California’s Drought Issue and Nestle

p

Nestle is an international organization that boasts millions in profits from different products, one of them being bottled water. The focus of this piece will center on the drought occurring in California, United States and how Nestle is causing further damage. The presence of a bottled water industry in the United States is beyond reason as water has been regulated and filtered to the point that tap water is as clean as bottled water. Furthermore, the documentary Last Call at the Oasis from Jessica Yu reveals bottled water is less regulated than tap water. In the case of Nestle’s presence in California, bottled water sold by the organization is actually taken from their capitol, Sacramento, and resold at a significant profit.

The California drought has been around for four years now, but it has escalated significantly as a result of a record high temperatures this winter, which causes dry conditions that are not favorable for farming. The agriculture industry in California relies heavily on water as it consumes 41 percent of the state’s total supply. Due to this scarcity, farmers have begun practices that are causing more environmental damage such as drilling deeper for groundwater, but many have been forced to seek other means of employment. Another important angle to view this is that many of the nation’s vegetables and nuts are grown best in that region. For example, almonds from the United States are grown there exclusively, which is why affects the country as a whole. For that reason, this should be viewed as a national state of emergency as opposed one at only the state level.

r

Meanwhile, Nestle continues to do what major corporations do best, exploit resources without a regard to the quality of life that they are damaging. How can this be? Their website explicitly states that they are committed to environmental sustainability. This may fool the uninformed citizen, as many wish to remain, but many have taken to protesting the organization’s presence in Sacramento. Recently, the governor of California unrolled a new plan in which billions of dollars would be reallocated to dealing with this crisis. The real issue here, however, is that corporations such as Nestle continue to exploit already depleted resources for their own personal gain. This is the issue that must be addressed moving forward as the quality of the planet’s environment is decreasing and the global footprint of large multinational corporations continues to grow.

A Rational Examination of the Keystone Pipeline

The conflict between fossil fuels and climate policy.

Climate Change Exists. Period.

This is a fact that is still to be universally accepted, with even some debate from academics and professionals in the field. In confirming this environmental phenomenon, the first problem with the Keystone Pipeline becomes evident. This is that in erecting a pipeline, the American nation (which is already the leading contributor to climate change on the planet) is growing increasingly dependent on fossil fuels. This is due to the fact that as the nation increases its ability to readily provide a supply of less expensive fossil fuels, the urgency to seek out alternative forms of energy will lessen dramatically. It is as the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. In reality, however, to call the significant use of oil for energy a problem would indeed be an understatement. Therefore, the first issue with the pipeline is the simple yet large issue of the negative environmental impact it will have.

keystone

The second issue is what has surprisingly matched the environmental issue in relevance during this debate, which is job creation. TransCanada, which seeks to build the pipeline, estimates around 570,000 jobs may be created. The American Petroleum Institute claims up to 500,000 jobs can be created.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the pipeline and put the number at around 250,000. Discussing these estimates is important as the state of the economy is not what it once was (and it is not getting better, despite what is being said on the news) and the prospect of creating these jobs will increase support for the pipeline. The only estimate that truly matters, that which was conducted by the Obama Administration, discovered that between 50 to 100 permanent jobs would be created. That’s not too bad. The difference is only by 569,900 jobs. On a serious note, however, a rational examination of the circumstances surrounding the creation of this pipeline will yield only one conclusion. THIS IS A BAD IDEA.