Donating money is easy; changing a lifestyle is hard.
Some of the people I know are extremely quick to offer money to aid and development groups whose goal is to 'serve the poor and underpriveleged.' This is great and I myself support many of these same groups. I don't think any less attention should be focused on these organizations.
However, it seem hypocritical and a cop-out for so many people to willing give their money to causes such as these (because of powerful marketing, inspiring personal stories, or shear size) but then live the rest of their lives with no regard to how personal life decisions impact the same cause that they were so quick to financially support.
So what am I trying to get at here, maybe it would help if I gave an example that sticks out to me. (Although honestly, I'm still looking up many of these issues to understand what it's all about)
As a society we have gotten really good at separating ourselves from the source of things. The Story of Stuff is an excellent summary of this problem, and shows how we very rarely know, or understand, where things that we use and consume come from. We're not taught to think of the larger system and processes involved. Rather we're taught to focus on the final product. I guess this would be one way to describe consumerism.
Let's consider the plastic water bottle as one example. To start, it is made from plastic, which is made from oil, which has a whole list of side-effects such as climate change, increased gaps between rich and poor, and increasing landfills. Plastic water bottles account for 1.5 million tons of waste each year, and require 50 million gallons of oil per year to produce. Sure it's great when they are recycled (although only 20% of all bottles are actually recycled), but is there even a need for the bottle in the first place? Additionally, it takes 'three times as much water to produce the bottle as it does to fill it.' Something just doesn't seem right...
Well let me back down a little bit, I don't want to start pointing my finger too quickly. It's easy to pick out flaws in others behavior (or in this case, partially my own), but I realize there are probably just as many problems that I need to overcome in my own life. None of us are perfect and when we loose humbleness, we loose our ability to empower others.
But back to the water bottles. Coming to Sweden, I made it a goal of mine to carry my aluminum water bottle with me everywhere so I wouldn't need to buy bottled water. So far, so good, and it's been at my side pretty much wherever I go (as evident by the numerous dents and scratches it has picked up over the last 4 weeks).
So the other day I started looking into the larger system and processes behind the water bottle industry that are so often disguised (or we're just too lazy to go look up ourselves). I came across a documentary called 'FLOW' which investigates water scarcity throughout the world and how multinational companies play a huge role in buying up poorer communities water resources to make a profit for themselves.
It's funny, in the past I often got (and still do get) pulled into the emotional side of developing countries having limited or no access to clean water. How can such a large proportion of society (we're talking about global society here, not western society) not have their basic right for water met when the rest of the world can easily go turn on a tap whenever we want? Something didn't seem fair, and who was doing anything about it?
So I often found myself supporting organizations who were drilling water pumps and developing products that sterilized dirty water.
But I never thought about how the water I drank and used in the western world was connected to those people.
What I started to learn from 'FLOW' was that the water I drink is more often than I realized connected to those same people that I always wanted to help - yet not in a very positive way. On top of the fact that larger water companies treat those communities fairly poorly, the money that I spent on their bottled water could have just as easily gone to directly supporting the organizations building the pumps in the developing world.
One estimate from the UN claims that 30 billion US dollars would be needed to provide clean water for the entire world. In just a single year, 3 times that much is spent on bottled water alone (taken from FLOW film).
So then I started looking into the difference between bottled water and tap water and sure enough, there's no difference. As much as the bottling companies would like us to think otherwise, the fact is that tap water is regulated by the U.S. EPA more stringently than bottled water is from the U.S. FDA.
Additionally, one research group found '38 different harmful chemicals, including painkillers, fetilizer and arsenic' in 10 popular brands of bottled water.
The more I researched the issue, the more surprising facts I found.
If you're at all interested in this issue or simply want to be more aware of global water problems, I would definitely recommend 'FLOW.' Check out the trailer and full-length film below.
FLOW Trailer
FLOW Full-length film
So when I start to think of issues like these and realize how little I actually knew about something that I use so frequently (water of all things, it nearly defines me, ha), I begin to realize how important awareness is. The same can be said for any other issue such as climate change, deforestation, sex trafficking, peace, or education.
The key is for our society to start questioning.
To stop being comfortable with what is, and be bold enough to make what should be.
3 comments:
so my thoughts are, why is the water bottle industry getting the brunt of this when pepsi, wine, beer all are bottled products. water is at least a healthy option and that is probably why the surge in popularity. i welcome a water bottle in foreign countries where my system may not agree with their water source, so i would hate to see an elimination of the product.plus what are the health benefits that have arisen due to the fact that people are consuming water in lieu of other less healthy drink options. but would eliminating bottled water really solve a problem that has been in existence for many years before the advent of the water bottle? i think one needs to look at governments and the human condition of conquering others that puts some societies in a less favorable position, less powerful. this is where the church comes in and atempts to rescue the poor thru charity work. we willl always have the poor among us, that will always be a challenge to conquer. right now water appears to be what the poor are lacking in your discussion. but solve that issue and another will take its place.
i think that is why sustainability is so difficult to wrap up in a neat box. there are environmental issues, job issues, human dignity issues, etc and the problem seems insurmountable, solve this problem and another will take its place....
but we all can reevaluate our need for a water bottle and the effects of all of our products on the health of our world. maybe the trick is to start a water bottle company that is conscious of its role and where profits are directed to the goal of eliminating communities that lack water supplies.
but for now, i will brush my teeth with the water supply off and drink my water out of a cup. (that is until i arrive in Sweden and will undoubtedly need a water bottle!!)
Hey,
Thanks for your reply, I know what you’re getting at on some of those points. Let me try to respond to most of your response.
The movie FLOW actually talks about other bottling companies such as Pepsi and Coke (which also bottle water) and the effects they have on local communities in developing countries. (see FLOW around 1:04) The issue the movie is trying to address is the plastic water bottle, which is most often associated with water. Other drinks do use plastic bottles but there is also a significant proportion of glass bottles in those industries. I wouldn’t say that wine and beer are typically bottled in plastic bottles – sure there are effects due to the transportation of these beverages but it is a slightly different problem than what I was getting at in the post – I was looking mostly at how bottling companies negatively effect local communities.
In response to your next point, the problem in some situations (I would not say all situations) is that at times bottling companies come in and repackage the communities water and then sell it right back to them for a profit, leaving the communitiy worse off. Or they build pumps and require the community to pay for the water, however many poor people can’t afford this fee and then our left with the choice of having to go to the nearby stream to get dirty water (see FLOW at 0:18)
It would be interesting to look at health effects of drinking more water. One survey found that “consumption of bottled water has been growing by a gallon a year per capita in the U.S., and consumption has doubled in the past decade.”
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20095510/ns/health-health_care/)
As far as how the bottling industry contributes to making living conditions worse for poorer people, the film actually addresses this quite a bit. They go and look at how the heads of the largest bottling companies in the world are actually on the boards and directly influencing many of the largest governmental and organizational boards. One for example is the World Bank, which contributes significantly to problems faced in developing countries. The World Bank is required to loan out large amounts of money to other countries, and tends to focus on large multi-million projects (like dams) rather than 10,000 smaller projects costing $1,000 each (such as small water pumps for communities). What happens then is that poorer nations become indebted to the World Bank at which point heads of the board, such as Suez, Vivendi, Thames can come in and start up their industry within the country.
So I agree with you, governments, global organizations, and the desire for power and control have definitely contributed to this problem. (I just didn’t have time to address all of that in a short blog post – but FLOW covers most of around 0:38)
(...continued)
As far as the comment on the church, I would hesitate to use the word ‘rescue’ because it makes us (the rich) seem like we have all the solutions to their problems. I think we may have knowledge or influence that can positively benefit the situation, but that should be used to empower rather than rescue. Nonetheless, I think stuff the church is doing is great, but I also think it is important that churchgoers don’t get swept into the easy routine of supporting the next organization that is presented through the church. There needs to be additional personal action that questions life decisions.
Your next comment is also really important and you hit the nail on the head: “solve this problem and another will take its place....”
This is the exact problem with our current structure of handling sustainability issues. We tend to break sustainability into separate chunks, and then develop separate solutions to each. But when you have such a complex and interconnected web, you need to strategically develop solutions that don’t lead to new problems. (That’s a bit of what I’m hoping to learn from this program)
Such a strategy is going to involve new business models, like you mentioned, but also new cultural models. That I believe will be the harder problem to solve. New ‘conscious’ businesses are popping up all over the place now – look at Nike, IKEA, or Puma. Businesses are ‘slightly’ easier to change because it requires a few progressive thinkers in management who can then help change the rest of the company.
But how do you change a culture?
I think the first step is awareness, and understanding the larger implications involved with personal lifestyle choices (such as where we get our water). That’s why I think the Story of Stuff is such a good short film, because it quickly gets at this point (even if there is a bit of bias) to make consumers think of what they consume.
Good comments though! They helped me continually rethink the current system and our effect on it.
Post a Comment