 |
|
 |
 |
Acton Commentarybringing moral reflection to bear upon current events August 20, 2008 Ban the Bottle?In June, the U.S. Conference of Mayors met to discuss a trendy new legislative push: taxation and regulation of bottled water. Bottled water has become a target for many local governments, as environmental groups and some churches supporting bottled water regulation argue that the plastic is clogging landfills. The ban is catching on across the country:
The Conference of Mayors decided that, due to the landfill clutter, carbon dioxide emissions from bottle production, lack of government control over bottled water standards and the already immense government investment in municipal water systems, it is going to start to "phase out, where feasible, government use of bottled water and promote the importance of municipal water." The mayors have also raised economic objections to bottled water: they say bottled water costs "more than an equivalent volume of gasoline." If public officials are genuinely looking for ways to balance government budgets, that's commendable. But some mayors say that it is wrong for anyone to make a profit from the sale of water, which is profiting from the sufferings of others who do not have clean, safe water. Bottled water is, according to this view, a luxury, and therefore ought to be taxable except in times where bottled water is an absolute necessity. In addition, a number of religious organizations have raised philosophical and theological arguments against the use of bottled water. The National Council of Churches makes a typical case based on faith:
These arguments appeal to the consumer's heart and wallet. The sentiment seems to be: "I have cheap water available, which I ignore, while the poor are dying; why am I wasting what I ought, as a Christian, to spend on them?" The problem, however, is that the arguments of those who would ban bottled water only seem to make sense until we actually think about the likely consequences of a ban. A tax on bottled water does not eliminate demand for the bottles themselves. There are plenty of other, non-taxed bottled beverages, and bottled water often takes from their markets due to transferable demand; people often switch from soda to bottled water, avoiding obesity-fostering calories. This has even caused many sympathetic groups to protest what they see as the legislature not going far enough in the campaign against plastic bottles. A bottled water tax also creates a conflict with other taxes, such as occasional efforts to impose a "fast food" tax. A bottled water tax would likely encourage people to go back to drinking sodas. To be truly effective in reducing the demand for water bottles, the government would have to tax all beverages sold in plastic bottles. The logic that dictates bottled water is always a taxable luxury is flawed. As even the tap-over-bottle groups will admit, there are situations where tap water is not available or not trustworthy, and in these cases bottled water is clearly a necessity. Everyone agrees that it is important that drinking water keep to high levels of safety and potability, and bottled water reliably maintains these standards as part of the market process, even when we cannot always trust tap water. The theological and philosophical arguments behind a bottle ban are also wrong-headed. We are told that water is a necessity, and therefore a human right. But food and shelter are also necessities; why shouldn't these be "free" gifts? We are told by Scripture to remember that all that we have has been given to us by God: "Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?" (1 Cor 4:7). But we must also remember what God said to Adam: "with labour and toil shalt thou eat thereof all the days of thy life." (Gen 3:17). Food and water, while necessary and given by God, are not free. To protest the "privatization" of water is to protest a more prudent and more effective way to market the same product. We have seen the unintended consequences that follow the nationalization of industries and we know that the removal of incentives does not create "plenty for all." Instead, we get lines and shortages, the very things cited as reasons to "end privatization." Although there may be good intentions behind the push to tax and regulate bottled water, such a ban would certainly do more harm than good. Tom Sundaram and Noah Meek are public policy interns at the Acton Institute. Intern Robert Holmes also contributed to this piece. |
Recent articles by this author:Recent articles by this author:
|
Comments
howard: therealhoward@yahoo.com- "The theological and philosophical arguments behind a bottle ban are also wrong-headed. We are told that water is a necessity, and therefore a human right. But food and shelter are also necessities; why shouldn't these be "free" gifts?"
I have an opinion on this argument,
1. Water is freely available in it's natural state.
2. Food is not food until some action is performed, hunting, picking, cooking etc. each of these are services and the provider is intitled to charge something for hunting, picking or growing and preparing. -conclusion- This is different than water even though it could be argued that one must perform a fetch and carry on the water and that certainly is intitled to be paid for.
3. Housing has to be picked,tooled,assembled and built etc. before it becomes a house! -conclusion- different than water, each step is intitled to be compensated for.
Bottom Line is if you do it yourself then you are absolutly correct, they are free but don't be expecting people to provide you water, food and shelter without compensating them for thier labor in providing you the conveinence of finshed products oh and let's not forget Caesar gets a share of all of this as well (deserved or not). Get out your canteen, spear and hammer and get to work hunting, gathering and building.
Thats my solution to the plastic bottle problem, use a canteen and water you gather and prepare yourself from the free gift provided but make sure the free gift was really intended for you and not your next door neighbor!
Bob: rjcolbert@wideopenwest.com- "The people that choose to pay such outrageous prices for a potential plastic induced side effect are rightfully entitled to this priviledge.
Likewise too are the users and non users alike entitled to an enviornment free of refuse and landfill disruption.
The obvious answer that will not fully please anyone is to charge a refundable deposit on the bottles.
The shop owners will hate this, the recyclers favor this, the user dislike the inferred increase in cost and deposit.
Both user and non user will have improved landfills and enviornment."
Mark Russell: mark@markrussell.org- Some very good points are made in this article. The privatization of anything (including water) frequently means more effective and efficient disbursement and higher quality. But one must keep the big picture in mind. As our oceans fill with plastic waste and plastic bottles fill landfills, seeking to encourage people toward refillable containers seems quite logical. I think the authors point out correctly that any tax against water plastic bottles should be levied against all plastic bottles not just for water. We should also seek to make choices as wise consumers and not always look to our government to save the day i.e. use our own refillable container and save a couple of bucks every time we fill up at the water fountain.
Dan McLaughlin: danmcl999@roadrunner.com- People pay for bottled water only because they feel it is better than any of the alternatives. Municipal water often tastes bad. Many people are concerned about the quality of municipal water supplies, as well they should be. Bottled water has come as a market solution to a real problem. Also, convenience is something of very real value to people. Time is the most strictly limited of all resources. Conveniences save time and allow people to have the high standard of living they enjoy in developed countries. When it comes down to it, the use and value of time is what is profoundly different between developed and undeveloped countries.
Plastic water bottles are today's solution to a specific problem. Tomorrow will bring different problems and different solutions. The amazing fact is that, in the future, landfills will probably be a rich supply of various resources that society of the future will put to use. Human society has never stood still. The problems and solutions are always in flux. Human society is best able to adapt to the inevitably changing conditions when free from the dictates of people who think they have all of the solutions today for everyones problems forever.
Free people solve problems. Government solutions cement todays problems in place, using regulation to prevent innovation. It is not an accident that economic freedom correlates with prosperity, lack of economic freedom correlates with poverty and misery.
Richard Briggs: rgbarnabas@gmail.com- To add insult, most of the bottled water is itself from some "far away" and out of sight municipal 3water system. Other suppliers truck in water from a variey of sources and then re bottle it into plastic containers. Finally, the nationwide minicipal water supplies, whether publicly or privately owned, provide safe drinkable water. As a truck driver I drink water from whatever locality I happen to find myself. The local government would be better off communicating the quality of its own water supply and its lower cost to the user.
Chris Manes: lokicsm@aol.com- A spirited defense for privatizing water -- it shows just how ideological Acton really is. Two words that never occur in your vocabulary are "public policy." No, three words: add "democracy." The idea that only people with money should determine who gets water is truly pitiful, not to mention chilling.
Bill Totzkay: Coltoata@chartermi.net- The people that choose to pay such outrageous prices for a potential plastic induced side effect are rightfully entitled to this priviledge.
Likewise too are the users and non users alike entitled to an enviornment free of refuse and landfill disruption.
The obvious answer that will not fully please anyone is to charge a refundable deposit on the bottles.
The shop owners will hate this, the recyclers favor this, the user dislike the inferred increase in cost and deposit.
Both user and non user will have improved landfills and enviornment.
Bottled water has some good uses, but otherwise is just another item in our times of excess.
A bit like a cellphone? .... But that is another essay. lol
Ban the Bottle?