Nestle CEO: Declaring water a public right "an extreme solution"

[Torie]

No, it is about saving habitat, not about flood control and the like. It's ludicrous. But of course negative externalities should be paid for, and if for productive farmland, they can be shown, I am willing to listen. I also accept erosion control regulations, and incentives. If you want wetlands, and are willing to pay for it, use areas where the opportunity costs are relatively low. The program as written is oblivious to that. I have yet to talk to a bureaucrat willing to attempt to defend it, who administers this inanity. They know better.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And, as I expected, my post seems to have been ignored by the OP.

[DrScholl]

If water wasn't regulated to an extent, you'd have corporations and the wealthy charging high prices for water to achieve a profit.

[Torie]

Torie, do you have a link to that study?  I want to read more about this.

Voila.

[All Along The Watchtower]

What should be a public right, then, if not the basic necessities of life-any life?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy, it is one thing to be able to grow food for a certain price. It is another for folks to have the funds to buy it. Two different issues. In that regard, I would note that an econometrics study by a professor at Iowa State in Ames, concluded that the ethanol heist pushes up the world price of corn by about 3 bucks a bushel. That one program is probably doing more to spread hunger in the poorest parts of this planet, than all the other ill conceived public policies combines, and indeed that one heist may more than offset all the transfer payments of one kind or the other to mitigate hunger.  Yet, few consciences among those in the know are shocked. If I had celebrity, I would make it my business for those in the know, to be a far larger cohort than those in the know at present. It's pure unadulterated evil.

And if you want beyond getting rid of the ethanol heist to push food prices down, think about revamping that wetlands law run amok, that keeps a lot of very efficient crop growing land out of production, in exchange for the government giving the wetland owners checks - like say to me.

Well, I think the most important long term investment we should be making as a philanthropic gesture to poor nations is investing in their agricultural economy.

We have technology today that allows us to farm cheaply and reap huge harvests from marginal land.

We've also developed smart methods for managing water and still maintaining high yields in water-scarce and drought-prone regions.

"Teach a man to fish" comes to mind here, along with infrastructural support.  "Donate" the tools (many of which involve simple education/training and very little infrastructural investment) so they can grow the food at their own price within their own economy.

Beyond that, the government should buy food from farmers to give to the hungry, especially by expanding food aid to refugee camps.  

As far as the hungry in America:  Food stamps.  Allow them to buy food at market price... but simply ensure they have the "money" to do it.  This allows them to budget for their own diet.  We set an amount based on need and we give from there.  Food stamps should be expanded, not reduced.  And it shoudl be paid for by hiking taxes on the wealthy and upper middle class.

Water is different.  I just can't see any reason to ever privatize water.  Granted, we get water from a well... but it truly is an "infinite" resource here... because I could never possibly use all of it.  And the beauty is that you pay electric for the pump itself... but that goes to an electricity cooperative.  My mom got two $500 checks from our local cooperative last year.  Probably chump change to you, Torie.. a very big deal for her.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Corn ethanol has turned out to be terrible for world hunger.  If we're going to do ethanol, which increasingly appears to be unnecessary... it should come from cellulose rich switch grass, which can be grown on marginal lands and is more efficient at producing fuel.

I think electric cars are instead the future.  And I think we'll have working fusion reactors within my life time... which will essentially end the energy question.  Emulating stars looks to be paydirt as far as energy production goes.  With solar and wind for off-grid use.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

As far as the hungry in America:  Food stamps.  Allow them to buy food at market price... but simply ensure they have the "money" to do it.  This allows them to budget for their own diet.  We set an amount based on need and we give from there.  Food stamps should be expanded, not reduced.  And it shoudl be paid for by hiking taxes on the wealthy and upper middle class.

Would you agree, however, that food stamps should be aimed at covering certain foodstuffs?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Would you agree, however, that food stamps should be aimed at covering certain foodstuffs?

Still waiting...

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

His full words: "The one opinion which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right.  That means that as a human being you should have a right to water.  That's an extreme solution."

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

His full words: "The one opinion which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right.  That means that as a human being you should have a right to water.  That's an extreme solution."

And if you can show me where the word "not" is anywhere in that quote, I'll send you $1,000 in cash.

[patrick1]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

His full words: "The one opinion which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right.  That means that as a human being you should have a right to water.  That's an extreme solution."

^That's worse

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

His full words: "The one opinion which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right.  That means that as a human being you should have a right to water.  That's an extreme solution."

^That's worse

Fine - in your opinion it's worse.  Then put that.  It bugs the crap out of me when people here put words in quotes that were never actually said by the person they claim said them.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

His full words: "The one opinion which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right.  That means that as a human being you should have a right to water.  That's an extreme solution."

And if you can show me where the word "not" is anywhere in that quote, I'll send you $1,000 in cash.

The quote in the thread title is a paraphrase that was taken from the article I posted, which I'm going to assume you didn't read, even though I copied and pasted it in its entirety.

But since you insist, I'll change the title.  Why you're trying to score points by picking at semantics is beyond me.

[DrScholl]

Semantics is not a way to win an argument, period. It's pretty clear from watching the video what the CEO's point was, even if it was paraphrased.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Yes, Nathan, I watched the video.

So why continue your inaccurate title?

His full words: "The one opinion which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs who bang on about declaring water a public right.  That means that as a human being you should have a right to water.  That's an extreme solution."

And if you can show me where the word "not" is anywhere in that quote, I'll send you $1,000 in cash.

The quote in the thread title is a paraphrase that was taken from the article I posted, which I'm going to assume you didn't read, even though I copied and pasted it in its entirety.

But since you insist, I'll change the title.  Why you're trying to score points by picking at semantics is beyond me.

Of course I clicked and read it.  I knew that you just copied and pasted it; that shows not only inaccuracy, but laziness as well.

Plus, posting an article in its entirety is likely a copyright violation, so you should probably either remove the paragraph or put it into your own words.

[Dereich]

Well, I think the most important long term investment we should be making as a philanthropic gesture to poor nations is investing in their agricultural economy.

We have technology today that allows us to farm cheaply and reap huge harvests from marginal land.

We've also developed smart methods for managing water and still maintaining high yields in water-scarce and drought-prone regions.

"Teach a man to fish" comes to mind here, along with infrastructural support.  "Donate" the tools (many of which involve simple education/training and very little infrastructural investment) so they can grow the food at their own price within their own economy.

Beyond that, the government should buy food from farmers to give to the hungry, especially by expanding food aid to refugee camps.  

The best philanthropic gesture we could make would be finally giving in and agreeing to lower agricultural barriers in the Doha round. Even with less efficient methods the biggest thing stopping poor counties' agriculture is the rich countries refusing to buy at fair prices to protect their own farmers.

[DC Al Fine]

I've worked in the water business and the notion that municipalities are going to manage water supplies anymore responsibly than corporations is laughable.

My boss's boss has had to deal with multiple requests from city council that went something like "Hey can you guys give us the $10 000 000 you were planning to spend on a new water treatment plant so our deficit won't look so bad?" This sort of behaviour is common throughout North America.

The solution as Torie already noted is to price water in the market and then subsidise it for those who can't afford it. As water grows more scarce declaring it a human right will not change the usage that was drawing down the supply in the first place. Pricing it so the heavy users reduce their consumption will.

[muon2]

The solution as Torie already noted is to price water in the market and then subsidise it for those who can't afford it. As water grows more scarce declaring it a human right will not change the usage that was drawing down the supply in the first place. Pricing it so the heavy users reduce their consumption will.

I'm not sure how you do this for places where pipes are already in the ground. Even the private water utilities that exist around here are going to undercut water prices purchased in bottle form. Unlike electricity or gas there isn't a deregulated supply market that can supply water to different distribution systems.

They heaviest users in my area are food manufacturers, and their water prices are passed along to the consumer with little impact on consumption behavior. Residential users are typically faced with sprinkling bans that when enforced are effective at dropping the large increases seen on hot summer days. There are large price differentials between communities and only a few industries make their location decisions based on the price of water.

[barfbag]

There's ways to get water for free. Using water as a political tool doesn't surprise me coming from the left. Think about how our ancestors dealt with water and it's lack of cleanliness and how easy we have it today.

[Maxwell]

Whenever I start thinking corporations are good, I see something like this.

You think that in the first place?

By "good", I meant "not actively bad".

You think that in the first place?

Just a few months ago, you did.

[Link]

So the guy launches into his persuasive video by telling us in German he runs the largest food corporation in the world and quotes Austrian sayings to make his point.  All he needs is a Darth Vader mask.  Not what I would call a sympathetic figure.  Apologies to our German and Austrian posters.

Not sure what point this guy is trying to make.  He is saying water is not a "public" right.  I don't know what a "public" right is.  Water is a right.  EVERY human being in the United States should be given without question something in the neighborhood of 1 Liter of water a day if they can't afford to pay for water service or have had their water fouled by fracking, etc.  Just like everyone should have a right to a certain minimal amount of healthcare.  He compares water to food but the wild berries that I pick in my backyard are don't have a market price.  They are free.  I can just pluck them and eat them.  In some places if rain falls on your property you have no right to drink it even if you are dying of thirst.  Not sure how someone in a Western first world country can defend such a state of affairs.

I don't think anyone can damn any brook or stream that traverses their property.  But it should be formally laid out that you can use a handful of liters per a day from the stream (assuming it is clean) to meat your families drinking needs.

[Ban my account ffs!]

To be honest on further reflection, I don't see a problem with water being commoditized in arid areas as long as our priorities are right:  Namely, that drinking water for the residents of that region comes first and foremost, followed by sanitation, and then beyond that for agricultural use.

But I understand wanting to let the market distribute the water so we don't waste it on folly (like growing crops in extreme deserts that get less than 5" of rain per year).

The idea is that water can both be a right and a commodity.

What we don't need is companies like Nestle trying to privatize municipal water supplies so they can make a profit.  I shouldn't have to buy my water in a wasteful plastic bottle when i can get it clean and pure out of the tap.  Because screw Nestle... they're one of the worst.  And chances are the water they are selling you.... came from a municipality that they're sucking tons of water out of without actually paying the true cost for.

Water is not a political tool, Barfbag.. and it's worrying how you're more worried about "what the left would do with water" while you defend a company like Nestle who is basically stealing water from certain communities and then selling it in plastic bottles at an incredible mark up.  What is wrong with you?