I finished reading David Zetland's "End of Abundance: economic solutions to water scarcity" a few weeks ago on the ferry from Victoria to Vancouver, BC. To begin, David provides a comprehensive overview of the many facets and issues that are being discussed today in the world of water. What's most fascinating about this book is how economics, good public policy and institutions (with progressive leaders) can help shift water practices that are inherently inefficient and inequitable to ones that are just and sustainable.
David's core thesis is that the end of abundance (which means increased water scarcity in our world) requires institutions and leaders that are willing to use economic incentives and pricing to radically change the way we use water. His bottom line is that the solutions to our water crisis must be local in nature because what happens in water area is unique to that area.
The book is divided into two parts. Part 1 looks at "personal water choices". This refers to the water we use in our households, on our lawns and for personal use. Part 2 explores "social water choices" which is primarily a discussion of the political and bureaucratic dimensions of water on topics like the environment, infrastructure and climate change, for example. I'll provide a story from part 1 and part 2 that capture the essence of his arguments in these respective sections. Following that, I provide my one critique of the book and a conclusion about why the book is important and why you should read it!
In the first part of the book, David provides us with his insights on what kind of pricing structures we should be using in our cities. He refers to a pricing structure called inclining block rate (IBR). He tells the story of Santa Barbara, California that went through an egregious drought in the 1990s. A number of strategies were utilized in response to this drought including the water agency using rigid IBRs. With the IBR pricing structure, the first block of water delivered to Santa Barbara households was $1.09 (the first block was 375 litres and is essentially enough water to meet basic needs like sanitation and water for cooking). Additional blocks were 200 percent higher at $3.27, $9.81 and $29.43 per unit. The rationale of this pricing structure is simple: as you use more water, you pay much more per unit.
This brought changes in behaviour and aggressive price penalties were fast and significant as gross water consumption dropped 50 percent and median monthly household consumption dropped from 25 to 17 cubic metres per month. When the drought eventually ended, prices were lowered but consumption was still only 60 percent of pre-drought levels. The main message here is that Santa Barbara priced their water based on shortages. The economics is simple, the political will is always the tougher battle which is why many places in North America have not brought about IBR structures yet.
There is so much more to part one including how we can better embrace reclaimed water techniques, how we can re-think our approach to bottled water, the energy-water nexus and how we can create valuable and equitable water markets to allocate water more efficiently. Part 1 also provides numerous graphs that explain his water pricing models in a very accessible and non-esoteric way.
Part 2 is even more intriguing and is hard to capture in one paragraph. Zetland discusses several topics including the importance of good visionary leaders in water management, why building more water infrastructure is not the solution to our problems, water and the environment and the human right to water. All fascinating topics that I won't cover in this post.
I think the compelling message in part 2 is that local water management is perhaps the most useful framework we can use to manage our water and alleviate scarcity. I totally agree with Zetland and argued this in a conference presentation in February. In short, there can be many competing values and interests in a shared watershed. A farmer might be using the water to irrigate his/her crops, a city might be getting a lot of its water supply from it or some other group may be using it for whatever reason. These stakeholders might be fighting with each other claiming that they have historical rights to use their allocated amount of water. How do you reconcile the values of diverse communities on a scale that includes everyone experiencing the costs and benefits?
Part of the answer to the question above is to establish rights in baseline quantities and qualities and then facilitate reallocation of those rights. Consider the example of Michigan, U.S, where there is a law that makes all water users responsible for not impacting a watershed. "Property owners and riparians have a right to use water under or adjacent to their property, but any new use that may cause environmental harm needs to be offset by changes to existing uses. The key to this system is a web-based tool that allows anyone to estimate ecological impacts from a new well. If no impact is predicted, the system approves a permit and the well is registered. If impacts are predicted, then neighbours discuss how to reduce it. In the 25 percent of cases where neighbours cannot agree, a state employee gets involved; they reject only 4 percent of the cases they see" (page 184).
The practice above may sound progressive but it is proving to work in Michigan. It's important because it reconciles the diversity of interests surrounding water and the stakeholders have to think about how they are impacting the environment.
My critique of Zetland's book is his limited discussion of water and climate change adaptation.
Showing posts with label David Zetland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Zetland. Show all posts
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Monday, June 13, 2011
David Zetland's new book: The End of Abundance
I have ordered my copy and look forward to reading it.
Our blog has been lucky to benefit from David Zetland and his blog Aguanomics over the past two years. David wrote a guest post for us a year ago and has continued to provide academic and blogging tips to me personally. He has been incredibly insightful on all things water (especially water policy and the economics of water). He kindly offered some tips and suggestions for a conference presentation I made in February of this year along with a research project on groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh.
David has been great and his writing has certainly helped shape my perspective on water policy, planning, governance and management.
For more information about his book, see here. Book review on "The End of Abundance" forthcoming.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Zetland's keynote address...
in Washington DC at a conference called "Bridging Knowledge Gaps in Water Management" at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. David Zetland wrote a guest post for us back in June about the importance of good local water management. He continues this discussion --building on points in his new book "The End of Abundance" -- and what policymakers need to pay attention to. Water is not priced correctly in the U.S. Zetland says, and information on water is lacking. Zetland's keynote starts at the 10 minute mark in the clip below.
People don't always know the cost of tap water in their household. Sure, if you are paying based on how much you consume (volumetric pricing) than you probably have an idea. But flat rates (all you can eat) don't tell the person the information they should know about how much their water costs per unit of consumption. Zetland thinks the U.S. Federal government should take action in assembling this information to make water management and water pricing more transparent.
People in the U.S. are attuned to markets and not community. Australia and Singapore have brought about stringent measures on water conservation. Yes, they don't have a lot of water, but residents of these countries have collectively decided to change their lifestyles based on water limits. They have adapted. In the U.S., price is what changes peoples' behaviour says Zetland. If water was priced based on scarcity, then prices would soar especially in places like Nevada, California and Arizona for example. The fact that the U.S. population is hovering around 308 million people, and in a time when water scarcity is becoming more rampant, the need for good water management, education and information is more critical than ever.
His bottom line is that we need to first understand our water systems, seek information about it, understand its fragility and start to price our water equitably and effectively. This also means that if farmers (or the agricultural sector) are allotted more water than residents living in cities and if they don't use up their allotted amount, then a market should be created for the farmers to sell that excess water at a price that reflects its value to other water users.
When I leave graduate school, my ideal first job would be to work as a water educator/planner disseminating information about water systems and water management and engaging citizens in this salient topic. Ultimately, the more information we produce on this matter, the more we can pressure our policymakers to get it right. Canada, like the U.S., has a long way to go in terms of water education and pricing of water.
People don't always know the cost of tap water in their household. Sure, if you are paying based on how much you consume (volumetric pricing) than you probably have an idea. But flat rates (all you can eat) don't tell the person the information they should know about how much their water costs per unit of consumption. Zetland thinks the U.S. Federal government should take action in assembling this information to make water management and water pricing more transparent.
People in the U.S. are attuned to markets and not community. Australia and Singapore have brought about stringent measures on water conservation. Yes, they don't have a lot of water, but residents of these countries have collectively decided to change their lifestyles based on water limits. They have adapted. In the U.S., price is what changes peoples' behaviour says Zetland. If water was priced based on scarcity, then prices would soar especially in places like Nevada, California and Arizona for example. The fact that the U.S. population is hovering around 308 million people, and in a time when water scarcity is becoming more rampant, the need for good water management, education and information is more critical than ever.
His bottom line is that we need to first understand our water systems, seek information about it, understand its fragility and start to price our water equitably and effectively. This also means that if farmers (or the agricultural sector) are allotted more water than residents living in cities and if they don't use up their allotted amount, then a market should be created for the farmers to sell that excess water at a price that reflects its value to other water users.
When I leave graduate school, my ideal first job would be to work as a water educator/planner disseminating information about water systems and water management and engaging citizens in this salient topic. Ultimately, the more information we produce on this matter, the more we can pressure our policymakers to get it right. Canada, like the U.S., has a long way to go in terms of water education and pricing of water.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Bottled Water from Fiji
I went to a coffee shop today in Hong Kong's Central Business District. While waiting in line, I saw some guy buy two bottles of Fiji Water priced at HK$19 a piece ($2.57 CAN per bottle). Yeah, that's right, I actually walked over to the bottled water section after I purchased my coffee to check out the outrageous prices of these products.
Of all the forms of bottled water, I think Fiji water is the worst in terms of its negative ramifications on the environment. Not only that, but the price is exorbitant (you pay a premium for this stuff, it cost more than Dasani and definitely more than Volvic). Also, it has a high energy intensity.
As Peter Gleick demonstrated in a paper, the energy intensity of bottled water is measured by manufacturing the plastic bottle, treatment, cooling and transportation. In the transportation category, Fiji is probably the worst. Indeed, North American cities like LA have high demand for Fiji water. The transportation energy cost of getting the water from Fiji to LA is 4 megajoules (MJ). To put that in perspective, producing tap water requires about 0.005 MJ for treatment and distribution. Transporting Fiji water from Fiji to Hong Kong has a smaller transportation energy cost, nonetheless, it is still an issue worth discussing.
Don't worry, I am not forgetting about the economic side of this argument. Fiji water is in high demand and thus profitable for those who make it. Instead of going on a huge rant about why bottled water from Fiji is problematic, I'll leave you to read David Zetland's blog post (which is hilarious and bang on) and touches more on the economics of the issue. I just thought I would point to a few facts.
Of all the forms of bottled water, I think Fiji water is the worst in terms of its negative ramifications on the environment. Not only that, but the price is exorbitant (you pay a premium for this stuff, it cost more than Dasani and definitely more than Volvic). Also, it has a high energy intensity.
As Peter Gleick demonstrated in a paper, the energy intensity of bottled water is measured by manufacturing the plastic bottle, treatment, cooling and transportation. In the transportation category, Fiji is probably the worst. Indeed, North American cities like LA have high demand for Fiji water. The transportation energy cost of getting the water from Fiji to LA is 4 megajoules (MJ). To put that in perspective, producing tap water requires about 0.005 MJ for treatment and distribution. Transporting Fiji water from Fiji to Hong Kong has a smaller transportation energy cost, nonetheless, it is still an issue worth discussing.
Don't worry, I am not forgetting about the economic side of this argument. Fiji water is in high demand and thus profitable for those who make it. Instead of going on a huge rant about why bottled water from Fiji is problematic, I'll leave you to read David Zetland's blog post (which is hilarious and bang on) and touches more on the economics of the issue. I just thought I would point to a few facts.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Our Guest Post for Aguanomics
David Zetland was kind to write a guest post for Enviro Boys. David's key message was: with good water management in place, the conditions for equity, efficiency and sustainability are all achievable.
On that note, Chris and I wrote a guest post (an exchange) for David's blog at Aguanomics. We wrote about Guelph, Ontario, as Canada's water steward leader.
Feel free to check out our post at Aguanomics.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Guest Entry: A few thoughts for the Canucks...
By: David Zetland of Aguanomics
Tim and Chris asked me to turn my California perspective on Canada's water situation. I won't talk about pollution from refining tar sands, aquifer depletion in the plains, unsustainable "traditional" fisheries and farms in Nova Scotia, Quebec's hydropower, or the water-people mismatch in Nunavut. Instead, I will talk about those great big lakes full of fresh water.
I was chatting with one of your neighbors about the potential for marking water from the Great Lakes. I told him that "you folks" should define diversions, clarify water rights, and create a market for trading rights.
"But David," he said. "There's so much water that the price is sure to be $0. Demand is so small compared to supply."
"Ahhh, but that's the point."
Apparently people are getting all excited and upset about Great Lakes water when it's really too abundant to worry about. A $0 price for water signifies one of two things. Either people are making senseless arguements about its precious nature when supply far exceeds demand, or people are making sensible arguments that need to be integrated into our definitions of supply and demand. In either case, we need more objective facts (prices) and fewer subjective emotions.
You tell me if I'm right or missed something.
But let's just assume for the moment that the price really would be $0. Does that mean that a market and prices are a bad idea?
No. First of all, it's useful to set up a framework when there is still plenty of water around. If the price rises above $0, then people will know that water is getting more scarce. Second, the value of water is always higher than its price. There's no need to fear that a $0 price connotes a $0 value.
Third, it's important to get market signals -- prices -- out there early. Water shortages are manmade, and they often show up because bureaucrats in charge of allocation do not aggregate all of the supply and demand signals that a market would. Bureaucrats would still keep their jobs (whew!), but they would make sure that the market -- rights, trades, delivery -- was functioning.
But some of you might be wondering if we don't already have a price for water, the price that appears on your monthly water bills. Well, no you don't. Those bills reflect the cost of delivering pressurized clean water 24/7. They reflect the cost of pipes, energy and salaries that go into that service. They do NOT reflect the price (or value) of water. That price is $0, not just because there's no market, but because most of your water comes from utilities that have a right to divert as much as they want from lakes, rivers or aquifers into the water distribution system.
By the way, your cost of service may be flat rate -- an all-you-can-eat fixed charge -- or uniform rate -- the more you use, the more you pay, but either system is based on recovering the cost of the system, not "paying for water." Note that uniform rates tend to reduce consumption (the same way that paying per liter of petrol does); they also make heavy water users pay for a larger share -- their "fair" share -- of the system costs.
It may not make sense to switch to meters -- if their installation cost is much greater than the water savings -- but they are the best first step towards promoting water conservation. (I wonder if farmers in the Plains buy metered water?)
Bottom Line: Good water management is equitable, efficient and sustainable. Don't start too late, or you'll follow California into a deep dark hole of "how the hell are we going to get out of this?"
Dr. David Zetland has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis. Currently, he is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley.
Tim and Chris asked me to turn my California perspective on Canada's water situation. I won't talk about pollution from refining tar sands, aquifer depletion in the plains, unsustainable "traditional" fisheries and farms in Nova Scotia, Quebec's hydropower, or the water-people mismatch in Nunavut. Instead, I will talk about those great big lakes full of fresh water.
I was chatting with one of your neighbors about the potential for marking water from the Great Lakes. I told him that "you folks" should define diversions, clarify water rights, and create a market for trading rights.
"But David," he said. "There's so much water that the price is sure to be $0. Demand is so small compared to supply."
"Ahhh, but that's the point."
Apparently people are getting all excited and upset about Great Lakes water when it's really too abundant to worry about. A $0 price for water signifies one of two things. Either people are making senseless arguements about its precious nature when supply far exceeds demand, or people are making sensible arguments that need to be integrated into our definitions of supply and demand. In either case, we need more objective facts (prices) and fewer subjective emotions.
You tell me if I'm right or missed something.
But let's just assume for the moment that the price really would be $0. Does that mean that a market and prices are a bad idea?
No. First of all, it's useful to set up a framework when there is still plenty of water around. If the price rises above $0, then people will know that water is getting more scarce. Second, the value of water is always higher than its price. There's no need to fear that a $0 price connotes a $0 value.
Third, it's important to get market signals -- prices -- out there early. Water shortages are manmade, and they often show up because bureaucrats in charge of allocation do not aggregate all of the supply and demand signals that a market would. Bureaucrats would still keep their jobs (whew!), but they would make sure that the market -- rights, trades, delivery -- was functioning.
But some of you might be wondering if we don't already have a price for water, the price that appears on your monthly water bills. Well, no you don't. Those bills reflect the cost of delivering pressurized clean water 24/7. They reflect the cost of pipes, energy and salaries that go into that service. They do NOT reflect the price (or value) of water. That price is $0, not just because there's no market, but because most of your water comes from utilities that have a right to divert as much as they want from lakes, rivers or aquifers into the water distribution system.
By the way, your cost of service may be flat rate -- an all-you-can-eat fixed charge -- or uniform rate -- the more you use, the more you pay, but either system is based on recovering the cost of the system, not "paying for water." Note that uniform rates tend to reduce consumption (the same way that paying per liter of petrol does); they also make heavy water users pay for a larger share -- their "fair" share -- of the system costs.
It may not make sense to switch to meters -- if their installation cost is much greater than the water savings -- but they are the best first step towards promoting water conservation. (I wonder if farmers in the Plains buy metered water?)
Bottom Line: Good water management is equitable, efficient and sustainable. Don't start too late, or you'll follow California into a deep dark hole of "how the hell are we going to get out of this?"
Dr. David Zetland has a PhD in Agricultural and Resource Economics from the University of California, Davis. Currently, he is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, University of California, Berkeley.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Lunch with David Zetland
Chris and I had lunch today with David Zetland in downtown Toronto. David is S.v. Ciriacy-Wantrup Postdoctoral Fellow in Natural Resource Economics and Political Economy, UC Berkeley. Chris and I have been corresponding with David for a number of months about water policy and the economics of water.
David was also kind enough to do a short guest lecture in April for our Global Environmental Policy class. Our class called David's office at Berkeley via teleconferencing. He shared many great insights about how we value water, how we should price it, how we should distribute it and how we can work better and more effectively with water managers and bureaucrats.
David maintains a water economics blog titled "Aguanomics".
I would encourage you to read his short but very insightful article in Forbes Magazine titled "The Water Shortage Myth". It can be found here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/14/california-supply-demand-oped-cx_dz_0715water.html.
Also, he did a really neat interview with Tom Keene from Bloomberg Radio back in January 2009. Keene poses questions to Zetland concerning water supply, thoughts on bottled water versus tap water, pricing mechanisms, and water distribution. If you haven't heard it already, check out the audio file here:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Economics/On_Economy/vGBtvsfu8Ofg.mp3
It was a privilege to have lunch with David as we shared stories, talked about water policy, our future plans and more. We wish him all the best with his travels in Central America.
David was also kind enough to do a short guest lecture in April for our Global Environmental Policy class. Our class called David's office at Berkeley via teleconferencing. He shared many great insights about how we value water, how we should price it, how we should distribute it and how we can work better and more effectively with water managers and bureaucrats.
David maintains a water economics blog titled "Aguanomics".
I would encourage you to read his short but very insightful article in Forbes Magazine titled "The Water Shortage Myth". It can be found here:
http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/14/california-supply-demand-oped-cx_dz_0715water.html.
Also, he did a really neat interview with Tom Keene from Bloomberg Radio back in January 2009. Keene poses questions to Zetland concerning water supply, thoughts on bottled water versus tap water, pricing mechanisms, and water distribution. If you haven't heard it already, check out the audio file here:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Economics/On_Economy/vGBtvsfu8Ofg.mp3
It was a privilege to have lunch with David as we shared stories, talked about water policy, our future plans and more. We wish him all the best with his travels in Central America.
Friday, April 16, 2010
A Proposed International Convention on Water...
This semester, Chris and I took a course called Global Environmental Policy. A large part of the course was focused on researching and becoming an expert on an international convention. Our classmates became experts on conventions such as the Basel Convention of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species just to name a few. There were a diverse range of conventions presented in our class which illustrated the course's interdisciplinarity and the great mix of research interests. Most of our classmates did their research on an existing convention and provided their own critiques, analysis and recommendations.
Chris and I took a different approach. We decided to explore and create our own convention on water. A convention on water would be a multidisciplinary forum for dealing with a wide range of issues including water governance, water pricing, distribution and access, treatment and much more. Initially, we we were interested in exploring the possibility of an international convention on water as a human right. Our approach however, changed overtime as we realized the complexity and multidisciplinarity of water resources.
Managing water, for example, involves (or should involve) many different stakeholders including civil engineers, politicians, planners, economists and environmental scientists to name a few. The private sector is also very much involved in water resources management.
Over the past four months, Chris and I have learned a lot about the politics, economics, management, ecology and societal aspects of water resources. We wrote a ministerial brief (a component of the course) addressed to various Canadian and Provincial government ministries.
In our brief, we highlight the main issue at stake and provide recommendations on how Canada can respond to water policy both domestically and internationally. Importantly, we provide analysis and some direction for the government and its potential involvement in an international convention on water. To view our ministerial brief, please click here.
We also made a class presentation about our convention. One of the recommendations we proposed was derived from an economist named David Zetland from UC Berkeley. In our final class, we called David via teleconferencing and he elaborated on his concept (water as a property right) and students had the chance to ask questions and seek more information about this very relevant and increasingly significant natural resource.
Chris and I took a different approach. We decided to explore and create our own convention on water. A convention on water would be a multidisciplinary forum for dealing with a wide range of issues including water governance, water pricing, distribution and access, treatment and much more. Initially, we we were interested in exploring the possibility of an international convention on water as a human right. Our approach however, changed overtime as we realized the complexity and multidisciplinarity of water resources.
Managing water, for example, involves (or should involve) many different stakeholders including civil engineers, politicians, planners, economists and environmental scientists to name a few. The private sector is also very much involved in water resources management.
Over the past four months, Chris and I have learned a lot about the politics, economics, management, ecology and societal aspects of water resources. We wrote a ministerial brief (a component of the course) addressed to various Canadian and Provincial government ministries.
In our brief, we highlight the main issue at stake and provide recommendations on how Canada can respond to water policy both domestically and internationally. Importantly, we provide analysis and some direction for the government and its potential involvement in an international convention on water. To view our ministerial brief, please click here.
We also made a class presentation about our convention. One of the recommendations we proposed was derived from an economist named David Zetland from UC Berkeley. In our final class, we called David via teleconferencing and he elaborated on his concept (water as a property right) and students had the chance to ask questions and seek more information about this very relevant and increasingly significant natural resource.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Campus water fountains revisited…
In my Urban Planning class yesterday, we discussed Urban and Water Governance. It seems that water is permeating many disciplines these days as we are starting to understand that it is going to be the most important natural resource of the century. In our seminar, we discussed and debated several issues that surround water governance and privatization. Amid our discussion, we started to have a conversation about water fountains on our very own campus. How this relates to water governance is something that we collectively discovered. In short, if we had more water fountains on campus, the university would be more involved with the administration and operation of water supply. They would have to regularly check the fountains to ensure they are working and any leaks or dysfunction with the pipes, would result in the university paying a lot of money to fix it. So instead of going through this expensive process the university can delegate to the campus food service provider, who can then supply bottled water. Cheaper for the school, more expensive for the students.
Water fountains are not abundant on campus, in fact, all of the Ron Thom buildings including Champlain College, Lady Eaton College and the Bata Library really lack water fountains. One student, who has studied Trent’s architectural history in great detail, reported that when the buildings were being designed, they did not plan for water fountains.
Alas, 40 years down the road we’re starting to feel the effects. We are also drinking a lot more water these days. Some facts, courtesy of David Zetland’s aguanomics have reported that lack of water is the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue. Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers. A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen.
These are just some of the facts and compelling reasons why we need to keep hydrated all day long. Sadly, when water fountains are scarce we are obliged to buy bottled water at a cost of $2-5 which is totally ludicrous. Other students in my class reported that some of the taps in the library have little signs posted on top of them that read “please let water run for 30 seconds before drinking”. That is certainly frightening and provides no real encouragement to drink Peterborough’s ostensibly clean and safe drinking water.
Key message: We need to keep hydrated especially when we are busy studying and working away with rigourous and at times arduous tasks. Our minds need to be freshened from time and time again; water fountains can serve our needs and save us money. Many students these days are carrying their canteens (not many use Nalgenes anymore because of Bisphenol A) and are trying to refill them. If not water fountains (because they are an expensive infrastructural investment), let’s at least consider water coolers.
Water fountains are not abundant on campus, in fact, all of the Ron Thom buildings including Champlain College, Lady Eaton College and the Bata Library really lack water fountains. One student, who has studied Trent’s architectural history in great detail, reported that when the buildings were being designed, they did not plan for water fountains.
Alas, 40 years down the road we’re starting to feel the effects. We are also drinking a lot more water these days. Some facts, courtesy of David Zetland’s aguanomics have reported that lack of water is the #1 trigger of daytime fatigue. Preliminary research indicates that 8-10 glasses of water a day could significantly ease back and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers. A mere 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble with basic math, and difficulty focusing on the computer screen.
These are just some of the facts and compelling reasons why we need to keep hydrated all day long. Sadly, when water fountains are scarce we are obliged to buy bottled water at a cost of $2-5 which is totally ludicrous. Other students in my class reported that some of the taps in the library have little signs posted on top of them that read “please let water run for 30 seconds before drinking”. That is certainly frightening and provides no real encouragement to drink Peterborough’s ostensibly clean and safe drinking water.
Key message: We need to keep hydrated especially when we are busy studying and working away with rigourous and at times arduous tasks. Our minds need to be freshened from time and time again; water fountains can serve our needs and save us money. Many students these days are carrying their canteens (not many use Nalgenes anymore because of Bisphenol A) and are trying to refill them. If not water fountains (because they are an expensive infrastructural investment), let’s at least consider water coolers.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Bottled water debate...
David Zetland, blogger of Aguanomics and researcher at UC Berkeley discusses the bottled water issue. Courtesy of Bloomberg.com:
http://media.bloomberg.com/bb/avfile/Economics/On_Economy/vGBtvsfu8Ofg.mp3
http://media.bl
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)