Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

For all of the recycling initiatives and claims of greenness on the Penn State campus, there is one realm usually overlooked when assessing our contributions to the environment: the consumption of bottled water. In bulk or individually, bottled water is sold in all University Parks commons, in vending machines around campus, and in the school-affiliated and non-school-affiliated convenience stores. Day to day, many students on the campus can be seen drinking from disposable plastic water bottles. The rate at which bottled water at Penn State is consumed is a microcosm of the absurdly high levels of bottled water consumption in the United States and worldwide. The main problems with bottled water are the waste, consumption of resources, and costs inherent in bottled water production and consumption. To counter the schools contribution to these negative effects, Penn State has installed water bottle refilling stations and plans to put more in place, in conjunction with handing out reusable water bottles to students and faculty. Doing so will help decrease the schools reliance on bottled water as a source of drinking water. These first two actions must also be coupled with a reduction in the amount of bottled water sold on campus. Not a ban, but a reduction in the number sold. These steps are necessary if Penn State wishes to operate at a high level of sustainability and be able to call itself green. This policy would make great strides in alleviating Penn States participation in the wasteful consumption of bottled water. Penn State must, via installing refilling stations, providing reusable bottles, and scaling back sale of bottled water on campus, decrease its environmental impact and in doing so provide an example to other schools and the country as a whole of how to be more sustainable. Many people know that bottled water is not a completely environmentally friendly entity, but the true nature of the waste produced by consumption of bottled water is staggering. Annually, the United States alone consumes more than [30] billion disposable plastic bottles (Hu). That number 1

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

breaks down to 85 million every day (Hu). 50 thousand every minute. Every minute. On the University Park campus, 3.4 million (Water bottle) disposable plastic water bottles are consumed each year. This high level of consumption would not be such a problem if recycling efforts were fully effective. So although it is tempting to soften the impact of these harsh statistics by citing increased recycling efforts, the reality is that those efforts have not done nearly enough. The percentage of recycled plastic water bottles in the U.S. hovers around a paltry fifteen percent of the total consumed. In 2003, the amount of bottled water recycled annually in the U.S. was 12 percent (Llanos), rising to around 13 percent in 2005 (Didier), and more recently about 24 percent of disposable plastic bottles (Bottle Refilling) are kept from landfills. Penn State actually does a very good job of recycling, sending 1.14 million of the 3.4 million consumed to recycling centers every year, which is above the national average (Water Bottle). As intimidating as these facts regarding the waste produced and the insufficient recycling rate are, they have not slowed the climb of water bottle sales. The number sold grew from 3.3 billion [bottles] in 1997 to 15 billion in 2002, (Llanos) reaching a peak in 2011, when the highest total volume of bottled water ever sold was recorded in the U.S. (Water Bottle) Add to these increasing sales numbers the fact that Americans threw away six times as many water bottles in 2004 as they did in 1997, recycling efforts alone have proved themselves ineffective in alleviating the growing negative impact of bottled water consumption. Despite recycling bins pretty much everywhere around campus, Penn State still only recycles half of the plastic water bottles it uses, and that is only the plastic bottles used for water, which make up a mere 15 percent of the plastic bottles consumed at Penn State. The visual evidence of insufficient recycling is quite staggering; though trash cans and recycling bins on campus are generally side-by-side, more often than not plastic bottles make their way into the trash can. 2

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

The impact of bottled water on the environment goes deeper than the exorbitant amount of waste created by consumption and lack of recycling, as the industry uses large amounts of water and oil to produce bottled water. Annually, about 17 million barrels of petroleum are used in the production of bottled water and its packaging. All of that oil spent on plastic water bottle production alone. If the oil used for transportation is factored in then the estimate reaches 50 million (Water bottle). Translated to gallons, 17 million barrels equals roughly (roughly, because the exact definition for the volume of a barrel has not been standardized to date) 714 million gallons of oil per year. Not on the auto industry. Not on the construction industry. Not on the healthcare industry. Not on any other industry. Only bottled water production. Additionally, production of bottled water actually puts in three times the volume in water put out. For every 20 ounce bottle of water produced, 60 liters of water go to waste. In the midst of water and oil shortages and scarcities throughout the world, the vast amount of resources consumed is perhaps more worrying than the waste this industry creates. Bottled water incurs damages not only on the environment and its resources, but financial damages on consumers as well. Bottled water, as is pretty widely known, is more expensive than tap water. But what exactly is the financial impact assumed by bottled water consumers? Well, the price of bottled water can be 1,000 times higher than that of tap water, (Hu) meaning that while a consumer could use tap water and spend around 49 cents annually, many choose to spend about 1,400 dollars every year on bottled water (In praise). Consumers pay for all of the vast resources bottled water companies consume in order to manufacture their product. If bottled water is so wasteful and so much more expensive than tap water, then why is bottled water still consumed at such a high rate? Supposed superior taste, quality, and nutrition are generally

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

used to legitimize purchasing bottled water. Of course, taste is a subjective reason for choosing tap or bottled water, so there is really no way to convince someone that tap tastes better than bottled or vice versa. It is, however, important to note that while many prefer the taste of bottled water, municipal tap water sources do have good taste standards by which they must abide (Hu). Bottled water is advertised, and believed to be by many, purer, fresher, healthier, and all around better than tap water. The Environmental Protection Agency regulates tap water, and the Food and Drug Administration regulates bottled water. That is an important factor to consider for several reasons. The FDA mandates that bottled water companies must test for contaminants; however, the companies do not have to publicly disclose their findings. This is due in part to the fact that the FDA does not have much
authority to regulate bottled brands, (Stinchfield) while the EPA strictly oversees the quality and content of tap water. Municipal water sources, in contrast, are required to report any negative findings to the public. In fact, studies have found that bottled water sometimes does have a higher than acceptable contaminant content than tap water. However, because bottled water is a product that consumers are free to purchase or not purchase, companies are not required to inform the public what exactly, beyond food and safety standards set forth by the FDA, is in each bottle of water. Therefore, belief in

superior quality of bottled water is generally unsupported and, in some cases,

entirely false. Many make the argument that bottled water is nutritionally superior than tap water as a way to legitimize the product. However, one key difference between bottled water and tap water is fluoride content. Fluoride is a cavity preventer, and for many years municipalities have been infusing tap water with fluoride to ensure that citizens receive enough of the substance. Reverse osmosis, one of the processes by which much bottled water is purified, removes fluoride from the water (The Facts). Increases in the number of cavities has been attributed by some to the rise in bottled water 4

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

consumption. States do recommend a certain amount of fluoride in bottled water, but studies show that in some states only five percent of the bottled water contains the recommended amount of fluoride (Fluoride). Because bottled water and tap water are regulated by separate government organizations, the quality and nutrition standards for each differ, and though many people legitimize purchasing bottled water by claiming it is healthier, of higher quality, and tastes better, there is not sufficient evidence to place bottled water above tap water in any of these arenas. At this point it is important to note that Aquafina, the brand of bottled water sold on campus at Penn State, originates from public water sources, meaning that it is municipal (tap) water (Aquafina). The only thing that distinguishes Aquafina from tap water on campus is the purification process used. This process, which includes reverse osmosis, purifies the water but also removes any fluoride present in the municipal water used for production. Bottled water is wasteful, costly, resource-hungry, and is not proven better than tap water. For these reasons, Penn State must do its part in scaling back consumption of bottled water. Penn State has already moved in the right direction for doing its part in reducing its and its students participation in the wasteful bottled water industry. As part of efforts to increase sustainability, Penn State plans to install water bottle refilling stations throughout the University Park campus, home to around 30,000 students. Several of the refilling stations have already been installed, with almost a dozen more on the way. Additionally, the school intends to give out reusable water bottles to students and faculty (Water Bottle). Doing so will prevent the use and waste of over 3 million disposable water bottles that would otherwise be used on campus. These steps reduce Penn State Students reliance on bottled water as a source for their drinking water. Executing the two aspects of this plan in conjunction with each other is

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

key, as providing reusable bottles without a ready supply of purified water, and vice versa, would be useless. In concert with a decreased reliance on bottled water should come a reduction in the sale of bottled water on the campus. An outright ban would of course be much too drastic an action, but funneling down Penn States consumption and reliance on bottled water makes possible a drawing back of bottled water use on campus. There are indeed some alternatives to refilling stations, reusable bottles, and reducing bottled water sales. Increased recycling efforts, the use of biodegradable bottles, and using less plastic in each bottle are three avenues for confronting the problem inherent in bottled water consumption. Recycling efforts should be increased regardless of how effective this policy is, but simply focusing on recycling the plastic bottles ignores the core of the problem, and that is the fact that the bottles exist in the first place. Penn State already does better than the majority of the U.S. in terms of water bottle recycling, sending 1.14 million bottles to be recycled each year. Biodegradable bottles, another option, would certainly lessen the impact of bottles tossed into landfills, however there are inherent problems in this idea. Producing biodegradable bottles is no easier than producing normal bottles, so companies incur extra expense to produce these bottles and hand that expense off to the consumer, increasing the already high price of bottled water. In the same vein of altering bottle chemistry, using less plastic in each bottle is a practice that has already been in use by companies for some years. However, this method decreases the amount of resources consumed in production of bottled water by a slim margin, and does not decrease the cost to the consumer. The common factor in each of these alternatives is that they ignores the principles of the issue and instead prop up a wasteful and unnecessary industry.

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

There are some drawbacks to the current plan Penn State is enacting and the expansion, that is, the reduction of bottled water sales. Reusable bottles and filling stations, if not cleaned properly or often enough, can harbor bacteria not present on sterile plastic disposable water bottles. The water from the filling stations is not always filtered beyond the processes that occur at municipal water plants. Instead, water quality analyses are done on a site by site basis wherever filling stations are and will be installed. Purifiers are only placed in refill stations that have water that has been deemed in need of further purification. Those purifiers must also be replaced after a certain amount of time, and the plastics used, if not recycled, can contribute to plastic waste in landfills. Also, installing and maintaining these refilling stations will incur increased labor costs to the university. Reducing the sale of bottled water on campus will no doubt garner backlash from students, faculty, and perhaps Pepsi, Co. Penn State is contracted with Pepsi to sell Aquafina water, and any adjustment to the amount sold in University Park will require alteration of the contract currently in place, incurring legal fees. Despite these drawbacks, though, bottled water consumption is too costly, environmentally and financially, for Penn State to allow a continuance of its heavy participation in the industry. While cracking down on water sales at Penn State is arguably the biggest obstacle, there is evidence that it is not insurmountable. Other colleges and universities have placed an outright ban on bottled water. The University of Vermont, for instance, recently banned the sale of bottled water on campus (Carapezza). Though Vermont is a smaller university than Penn State, it is an important example to consider because while Vermont banned bottled water completely, Penn State should seek the more modest goal of simply reducing the sale of bottled water. While this would by no means be a simple step to take, it is necessary if Penn State is to, which it must, seek greater sustainability.

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

Despite this and other drawbacks, there are reasons to believe the policy Penn State already introduced will work, as well why full devotion to the policy is necessary. As a world-renowned school, Penn State has the opportunity to set an example, both to other large schools and to the country, that a reduction in environmental impact from bottled water consumption is not only possible but necessary. There are several avenues available to bolster the effectiveness of this policy. By working with Greek organizations, housing organizations, clubs, and scholarship groups, Penn State can strengthen the popularity of reusable water bottles. Each of these groups could give out, or offer for purchase, reusable water bottles with the name and insignia of the particular group. Walking around Penn State it is obvious that members of fraternities, sororities, and clubs love showing off their membership, so why not offer another avenue to express that pride while contributing to a worthy cause? What is pivotal in this equation is raising awareness of the efforts Penn State is already making towards reducing consumption of bottled water. Though many people might be perfectly willing to use a reusable bottle with water from a filling station, many students are not properly aware of the filling stations in place nor the proposed filling station locations. Most students are also generally unaware of the waste, cost, and other negative attributes of bottled water, necessitating an effort to increase awareness in the student body. Penn State can also increase participation and awareness of its efforts to reduce bottled water consumption by taking after the model of Penn States blood drive competitions with rival schools. Penn State students love competing with, and beating, other schools. Making it a competition to, for example, to see which school consumes the least bottled water, would give the policy, and the endeavor, a boost. If the success of the blood drive is any guide, this strategy could be a considerable boon to Penn States efforts to reduce its bottled water usage.

Berating the Bottle

William Vaeth CAS 138T Persuasive Essay

The waste produced and resources consumed in the use of bottled water necessitate a drastic change. Bottled water is not better than tap water. As such a costly, wasteful, and resource-hungry entity, bottled water can only harm the world by continuing. Penn State has an opportunity to set an example of sustainability by demonstrating for other institutions how beneficial a reduction in bottled water consumption can be. Garnering student participation via campus organizations and competitions with other schools, as well as increasing awareness of the truth of bottled water, will push the policies through the possible drawbacks. Offering purified tap water from refilling stations and correlating reusable water bottles, in conjunction with a gradual decrease in the amount of bottled water sold on campus, is a necessary policy for Penn State to continue pursuing.