BUSTING BOTTLES
A tax will not end the use of plastic bottles. But it can help minimize solid waste and earn revenues for the government.
We have had our “convenience” with bottled beverages for decades, or with plastic bottles in general, and I believe now is the time to start ending the menace it has created. Perhaps most readers will disagree with this. But, I believe there are just too many negative externalities associated with the use of plastic bottles and the retail of bottled water.
Consider the estimates bandied about. In a commentary in The Huff
ington Post, for instance, writer Norm Schriever noted that about 50 billion water bottles were consumed every year, about 30 billion of them in the US; and, that “it takes three times the volume of water to manufacture one bottle of water than it does to fill it.”
He also said that 17 million barrels of oil were used each year just to produce water bottles, and that the Earth Policy Institute had factored the energy used to pump, process, transport and refrigerate bottled water at over 50 million barrels of oil every year. “That’s an insane amount of resources for something that is a completely unneeded,” he added.
And this, of course, does not take into consideration that most used plastic bottles end up in landfills worldwide, or polluting our oceans. Only a fraction of total production is said to end up in recycling. Most still go to garbage dumps, and many are not exactly biodegradable. Worse, some cultures still opt to incinerate their trash, including plastic bottles.
Think about Schriever’s other estimates: Every square mile of the ocean has over 46,000 pieces of floating plastic in it; 10% of plastic manufactured worldwide ends up in the ocean, mostly on the ocean floor where they will never degrade; 80% of water bottles end up in landfills; and, the US national recycle rate for PET bottles is only 23%.
Schriever also asserts that bottled water is not necessarily cleaner than tap water, as this depends largely on where you live and who supplies your drinking water. In my case, my family has always been drinking tap water at home, with some degree of filtering, and so far, we have not had any health issues in this regard. We don’t boil our water, either.
What I like most about Schriever’s commentary is how he labelled bottled water as a rip-off: “You know how you pay $3 + for a cup of coffee that probably costs 20 cents to make? You look like a financial genius making that purchase compared to the economics of bottled water. Bottled water costs well in excess of 1,000 times that of tap water, even with a filter.”
He also claimed that up to 47.8% of bottled water sold was “actually just repackaged tap water.” But, while I tend to believe Schriever on his claims, I presume that bottled water is sold locally with still with some degree of additional filtering or treatment, unless natural or spring water bottled at source.
Locally, a small bottle of drinking water, mineral or distilled, can cost us about P10.
In comparison, 13 cubic meters of utility water can cost us
around P200. Both, of course, are safe for drinking. Given this, it appears that the cost of 20 small bottles of water is equivalent to that of 13 cubic meters of utility water. Why do we choose to pay a lot more for drinking water?
Also, a mug of coffee in a popular coffee chain can cost us around P100. If we choose to brew at home, a half-kilogram bag of good ground coffee can cost us about P250. But, that half-kilogram bag can brew as many as 60 mugs. This brings our coffee cost — at home — to perhaps about P5 per mug, also computing for water and electricity and manhours. And yet, we choose to pay P100 mug — or 20 times what it can cost us to brew at home — to enjoy our coffee on-the-go from our favorite neighborhood coffee house.
It is in this line that I see logic in San Miguel Corp.’s decision to end its bottled water business under the “Purewater” brand, to reduce the company’s impact on the environment. “The plastic bottled water business has given us good returns, but we are choosing to forego it in favor of our long- term sustainability goals,” SMC president Ramon S. Ang said in a statement.
But, he also said that “Purewater” would live on, “not as a plastic water bottle business but through SMC’s investment in filtration technology that will be deployed during calamities to make safe drinking water available to displaced and affected families in lieu of environmentally unsustainable bottled water.”
I am sure there is more to the SMC decision than just sustainability issues. There is always a business angle to what they do over there. However, I am not about to speculate as to why they are cutting the retail of bottled water. Whatever their reasons may be, I agree with the plan, along with the SMC aim to reduce by half its domestic and utility use of water by 2025.
In January, I already questioned the economics of buying bottled water, or coffee from high-end shops, and how effective marketing convinced us to willingly pay a high premium for quick and convenient access to “drinks.” We were perhaps made to think that drinking water is cleaner, or coffee is better, if it is bottled or came in a covered cup. And there is no denying that disposable containers make these beverages conveniently accessible to us.
But, there are issues or “negatives” that go along with such consumption, and there are economic and social and environmental costs to be paid in this line. The culprit is not the water, nor the coffee, but the convenience of its disposable container. And while we can no longer put the genie back in the bottle, we are not without recourse, which is national and local taxes.
Consumers should be made to pay a premium, in the form of tax, not only for the convenience but also the negative externalities associated with the use of disposable plastic bottles. The tax is not on the water or the coffee, but on the throw-away container. Ergo, if I walk into a coffee shop with my own mug, then I shouldn’t be taxed. Ditto if I bring my own container to a water refilling station. And, as an incentive for recycling, rebates or store credits should also be given to those who return plastic bottles for recycling.
The tax can apply to all drinking water and coffee and other beverages in disposable and recyclable plastic bottles, or disposable containers. It can also apply to other plastic or PET bottles containing sauces, vinegar, and other edible liquids.
As I have noted previously, a tax will not totally end the use of plastic bottles. But, it can help minimize solid waste, and at the same time, earn the national government and local governments revenues that can be earmarked for recycling and help fund public health services, or better infrastructure.