As of late, bottled water has been a topic of great discussion. While it has been recognized that bottled water can be very useful when water resources are tainted, or in case of emergency, it should not be used when there is clean drinking water available. Many associations have been arguing for stricter regulations on bottled water, hoping to put an end to it being used as a substitute for safe, publicly available tap water. Recycling rates for bottled water are also quite low, Ontario’s plastic recycling rate was a mere 35% despite the fact that there are approximately 70 other uses for recycled bottles (McLaren 2008). People also dislike the idea that water- a resource that is available to the public, is being turned into profitable product. Regulatory control is necessary to reduce bottled water consumption, but economic incentives for consumers must also be implemented for this to be a success.
McLaren suggests a few different types of regulatory control with regards to bottled water. She points out that Health Canada is currently considering changes to bottled water regulations and labeling. She argues that consumers should know about ozone content, which is added to water during the treatment process to remove odours, but can actually create carcinogens in water. To fix this, companies would have to properly label how the water is treated and make it well known to the consumer. People are obviously less likely to buy things if there’s a slight chance it might have a negative impact on their health. Another example of this is the bisphenol-a scare last spring, after which many people immediately switched to metal or even glass bottles. This scare affected more than just the bottled water industry as people immediately became skeptical of nearly all plastic products.
An economic incentive would be a water levy, where consumers are charged a fixed amount for each bottle they purchase. This small change in cost is often enough to make people think twice about their purchases. Chicago was the first U.S city to implement a water tax in 2008. The tax amounts to five cents per bottle, and thMce money is put towards maintaining the city’s water infrastructure. This works quite well as people are less likely to buy bottled water and the city benefits by having a surplus of money to keep water infrastructure well maintained. This tax also reduces the amount of plastic bottles that end up in landfills each year since their overall use goes down. (Phillip, 2008).
While regulation is often quite effective as it strictly details what can and cannot be done, economic incentive might be a more valuable tool in this situation. Bottled water consumption is driven by consumers, and regulations will not control their spending habits. It will only control the manufacturing of bottled water. Increasing what consumers must pay will have a great impact on their spending habits overall which will result in an overall reduction in bottled water sales. Technically this is a type of governmental regulation that involves economic incentive but no matter what it is called, the importance is the effect is has on consumer trends and recycling during this time of water scarcity and overuse.
Sources:
McLaren, Diana. "Time to Turn Back to the Tap?". theglobeandmail.com (2008).
Phillip, Jason. "Groundbreaking Bottled Water Tax Raises Dustup in Chicago." www.sustainablog.com (2008).
-Elisabeth Shapiro
I like how you have used the specific example of Chicago's water tax. Although 5 cents per bottle doesn't sound like a lot, if well publicized I can see how it would make a difference to those people who buy copious amounts of bottled water.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand part of your last paragraph because you first mention that regulations will not control the spending habits of consumers and then that a tax will reduce the overall consumption of bottled water. I believe that a tax or other form of economic incentive will decrease the amount of bottled water that people buy, and hopefully something similar will be implemented in Ontario.
- Amy Adair
In these sorts of cases, economic incentives are usually the best solution. They are a way of getting people to decrease the amount they buy. If the incentive is a tax, it doesn't really matter what the amount is. What matters is the spin that's put on it and how much publicity there is. If the tax is as small as five cents, then this cost can be shown on a yearly basis. An ad could say something like "five cents might not seem like a lot. But if you add up all the bottles you buy in a week, then a month, then a year, it comes out to more than you might think." A lot of the people who don't have money to waste will rethink what they've been spending on bottled water, and will probably stop buying it (or at least buy less).
ReplyDelete