Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Water

Is the Latest Eco-Term Just Corporate Hype?

By Jeff Conant, AlterNet. Posted December 1, 2008.


The idea that Coca Cola can be environmentally accountable for the water it uses -- 'water neutral' -- has many skeptics.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In early 2008, the Coca-Cola Company began making public claims that it would become "the most efficient company in the world in terms of water use in the beverage industry." Central to the company's PR campaign is the claim that it is working toward the goal of becoming "water neutral."

An article in Time Magazine on June 12, 2008, begins, "The global-warming debate has introduced some new catchphrases into the business lexicon. Becoming carbon neutral, for example, is now a goal for multinationals like Dell, HSBC and Tesco. But for another well-known international brand, becoming carbon neutral isn't enough. Last June, Coca-Cola CEO Neville Isdell flew to Beijing and pledged that his company would become 'water neutral' -- every drop of water it uses to produce beverages would be returned to the earth or compensated for through conservation and recycling programs."

With the fairly recent acceptance by policy-makers and the mainstream media that climate change is a reality, new ways of measuring environmental impact are appearing almost by the day. But some of these concepts, developed by the private sector to demonstrate their environmental commitment, are more an exercise in public relations than a credible step toward protecting people and planet -- "catchphrases," as Time Magazine put it. The emergence of "water neutrality" in the global water marketplace may be the most recent of these pseudo-scientific PR catchphrases.

On December 2nd and 3rd San Francisco will be the site of the conference, "Corporate Water Footprinting: Towards a Sustainable Water Strategy," where international business representatives will discuss their use of water, and ostensibly, outline water conservation strategies. At the conference, a two-day business affair at the downtown Hyatt Regency with a price tag of $1900, leading corporations will announce their new efforts to promote "water neutrality," the claim that they can return to local aquifers every drop of water taken for business.

But, is this new term a useful scientific concept to measure laudable efforts towards true sustainability? A paper delivered by some of the scientists who developed the concept says, "The term water neutrality has been picked-up in recent years by a range of commentators and actors involved in water issues. Taking a strict interpretation, no individual or entity that uses water can ever be entirely water neutral, as water use cannot be reduced to zero. However, we feel that as long as the term is used in a consistent and transparent manner to drive positive action on water issues, then it might have potential similar to that of carbon neutrality."

Readers will be familiar with "carbon neutrality," (chosen as word of the year in 2006 by the New Oxford American Dictionary) because, thanks in part to Al Gore, the concept has caught on so quickly. But the inconvenient truth is that after a few years of hopeful hype, carbon neutrality has been shown to be a false solution, encouraging not less consumption and pollution, but more.

Another paper by a group of scientists from Twente University in the Netherlands, UNESCO, and other reputable institutions, points out that, "The idea of 'water neutral' is different here from 'carbon neutral,' because it is theoretically possible to generate enough energy without emitting carbon. Alternative names to 'water neutral' that have been suggested include water offset, water stewardship, and water use reduction and reuse. However none of these other terms seem to have the same gravity or resonance (inspiration) with the media, officials or NGOs as the term neutrality. For pragmatic reasons it may therefore be attractive to use the term 'water neutral,' but there is a definite need to be clear about precisely what it entails if reduction of water use to zero is not possible."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, bottled water, coke, water privatization, water neutral

Jeff Conant is the director of international programs for Food and Water Watch.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
2.6 billion people lack access to safe drinking water
Posted by: begruntleed on Dec 2, 2008 4:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We piss in it.

Think about that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» composting toilet Posted by: nahikurain@mac.com
A better way to measure corporate water performance: minimizing "water miles" and pro- "drink local"
Posted by: Russ Cohen on Dec 2, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
re the Corporate Water Footprinting Conference - if I had been able to go, I would have made the following statement:

As you know, the use of the term “water footprint”, a spin-off from the term “carbon footprint”, chosen as the theme of this conference, has some value in helping corporations and others visualize the impact of their water usage, and it is generally a really good idea to reduce one’s water footprint as it is a good idea to reduce one’s carbon footprint.

I’d like to suggest introducing another term at this conference: the concept of “water miles”, a spin-off from the term “food miles”. As you know, people are paying increasing attention to the often extremely long distances the food they eat has been shipped (or, more likely, trucked), with all the adverse impacts of the energy used for that shipping, trucking, etc. As a result, many people are looking to reduce their “food miles” by obtaining food from more local sources. A burgeoning “eat local” movement is building momentum as restaurants, produce markets and their customers seek ways to obtain more of their food from nearby sources.

I’d like you to consider promoting the slogan of “drink local” as an equally (if not even more) worthy objective as eating locally. While we in 49 out of 50 states can’t really grow our own pineapples, bananas or coffee and don’t have a local alternative for those foods, and I wouldn’t insist that anyone stop consuming those things just because of the food miles involved, almost everyone has the ability to “drink local”, with that opportunity often being as close as the tap on their kitchen sink or water pitcher in their refrigerator. In other words, while there’s no easily obtainable local substitute for some foods, there certainly is for water. People who choose to “drink local”, i.e. to consume a product with low “water miles”, will help reduce their “carbon footprint” and “water footprint” as well, especially if they obtain their water from the tap (filtered if need be) and refrain from purchasing water in single-serving containers.

While a few other people have sought to promote the “drink local” concept as it applies to water (see, e.g., this comment by Jim Hightower) I suspect the concept will be foreign to most attendees at this conference, who may not think about the adverse impact of shipping water many hundreds if not thousands of miles and then inducing customers into buying it, when those consumers have virtually the same product available locally, often as close as their tap or refrigerator.

Just imagine if this conference had adopted the title “Corporate Water Miles” instead of Corporate Water Footprinting and how that would have affected the content of the speeches and presentations. I encourage all the attendees at this conference to address how his/her company is addressing the “water mileage” issue as well as the “water footprinting” issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When it comes to today's soda, just pick your poison, aspartame or high fructose corn syrup.
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 3, 2008 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why can't we have our sodas like Japan? Stevia flavored please. Did you know that aspartame and hfcs require loads of fossil fuels just to produce whereas stevia grows naturally? Plus, the fact that hfcs and aspartame are dangerous to the health while stevia isn't and yet asp and hfcs are "legal" while stevia is restricted to "dietary supplement" is proof that the market is RIGGED. Do a search on stevia and aspartame and you'll find out who the political shenanigans are. If you drink "diet" soda, you're giving Rummy your money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HOAX-a-COLA
Posted by: americansheep on Dec 3, 2008 5:04 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything about the Coca-Cola Company is a hoax: It's name, it's secreted "locked away" formula, it's advertising that "we (Coke) are the world" and "the real thing"...all hype, all hoax. And for what? a sugar water drink that no longer even has coca in it? In India, Coca-Cola bottlers are draining the water supplies of small communities to produce their bottled water and sugar water. With dwindling drinking water, locals are having to buy Cokes to drink! Because of protests, Coke is now making the claim that they are "recycling it drop for drop"... Hoax-a-Cola should be avoided like the plague that it is. It's a junk food product, hyped with lies, and has it's tentacles over the globe, sucking in more addicts. Break the habit and break the back of this corporate syndicate that engages in "cola wars".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have a choice
Posted by: nahikurain@mac.com on Dec 3, 2008 7:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I gave up all Coke and Pepsi products years ago and Nestle years before that. Many people are still not aware of the devastation some of these big American companies are causing and dragging our American name through the mud, when they could be setting great examples in the world of conservation and respect for the individual, and for communities. I don't like it. It belongs in the past.
I have never liked regulation, but it used to be legal to run someone out of town on a rail. Why do these companies wait til it comes to violence? What they do is more violent, more short-sighted and more dangerous in the biggest picture. It has to stop.
I stop. I encourage you to stop and consider everything you consume and make conscious decisions; tell eveyone you know and people you don't know, people in line at the store buying coke? I don't know.
Do you know where coke gets it's water? hmmm
Did you know yu can use that stuff to clean old pennies and battery terminals? interesting huh?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What about the reported Assinations of Union Leaders
Posted by: Phred42 on Dec 3, 2008 8:02 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That were added to Coke's score card?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

COCA COLA AND POPULATION CONTROL
Posted by: Noor on Dec 3, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just a humble whisper here. Everything said so far about coke is right. And STEVIA RULES!

But no one has mentioned the fact that coke kills by poisoning us. It is well known that aspartame can be linked to many serious diseases on the increase today.

Part of the NWO plan for reduction of humanity is feeding them poisons and other such crap which has an accruing negative effect on all who drink these toxins.

Gave up all these drinks when I learned of their politics in other parts of the world. Better for the bones to avoid it all anyhow. When I do have a craving for a fizz, and we all have them at some point, I pick up a natural soda made locally or in the US by a smaller more civic minded company.

But Coke is a poison and part of the agenda to lower the mentality and health of anyone fool enough to drink it. Coke also created the interpretation or Santa Claus foisted so heavily upon our children as part of their marketing ploy in the early 1900's.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Documented Abuses
Posted by: ESPA on Dec 3, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.killercoke.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can the can TOO!
Posted by: Greenhouse Neutral Foundation on Dec 3, 2008 4:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's not forget that to smelt the aluminum for the can that the Coke comes in smelters will guzzel through 25.75 liters of valuable drinking water! For just 1 tonne of smelted aluminum (metric) 1,716 tonnes (metric) is used. see www.strategcibookpublishing.com/ZEROGreenhouseEmissions.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement