Nestle keeps bottling water in BC while citizens restricted by drought - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;48208640]Let me bring my sink to work with me[/QUOTE] Good news! [url=http://www.amazon.com/CamelBak-CGIF-33-Camelbak-Insulated-Bottles/dp/B006ZT7SMI/]there are bottles with filters in them[/url] now.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48208629]Nestle draws from different sources. Can you care to tell me why exactly they should get to sell that water back to us when they buy it for less than operating costs?[/QUOTE] So you want to force the government to do what exactly? Force companies to pay more for a public resource just because they make money off of it?

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48208800]So you want to force the government to do what exactly? Force companies to pay more for a public resource just because they make money off of it?[/QUOTE] They're going to deplete a natural resource they barely pay for. They're going to take it away from citizens of the province. Yes, the government should do something other than allow a resource to be taken for nearly free when we need the money. You failed to answer my question [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] We're in a drought currently and everyone's water is restricted. However, not the use of our aquifers. Oh how FUCKING DARE a citizen of this province look out for his province rather than nestle "water should not be a public right"?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48208824]They're going to deplete a natural resource they barely pay for. They're going to take it away from citizens of the province. Yes, the government should do something other than allow a resource to be taken for nearly free when we need the money. You failed to answer my question[/QUOTE] How much should Nestle/bottlers pay for the water they have taken? Let's assume that its 3 billion gallons of water that needs paying for because of the critical conditions of the drought. Give me a very rough ballpark figure for the sorts of prices one ought to charge for commercial enterprises making use of water. Like does anyone realize that all of the bottling plants combined consume less than 0.1% of the total water supply??

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48208840]How much should Nestle/bottlers pay for the water they have taken? Let's assume that its 3 billion gallons of water that needs paying for because of the critical conditions of the drought. Give me a very rough ballpark figure for the sorts of prices one ought to charge for commercial enterprises making use of water.[/QUOTE] How about as much as anyone else paying hydro in the province :v:

[QUOTE=flamehead5;48208872]How about as much as anyone else paying hydro in the province :v:[/QUOTE] Californians ought to get rice farmers to cough up their fair share (considering that crops like rice, avocados, etc consume much much much more water than all the baths, showers, and bottles of water combined).

The only people who should be buying bottled water are the ones living in areas with shitty water regulations tap water in NY is probably cleaner than bottled water.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48208840]How much should Nestle/bottlers pay for the water they have taken? Let's assume that its 3 billion gallons of water that needs paying for because of the critical conditions of the drought. Give me a very rough ballpark figure for the sorts of prices one ought to charge for commercial enterprises making use of water.[/QUOTE] Fucking a hell of a lot more than $6,750. $0.00000225/litre is about five [I]orders of magnitude[/I] less than they charge for it (24-pack of 500ml bottles retails for $4.99-$9.99), and at least two or three orders less than citizens pay. Does this sound acceptable to you? I have no familiarity with the water market so I wouldn't be able to make an educated guess on what kind of market rate is unprofitable for Nestle, but seriously, look at those numbers. If Nestle is being charged that amount, I owe the city about $4 for water for the rest of my life.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48208840]How much should Nestle/bottlers pay for the water they have taken? Let's assume that its 3 billion gallons of water that needs paying for because of the critical conditions of the drought. Give me a very rough ballpark figure for the sorts of prices one ought to charge for commercial enterprises making use of water. Like does anyone realize that all of the bottling plants combined consume less than 0.1% of the total water supply??[/QUOTE] Well I'm not sure. You sure proved to me that no one can question companies. Fucking Christ where was my head thinking I can actually think any thing they do is wrong.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;48208942]Fucking a hell of a lot more than $6,750. $0.00000225/litre is about five [I]orders of magnitude[/I] less than they charge for it (24-pack of 500ml bottles retails for $4.99-$9.99), and at least four orders less than citizens pay. Does this sound acceptable to you?[/quote] In a drought it ain't good, but the fact its so cheap that people can use it to grow watermelons and shit in the middle of a desert seems to imply misplaced priorities over water. Point is that it's retarded to chase a company that bottles a tiny fraction of the states water supply. Even if every single bottling plant in California suddenly shut down, it would do almost nothing. The real culprit is the fact that Californian agriculture sucks up several magnitudes more water than Nestle ever will. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48208957]Well I'm not sure.[/QUOTE] Let's assume you raised them or whatever. Should farmers be subject to the price increase too?

$2.25 per million liters, shit, I'm going to Canada to start my own water company. :v:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48208966]In a drought it ain't good, but the fact its so cheap that people can use it to grow watermelons and shit in the middle of a desert seems to imply misplaced priorities over water. Point is that it's retarded to chase a company that bottles a tiny fraction of the states water supply. Even if every single bottling plant in California suddenly shut down, it would do almost nothing. The real culprit is the fact that Californian agriculture sucks up several magnitudes more water than Nestle ever will. Let's assume you raised them or whatever. Should farmers be subject to the price increase too?[/QUOTE] Farmers ARE charged more. Nestle takes from aquifers, they're charged very little [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] Why do companies have water rights no citizen should? Should water even be a public right? Nestle disagrees and I would assume from your tone, you would agree

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48209094]Farmers ARE charged more.[/quote] Well considering that they still consume a shitload of water an additional increase might again be a wise idea. [quote]Nestle takes from aquifers, they're charged very little[/QUOTE] Then increase the prices on them too, although I also wish to ask if the aquifers they are taking water from are also used by any places currently affected by the drought. [quote]Should water even be a public right? Nestle disagrees and I would assume from your tone, you would agree[/quote] Maybe it might be a good idea to realize that Nestle bottling water isn't the fucking problem here, because it consumes a tiny fraction of the total water supply. The real problem is the fact that the way in which water supplies have been handled. Rather than blaming the entities which use the least amount of the water supply, why not take a look at the big ones? Even if you got everybody to stop using their toilets, all of the bottling plants shut down, etc, you would barely make a dent. [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] Going after nestle and forcing them to pay more money/cut water use is like trying to put out a small chip pan fire in the kitchen while the rest of your house is on fire. I mean sure it marginally improves the situation, but you've done almost fuck all to save the house.

[QUOTE=Dysplasia;48208747]Good news! [url=http://www.amazon.com/CamelBak-CGIF-33-Camelbak-Insulated-Bottles/dp/B006ZT7SMI/]there are bottles with filters in them[/url] now.[/QUOTE] Once again not practical at all [editline]15th July 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;48208908]The only people who should be buying bottled water are the ones living in areas with shitty water regulations tap water in NY is probably cleaner than bottled water.[/QUOTE] Once again, not everyone works in an office building. Water bottles are a must for outside workers

Ugh. We are complaining about how water is being handled in this region. We want reforms because it's not working. The nestle thing is just an egregious under payment for our resources. Argue it, I know you will, but to us it is.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48208824]They're going to deplete a natural resource they barely pay for. They're going to take it away from citizens of the province. Yes, the government should do something other than allow a resource to be taken for nearly free when we need the money. You failed to answer my question [editline]14th July 2015[/editline] We're in a drought currently and everyone's water is restricted. However, not the use of our aquifers. Oh how FUCKING DARE a citizen of this province look out for his province rather than nestle "water should not be a public right"?[/QUOTE] You do realize in California, Nestle accounts for the same water usage as a single golf course. In Sacramento, Nestle's yearly water usage accounts for less than two-thousandths of 1 percent of the city's total water usage.

I keep hearing a lot about Nestle taking all the water, but that's simply not true. Poor water management, etc plays a MUCH bigger role. Nestle is ran by a cunt, but just blaming them is pure ignorance. They should be held accountable as much as anyone else, and some things really need to be worked out. Nestle doesn't account for much however. Sobotnik said it right.

So asking to charge more than 625$ a year for hundreds of millions of gallons is wrong? Good fucking god that's senseless

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48213698]So asking to charge more than 625$ a year for hundreds of millions of gallons is wrong? Good fucking god that's senseless[/QUOTE] You fail to see the bigger picture. They should be charged more, but even at that small price, their water consumption is small compared to the actual drought.

[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;48212368]You do realize in California, Nestle accounts for the same water usage as a single golf course. In Sacramento, Nestle's yearly water usage accounts for less than two-thousandths of 1 percent of the city's total water usage.[/QUOTE] California has a population greater than all of Canada, and they should expect chronic droughts from their climate, and yet they still run tons of agriculture (sometimes in spite of the climate). Of course they're going to have water problems -- they buy enough of it from us as it is. We're talking about British Columbia and how Nestle, a foreign megacorp, gets to draw effectively unlimited amounts for free from our natural reserves, and how they've got BC bent over a dumpster without even the courtesy of a reacharound. Climate change seems to be causing our winters to become milder (back to back to back green winters are a common occurrence now; two decades ago there would be at least ONE snowfall every year with infrequent exceptions) and our summers to become hotter -- the province dries up and turns into a giant tinderbox in late May like clockwork these days.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;48213698]So asking to charge more than 625$ a year for hundreds of millions of gallons is wrong? Good fucking god that's senseless[/QUOTE] No, nowhere has anyone ever said that it was wrong to charge more. The point is that to blame nestle is an extreme misplacement of priorities. Even if you got nestle to shut down all of their bottling operations in BC, it would do fuck all to help.

The real crime is they fucking sell water for ridiculous prices. Jesus christ, its so expensive.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48214644]No, nowhere has anyone ever said that it was wrong to charge more. The point is that to blame nestle is an extreme misplacement of priorities. Even if you got nestle to shut down all of their bottling operations in BC, it would do fuck all to help.[/QUOTE] No, nowhere, did I say "shut down nestles bottling operations"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48214644]No, nowhere has anyone ever said that it was wrong to charge more. The point is that to blame nestle is an extreme misplacement of priorities. Even if you got nestle to shut down all of their bottling operations in BC, it would do fuck all to help.[/QUOTE] It might help more than the water restrictions already placed on citizens

[quote]$2.25 per million litres [/quote] Jesus fuck, that is one hell of a profit margin.

[QUOTE=Muthenfrucheir;48218413]Jesus fuck, that is one hell of a profit margin.[/QUOTE] Its the bottles, bottling pumping and shipping that's cost money. That probably goes for most soft drinks too.

[QUOTE=Cold;48218550]Its the bottles, bottling pumping and shipping that's cost money. That probably goes for most soft drinks too.[/QUOTE] maybe if you were talking about glass bottles but the cheap nestle bottles are the most bare minimum thin plastic.

Companies > you