China's building of a port in Pakistan, its extra-polite friendship with the rulers of Myanmar and now its offer to Iran to pick up gas from Pakistan if India shows a lack of interest, is all part of the country's quest for energy to feed its export economy.
The West has very cleverly shifted its smokestack manufacturing industry to China. There, a mix of its own but rapidly depleting oil, low-grade coal and imported oil and gas are keeping the wheels of the export industry churning. In the last five years, it has cornered almost all of Myanmar's gas, struck a deal with a Canadian company to buy out its oil interests in Kazakhstan and negotiated with Russia, Indonesia, Nigeria and Angola to buy oil and gas assets even at a premium cost.
China's recent offers to Iran and Pakistan to buy their gas have caught analysts off guard. The official Indian reaction was muted and clever. They argued that taking gas over the Himalayas to China's industrial heartland on the eastern seaboard is difficult. But, with friendly Pakistan and a pipeline routed along the Korakaram Highway, it is possible to join the proposed central Asian pipeline, which China will build.
There is one catch -- by the time the gas reaches the Chinese users the cost of transporting it will have tripled the end-user price. Also, inhospitable conditions will add higher pipeline maintenance and operation costs.
Then why are Chinese policymakers moving in the wrong direction and making their nation vulnerable to all kinds of strategic pressures? Once China becomes dependent on suppliers and the route the supplies will take, it becomes dependent upon them. This situation defies description.
China's building of the Gwadar port in Pakistan at the mouth of the Straits of Hormuz was more to protect its oil supplies coming from the Persian Gulf than to help Pakistan. It is a strategic location where China can police its own as well as Western supplies. At the moment Chinese interests are taking a back seat in the Middle East, but the Chinese are determined to alter this equation, especially if their supply line is threatened.
Myanmar is being cultivated as an exclusive oil and gas supplier to China. The extraordinary friendship the Chinese have struck up with the Myanmar rulers is not so puzzling once you understand that oil and gas are China's main interest there. To this affect all loans advanced and all military hardware being sold have only one purpose – to allow them to grab as much oil and gas as they can.
Unfortunately this is not as easy as it looks for the Chinese. Here they are in competition with India. India also needs oil and gas supplies and will do anything to get them. To India, Myanmar's supplies are closer than Iran's, so India would prefer that a significant portion of these supplies come to India. Hence India has altered its policies and befriended the Myanmar rulers. Myanmar is of course fully aware of the situation and will play India and China one against the other.
Iranian supplies are much better and more reliable if the Chinese are prepared to pay the elevated prices and arrange for transportation. A 56-inch pipeline from southern Pakistan to Kazakhstan, a distance of 3,000 kilometers (1800 miles) will cost upward of US$25 billion. Add to this possible terrorist strikes in Baluchistan and Pashtun areas of Pakistan, and the pipeline may immediately become uneconomical.
Then why are the Chinese interested in Iranian gas?
In fact, it was not the Chinese who initiated this particular proposal, but the Pakistanis who persuaded China to show interest in it to pressure India. If India takes the bait, the Pakistanis have scored a major diplomatic and commercial coup. But India has shown no interest in China's pursuit of Iranian gas via Pakistan. It is a smart move on India's part. This may persuade Pakistan to be a bit more reasonable on transit fees and international assurances of uninterrupted supplies.
India certainly has to think twice before it hands over the keys to its vital supplies to Pakistan.
While trying to procure future energy supplies, China is also straightening up its commercial relationship with Russia. During President Vladimir Putin's visit to China in 2006, multiple agreements on energy supply cooperation were signed. These included the supply of 40 to 60 billion cubic meters of gas to China via two pipelines. The first one, if completed in 2010, will supply Siberian gas to China's northwest Xinjiang area. The second pipeline will end in the northeast province of Heilongjiang and is expected to be operational in 2015.
In far away West Africa, China has acquired large Nigerian offshore oil and gas fields. China's investment in this 2006 deal was US$2.3 billion. If the Chinese are successful in extracting oil there, its transport via the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa will be easy. But extracting oil and gas in Nigeria is not a cakewalk.
Other far away places like Angola, Venezuela, Ecuador and Peru are being tapped to supply China's energy needs. As a matter of fact, in 2006-07 Angola was the country's largest source of oil, supplying as much as 750 million barrels a day to China.
How much oil and gas does China need?
China ran a deficit of 4 million barrels a day last year. This deficit is expected to double by 2015. Importing this much oil requires safeguarding the supply line. Shipping routes via sea have to be strategically guarded, and pipelines carrying oil and gas have to be reliably routed. To this effect China's large-scale development of blue water naval capability makes sense.
In the last three years it has become apparent that China is switching to gas as its choicest source of energy. At the moment gas accounts for only 3 percent of the country's total energy needs, but in coming years its usage is going to increase. With its 80 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves, China has been able to pretty much balance its supply and demand. But with increased usage, increased supplies are being sought.
As explained above, gas pipelines will connect China with Central Asia, Myanmar and Russia. China still aims to supplement these supplies with liquefied natural gas, which can be procured in the Middle East or elsewhere. A fleet of 30 LNG tankers has been planned to shuttle between China and its supply sources. A dozen or so LNG terminals to unload the gas are planned. The first one became operational in 2006.
Eighty percent of China-bound oil and liquid natural gas passes through the Indian Ocean. Therefore China is attaching special importance to building strategic naval assets in the Indian Ocean. The building of the Gwadar port in Pakistan was part of this plan. Its naval listening facility in Myanmar is also augmenting China's blue water capabilities.
Standing in the way of Chinese mastery of Indian Ocean shipping lanes is the Indian naval facility in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands in the Bay of Bengal, opposite the Malacca Straits. In addition, India's modernization of its navy and its proposed acquisition of nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers are not sitting well with the Chinese.
From these small islands, India can interdict most of China's energy imports. Conversely, China could stage a Pearl Harbor-style attack on these islands and start a war. This explains why China is maintaining an uncompromising posture in its claim over areas of Arunachal Pradesh in northeast India.
In summary, China's oil and gas import needs are immense. The bulk of these supplies must pass through the Indian Ocean. In the last five years, China has been building up its naval fleet to safeguard its supply route. It is also building strategic alliances with Indian Ocean littoral states.
India remains a thorn in China's side. First, India is growing as rapidly as China is and needs imported energy from the same sources. Second, it is unpleasant for India to find China's military presence in its backyard -- in Pakistan and Myanmar. This may one day lead to a conflict unless China decides on a less aggressive policy, and eventually strikes a deal with India.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud
सोमवार, 17 मार्च 2008
Yamuna canal level dips, crisis deepens
Delhi’s dependence on other states for water is costing it dear. A few days after chief minister Sheila Dikshit wrote to the Prime Minister — updating him on the acute shortfall for 10 days after Haryana reduced its supply — the level of water fell in the Western Yamuna Canal on Thursday, which affected the functioning of two more plants. While Haryana claimed it had released extra water by Friday evening, parts of south and east Delhi had to go parched for two days.
According to sources, Haryana has cut down supply to the Capital by almost 250 MGD. Supply was down by 20% and 15% respectively at the 200-MGD Haiderpur plant and 100-MGD Bhagirathi plant. As for Nangloi, it has been working to half its capacity of 40 MGD as Haryana has not released 20 MGD for the plant since last year. According to DJB data, the level at Western Yamuna Canal has come down from 710 feet to 709 feet.
"With no prior information, water was reduced in the canal. Other than west, central and north Delhi, which have been battling a water crisis, south and parts of east Delhi also had reduced supply on Thursday and Friday," said Arun Mathur, CEO, DJB. The situation may improve by Saturday since Haryana Irrigation Department (HID) officials said extra water had been released for the canal. Officials of HID had recently written to the Upper Yamuna River Board, challenging the 1996 SC order that directed the state to maintain a certain pond level at Wazirabad. The Board is said to have asked Haryana to give water till the ruling is revoked, if at all.
There was a scramble for water tankers and private tankers charged at will. "We get a tanker to share among 20 houses. We are paying Rs 500 each for this," said Ajay Srivastava of Rajinder Nagar. "How long can a 15-minute supply suffice," asked Vineeta Gandevia, of Preet Vihar.
The times of India
According to sources, Haryana has cut down supply to the Capital by almost 250 MGD. Supply was down by 20% and 15% respectively at the 200-MGD Haiderpur plant and 100-MGD Bhagirathi plant. As for Nangloi, it has been working to half its capacity of 40 MGD as Haryana has not released 20 MGD for the plant since last year. According to DJB data, the level at Western Yamuna Canal has come down from 710 feet to 709 feet.
"With no prior information, water was reduced in the canal. Other than west, central and north Delhi, which have been battling a water crisis, south and parts of east Delhi also had reduced supply on Thursday and Friday," said Arun Mathur, CEO, DJB. The situation may improve by Saturday since Haryana Irrigation Department (HID) officials said extra water had been released for the canal. Officials of HID had recently written to the Upper Yamuna River Board, challenging the 1996 SC order that directed the state to maintain a certain pond level at Wazirabad. The Board is said to have asked Haryana to give water till the ruling is revoked, if at all.
There was a scramble for water tankers and private tankers charged at will. "We get a tanker to share among 20 houses. We are paying Rs 500 each for this," said Ajay Srivastava of Rajinder Nagar. "How long can a 15-minute supply suffice," asked Vineeta Gandevia, of Preet Vihar.
The times of India
Water policy direct from La La Land
Spurious Government projections point to a privatisation agenda.
THE Brumby Government's water policy is looking less and less sustainable every day. There are a range of options that are all cheaper and environmentally more sustainable than the Government's decision to build a $3.1 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi, and the $1 billion north-south pipeline designed to divert water from the Goulburn reservoir to Melbourne Water.
The need to generate these additional supplies is based on water projections that are so flawed they border on the ludicrous, or the outright dishonest. The Government predicts a water supply crisis based on running a regression curve through the three drought years of 2004-2006, which shows the reservoirs that supply Melbourne drying up by 2010.
However, on the Government's own say so, the pipeline and the desalination plant will not begin delivering water until 2010 and 2011 respectively; but even if the plant is working by 2010 it wouldn't cover the shortfall projected by the Government.
Neil Rankin is the author of a recent and excellent supply/demand analysis of Melbourne's water until 2016. A science school teacher and member of the Kilcunda Your Water Your Say Action Group, Rankin writes that three years is far too short a period on which to base a long-term strategy, and would not be taken seriously by statisticians or scientific modellers. He might have added that when pap like the Government's predictions are used as the basis of policy to justify spending $4 billion dollars, one might have expected critical review by various government departments. But there hasn't been a word from the experts at Melbourne Water or the Department of Sustainability and Environment, from bureaucrats in the Department of Treasury and Finance, or from the Infrastructure Department. Clearly, the Victorian Government is in the middle of a dense forest in La La Land.
What this army of apologists for the financial engineers who have taken over the infrastructure priorities of this state — and are in the process of taking over the infrastructure priorities of the nation if the appointments to the national Infrastructure Board and the broadband inquiry are any guide — should have done is projected demand based on a 10-year rainfall regression that includes 2007 statistics.
It has taken a schoolteacher and a group of volunteers fighting to save their local environment to point out that the emperor of Spring Street and his retinue of advisers have no clothes on. In short, what this group has put together is a far more scientifically honest. and hence realistic, forecast, with 2007 levels of per capita consumption scaled for population increase and severe climate change. This shows that in 2016 the supply of water will be double the level of consumption.
Even if there was unrestricted consumption and a 25% increase in consumption above current levels, the excess of supply over consumption would still be about 60% in 2016.
The group that has put together these figures has been trying to see Water Minister Tim Holding for three weeks to discuss them. They want to see their analysis subjected to detailed examination and debate. They fear that if they send it to the minister it will be dismissed in a load of spin.
As readers of my recent columns discussing the alternatives to the desal plant and the north-south pipeline will appreciate, a lot of concerned people have been writing to Holding wanting to know why these alternatives have not been examined before the Government commits to what are arguably the worst alternatives available. Some of the ministerial replies have been passed on to me. They suggest the Government is determined to avoid sensible discussion of the alternatives.
The big question is: who prepared the shoddy projections on which the Government is basing its plans? It doesn't appear to be Melbourne Water. If Melbourne Water was involved then there is a complete disjuncture between the forecasts and Melbourne Water's operating and capital budget projections between 2008 and 2012.
The not-so-secret agenda of Labor governments across the country and the corporatised urban water authorities appears to be to find ways to increase the price of water as a prelude to setting up a water market leading to privatisation of water infrastructure.
The peak industry body is the Water Services Association of Australia. It is chaired by Dr Kerry Schott who has impeccable connections with Labor governments. She was appointed managing director of Sydney Water in 2006 from the position of deputy secretary of NSW Treasury. Before that she spent 15 years as an investment banker in the infrastructure area, including roles as managing director at Deutsche Bank and executive vice-president at Bankers Trust Australia.
If the Brumby Government really believed water was going to run out by 2010, rather than using the forecasts as an excuse to set up a couple of dodgy public-private partnerships that won't be ready in time, it would already have instituted a crash program in conservation, water harvesting, recycling, rolling out of rainwater tanks and maintaining draconian water restrictions to meet the crisis.
It isn't. Because it knows its projections don't hold water. It can't be long before voters know this too
Kenneth Davidson
THE Brumby Government's water policy is looking less and less sustainable every day. There are a range of options that are all cheaper and environmentally more sustainable than the Government's decision to build a $3.1 billion desalination plant at Wonthaggi, and the $1 billion north-south pipeline designed to divert water from the Goulburn reservoir to Melbourne Water.
The need to generate these additional supplies is based on water projections that are so flawed they border on the ludicrous, or the outright dishonest. The Government predicts a water supply crisis based on running a regression curve through the three drought years of 2004-2006, which shows the reservoirs that supply Melbourne drying up by 2010.
However, on the Government's own say so, the pipeline and the desalination plant will not begin delivering water until 2010 and 2011 respectively; but even if the plant is working by 2010 it wouldn't cover the shortfall projected by the Government.
Neil Rankin is the author of a recent and excellent supply/demand analysis of Melbourne's water until 2016. A science school teacher and member of the Kilcunda Your Water Your Say Action Group, Rankin writes that three years is far too short a period on which to base a long-term strategy, and would not be taken seriously by statisticians or scientific modellers. He might have added that when pap like the Government's predictions are used as the basis of policy to justify spending $4 billion dollars, one might have expected critical review by various government departments. But there hasn't been a word from the experts at Melbourne Water or the Department of Sustainability and Environment, from bureaucrats in the Department of Treasury and Finance, or from the Infrastructure Department. Clearly, the Victorian Government is in the middle of a dense forest in La La Land.
What this army of apologists for the financial engineers who have taken over the infrastructure priorities of this state — and are in the process of taking over the infrastructure priorities of the nation if the appointments to the national Infrastructure Board and the broadband inquiry are any guide — should have done is projected demand based on a 10-year rainfall regression that includes 2007 statistics.
It has taken a schoolteacher and a group of volunteers fighting to save their local environment to point out that the emperor of Spring Street and his retinue of advisers have no clothes on. In short, what this group has put together is a far more scientifically honest. and hence realistic, forecast, with 2007 levels of per capita consumption scaled for population increase and severe climate change. This shows that in 2016 the supply of water will be double the level of consumption.
Even if there was unrestricted consumption and a 25% increase in consumption above current levels, the excess of supply over consumption would still be about 60% in 2016.
The group that has put together these figures has been trying to see Water Minister Tim Holding for three weeks to discuss them. They want to see their analysis subjected to detailed examination and debate. They fear that if they send it to the minister it will be dismissed in a load of spin.
As readers of my recent columns discussing the alternatives to the desal plant and the north-south pipeline will appreciate, a lot of concerned people have been writing to Holding wanting to know why these alternatives have not been examined before the Government commits to what are arguably the worst alternatives available. Some of the ministerial replies have been passed on to me. They suggest the Government is determined to avoid sensible discussion of the alternatives.
The big question is: who prepared the shoddy projections on which the Government is basing its plans? It doesn't appear to be Melbourne Water. If Melbourne Water was involved then there is a complete disjuncture between the forecasts and Melbourne Water's operating and capital budget projections between 2008 and 2012.
The not-so-secret agenda of Labor governments across the country and the corporatised urban water authorities appears to be to find ways to increase the price of water as a prelude to setting up a water market leading to privatisation of water infrastructure.
The peak industry body is the Water Services Association of Australia. It is chaired by Dr Kerry Schott who has impeccable connections with Labor governments. She was appointed managing director of Sydney Water in 2006 from the position of deputy secretary of NSW Treasury. Before that she spent 15 years as an investment banker in the infrastructure area, including roles as managing director at Deutsche Bank and executive vice-president at Bankers Trust Australia.
If the Brumby Government really believed water was going to run out by 2010, rather than using the forecasts as an excuse to set up a couple of dodgy public-private partnerships that won't be ready in time, it would already have instituted a crash program in conservation, water harvesting, recycling, rolling out of rainwater tanks and maintaining draconian water restrictions to meet the crisis.
It isn't. Because it knows its projections don't hold water. It can't be long before voters know this too
Kenneth Davidson
THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR WATER...
Is buying bottled water about as green as firing up a million patio heaters? Is our mains supply safe to drink, or is it contaminated with drugs? And can you really demand a restaurant serves you tap water? We sift through the hype…
IS BOTTLED WATER BAD FOR THE PLANET?
The H2O furore all comes down to carbon. A litre of tap water generates 0.3g of CO2, while a 750ml bottle of mineral water can have a footprint up to 300 times higher. ‘Bottled water is expensive, unnecessary and damages the environment,’ says Richard Watts from eco campaigners Sustain.
However, the Bottled Water Association (BWA) has a few stats of its own. ‘We only account for 0.03% of total UK carbon emissions,’ says Liz Bastone. ‘There’s a misconception about bottled water being flown around the globe, when 75% comes from the UK.’
While bottled H2O is only a tiny part of the global warming issue, water is in a unique position in that it’s literally on tap. ‘You can’t avoid the fact there is really no need for bottled water, except in emergencies,’ says Richard.
DOES RECYCLING MAKE BOTTLED WATER ECO-FRIENDLY?
Most bottled water now comes in PET packaging, which is 100% recyclable and requires less plastic in the first place to make it. One mineral water company told Celebs On Sunday that these facts made its product ‘kind to the environment’. True? Not according to Sustain. ‘Only around 20% of plastic bottles get recycled, and the majority ends up in a landfill or being dumped at sea,’ says Richard. ‘Recycling does spare resources, and I’d encourage everyone to do it, but most bottles are transported to China for recycling, which has its own environmental cost. It also takes a lot of petrol to make the bottles in the first place, even if they are re-used.’
IS TAP WATER SAFE?
The mains supply is independently tested for everything from bugs to chemicals, and last year 99.96% of water met government and World Health Organisation standards. And that other 0.04%? ‘The most common problem is rusty iron deposits, which are not harmful but turn water orange,’ says Sue Penniston from the Drinking Water Inspectorate. ‘Our last prosecution was of a company that supplied water containing the parasite cryptosporidium, which made a number of people ill. But that is incredibly rare.’ Tellingly, even the Bottled Water Association doesn’t make any health claims for mineral water over tap. ‘It’s an issue of choice, not health, and we wouldn’t question the safety of tap water,’ says BWA’s Liz.
IS MY WORK’s WATER COOLER ECO-FRIENDLY?
Sustain advocates using coolers that filter the mains supply rather than ones that use bottled water. However, the British Water Cooler Association, currently calculating the carbon footprint for both types, says it’s not a simple matter of good coolers vs bad.
‘The bottles used in water coolers are refilled for five years before being recycled, and none end up in landfill,’ says Michael Barnett from the BWCA. If your office has a water cooler, make sure you are taking advantage of the BWCA scheme to collect cups for recycling.
IS TAP WATER POLLUTED BY DRUGS?
There have been some alarming headlines about drugs, such as the Pill, trickling into our water supply, but the truth is more complex. ‘This scare stems from an Environment Agency report about drug residues found in river water, which people then wrongly equated to drinking water,’ says Sue from DWI. ‘Although some of the UK’s drinking water is sourced from rivers, it’s purified before reaching the tap.’
An independent report found water treatment reduced drug residues to negligible levels, and even in the worst case scenario, where tiny residues from all the different types of painkillers were grouped together, tap water showed ‘no significant risk to health’.
SHOULD I FILTER TAP WATER?
Filters get the eco thumbs up from Sustain, and can improve the taste of tap water. ‘Filters take out chlorine, which is necessary for killing bacteria but can affect taste,’ says Anna Gilbert from Brita (www.brita.net). ‘We don’t make any health claims for filtering, though, because tap water is already safe. Filters can further reduce residues, such as pesticides, but these are already at safe levels in tap water.’ The one exception is if your house has lead piping, which can contaminate tap water. ‘Water is monitored for lead levels, but only when it’s in the mains,’ says Sue. Filtering removes lead by more than 90%. If you have lead pipes, your water company can test lead levels for you.
CAN A RESTAURANT REFUSE ME TAP WATER?
Absolutely not, so stand your ground if a restaurant claims they can’t provide tap water on ‘regulation’ grounds. ‘All restaurants need a fresh water supply and there is no reason why they can’t serve tap water,’ says Eve Buckland from the Consumer Council for Water. ‘You don’t need a license for it. Restaurants should offer tap water just as they do salt and pepper. UK consumers have invested £70 billion in the water industry since privatisation and we should demand our money’s worth.’
HOW CAN I MAKE MY WATER GREENER?
Drink tap water at home and chill or filter it if you don’t like the taste. Blind tests show people can’t tell the difference between bottled water and chilled tap water.
Buy a reusable bottle to carry tap water when you’re out and about.
Always recycle plastic bottles and support water cooler cup recyling schemes.
Order tap water at restaurants.
If you do buy bottled water, buy British to reduce food miles, and look for companies who are investing in carbon offsets or biodegradable bottles, such as carbon-neutral Belu (www.belu.org). But bear in mind that all bottles require energy to make.
Words: Lynne Hyland.
IS BOTTLED WATER BAD FOR THE PLANET?
The H2O furore all comes down to carbon. A litre of tap water generates 0.3g of CO2, while a 750ml bottle of mineral water can have a footprint up to 300 times higher. ‘Bottled water is expensive, unnecessary and damages the environment,’ says Richard Watts from eco campaigners Sustain.
However, the Bottled Water Association (BWA) has a few stats of its own. ‘We only account for 0.03% of total UK carbon emissions,’ says Liz Bastone. ‘There’s a misconception about bottled water being flown around the globe, when 75% comes from the UK.’
While bottled H2O is only a tiny part of the global warming issue, water is in a unique position in that it’s literally on tap. ‘You can’t avoid the fact there is really no need for bottled water, except in emergencies,’ says Richard.
DOES RECYCLING MAKE BOTTLED WATER ECO-FRIENDLY?
Most bottled water now comes in PET packaging, which is 100% recyclable and requires less plastic in the first place to make it. One mineral water company told Celebs On Sunday that these facts made its product ‘kind to the environment’. True? Not according to Sustain. ‘Only around 20% of plastic bottles get recycled, and the majority ends up in a landfill or being dumped at sea,’ says Richard. ‘Recycling does spare resources, and I’d encourage everyone to do it, but most bottles are transported to China for recycling, which has its own environmental cost. It also takes a lot of petrol to make the bottles in the first place, even if they are re-used.’
IS TAP WATER SAFE?
The mains supply is independently tested for everything from bugs to chemicals, and last year 99.96% of water met government and World Health Organisation standards. And that other 0.04%? ‘The most common problem is rusty iron deposits, which are not harmful but turn water orange,’ says Sue Penniston from the Drinking Water Inspectorate. ‘Our last prosecution was of a company that supplied water containing the parasite cryptosporidium, which made a number of people ill. But that is incredibly rare.’ Tellingly, even the Bottled Water Association doesn’t make any health claims for mineral water over tap. ‘It’s an issue of choice, not health, and we wouldn’t question the safety of tap water,’ says BWA’s Liz.
IS MY WORK’s WATER COOLER ECO-FRIENDLY?
Sustain advocates using coolers that filter the mains supply rather than ones that use bottled water. However, the British Water Cooler Association, currently calculating the carbon footprint for both types, says it’s not a simple matter of good coolers vs bad.
‘The bottles used in water coolers are refilled for five years before being recycled, and none end up in landfill,’ says Michael Barnett from the BWCA. If your office has a water cooler, make sure you are taking advantage of the BWCA scheme to collect cups for recycling.
IS TAP WATER POLLUTED BY DRUGS?
There have been some alarming headlines about drugs, such as the Pill, trickling into our water supply, but the truth is more complex. ‘This scare stems from an Environment Agency report about drug residues found in river water, which people then wrongly equated to drinking water,’ says Sue from DWI. ‘Although some of the UK’s drinking water is sourced from rivers, it’s purified before reaching the tap.’
An independent report found water treatment reduced drug residues to negligible levels, and even in the worst case scenario, where tiny residues from all the different types of painkillers were grouped together, tap water showed ‘no significant risk to health’.
SHOULD I FILTER TAP WATER?
Filters get the eco thumbs up from Sustain, and can improve the taste of tap water. ‘Filters take out chlorine, which is necessary for killing bacteria but can affect taste,’ says Anna Gilbert from Brita (www.brita.net). ‘We don’t make any health claims for filtering, though, because tap water is already safe. Filters can further reduce residues, such as pesticides, but these are already at safe levels in tap water.’ The one exception is if your house has lead piping, which can contaminate tap water. ‘Water is monitored for lead levels, but only when it’s in the mains,’ says Sue. Filtering removes lead by more than 90%. If you have lead pipes, your water company can test lead levels for you.
CAN A RESTAURANT REFUSE ME TAP WATER?
Absolutely not, so stand your ground if a restaurant claims they can’t provide tap water on ‘regulation’ grounds. ‘All restaurants need a fresh water supply and there is no reason why they can’t serve tap water,’ says Eve Buckland from the Consumer Council for Water. ‘You don’t need a license for it. Restaurants should offer tap water just as they do salt and pepper. UK consumers have invested £70 billion in the water industry since privatisation and we should demand our money’s worth.’
HOW CAN I MAKE MY WATER GREENER?
Drink tap water at home and chill or filter it if you don’t like the taste. Blind tests show people can’t tell the difference between bottled water and chilled tap water.
Buy a reusable bottle to carry tap water when you’re out and about.
Always recycle plastic bottles and support water cooler cup recyling schemes.
Order tap water at restaurants.
If you do buy bottled water, buy British to reduce food miles, and look for companies who are investing in carbon offsets or biodegradable bottles, such as carbon-neutral Belu (www.belu.org). But bear in mind that all bottles require energy to make.
Words: Lynne Hyland.
बुधवार, 12 मार्च 2008
Question the habit of bottled water
Some daily routines are built into our lives and we fail to stop to contemplate why. I never questioned making French toast with orange juice as my mother taught me, until someone told me therecipe actually calls for milk. I never questioned drinking bottled water until a newspaper story revealed the impact of my daily mindless decision.
To probe why an average American chooses bottle over faucet would likely elicit vague responses.
Linfield tries to instill a spirit of critical thinking in its students, from the first day of Colloquium to commencement. And in this spirit, I question: Why do millions of Americans drink bottled water?
The answer: the fitness craze and advertising. It wasn’t always fashionable to wake up early and hit the treadmill. This health trend has brought water to the forefront of national thought. Now, in addition to four Diet Cokes and two cups of coffee, Americans add a liberal dose of bottled water, preferably one with a brand name.
Americans rarely stop to make informed decisions. They have no time to painstakingly weigh the pros and cons of every seemingly mundane and routine decision. America never thought about the consequences of her actions when 24-packs of water began to fly off the shelves atCostco.
Like AIDS without Bono or global warming without Al Gore, bottled water is alone.
No celebrity has come out against bottled water. No politician is trumpeting the end of tap water. No incriminating photos of Dasani and Aquafina in a compromising position have flashed across the grocery store racks.
Only the mayors ofAmerica, a decidedly unsexy group, declared themselves against bottled water for city employees.
I may not be a celebrity, but I do care about Mother Earth. I am writing this to urge you to question your actions. Why are you drinking bottled water?
Is it because it is easier to stay hydrated? Buy a reusable water bottle. It costs the same as four disposable ones, but lastsindefinitely longer. Plus, most are dishwasher safe.
Is it because bottled water is cleaner? Natural Resources Defense Council studied bottled water. Its 1999 study found33 percent of bottled water exceeded state standards for bacterial and/or chemical contamination. Less than half of the bottles were found to be pure. For the full results, visit www.nrdc.org/water.
Is it because it tastes better than tap water? The same study found 25 percent of bottled water is filled from a municipal water source.
Today, 60 million disposable bottles of water will be thrown away. The average American recycles only 22 percent of bottles used.
Though you as an Oregon college student may not be average, you may not realize the impact of your decision.
Even if you toss your used bottle into the new co-mingled recycling bins behind your residence hall, it’s not enough. The production of the plastic bottles uses additional fossil fuels and releases chemicals into the air.
After calling my mother, I now know why I use orange juice instead of milk. Do you know why you drink bottled water?
Defy the expectations of Americans and make a smart decision not to drink bottled water. Save your money for your student loans. Don’t wait for a celebrity to denounce it. Start a grassroots trend here at Linfield and spread it to everyone you know.
Lizzie Martinez
To probe why an average American chooses bottle over faucet would likely elicit vague responses.
Linfield tries to instill a spirit of critical thinking in its students, from the first day of Colloquium to commencement. And in this spirit, I question: Why do millions of Americans drink bottled water?
The answer: the fitness craze and advertising. It wasn’t always fashionable to wake up early and hit the treadmill. This health trend has brought water to the forefront of national thought. Now, in addition to four Diet Cokes and two cups of coffee, Americans add a liberal dose of bottled water, preferably one with a brand name.
Americans rarely stop to make informed decisions. They have no time to painstakingly weigh the pros and cons of every seemingly mundane and routine decision. America never thought about the consequences of her actions when 24-packs of water began to fly off the shelves atCostco.
Like AIDS without Bono or global warming without Al Gore, bottled water is alone.
No celebrity has come out against bottled water. No politician is trumpeting the end of tap water. No incriminating photos of Dasani and Aquafina in a compromising position have flashed across the grocery store racks.
Only the mayors ofAmerica, a decidedly unsexy group, declared themselves against bottled water for city employees.
I may not be a celebrity, but I do care about Mother Earth. I am writing this to urge you to question your actions. Why are you drinking bottled water?
Is it because it is easier to stay hydrated? Buy a reusable water bottle. It costs the same as four disposable ones, but lastsindefinitely longer. Plus, most are dishwasher safe.
Is it because bottled water is cleaner? Natural Resources Defense Council studied bottled water. Its 1999 study found33 percent of bottled water exceeded state standards for bacterial and/or chemical contamination. Less than half of the bottles were found to be pure. For the full results, visit www.nrdc.org/water.
Is it because it tastes better than tap water? The same study found 25 percent of bottled water is filled from a municipal water source.
Today, 60 million disposable bottles of water will be thrown away. The average American recycles only 22 percent of bottles used.
Though you as an Oregon college student may not be average, you may not realize the impact of your decision.
Even if you toss your used bottle into the new co-mingled recycling bins behind your residence hall, it’s not enough. The production of the plastic bottles uses additional fossil fuels and releases chemicals into the air.
After calling my mother, I now know why I use orange juice instead of milk. Do you know why you drink bottled water?
Defy the expectations of Americans and make a smart decision not to drink bottled water. Save your money for your student loans. Don’t wait for a celebrity to denounce it. Start a grassroots trend here at Linfield and spread it to everyone you know.
Lizzie Martinez
Save Water, Drop By Drop
The development of alternative sources of water — including rainwater and the water that runs down the drain when you take a shower — is one way to make better use of a vital resource. That's one of the ideas to come out of a Summit for Environmental Action held recently in Sarasota. The ideas will work anywhere. And the summit worked so well that Polk County may want to hold one here to develop its own set of environmental goals.
The summit was sponsored by the nonprofit Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence (SCOPE) was an effort to come up with practical actions that could immediately benefit the environment.
The five top ideas seem beneficial and practical — smart ideas that would improve the quality of life in Sarasota County, or any community.
The trick will be following the ideas through to fruition.
The all-day summit drew some 180 people invited by SCOPE. They were broken into small discussion groups. The eclectic gathering brought a wide range of people together who might not have otherwise been at the same table: environmentalists, business leaders, elected officials and community activists.
FIVE TOP IDEAS
The 16 group discussions resulted in 16 proposed actions. Those were pared down to five by a vote of all participants. To be approved, a vote of 'strong support' or 'support' had to come from 80 percent of the participants. The top five were:
Develop alternative sources of water that could augment the existing supply. The proposal calls for using rainwater, storm water and 'gray water' — the water used for such domestic purposes as bathing, washing laundry and washing dishes.
Achieve Florida-friendly landscaping by requiring low-impact development techniques, including porous concrete and rain gardens. The action plan also calls for incentives for redevelopment.
See that, within five years, half of all homes and buildings in the county have solar water heaters.
Redevelop the public transit system in conjunction with urban redevelopment to reduce the need for personal vehicles.
Attract sustainable and 'green' manufacturing to the area.
After SCOPE prepares a summary, local leaders will be asked to move the community forward on the calls for action.
Polk Countians may have similar ideas, or perhaps even more innovative ones. One never knows until one asks.
The Ledger.com
The summit was sponsored by the nonprofit Sarasota County Openly Plans for Excellence (SCOPE) was an effort to come up with practical actions that could immediately benefit the environment.
The five top ideas seem beneficial and practical — smart ideas that would improve the quality of life in Sarasota County, or any community.
The trick will be following the ideas through to fruition.
The all-day summit drew some 180 people invited by SCOPE. They were broken into small discussion groups. The eclectic gathering brought a wide range of people together who might not have otherwise been at the same table: environmentalists, business leaders, elected officials and community activists.
FIVE TOP IDEAS
The 16 group discussions resulted in 16 proposed actions. Those were pared down to five by a vote of all participants. To be approved, a vote of 'strong support' or 'support' had to come from 80 percent of the participants. The top five were:
Develop alternative sources of water that could augment the existing supply. The proposal calls for using rainwater, storm water and 'gray water' — the water used for such domestic purposes as bathing, washing laundry and washing dishes.
Achieve Florida-friendly landscaping by requiring low-impact development techniques, including porous concrete and rain gardens. The action plan also calls for incentives for redevelopment.
See that, within five years, half of all homes and buildings in the county have solar water heaters.
Redevelop the public transit system in conjunction with urban redevelopment to reduce the need for personal vehicles.
Attract sustainable and 'green' manufacturing to the area.
After SCOPE prepares a summary, local leaders will be asked to move the community forward on the calls for action.
Polk Countians may have similar ideas, or perhaps even more innovative ones. One never knows until one asks.
The Ledger.com
127 villages to save water
While subsequent state governments have for long talked about taking measures to recharge the depleting ground water table, people in Fatehgarh Sahib district have actually started work in this direction on a war footing.
They have formed 'Jal Bachao (save water) Committees' in 127 villages that are now trying to make it a mass movement.
From reviving traditional water sources to making farmers realize the harmful effects of planting paddy before time, these committees, having five to 10 members each, have vowed to make their land fertile again using traditional methods.
The inspiration behind this cause was Alaknanda Dayal, former deputy commissioner of the district, who started motivating people to take affirmative action last year. Interestingly, Dayal never publicized this project and people joined it seeing its effectiveness.
"More than publicity, it is commitment from people that would decide the success of the project," she said.
Dayal said that it was a hard fact that in many areas of the state villagers were struggling for potable water, but little importance was being given to it.
She disclosed that out of 137 blocks in the district, ground water had been overexploited in 103 villages, four were in very critical condition while five were in semi-critical condition.
"Effort from the villagers can still save the future of the state, otherwise it would become a desert," she warned.
Kuldeep Singh, a member of the Jal Bachao Committee told TOI that for the time being they were trying to create social awareness about not planting paddy in advance.
Kuldeep further disclosed that they would also make efforts to clean village ponds and digging pits to recharge the ground water.
Renowned environmentalist Balvir Singh Seechewal said that Dayal had shown a new path to people in the state which had been facing a shortfall in water availability to the tune of 1.25 million hectare-meter every year.
He said the government should adopt this scheme for the entire state.
Times of India
They have formed 'Jal Bachao (save water) Committees' in 127 villages that are now trying to make it a mass movement.
From reviving traditional water sources to making farmers realize the harmful effects of planting paddy before time, these committees, having five to 10 members each, have vowed to make their land fertile again using traditional methods.
The inspiration behind this cause was Alaknanda Dayal, former deputy commissioner of the district, who started motivating people to take affirmative action last year. Interestingly, Dayal never publicized this project and people joined it seeing its effectiveness.
"More than publicity, it is commitment from people that would decide the success of the project," she said.
Dayal said that it was a hard fact that in many areas of the state villagers were struggling for potable water, but little importance was being given to it.
She disclosed that out of 137 blocks in the district, ground water had been overexploited in 103 villages, four were in very critical condition while five were in semi-critical condition.
"Effort from the villagers can still save the future of the state, otherwise it would become a desert," she warned.
Kuldeep Singh, a member of the Jal Bachao Committee told TOI that for the time being they were trying to create social awareness about not planting paddy in advance.
Kuldeep further disclosed that they would also make efforts to clean village ponds and digging pits to recharge the ground water.
Renowned environmentalist Balvir Singh Seechewal said that Dayal had shown a new path to people in the state which had been facing a shortfall in water availability to the tune of 1.25 million hectare-meter every year.
He said the government should adopt this scheme for the entire state.
Times of India
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)