RSS FeedWater Bottle Ban on the Horizon
Bottled water must be the most brilliant marketing ploy ever conceived.
Some marketing reps decided to take regular tap water, run it through a filter, and then package it in attractive bottles designed to somehow set their product apart from basically identical competing brands. Through clever advertising about the dangers of tap water and the pure, delicious, refreshing nature of bottled water, these reps built a multi-billion dollar industry.
Specifically, according to Wikipedia, bottled water products poured 60.9 billion dollars into the coffers of mostly large bottlers like Coca Cola in 2006 alone, and that number is only expected to grow.
All the reps could do now was slap each other on the back, laugh, and watch the money flow — like, well, water from a tap.
That is, of course, until you consider the environmental impact.
Environmental Impact
Earlier this year, Phil Woolas, the UK’s Environment Minister stirred up headlines when he said that consumption of bottled water bordered on immorality.
The carbon footprint involved in producing a bottle of water and then transporting those bulky bottles to the consumer is a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. According to The Times, “a Swedish study calculated that the environmental impact of bottled water was 90 to 1,000 times greater than tap water, and could be higher.”
The manufacturing process takes approximately 5 liters of water to produce a 1-liter finished product. In addition, once the water inside them is consumed, most of those plastic water bottles end up in landfills (or in gutters).
Peter Ainsworth, an MP and outspoken environment critic, backed up Woolas:
“Huge amounts are imported from other countries — some now ludicrously from the Far East. This is an ecological nightmare and it doesn’t make economic sense either. It certainly raises questions about the basis on which we have constructed our economic lives. By any rational standard it’s crazy to be importing water from countries far away when there’s perfectly good water in our taps.
“It looks like the epiphany [sic?] of any unsustainable human activity. I think as consumers we should consider the impact we have on the environment. If they think about it they might change their behaviour.”
Towards a Ban
The city council of London, Ontario this week voted overwhelmingly in favour of a ban on bottled water.
The move will make London one of the first major Canadian cities to institute such a ban, which is expected to go into effect on September 1.
The phased-in ban will begin by limiting the sale of bottled water at municipal buildings and city facilities. By the end of next year, the sale of those ubiquitous plastic water bottles will be prohibited at golf courses and city parks as well.
Only three councilors opposed the measure, on the basis that it undermines choice. The London Free Press quotes councilor Paul Van Meerbergen as saying:
“It’s one more brick in the construction of a nanny state.”
Nevertheless, the tide seems to be turning in favour of greater regulation.
According to the Canadian Press, Mayor David Miller of Toronto is now considering following London’s example. I’ve noticed advertisements against bottled water popping up on Toronto bus shelters, and the City of Toronto will be looking at a ban as part of a larger strategy to curb waste.
Other Canadian cities like Vancouver, Ottawa, St. John’s, Kitchener, and Windsor have all been considering municipal bottled water ban measures.
My View
In Southern Ontario, we are blessed with some of the cleanest and safest drinking water courtesy of the Great Lakes. Even though there are water fountains readily available, I see people spending $1.50 for a 591mL bottle of Dasani on my university campus. That’s double the price of gasoline. Personally, I’m not even sure how one can justify spending money on what is essentially free and abundant.
There’s something to be said for our municipal government taking small steps to show the public that it frowns on absurd consumer practices. Drinking a bottle of water might one day carry the same social stigma as smoking a cigarette. If it can help change consumer attitudes, I’m all for the bottled water ban.
$300M Suit Follows Toronto Propane Explosion
Just days after a massive explosion at a propane transfer facility in Toronto, a $300 million class action lawsuit is being launched.
On August 10, 2008, in the early morning hours, a massive explosion at Sunrise Propane Industrial Gases in Toronto shook people from their sleep. The blast sent fireballs into the sky which could be seen as far away as Niagara Falls.
While firefighters raced to get the flames under control, thousands of neighbourhood residents had to be evacuated. The blast injured numerous people and have left at least one firefighter and one civilian dead; the latter’s charred remains were found at the site of the explosion.
While most evacuees have returned to their homes, several buildings remain closed to residents over concerns of structural stability.
Stevensons LLP and Bogoroch & Associates have announced their intention to file a class action suit against Sunrise Propane, the City of Toronto, and the provincial government.
The bases of the claim, according to the suit’s website, are:
negligence, nuisance, trespass, strict liability (Rylands v. Fletcher) and liability pursuant to the Occupiers’ Liability Act, R.S.O. C. O.2., the Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.19 and the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3.
According to the Globe and Mail, about 20 years ago Toronto passed a regulation restricting zoning for propane transfer facilities. However, the city had to repeal the by-law in 1995 after a similar regulation of the City of York was defeated by propane companies. The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that the by-law was in conflict with provincial law:
“The terms of the by-law are consistent with the intention to give effect to safety concerns.
… First, there is the operative conflict to which we have referred. Second, the authority of the municipality relates, generally, to land use planning and not safety respecting propane handling.”
(Superior Propane Inc. v. York (City) (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 161 (C.A.))
Not surprisingly, the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario are playing the blame game with each other. In light of the above Court of Appeal decision, Toronto contends that it was the responsibility of the provincial regulatory boards to ensure the safety of propane transfer facilities.
Both the City of Toronto and the province have been named as defendants in the pending suit. Responsibility for the blast will again be left to the courts to sort out.
Osgoode Francophone Society
Osgoode Hall Law School has had its own Francophone Society since January. We started with a tiny weekly conversation club last year even before officially registering with Legal and Lit. About ten or fifteen French language enthusiasts regularly pulled tables together in the inescapable Osgoode cafeteria and practiced French. We didn’t have a single native speaker among us but some of us spoke pretty good Français. That was our first year.
Come September, we would like to continue our conversation club. If you are in Osgoode in any capacity and speak French, why not bavarder avec nous? If you are a native speaker this is really your Society, and one of its goals is to raise the profile of the Francophone community in Osgoode.
We would also like to build relationships with the Francophone legal community in Toronto. There is a significant interest in the French language among law students as my experience with running the Francophone Society shows. Let’s network.
Drop me a line if you want to join the Society or would like more information: my first name @ my last name . org.
Toronto is Canada’s Safest City?
Below is a rather ironic screenshot from the front page of the Toronto Star’s website just after the release of a report claiming that my beloved Toronto is the safest metropolitan area in Canada. Note the circled sections.
Podcast Feeds
