We need to stop giving money to bottled water company, so to stop them giving the means and the reason to lobby against water being a human right, it is the job of a government to make sure that the infrastructure for clean water is present, and funded through taxes, to benefit any and all, and as always fuck nestle… and the other water companies
> it is the job of a government to make sure that the infrastructure for clean water is present, and funded through taxes, to benefit any and all
this is a job they are failing at. I was recently shocked to see how many places in the US were under boil-water advisories. At this point I'd really like a national map of where the water is unsafe because they are everywhere and some of them go on for years while others are short term (water main breaks for example).
I found one advisory for a nearby town I frequent that had recently ended and I hadn't even been aware of it. Unless you're obsessively following the department of water/natural resources on social media for every city/state you visit you'd never know! There are bound to be many homes, businesses, even restaurants totally unaware that their water is unsafe and many more visitors to areas who don't have any clue.
Even places that aren't, the water out of the faucet is fairly grim. Heavily chlorinated and unpleasant. It's no wonder that they all drink filtered, or bottled water.
It's one of those things I forget about each time I visit and drink from the tap only to remember that I can't do that most places here after the first sip.
> Human need ≠ human right. By definition, a limited resource cannot be a natural right.
Rights aren’t natural, that’s a quasi-religious fiction invoked as a thought-terminating cliché to avoid debate over political ideology, and the bounds you state are simply the dogma of a particular political sect fond of the “natural rights” evasion.
Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans, and (while not explicitly called out there), water seems to fall squarely within the broad international consensus on what constitutes “human rights” expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, especially Article 25.
> Human rights are a matter determined by the conscience of humans
…and the laws of physics. If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that. A true universal right is not contingent on a particular material situation.
No, laws of physics do not determine rights. Pragmatics and rights are orthogonal.
> If there is physically not enough water around to satisfy everyone's needs, then no amount of agitation about ‘rights’ will change that.
This is, ironically, more relevant to property rights in water (which are usually entitlements to take a particular amount) than to any common construction of water as a human right, which rather than an entitlement to a particular quantity is fenerally constructed as a right to equitable priority in distribution of what does exist.
All human rights are contingent on material situations, except possibly rights that are exercised entirely in your mind.
The point of rights is that they are things that we have widely agreed governments will not try to stop you from doing. That doesn't mean that they have to ensure that you have the means to exercise those rights.
For example in much of the world (including the US) freedom of movement is a right. If I want to travel from my home in the Pacific Northwest of the US across the country to Florida on the public roads the government cannot simply forbid me from doing so because of my freedom of movement rights. However if I can't afford transportation, or the food and lodging I would need if I tried to walk to Florida, the government does not have to provide some means for me to get to Florida that fits my budget.
Saltwater may be abundant, but it requires energy and infrastructure to desalinate and transport. Nobody would fight over it if those were trivial and unlimited.
There's some rather sweetheart deals at play there. In some places, those water rights cost as little as a single digit number of dollars per million gallons.
every human need must by necessity be a right. ignoring human needs is in itself a human rights violation. since water is needed to survive, unless you want to deny people the right to live, water must be a human right.
A human right is universal, something that applies to all times and all places, by virtue of the human's existence. People can try to take them away, but not grant them, because they are already granted by default. If you are marooned, alone, on a desert island, you still have a right to free expression, due process, etc.
In contrast, limited resources require active effort to obtain, and even that might not be enough. If you are stuck on the desert island, with no food or fresh water available, no amount of agitation about your ‘rights’ will override the laws of physics to make them appear. Even in a more advanced society, producing enough food and water to ensure everyone's survival may be physically impossible (especially if you insist on a certain level of quality). Therefore, ‘rights’ to limited resources are not universal, they are subordinate to (at minimum) the laws of nature.
This just seems like petty arguing over the definition of words. Which is resolved quite easily by pointing out that your definition is not the one used by most groups, in particular by the people at the UN who wrote those human rights declarations.
By confusing true universal rights with fake contingent ‘rights’ full of exceptions and caveats, you weaken the true rights. Naturally, authoritarian leaders and would-be despots at the UN and elsewhere are totally on board with this strategy.
human rights applies to the relationship between people.
stuck on an island i can do all sorts of things, even illegal ones, because noone is there to stop me. so that's not really useful in determining my right to free expression or due process. both only work if there are others to listen or to charge me with a crime.
however, if i am among other people then those people have the obligation to do everything in their power to keep me alive, because that is my human right. and that would include to share their water, or to cooperate to build a desalination plant, or whatever is needed to survive.
> However, if i am among other people then those people have the obligation to do everything in their power to keep me alive, because that is my human right.
How far do you take this? If you are dying of a disease, and the only way to prolong your life by one week is a medication that costs $2 trillion in resources to produce one dose, is society obligated to produce the medication to slightly delay your death? What if there is enough to satisfy only 50% of people, how does your ‘rights’-based framework decide who lives and who dies?
Seems contradictory to your previous comment, but OK. What if there is enough water for only 50% of people? Or what if the water doesn't have an ideal mineral composition, but for 1000 times the expense, society could obtain better water that will extend one's lifespan by an average of 2 months?
when i said "do everything in their power to keep me alive" then that was probably a bit to strong. i meant do everything that is also needed for everyone else. special treatment that takes an unreasonable effort is not the same thing.
if the resource is so limited that it really isn't enough for everyone, then it obviously can not be given to everyone. but if everyone needs it, then they still have a right to it. we then just have to figure out how to deal with those that miss out.
a more practical example: a sinking ship, and the rescue boat can not fit everyone. while it is a human right for everyone to be rescued, some will have to stay behind.
but, that doesn't change that there was a human right violated. in either cases we really do need to do everything in our power to rescue these people or find ways to extend the use of the water.
lack of resources does not abolish our obligation to do the best we can to change that, find alternatives, etc.
a better medicine example: covid. everyone needs that vaccination (ignoring those who don't want it) so it becomes a human right to get access to it. no matter the cost.
we can not abolish a right to something that everyone needs just because there is not enough of it.
OK, so you define "human right" as "thing you have a moral duty to do your reasonable best to supply fairly to everyone." The reason I feel strongly that we should use a different term for these, versus by-virtue-of-existing rights like free speech, is that using the same term for both weakens the latter. Free expression, fair trials, etc, are not "best-effort", and belong in a different category. Specifically, it makes more sense to discuss food, water, healthcare, etc with words like "duty" and "responsibility", which better take into account the burden imposed.
that's fair. i don't care about the term used as long as we agree on the resulting actions that need to be done, and i agree that there is a difference between those categories.
as far as i understand it, the definition of human rights includes both but that's an extended discussion.
however on your last point, i would argue that despite the difference, free expression or fair trials do also create a duty or responsibility to provide these.
for every right that is given, there exists a duty to provide or enable that right.
it also works the other way around. if it is a duty to send my kids to school, then i have a right to a school within reasonable distance. if it is a duty to work, then i have a right to childcare. etc.
so no matter how you look at it, right and duty are intertwined and can not be separated.
housing, jobs, healthcare, education, water ... strange how classically liberal rights, such as speech and fair trial, which if anything are antagonist to the state, have transitioned, in popular discourse, to physical and materialistic needs that require top down control of resources/institutions. not very liberal to me. nestle sucks, and shouldn't exist, but this 'human right' rhetoric is just stupid
Do bottling water actually consume a significant amount water vs like an average size farm?
I personally thing bottled water is generally pretty unnecessary and really wasteful to transport but I can’t help think the actual amount of water given people are drinking it not watering plants or showering with it is relatively small?
Bottling water removes it from the local water cycle. If you are watering and showering, that water stays relatively local and ends up coming back into the local water system maintaining the local water table.
If you are bottling water, you are effectively removing it from the local “water system” with no chance of it ever replenishing the source.
Irrigation wells are not ideal either, and may be comparable in terms of ground water impact as bottling plants.
These draw tremendous amounts of water. The water table drops quickly in this scenario with a slow rate of replenishment. There’s also the possibility of contaminants leaching into the aquifer when there is no hydraulic pressure to push back.
My province is an island in the middle of an ocean, so infiltration of personal wells (ie for houses) with salt water is an issue when the water table is low. There is no quick fix for this either. Personal use should trump industrial use.
For all the ice on land that melts into the ocean raising the sea level, take an appropriate amount of seawater and freeze it back onto land.
That might be too difficult though; maybe instead we can replace all of the oil underground with water. It's all underneath us anyways so just leave the hole open and water will naturally pool down there.
Most old oil fields already do this, it is called "enhanced recovery". You have injection wells where you pump down water and production wells where a water/oil mix comes up. The water you use is mostly contaminated stuff you want to get rid of any ways.
You do have pump the water in under pressure though, just letting it pour down the hole will not work since rock is more dense the water. Imagine you were standing on a sponge in the shower, the sponge will not absorb much water since you are squishing all the pore spaces closed.
I’ve heard similar arguments made pretty regularly for almonds and especially alfalfa [0] grown in California or Arizona, and exported to Saudi Arabia. It seems legit to me.
what is "local water"? The whole thing about water is that it flows. There isn't a magic property that bound water to a geographic localtion. Like when it rains, is it "local" cloud?
Most Rivers flow through geographic locales, and generally their path is static
There's not a whole lot of risk that the Seine will start flowing through the US
The "local" clouds also usually follow a pattern, this is why my local mountains get snow replacing every year, which is the source of my local rivers
However a bottling company could easily ship bottled water to a location that is likely never going to return to the local water table. Ever heard of Fiji brand water?
There’s an equilibrium that’s achieved in a given watershed with local weather patterns. There might be ebbs or flows over the course of a year, but it’s reliable and predictable, and can be used sustainably.
If local weather patterns change and there’s a significant strain on a watershed, the water table will drain to a level that’s not recoverable within a human lifespan.
Significant fraction of water spent to water plants evaporates and then falls as rain, usually far away, so it doesn’t stay in a local water system either.
Do you realize your water comes from the ocean through rain. It replenishes itself everytime it rains. You are on an island in the ocean? In your case companies are using the allure of locale to sell more bottles by claiming the water is purer in your area because of the lack of industry.
It opens with a mother talking about how she uses bottled water to bathe her child, because the tap water is polluted.Then it goes on to say that residents don't like that Nestle gets to bottle water in the area while their tap water sucks.
I don't see how these two points are related.
This sounds like a problem of incompetent politicians and officials that can't maintain water infrastructure. If anything they should be thankful companies like Nestle exist so that there's at least some source of clean drinking water for them since the city seems incapable of providing it.
Nestlé has been under constant boycott for 46 years, and couldn't seem to stop abusing mothers and their young children. Flint or not, I will never purchase or use a Nestlé product.
Water rights are a super complicated and politically challenging issue to navigate. I don't know how it gets solved because so many laws and rules have been passed to protect water rights.
What would happen if a central authority (like say the regulators here) ignored the claim of the bottling company and then also defied the courts to protect some greater good? Is the only remedy for lawmakers to pass laws explicitly disallowing them from using the water?
Generally feels like the right legislation will take forever to get crafted and then will never catch up and if it gets through, it will get (intentionally) jammed up in courts...
The problem is so deeply seated with agreements, allotments, and obligations going back to homesteading acts and treaties with Native American nations that I fear the system is truly unfixable and needs a ground-up rebuild.
As with any genuine reform efforts, that too would take forever to work its way through legislature and also get blocked up in the courts for god knows how long. What can be done?
So we're just making bottled spring water illegal? Why not put limits on how much can be drawn from any given area? Why is it an outright ban? Pretty weird.
With that said, "take away something that's clean and free and then sell it back to you wrapped in plastic" is pretty much late stage capitalism's primary MO.
