Encara beus aigua embotellada?

 Brainwashing, Medi ambient  1 Response »
Mar 222010
 

A Brussel.les em trobo amb amics que es queixen de l’aigua de l’aixeta -sense atrevir-se a tastar-la- i prefereixen conduir fins al supermercat i gastar una bona quantitat de temps i diners per comprar la mateixa aigua que raja de l’aixeta -sovint amb menys qualitat-.

Tant les autoritats flamenques com les Valones -encarregades de la gestio de l’aigua- declaren que “L’eau est le produit alimentaire le plus contrôle de Belgique et elle est analysée tous les jours dans des laboratoires” o “L’eau du robinet est testeig de manière minutieuse en vue de les dépister éléments comme le plomb, el sodi, el magnesi, els nitrats, bacteris et les autres éléments bussos potentiellement dangereux “.

A Barcelona, Aigues de Barcelona tambe confirmen que l’aigua de l’aixeta supera amb escreix la normativa sanitaria. Perque la gent continua comprant aigua embotellada?

L’activista nord-americana Annie Leonard ha produït un excel lent vídeo que explica els interessos econòmics darrere de l’aigua embotellada i explica com es desenvolupa el concepte de “demanda  manufacturada”:

Una altra cosa es la moda creixent d’utilitzar l’aigua com un producte de luxe i saber apreciar els diferents sabors i composicions de l’aigua. Es ben respectable que la gent es vulgui gastar 20euros per una ampolla d’aigua  i per aquells que no veuen vi o cervesa maridar un apat amb una bona aigua pot quedar be i ser justificable en algunes ocasions especials. Personalment, jo no em gastare 20eur per una ampolla d’aigua -si que me’ls gastaria en canvi per un bon vi- pero no em molesta que d’altres ho facin sempre i quan aixo no afecti ni la qualitat ni l’acces ni el preu de l’aigua de l’aixeta.

De fet, la venta d’aigua embotellada no deixa de ser una competencia deslleial per a l’aigua embotellada “de qualitat”. El video explica molt be com gran part de l’aigua embotellada que es ven no es mes que aigua de l’aixeta embolcallada amb plastic la qual cosa la converteix en una estafa en tota regla. A part d’aixo hi ha la gran quantitat de residus que es produeixen en els 5min que dura la consumicio d’un be que es pot trobar 10.000 vegades mes barat a l’aixeta.

Es paradoxal que ara que diuen que estem tant desenvolupats encara caiguem en trampes com aquestes. Ens diuen que lluitar contra la crisis ecologica i economica es dificil, car i implica mil sacrificis… i resulta que bevent aigua de l’aixeta estalviem diners, temps i una bona quantitat de residus i emisions al planeta!

Vols dir que te sentit beure aigua embotellada? Que beurem quan ens haguem acabat de beure l’enteniment?

 Posted by admin at 16:48  Tagged with: , , , ,

Still drinking bottled water?

 Environment  1 Response »
Mar 222010
 

In Brussels I still run into friends who complain about tab-water -not daring to try it- and prefer driving to the supermarket to spend a good amount of money -and time- in buying the same water -sometimes with less quality- as they can get from the tap.

Both the flemish and walon water authorities declare that “L’eau est le produit alimentaire le plus contrôlé de Belgique et elle est analysée tous les jours dans des laboratoires” or  “L’eau du robinet est testée de manière minutieuse en vue de dépister les éléments comme le plomb, le sodium, le magnésium, les nitrates, les bactéries et divers autres éléments potentiellement dangereux”.

The american activist Annie Leonard has produced an excellent video explaining the economic interests behind bottled-water and how it becomes another example of  ”manufactured demand”:

Another issue is the growing trend to use water as a luxury good and appreciate the different taste and flavours of bottled water. In my opinion this is respectable because it is true that depending on the source the water has different taste and composition and for those who don’t drink wine or beer, matching food with water can be justifiable in some special occasions. Me, I can pay 20 euros for a bottle of wine but not for a bottle of water but I’m fine if others do it as long as the tap water remains good, available and at current prices.

However, as the video rightly points out, lots of the bottled water is a rip-off because they just bottle tap-water which creates this fake demand on a common good but it also is unfair competition with the real special bottled-water which truly offers a product worth paying extra money for.

On the other hand there are the huge amounts of waste (and emissions related to extraction, transport and disposal)  related to drinking bottled water but to get the full picture see the video.

It is funny how changing the business as usual that has created the climate and economic crisis can start with such a simple thing as drinking tap water: saving money, time and the planet!

Still drinking bottled water?

 Posted by admin at 10:31  Tagged with: , , ,

E. Commission: take the initiative or face a vote of confidence

 Europe english  No Responses »
Mar 092010
 
Since the creation of the new Barroso II commission the European Commission doesn’t stop confirming that she is going to be as daring as the Barroso I Commission. That is: not daring at all. Europe continues to be left at the mercy of the member states and globalization.

One of the reasons to understand why the EU has got to where it is today lies in the creation of the European Commission with the monopoly on legislative initiative.

In times of hardship the European Commission has been the one proposing to go further in the integration. For instance, in the 80s Delors pushed the creation of the single market which, although it postponed the constitutional project of Spinelli, managed to be the springboard that led to the successful 90s.

If the European Commission doesn’t take the lead the EU has to look for other ways to move forward. During the Barroso I Commission nothing can be recalled as main achievement, on the other hand 3 referendums were lost and the Lisbon strategy was an appalling failure. Yet, as I explain in my former post, last week the Barroso II Commission presented another economic plan for 2020 that is doomed to fail.

The cherry on the cake are the last news from Germany about the need for a European Monetary Fund. Following the proposal from some think tanks, the Belgian prime minister Yves Leterme said that it was a good idea and now Angela Merkel confirms the validity of the proposal to equip the EU with the right tools to deal with the crisis. This is a full and deserved discredit of the European Commission: one week after the European Commission presents its empty 2020 economic strategy the member states are already going further than the institution allegedly responsible to lead the EU has gone in the last 10 years. Now Barroso says that that the European Commission will study the possibility to create a EMF… Why didn’t you propose it in your plan for 2020? Are we planning to deal with the problems that Europe has with economic governance in 2025 Mr Barroso?

Yes, the EU needs a European Monetary Fund and yes, the European Commission should have presented these ideas a long time ago. It is their duty to think about the instruments that will take Europe out of the crisis; the instruments that allow a smarter European integration. It is worrying that, out of desperation, the member states have to take the lead in telling Brussels what Europe needs and not all the way round. This is against the treaties and the teachings of history.

It can be argued –by some- that in times of economic boom it is politically convenient to have a weak and quiet European Commission… but in times of crisis the Commission has to change business as usual, take the lead and propose solutions. Instead in the strategy for 2020 the Commission is showing a very worrying lack of attitude and seems to wait for the member states to pave the way forward.

If the newly elected European Commission continues to refuse to take the lead the European Parliament, the body to which it is accountable, should call for a vote of confidence. The Parliament is too much used to blaming the European Commission for lack of this and lack of that but after all the three big groups –conservatives, socialists and liberals- voted in favour of Barroso II for his promises of change. It Barroso II fails to deliver the Parliament should preserve the European interest.

 Posted by admin at 18:13  Tagged with: , , , , ,

New EU economic strategy – Repeating the failure of Lisbon strategy

 Europe english  1 Response »
Mar 042010
 
Remember the slogan of  the EU during last 10 years? Yes, that thing about becoming the most competitive knowledge-based economy in the world? Well, then get ready to continue laughing –or crying- because the European Commission has published its new economic strategy for 2020 and it seems we are willing to throw 10 more years down the drain.
The Lisbon strategy didn’t work because of lack of political instruments, lack of financial means and, above all, lack of political will from the member states. The fantastic new economic plan that the European Commission published yesterday insists on setting targets without providing financial and enforcement tools to achieve them. Yes, the objectives are ok (they are way to short and unambitious but let’s assume they are ok):
• 3% of the EU’s GDP should be invested in R&D.
• The “20/20/20″ climate/energy targets should be met.
• The share of early school leavers should be under 10% and at least 40% of the younger generation should have a degree or diploma. .
• 20 million less people should be at risk of poverty.

But how the hell is the European Commission planning to achieve them? How do we want to create employment without investment? To add insult to injury the EC requires that these objectives are met whilst respecting the Growth and Stability Pact and without increasing the own resources of the Union… In times when the Monetary Union is at risk and the Growth and Stability Pact is violated by most member states what is the great solution from the EC? Business a usual and repeat the same mistakes of the Lisbon strategy. Depressing.
The text of the commission doesn’t say anything on how to reform the financial markets, doesn’t provide any proposal on how to reform the economic governance to tackle problems such as Greece indebtedness, there is nothing on social Europe, nothing on Euro-Bonds or any ideas of how to increase the own resources of the Union…
Plus, why do we need a strategy for 2020? The only reason I can think of is in order to guarantee that all those who should be responsible of the next failure can be out of the game by then and therefore escape any attempt to hold them accountable. If the current Commission, the current European Parliament and the Council want to go ahead with this ludicrous plan let’s set the goals for 2014 so that at the end of their mandate we can see what they have delivered.
The new Barroso Commission was approved by the three big groups in the European Parliament –Conservatives, Socialists and Liberals- only two weeks ago under the promise that he would change the business as usual, that he was not the grey and submissed Commission president that he was during his first term. Well, here is the first test and the lack of ambition and guts can’t be more blatant. What are they going to do now? If the big groups in the EP are consequent with themselves either they force a radical change in the economic strategy or they should threaten with blocking the EU budget. Anything less will put the Parliament at the same level as the Commission.
But let’s not fall in the usual trap of blaming the EC for everything. The EC is not guilty for its lack of ambition alone, I’m convinced the Commission is aware –and probably shares- what I mentioned above but the main problem lies on the lack of political will from the member states. Lack of political will boycotted the Lisbon strategy, boycotts the creation of any kind of European economic governance and will stop any attempt to give to this European economic strategy any chance to succeed.
In a perfect example of the prisoner dilemma the Commission and the member states opt for the worst possible option, an option that will harm both Europe and the member states.
The issue is very serious and the Europeans deserve a lot more. If Barroso doesn’t dare to take the risk to challenge the status quo the European Parliament should stand up to defend the future of the Union. If nothing else because nobody else will.
 Posted by admin at 0:51  Tagged with: , , , , ,
© 2012 JM Simon Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha