Water is not a human right This avaricious bastard will be trying to commoditise air next. I urge everyone to follow the link and sign the EU petition

Water is not a human right This avaricious bastard will be trying to commoditise air next. I urge everyone to follow the link and sign the EU petition

cod'ead wrote:Water is not a human right This avaricious bastard will be trying to commoditise air next. I urge everyone to follow the link and sign the EU petition The man is a lunatic!

cod'ead wrote:Water is not a human right This avaricious bastard will be trying to commoditise air next. I urge everyone to follow the link and sign the EU petition The man is a lunatic!

...and the source you cite is as unbiased as The Daily Mail.

A little reading around the subject explains that he believes that water shortages are quite possibly going to create future food shortages, and has personally been involved in looking for solutions for years.

What he's arguing is that treating water as though its completely free has led to massive wastage around the world - i.e. if you don't get charged for using water, what incentives are there to improve the efficient use of it?

There's an easily accessible interview with him with McKInsey (in PDF form no less) where he talks about the need for full cost recovery for water for all those who get "massively subsidized municipal tap water (also to fill their swimming pools) and who can actually afford to pay." Note the last part of that sentence - "who can actually afford to pay". He also makes sensible points about the waste in agriculture, and the need to address it.

So basically when he says water is not a human right what he means is that it shouldn't be treated as something free and infinite, because if we continue to do so, global fresh water shortages are a likely result.

But feel free to sign your petition without actually reading further than a ridiculously biased blog, or (as I suspect) come back with a list of more Nestle evils with which to try and blur the issue - which is far more important and deserving of actual discussion, not diatribe.

This instant - and intellectually lazy - ideology by the numbers is what makes sensible debate on any topic difficult.

It was sufficient to watch the interview with him on the link I posted.

I would argue that water, unlike any other form of beverage, is as essential to human life as air and as such should be provided free or at the very least, free from profit. The most wasteful users of water are industries and agricultural enterprises supplying non-seasonal produce to western consumers. Ice-melt water from Kilimanjaro is diverted from local people to irrigate farms growing flowers and vegetables for western consumption. I have found no evidence of Nestlé actively seeking to reverse this situation; instead they seek to exploit it so that they can sell the already impoverished a 500ml bottle of his company's "Pure Life". They have plenty of previous in such scams, baby formula being a prime example.

The man and the company are driven by pure greed and certainly not some altruistic philosophy of preventing people dying of thirst.

Mr Fish gets another stuffing - water is an essential beverage but to refine it for mass human consumption costs whether the government does it or private businesses do it!! The idea that it should be free is yet another one of ill considered theories - will you never learn?

As I said, "they have plenty of previous" etc etc. As predictable as the rising of the sun, and about as relevant.

What about the REAL issue - i.e. potential shortages of water leading to global food shortages? This guy has at least identified a problem and suggested solutions. He's also suggesting that in nearly all cases the solutions have to be local, involving both governments and the private sector. He's also done a fair amount away from Nestle if you care to look, so it can't all be sheeted home to him seeking to make Nestle more money.

Everyone in the world needs to be aware of the finite extent of fresh water. What he is suggesting is using the market to fully reflect that limited capacity by pricing in the cost of its use - including treatment etc. That's one method, and I have no problem with disagreeing with it. What I do have a problem is just launching a diatribe, fudging the actually important issue, and failing completely to suggest some kind of workable alternative.

He's not suggesting for a moment that only Nestle bottled water should be used in the third world. But carry on with bashing the evil capitalist and boycotting Nestle products if you think that helps.

You missed the bit about "free from profit" then?

Here's a start:

Stop the likes of Union Carbide et al polluting the world's waterways

Stop using water to irrigate fields to grow non-indigenous foodstuffs and flowers.

"Using the market" will only lead to managed shortages that can be exploited for further profit. The "market", far from being the saviour of us all has, time and time again, proved to work against the wellbeing of the majority, in favour of a tiny minority

Water is a natural resource which is vital for life to exist. Its obscene that someone would like to deprive someone else of it for monetary gain.

To me, the fact that it costs money to purify and deliver water does not mean that it is simply another commodity like ready-made lasagne or a tin of beans, rather there needs to be a guarantee that no-one, regardless of their income or situation should be without potable water.
I have no problem with companies selling bottled water (other than bemusement at the fact that there is a market for it) but that market must not be allowed to be the only way that people get their water.

As I've said many times on this forum, capitalism is a good servant but a very bad master.
It requires regulation because, if left to its own devices, the market becomes an antisocial entity.

Hence, I believe that access to potable water for drinking/hygiene is a human right.