but soft drinks, too. While they rake in millions and have to invest in even bigger leather chairs to accommodate their growing butts, people in the Third World countries they ‘source’ this water from don’t have enough water to farm, to wash, to live. Water tables are being siphoned off, with now way of refilling them, with no thought for the future suffering it could bring, and yet we in the West happily dig in our pockets and buy the stuff. Why? Because most people are unaware of the human rights abuses and future problems they are contributing to. And many who do know, simply don’t care. So a tax is excellent. Let’s hit them where it does mean something to them – in the wallet.
This is excellent news. Truly.
Steve N. Lee
Author of eco/religious thriller ‘What if…?’.
www.steve-n-lee.com
Comments like that drive me nuts. Yes city water supplies are chlorinated, but it's why your neighbours aren't dying of typhoid.
Chlorine does have a few nasty side effects, there's no denying it and City's are generally trying to reduce the amount of chlorine they use or move to alternate disinfection methods. Those alternate methods typically require money and quite often significantly more power, but they're catching on and things are changing. Systems like UV or Ozone disinfection are becoming more common.
No matter how you do the initial disinfection, you need something in the water to stop pathogens from growing and making the end users very sick and that's still chlorine's role. Water can take days to get from plant to tap and nobody's found a suitable replacement yet. Maybe they will one day and, if they do, Cities will start changing their systems. Nobody really likes the hassles of chlorine, and if there was a safe, effective, reliable alternate it'd be in use today.
As for the taste, I'll agree that some places have pretty foul water, but don't blame chlorine, there's usually some underlying issue with that particular system. There are plenty of City's that have very neutral tasting chlorinated water. In most places, leaving the water in an open container for a few hours will remove the taste issue as well as most of the chlorine.
You can't have it both ways. You can't write of chlorine, but ignore the pollution created by trucking well water to your house from far away. Oh, and some of the those bottle waters are municipally tap water anyway, they just lack the typhoid-fighting power of chlorine. Finally - distilled water for the plants! Do you have any idea how they distill water. Hint, it's a lot more energy intensive the sucking water out of a well and bottling it. Rain water's a very sound idea though. Good for both the plants and planet.
As a former Chicagoan and now a resident of the NW burbs, I appluad Mayor Daley for taking a stance against bottled water. There is really no reason that anyone in the Chicago area should be purchasing bottled water on a regular basis. Water from Lake Michigan is quite possibly the best in the world! For those that fear water treated with chlorine, you obviously haven't read about all the other problems with bottled water.
It's time that people start thinking for themselves and not fall subject to suggestions of corporate America. Bring back the tap and save some cash at the same time. As more people so no to bottled water, the major beverage companies might actually see the light!
> to help offset revenue declines from the city water system
This seems kind of irrelevant -- there's no way people failing to drink tap water has any significant effect on the amount of water they use compared to other household uses such as showers, washing dishes, washing clothes, etc.
Very simple. this is the Nanny State:
www.amazon.com/Nanny-State-Teetotaling-Do-Gooders-Bureaucrats/dp/0767924320
Very simple. this is the Nanny State
Nanny State! Brawk!
I bet you support FISA.
I guess the chicago Waste management authorities and water authorities are not taking into account diseases evolve. We already have MRSA, chloride resistant staff E, and other basic lethal super bugs. We are experiencing a backlash wave from our own immune systems and other natural genetic defenses that will evolve viruses to make them stronger and more lethal.
Diseases once thought eradicated are coming back stronger more resistant than ever before. What doesn't kill these bugs will make them stronger.
What needs to b e said is there is no guarantee that the bottle water they are drinking is safe I have seen bottles with Magnesium Sulfate, vegetables bromate in it to kill mold from forming. So what do i suggest I suggest purifying the water when it comes into the house they make whole house filters sediment should be the first one and taste should be the second one. Recycle the grey water to the toilet bowl tanks, No peeing in the showers folks!
When it comes to watering your lawns rig your gutters to water the lawn with rain barrels or something to catch water when it rains have it run in a controlled drip irrigation fashion. Mulch your yard do not bag it it conserves the moisture at ground level, leaving a less parched earth.
So lets see if we the people as a whole can do this.
D~W
Yeah, a Nanny state. I can't smoke pot, snort cocaine, shoot heroin, beat my kids , dogfight my pitbull, buy a rocket launcher, serve E coli in my restaurant, sell cigarettes to kids, etc. etc. etc. etc. To infinity. Sam, all liberal democracies throughout the world are 'Nanny' states, also known as 'Responsible' states. ALL states are Nanny states. Get over it. If you can't, then go live in Somalia where they don't have a functioning govt. You won't have a state, developing laws through social consensus and for the benefit of the members of that society, telling you what to do. You'll just have some asshole warlord pointing a gun to your head telling you what to do - for his own benefit, not yours and not society's.
I guess the chicago Waste management authorities and water authorities are not taking into account diseases evolve. We already have MRSA, chloride resistant staff E, and other basic lethal super bugs. We are experiencing a backlash wave from our own immune systems and other natural genetic defenses that will evolve viruses to make them stronger and more lethal.
Diseases once thought eradicated are coming back stronger more resistant than ever before. What doesn't kill these bugs will make them stronger.
What needs to b e said is there is no guarantee that the bottle water they are drinking is safe I have seen bottles with Magnesium Sulfate, vegetables bromate in it to kill mold from forming. So what do i suggest I suggest purifying the water when it comes into the house they make whole house filters sediment should be the first one and taste should be the second one. Recycle the grey water to the toilet bowl tanks, No peeing in the showers folks!
When it comes to watering your lawns rig your gutters to water the lawn with rain barrels or something to catch water when it rains have it run in a controlled drip irrigation fashion. Mulch your yard do not bag it it conserves the moisture at ground level, leaving a less parched earth.
So lets see if we the people as a whole can do this.
D~W
I guess the chicago Waste management authorities and water authorities are not taking into account diseases evolve. We already have MRSA, chloride resistant staff E, and other basic lethal super bugs. We are experiencing a backlash wave from our own immune systems and other natural genetic defenses that will evolve viruses to make them stronger and more lethal.
Diseases once thought eradicated are coming back stronger more resistant than ever before. What doesn't kill these bugs will make them stronger.
What needs to b e said is there is no guarantee that the bottle water they are drinking is safe I have seen bottles with Magnesium Sulfate, vegetables bromate in it to kill mold from forming. So what do i suggest I suggest purifying the water when it comes into the house they make whole house filters sediment should be the first one and taste should be the second one. Recycle the grey water to the toilet bowl tanks, No peeing in the showers folks!
When it comes to watering your lawns rig your gutters to water the lawn with rain barrels or something to catch water when it rains have it run in a controlled drip irrigation fashion. Mulch your yard do not bag it it conserves the moisture at ground level, leaving a less parched earth.
So lets see if we the people as a whole can do this.
D~W
Cities should tax bottle water but only if the community offers safe drinking water. My city does not offer SAFE drinking water and has been "written up" by the EPA and other agencies for having several "impurities" that are known to cause health problems.
regarding your chicago bottled water tax...hasnt anyone thought of a return bottle deposit??? in many states the consumer pays a 5cent deposit on each bottle and it is returned when the consumer returns the empty bottle to the store...this encourages people not to liter and i have seen homeless people earning money by picking the bottle off the ground and returning it for the deposit refund..sounds to me like an excellent way to clean our environment..it has been proven successful over the decades..lets go with it everywhere
I'm glad that I live in a country where people are way too stupid to figure things out for themselves. Let's have all of the politicians make our decisions for us, and if we don't do what they want, they can just tax us into it. How about putting an effort into recycling instead of an unconstitutional and unreasonable tax?
I love the ideal of a deposit. I can remember the deposit on coke bottles. You sure didn't see many of them littering the sides of our roads back then. Not like the water bottles, beer cans, soda cans, etc., like you do today. Put a deposit on them?
I think a deposit idea sounds good. It would essentially tax the CONSUMERS who litter and throw away trash, and more people adding to a "consiousness" the better -- it creates a culture of recycling. Making the point that it gives incentive for people (homeless or otherwise) to pick up trash and an incentive for busiensses to have seperate recycling bins are further bonuses.
You could even have a seperate "deposit" recycling bins at grocery stores or the convienience stores so when people clean the trash out of their cars they recycle instead of trash everything and same thing for the supermarket-- people may get into the habbit of doing it, and it's advertizing for it everytime you walk in/out of the doors to remind you to do it anyway.
I do not believe that corporate america should be taxed for everything. Nor should they "pay" for everything. And to be honest, they don't -- they roll their taxes into the cost of poducts so the consumer pays anyway, but there is no consiousness for change created. Change will not come from corporate america no matter WHAT the tax rate is -- For the msot part-- companies give their customers what they demand-- ie: what they pay for. Any real change will ALWAYS come from the consumer, a much larger and more powerful mass. Having the deposit make the consumer responsible, taxing those that choose not to be, and takes it out of the responsability and hands of corporate america- And really, NO company is responsible for the trash from their product once a consumer uses it, that isn't fair at all. -- unless you are going to tax everyone for the amount of plastic they use on products, carboard for wrapping, printing ink toxicity, etc etc which would just get insane-- why is it only 1 industry that gets taxed?? for plastic/trash use--- why not toys, or electronics, or other things that are packaging heavy?? And, ironically, Beverages are the only things that really HAVE to be in plastic/tin to be consumed!!
You can not just tax the mess out of corporate america. They will just find ways arround it, and/or pass along the cost to the consumer anyway -- without the bennefit of creating a social consiousness/push for the change.
It MUST target the consumer, giving "punishment" for not doing x, and "reward" for doing x. Simple, Basic psychology of ALL people and societies.
If the goal is to make more money for the municipalities and not have commerce/products sold/ jobs relocating to your areas --- then tax corporate america for whatever the heck you want.
If you want CHANGE -- you have to tax, or more preferable REWARD the consumer.
Corporate america just gives the consumer what they want. if their wants change, corporate products will too. If consumer's wants don't change, Taxes won't make one Flippin bit of difference.
It really is that simple.
Whatever you think about the benefits of this tax, let's not pretend that Daley is some champion of eco efforts. He has been behind extreme taxation on a large number of products in Chicago. The bonus for the environment is just that - a bonus.
its very true, bottle water is a tremendous waste of our natural resources. The fact that drives up the cost of barrel of oil is that apart from the demand for gasoline, there is more even more demand for oil to make plastic products.
I have always drank tap water growing up and then these water bottles come along and make people think that tap water is unhygienic where in reality,the bottled water comes from the tap itself. Its ever more sad to know that more water went into making the plastic bottle than the water that goes inside it.
Its time to tax the heck out of products like this. We tax liquor and this should be taxed the same as liquor if not more.
.....If the goal is to make more money for the municipalities....
It's not about MAKING money. Re-read the article. It's about SAVING money. Like other cities, if they don't buy it, they have that much more to spend on other things.
I don't know how someone got to corporate tax. It's a tax per bottle, so the consumer is paying it. But, you're right, if people want it, they will pay for it. It's called a choice.
Personally, my employer doesn't supply me with bottled water, so why should the government agencies?? Were I a California resident where it is banned in government bldgs, I would be happy that the $58,000 they will save by not buying it, is going to better use.
With fuel prices what they are, and the demand there is for the fuel, why couldn't that $58,000 be used to off-set that? I'm sure the school district in that city could certainly find a use for some/all of that money. Hell, just lower taxes for the city/district.
And this Michigan city bringing in $21 million with the tax?? Please. LOL Do you really think there are enough 'bottled drinkers' to outweigh THAT?? Uhm.....NO.
at least they can still buy botteled water in chicago. seattle cant!
This is not about being green at all. I can honestly say that that wasn't the mayors first thoughts at all. This is a ridiculous unfair tax to add on to the peoples backs. If people are serious about being green why not tax all of that cheap plastic crap that comes froms china? The sales tax just rose to be the highest in the nation, not to mention the tax on gas which is also close in not the highest in the nation. The mayor and all of his croonies are a bunch of crooks.