4,149
edits
No edit summary |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
On the opposite side, Paris municipality in France managed to drive out the 2 French companies that were in charge of the city’s water network, namely Veolia and Suez. The municipality created a public company named “Eau de Paris”. This success allowed the city to escape from the urge of short term profit inherent to the private sector. According to Anne le Strat, former director of the public water management company, citizens’ activism to claim urban water management is on the rise and not giving up.<ref name="lordsofwater" /> | On the opposite side, Paris municipality in France managed to drive out the 2 French companies that were in charge of the city’s water network, namely Veolia and Suez. The municipality created a public company named “Eau de Paris”. This success allowed the city to escape from the urge of short term profit inherent to the private sector. According to Anne le Strat, former director of the public water management company, citizens’ activism to claim urban water management is on the rise and not giving up.<ref name="lordsofwater" /> | ||
Keeping private interests away from the tap-water network while increasing its quality worldwide is more urgent than ever, considering that 2.1B humans have no access to safe tap-water while 4B have been confronted to tap-water scarcity in 2019 (UNESCO). The most scandalous aspect of this is that rural poor populations confronted to water shortage have to rely on bottled water. Bottled water is 10 to 20 times more expensive than tap-water. Thus, they allocate even more money than rich citizens for water, while financing the unsustainable market of bottled water.<ref>source: (FR) «Atlas de l’eau», <i>Courrier International</i> hors-série, septembre-octobre 2020. | Keeping private interests away from the tap-water network while increasing its quality worldwide is more urgent than ever, considering that 2.1B humans have no access to safe tap-water while 4B have been confronted to tap-water scarcity in 2019 (UNESCO). The most scandalous aspect of this is that rural poor populations confronted to water shortage have to rely on bottled water. Bottled water is 10 to 20 times more expensive than tap-water. Thus, they allocate even more money than rich citizens for water, while financing the unsustainable market of bottled water.<ref name="courrier">source: (FR) «Atlas de l’eau», <i>Courrier International</i> hors-série, septembre-octobre 2020. | ||
- See «Droit universel, mais accès inégal» p.32. | - See «Droit universel, mais accès inégal» p.32. | ||
</ref> | </ref> | ||
4 companies are sharing this growing market: Swiss Nestlé, French Danone, and US Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Not only are plastic bottles and their transport a waste of energy and resource, but the water extraction management of these companies sometimes happen to be detrimental to local communities. Nestlé has often been targeted by citizens groups across North America for its bottling activities in Canada and the US, until the company announced that it would leave this market early in 2021.<ref | 4 companies are sharing this growing market: Swiss Nestlé, French Danone, and US Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. Not only are plastic bottles and their transport a waste of energy and resource, but the water extraction management of these companies sometimes happen to be detrimental to local communities. Nestlé has often been targeted by citizens groups across North America for its bottling activities in Canada and the US, until the company announced that it would leave this market early in 2021.<ref name="courrier" /> Nevertheless, activist Franklin Frederick argues that this strategy is the same Nestlé used in Brazil to protect its reputation in Switzerland. Indeed, Nestlé must ensure the support of the Swiss Agency of Development and Cooperation (SDC) when it comes to business in Southern countries. F. Frederick criticises the collusion between the public and private sector in his home country: 23% of the SDC public aids, financed by Swiss citizens, are given to projects directed by multinationals like Nestlé. For instance, 5.6M of Swiss Francs will be allocated to the Water Stewardship 2030 project. The project involves associations with friendly names like “Water Resources Group 2030”, gathering 3 of the bottled water giants, including Nestlé. As long as the brand’s activities in foreign countries doesn’t stains the prestige of Swiss institutions, the multinational stands its ground. Since 15 years, Brazilian citizens movements were fighting against Nestlé’s water bottling plants. In 2018, the company was displayed in the Swiss Pavillon of the World Water Forum in Brasilia, alongside Swiss NGOs and the SDC. 20 Brazilian NGOs, trade-unions and social movements sent a public letter about this public-private collusion to the Ambassador Manuel Sager, director of the SDC, asking for public-public partnership that would help countries to develop their own public water companies — as in Switzerland. As soon as the SDC was publicly involved, Nestlé announced the selling of its plants to a Brazilian company that keeps bottling water today… Today, the “incestuous” relationship between Nestlé and the SDC is becoming a scandal in Switzerland, and the coalition between Canadian and Swiss NGOs might have motivate Nestlé’s sell of its bottled water brands in North America.<ref><i>People Dispatch</o> web article by Franklin Frederick, 2020, and its sources from Public Eye Swiss NGO. | ||
source: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/06/23/nestle-may-sell-its-bottled-water-brands-in-the-us-and-canada-what-is-behind-this-maneuver/ | source: https://peoplesdispatch.org/2020/06/23/nestle-may-sell-its-bottled-water-brands-in-the-us-and-canada-what-is-behind-this-maneuver/ | ||
source: https://www.publiceye.ch/fr/des-subventions-de-la-ddc-pour-les-multinationales</ref> | source: https://www.publiceye.ch/fr/des-subventions-de-la-ddc-pour-les-multinationales</ref> | ||
Line 38: | Line 36: | ||
</ref> Nothing forces companies to honour their promises, but for now Nestlé is committing for 100% recyclable and reusable packaging by 2025, which is a good news considering the brand uses more than 1.5M metric tons of plastic every year (which correspond to 1% of the single-use plastic produced worldwide<ref>Plastic Oceans NGO website: | </ref> Nothing forces companies to honour their promises, but for now Nestlé is committing for 100% recyclable and reusable packaging by 2025, which is a good news considering the brand uses more than 1.5M metric tons of plastic every year (which correspond to 1% of the single-use plastic produced worldwide<ref>Plastic Oceans NGO website: | ||
300M tons of plastic is produced worldwide, with approx. 50% being single-used (like most packages from Nestlé), and knowing Nestlé produced 1.5M tons every year, this makes 1.5/150M, with equals to 1% of the single-used plastic. | 300M tons of plastic is produced worldwide, with approx. 50% being single-used (like most packages from Nestlé), and knowing Nestlé produced 1.5M tons every year, this makes 1.5/150M, with equals to 1% of the single-used plastic. | ||
source: https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/</ref>). | source: https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/</ref>). When it comes to “planting trees”, the European Commission is clear: in the carbon market, “planting trees” cannot be considered as an offset to companies carbon footprint, since environmental threats and illegal logging make it impossible to measure carbon sequestration of forests over time.<ref>“Will it be possible to use credits from carbon ‘sinks’ like forests?”, EU Action, Climate Action, on European Commission website. | ||
source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en#tab-0-2 | source: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets_en#tab-0-2 | ||
Explained in “What are the concrete effects of carbon pricing on climate?”. | Explained in “What are the concrete effects of carbon pricing on climate?”. | ||
source: http://www.thesoftprotestdigest.org/index.php?title=%F0%9F%9B%A2%F0%9F%92%B8_The_real_deal_about_Carbon_Pricing</ref> What must be done is to stop extracting fossil fuels to make plastic bottles, which carbon will add to the natural cycle. Even when it pretends to be recycled, plastic is, in fact, “de-cycled” because this fossil material can’t be fully recycled: its quality diminish with time and new plastic must always be added to the cycle, unlike glass or steel.<ref name=wikisource /> | source: http://www.thesoftprotestdigest.org/index.php?title=%F0%9F%9B%A2%F0%9F%92%B8_The_real_deal_about_Carbon_Pricing</ref> What must be done is to stop extracting fossil fuels to make plastic bottles, which carbon will add to the natural cycle. Even when it pretends to be recycled, plastic is, in fact, “de-cycled” because this fossil material can’t be fully recycled: its quality diminish with time and new plastic must always be added to the cycle, unlike glass or steel.<ref name=wikisource /> |