Research Paper Final Draft: Bottled Water
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so did you bring water from the tap or did you purchase bottled water? Regardless of the source the actual water quality is probably the same. Although bottled water is convenient and marketed as being healthier, the disposable plastic bottles are having a negative effect on the environment, as they harm ecosystems, clog landfills, and consume hydrocarbons in the manufacturing process.
Fifty years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the effort of filling a glass or bottle from the tap. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay a utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. According to the American Beverage Association (2007), by the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of 500,000 bottles a year. Today companies are producing upwards of a billion bottles a year. This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health craze of the 1990s when people were encouraged to understand the effects of the foods they were ingesting. Health conscious consumers saw water as a healthy substitute to soft drinks and alcohol. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
According to a survey by the World Wildlife Fund, a conservation watchdog group (1999), commissioned researchers to look at the bottled water craze, and they showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was increasing seven percent each year(p.4). This number has surely risen since 1999, as the bottled water market has increased tremendously in the last 8 years, and the trend is projected to continue. With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. The money to be made was too good to pass up, so drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. These two super giants are currently battling it out in India. Charles Fishman, a writer for Fast Company Magazine (2007) pointed out that last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets( p. 117). The money to be made in this new industry is in the billions, and many large corporations are looking into getting into the industry because of the high profit margins. Even in places like Quebec, Canada, where quality water is not a factor, it is becoming a large issue. Delia Montero (2004) documented in the journal of international Canadian studies that even when the government of Quebec decided not to privatize water-related activities, private companies decided to compete and became deeply involved in infrastructure, treatment, and bottled water activities (p. 93-115). Society has accepted paying more for a bottle of water then are for gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
The bottled water phenomenon is spreading across the globe. According to an article by Alys Edwards from the Swansea Institute of Higher Education (2007) “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand increases as projected.
The United Nations has come out in full force to state that the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people. Otherwise, water could become the new oil; where countries potentially go to extreme measures (war), to protect their resources.
Although water is healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, the process of making bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment to suffer. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies drawing down on previously undeveloped aquifers. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. The process to produce the plastic for the bottles takes twice the amount of water than the water in the bottle. For instance, it takes 3 gallons of water to create a one liter bottle. Plastic is produced from hydro carbons and an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water according to National Geographic (2007). Also factored is the significant amount of fossil fuels consumed and carbon dioxide generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transported on to retail outlets. At the end of the consumption cycle the empty bottle usually ends up in the landfills. Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI (2007) stated, “90 percent of bottles water is not recycled.” This is the reason plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that they are significant contributor. The United States along with the world do not have enough recycling plants to handle the volume of bottles being discarded and plastic is not biodegradable.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe, or once believed that it’s water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (2006) found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.” The NRDC also found that bottled water plants were not tested as much as municipal water plants, and that the FDA can only regulate bottled water when it crosses state lines.
Information on the negative impact of bottled water is available but the public needs to understand, accept, and be willing to make changes if we are to reverse this dangerous consumer trend. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000 per year. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States. This move by the mayor is an effective first step toward reversing the trend on a local level.
On the east coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing environmental problem associated with bottled water. First reported by Carol Fuller (2007), students enrolled on campus the fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. An article by Martin Mittelstaedt (2007) provides an extremely different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks the bottled water process and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”. So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions. This is another way that society is moving in the right direction; although in this case not for environmental reasons, but spiritual and religious reasons.
The International Bottled Water Association takes the other side of the argument. It is an association that represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this vital liquid, needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there is no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting dangerously large amounts of groundwater. They point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more resources from the earth therefore they are not as guilty of exploitation.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. Society loves the convenience and health aspects of the water. What most people don’t want to acknowledge is the harmful environmental affects associated with bottled water. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of their consumer choices the trend will continue. Commercial advertisers have done a great job selling their product; and it will probably take public service announcements over many years to change consumer spending. Someone, probably governments and environmental protection groups, will have to be spend enormous amounts of money to counter the bottled water industry’s advertising efforts. This trend needs to be dealt with immediately; everyday more bottles are being produced with continuing damage to aquifers, air quality, and filling landfills around the world. This anti-bottled water movement should not be driven by just the United States. A global effort needs to be made in order for there to be a significant difference. European support is especially critical as they lead the world in bottled water consumption. Until there is a united effort in significantly reducing the amount of bottled water produced, the world will continue to suffer. Water is a necessary ingredient to life, but the consumption of bottle water is harmful to the environment and a selfish indulgent. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, take a little extra time and fill up your reusable water bottle with tap water because it is the right thing to do.
References:
American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
Chura, Hilary. (2003). Pricing Getting Slippery. Advertising Age, 74 (25), 20-20.
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Macarthur, Kate. (2005). Drink your fruits, veggies:Water’s the new fitness fad. Advertising Age, 76 (1) 4-24.
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Montero, Delia. (2004). Water in Quebec: A transnational business. International Journal of Canadian Studies, (29), 93-115.
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Pande, Bhanu. (2003).Pepsi Throws new challenge at Coke in India water fight. Media Asia, 5-5.
Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
Welland, Diane. (2007). Tapping the truth about bottled water versus what flows from the faucet. Environmental Nutrition, 30 (1), 1-6.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Extra Credit
Extra Credit: Into the Wild Documentary
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Fairbanks premiere of a documentary about the life of Chris McCandless; the young man made famous after being written about by John Kraukauer in his book Into the Wild. The documentary was entitled, “Call of the Wild: A documentary about the life and death of Chris McCandless.” This documentary was made by Ron Lamothe, a filmmaker and graduate student from Massachusetts.
The film is about Lamothe, retracing Chris McCandless’s travels, from after he graduated from Emory University, to his death in the wilderness of interior Alaska. Lamothe said in the film that he had always wanted to make this trip and film it, but things kept getting in the way (school, wife, and children). But his obsession would not stop until after he completed this film.
In order to understand this film, one had to be somewhat familiar with McCandless’s story. He was a kid from a wealthy and normal family. He was somewhat socially inept, but was very bright. McCandless was very interested in philosophy; and the writings of Thoreau. So after graduation, he gives away his money to charity, loads up his essential possessions, and heads across the country seeking something, we will never know. He eventually ditches his car in California, and begins hitchhiking his way to Alaska. The last time anyone saw him alive was outside of Healy, Alaska. When he ventured into the wilderness of Alaska, all he had with him was a backpack, a camera and a rifle. We know that he made his base camp, in an old abandoned bus. That was where he was found dead, frail and alone. McCandless seemed to be obsessed with nature and finding the meaning in life, as Thoreau wrote. Some people say that McCandless was dumb and over his head; not truly knowing what he was getting into. However when watching this film, I was struck by the boldness and adventuresome spirit of this young kid. It made me question weather or not I would embark on such a trail, and the answer is no. It did sound fun though, a very spiritual experience. The debate that arises from this story is how he died. In the famous bestseller by John Kraukauer, he states that it was the poisonous Eskimo potato seeds that killed McCandless. However in this documentary, the filmmaker talks with the head of the Bio-Chemistry department here at UAF. He ran tests and discovered that it was not the seeds that killed him, that it had to be something else; presumably starvation.
I left the documentary feeling somewhat sad for this young kid. He probably had some idea what he was getting into, but I don’t think he walked into the wilderness thinking he was never going to come out. However I hope he found whatever he was looking for, and was at peace with it when he died.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Fairbanks premiere of a documentary about the life of Chris McCandless; the young man made famous after being written about by John Kraukauer in his book Into the Wild. The documentary was entitled, “Call of the Wild: A documentary about the life and death of Chris McCandless.” This documentary was made by Ron Lamothe, a filmmaker and graduate student from Massachusetts.
The film is about Lamothe, retracing Chris McCandless’s travels, from after he graduated from Emory University, to his death in the wilderness of interior Alaska. Lamothe said in the film that he had always wanted to make this trip and film it, but things kept getting in the way (school, wife, and children). But his obsession would not stop until after he completed this film.
In order to understand this film, one had to be somewhat familiar with McCandless’s story. He was a kid from a wealthy and normal family. He was somewhat socially inept, but was very bright. McCandless was very interested in philosophy; and the writings of Thoreau. So after graduation, he gives away his money to charity, loads up his essential possessions, and heads across the country seeking something, we will never know. He eventually ditches his car in California, and begins hitchhiking his way to Alaska. The last time anyone saw him alive was outside of Healy, Alaska. When he ventured into the wilderness of Alaska, all he had with him was a backpack, a camera and a rifle. We know that he made his base camp, in an old abandoned bus. That was where he was found dead, frail and alone. McCandless seemed to be obsessed with nature and finding the meaning in life, as Thoreau wrote. Some people say that McCandless was dumb and over his head; not truly knowing what he was getting into. However when watching this film, I was struck by the boldness and adventuresome spirit of this young kid. It made me question weather or not I would embark on such a trail, and the answer is no. It did sound fun though, a very spiritual experience. The debate that arises from this story is how he died. In the famous bestseller by John Kraukauer, he states that it was the poisonous Eskimo potato seeds that killed McCandless. However in this documentary, the filmmaker talks with the head of the Bio-Chemistry department here at UAF. He ran tests and discovered that it was not the seeds that killed him, that it had to be something else; presumably starvation.
I left the documentary feeling somewhat sad for this young kid. He probably had some idea what he was getting into, but I don’t think he walked into the wilderness thinking he was never going to come out. However I hope he found whatever he was looking for, and was at peace with it when he died.
Solution Essay: Final Draft
Solution Essay
Although I understand that UAF athletic department is losing money and therefore next year cutting team funding and reducing the number of scholarships available next year to get back on budget, they should seek additional funding to keep from down sizing because teams need to bring in new recruits to be successful, continue a winning tradition, and show the students at the university that they care about their athletics.
Recently, UAF athletes were informed that due to financial reasons, every sport at the University of Alaska Fairbanks will be loosing two athletic scholarships this up coming year, and also will not be paying for summer school housing and classes. This is a huge deal for athletes. Unfortunately, even after corporate sponsorships, alumni donations, money allotted by the state for athletics, that athletic department at UAF is still loosing considerable amount of money. The best guess as to why the school is loosing money is because of all the travel costs. Most teams go on at least 4 road trips a season. If a team has 10 players and two coaches times 4 trips minimum, that can add up in a hurry. Another factor for loosing money is that we don’t have football at this school. Schools with football do a lot better financially because ticket revenue alone from games is enough to cover most athletic departments. Since UAF is without a football team, it puts a strain on the athletic department.
Loosing two scholarships and no summer school is vital to the success of a sports team at UAF. Most of the athletes at this school come from states besides Alaska. It is hard to convince a young adult to venture far north, to the ends of the earth to go to school. Offering them a full scholarship is a great bargaining tool. Summer school paid for is another great tool. Most athletes take a smaller course load in order to balance both school and sports, and therefore sometimes need more than four years to graduate. Offering to pay for summer school and somewhere to stay enables the athlete to stay for the summer and catch up on classes so that they will be able to graduate in the standard four years.
Scholarships are essential for bringing in new recruits from year to year. Athletes graduate or leave due to various reasons, and are replaced the following year. These athletes are replaced with new ones. These new athletes are given the old players scholarship. However if two scholarships are taken away, and you have two people graduate, a coach would not be able to recruit anyone the following year. This would mean that the team would not be able to reload and upgrade, instead would have to stick with what they had the previous year. This does not allow a team to improve and get better, and could factor into less wins the next season. If someone were to ask a college coach what one of the keys was to having a successful team, recruiting would be in the top three.
All schools at all levels want their students to get the best grades as possible first and foremost. They also however want their athletic teams to do well, meaning win. If schools didn’t care about being successful, there would never be any coaches getting fired. This is not the case I am afraid. Schools have an athletic tradition, and like to see it carried on from year to year. By taking away scholarships, it could potentially put a hamper on this tradition of excellence. UAF has always had a high standard of academic and athletic excellence, and would not like to see it regress. This could happen with the reduction of scholarships.
College sports are a form of entertainment for students. Universities take pride in their athletic teams, should do whatever it takes to put the best product on the playing field, without sacrificing anything academic. Obviously the athletic department has exhausted all of their resources and have been forced to make budget cuts. It is not the future or potential athlete that is affected by this reduction, it is the current athlete brought in before the cuts that are. All of these statements above are reasons why scholarships should not be cut. The community needs to rally around the UAF and come up with a viable option to stop the budget cuts. Weather it is paying more for tickets, charging every student at the university X amount of dollars to help support the athletic department.
College athletics is a vital part of the Fairbanks community. In this small town, most college events are the biggest thing in town. We do not have a pro sports team, so college is the highest level to watch. Good sports teams have been synonymous with Fairbanks for quite some time, and I would hate to see that falter due to the reduction of scholarships by the athletic department. Next time there is a college sport going on around Fairbanks, come out and show and voice your support, because these athletes truly need it in more ways then one.
Although I understand that UAF athletic department is losing money and therefore next year cutting team funding and reducing the number of scholarships available next year to get back on budget, they should seek additional funding to keep from down sizing because teams need to bring in new recruits to be successful, continue a winning tradition, and show the students at the university that they care about their athletics.
Recently, UAF athletes were informed that due to financial reasons, every sport at the University of Alaska Fairbanks will be loosing two athletic scholarships this up coming year, and also will not be paying for summer school housing and classes. This is a huge deal for athletes. Unfortunately, even after corporate sponsorships, alumni donations, money allotted by the state for athletics, that athletic department at UAF is still loosing considerable amount of money. The best guess as to why the school is loosing money is because of all the travel costs. Most teams go on at least 4 road trips a season. If a team has 10 players and two coaches times 4 trips minimum, that can add up in a hurry. Another factor for loosing money is that we don’t have football at this school. Schools with football do a lot better financially because ticket revenue alone from games is enough to cover most athletic departments. Since UAF is without a football team, it puts a strain on the athletic department.
Loosing two scholarships and no summer school is vital to the success of a sports team at UAF. Most of the athletes at this school come from states besides Alaska. It is hard to convince a young adult to venture far north, to the ends of the earth to go to school. Offering them a full scholarship is a great bargaining tool. Summer school paid for is another great tool. Most athletes take a smaller course load in order to balance both school and sports, and therefore sometimes need more than four years to graduate. Offering to pay for summer school and somewhere to stay enables the athlete to stay for the summer and catch up on classes so that they will be able to graduate in the standard four years.
Scholarships are essential for bringing in new recruits from year to year. Athletes graduate or leave due to various reasons, and are replaced the following year. These athletes are replaced with new ones. These new athletes are given the old players scholarship. However if two scholarships are taken away, and you have two people graduate, a coach would not be able to recruit anyone the following year. This would mean that the team would not be able to reload and upgrade, instead would have to stick with what they had the previous year. This does not allow a team to improve and get better, and could factor into less wins the next season. If someone were to ask a college coach what one of the keys was to having a successful team, recruiting would be in the top three.
All schools at all levels want their students to get the best grades as possible first and foremost. They also however want their athletic teams to do well, meaning win. If schools didn’t care about being successful, there would never be any coaches getting fired. This is not the case I am afraid. Schools have an athletic tradition, and like to see it carried on from year to year. By taking away scholarships, it could potentially put a hamper on this tradition of excellence. UAF has always had a high standard of academic and athletic excellence, and would not like to see it regress. This could happen with the reduction of scholarships.
College sports are a form of entertainment for students. Universities take pride in their athletic teams, should do whatever it takes to put the best product on the playing field, without sacrificing anything academic. Obviously the athletic department has exhausted all of their resources and have been forced to make budget cuts. It is not the future or potential athlete that is affected by this reduction, it is the current athlete brought in before the cuts that are. All of these statements above are reasons why scholarships should not be cut. The community needs to rally around the UAF and come up with a viable option to stop the budget cuts. Weather it is paying more for tickets, charging every student at the university X amount of dollars to help support the athletic department.
College athletics is a vital part of the Fairbanks community. In this small town, most college events are the biggest thing in town. We do not have a pro sports team, so college is the highest level to watch. Good sports teams have been synonymous with Fairbanks for quite some time, and I would hate to see that falter due to the reduction of scholarships by the athletic department. Next time there is a college sport going on around Fairbanks, come out and show and voice your support, because these athletes truly need it in more ways then one.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Essay #1 Revision
Professional Sports Contracts:
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment; and get paid quite well for it and receive less criticism than pro athletes. Although many media critics believe that pro athletes are grossly overpaid; they are not justified in their reasoning because of the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage that feel otherwise.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for high paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than it does athletes on team sports. For the individual players, endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example, made $12 million in winnings, and another $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because these athletes don’t know when their next winners check will come; there revenue flow is not as stable as team-sport athletes with guaranteed contracts. If an individual athlete consistently finishes in the lower half of the field in his or her event, they are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars, or what type of clothes any athlete wear can keep them in the game for an extended period of time. These sponsorships and endorsements are not set in stone, and are not life time guaranteed. If the sponsoring company feels the athlete is underperforming, or not representing the company the right way, the company has the authority to pull the athlete from the sponsorship. A prime example recently is Michael Vick, a NFL superstar quarterback who was recently arrested and convicted of running a dog fighting ring. After this horrible news hit the public and his various sponsorships, he lost endorsements with Nike, Rawlings, Sprite, and many others. Vick quickly lost millions of dollars overnight.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN or Entertainment Sports Programming Network started the 24 hour sports boom. ESPN was the first all sports network; and now there are quite a few all sport channels. It covers the widest variety of sports, which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront; such as the poker phenomenon recently. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching an ESPN type channel for as little as 5 minutes.
TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league, using a system called profit sharing. Profit sharing is a common practice in the pro sports world. All the teams in a given league, pool together all the money made on TV contracts, ticket revenue, etc., and then a percentage of that revenue is divided among all the other members of the league. It is a way to keep pro sports competitive, and still allow teams make good money. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money, than if the team was on its own to make money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, there should be no reason to stop it. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens, who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening.
Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon; endorsements and sponsorships, 24 media coverage, and billion dollar TV contracts. There is the old adage, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” This phrase wrings true in the case of pro sports contracts. Despite what critics might say, pro athletes provide a form of entertainment, that millions of people watch, and should therefore be paid accordingly.
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment; and get paid quite well for it and receive less criticism than pro athletes. Although many media critics believe that pro athletes are grossly overpaid; they are not justified in their reasoning because of the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage that feel otherwise.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for high paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than it does athletes on team sports. For the individual players, endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example, made $12 million in winnings, and another $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because these athletes don’t know when their next winners check will come; there revenue flow is not as stable as team-sport athletes with guaranteed contracts. If an individual athlete consistently finishes in the lower half of the field in his or her event, they are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars, or what type of clothes any athlete wear can keep them in the game for an extended period of time. These sponsorships and endorsements are not set in stone, and are not life time guaranteed. If the sponsoring company feels the athlete is underperforming, or not representing the company the right way, the company has the authority to pull the athlete from the sponsorship. A prime example recently is Michael Vick, a NFL superstar quarterback who was recently arrested and convicted of running a dog fighting ring. After this horrible news hit the public and his various sponsorships, he lost endorsements with Nike, Rawlings, Sprite, and many others. Vick quickly lost millions of dollars overnight.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN or Entertainment Sports Programming Network started the 24 hour sports boom. ESPN was the first all sports network; and now there are quite a few all sport channels. It covers the widest variety of sports, which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront; such as the poker phenomenon recently. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching an ESPN type channel for as little as 5 minutes.
TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league, using a system called profit sharing. Profit sharing is a common practice in the pro sports world. All the teams in a given league, pool together all the money made on TV contracts, ticket revenue, etc., and then a percentage of that revenue is divided among all the other members of the league. It is a way to keep pro sports competitive, and still allow teams make good money. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money, than if the team was on its own to make money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, there should be no reason to stop it. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens, who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening.
Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon; endorsements and sponsorships, 24 media coverage, and billion dollar TV contracts. There is the old adage, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” This phrase wrings true in the case of pro sports contracts. Despite what critics might say, pro athletes provide a form of entertainment, that millions of people watch, and should therefore be paid accordingly.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Research Paper Rough Draft #2
Research Paper Second Draft: Bottled Water
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment because it harms ecosystems, clogs landfills, and burns unnecessary fuel to create the plastic and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. According to the American Beverage Assoication (2007) by the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of “500,000 bottles a year” (p. 1). This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year” said Charles Fishman( p. 1.) According to a survey by the WWF in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was “increasing seven percent each year” (p.4). Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, “it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water” says a report by National Geographic (p. 2). “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, “90 percent of bottled water is not recycled”. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.” The NRDC (2006) also found in their study that “bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines” (p 2).
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups (2007), who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”(p.1). So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. This education will come at a cost however. Money will have to be spent to promote and advertise why this shift in drinking water is necessary, but it will be worth it in the long run. This craze needs to be dealt with immediately; everyday more bottles are being produced, the more harm being produced toward the world. This anti-bottled water movement should not be carried by just the United States. A global effort needs to be made in order for there to be a difference. Europe especially should factor in, since they lead the world in bottled water use. Until there is a united effort in significantly reducing the number of bottled waters produced, the world will continue to suffer. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment because it harms ecosystems, clogs landfills, and burns unnecessary fuel to create the plastic and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. According to the American Beverage Assoication (2007) by the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of “500,000 bottles a year” (p. 1). This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year” said Charles Fishman( p. 1.) According to a survey by the WWF in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was “increasing seven percent each year” (p.4). Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, “it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water” says a report by National Geographic (p. 2). “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, “90 percent of bottled water is not recycled”. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.” The NRDC (2006) also found in their study that “bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines” (p 2).
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups (2007), who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”(p.1). So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. This education will come at a cost however. Money will have to be spent to promote and advertise why this shift in drinking water is necessary, but it will be worth it in the long run. This craze needs to be dealt with immediately; everyday more bottles are being produced, the more harm being produced toward the world. This anti-bottled water movement should not be carried by just the United States. A global effort needs to be made in order for there to be a difference. Europe especially should factor in, since they lead the world in bottled water use. Until there is a united effort in significantly reducing the number of bottled waters produced, the world will continue to suffer. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Rough Draft #1 Workshop
Rough Draft #1
Workshop Questions
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.
I like the overall topic presented in this research paper. You present some good arguments based on statistical data which is important when dealing with scientific matters because it provides legitimate backing of an argument.
2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.
Thesis3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?
The author does not clearly express his opinion of the topic in the thesis, in accordance with how the thesis statement should be set up for this class. All that is written is “If I could choose anywhere in the world to live, I would not pick a place on the coastline.” You then go on to describe why you wouldn’t want to live on the coast; so the argument makes sense, just need to clear up the wording of the thesis.
4. What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?
Environmentalists would agree with the author, people that agree that global warming is causing sea levels to rise, causing coastal cities to suffer the consequences. People that would disagree with the author would be scientists and others who believe that is warming pattern is cyclical and that according to historical data, although it is warm at the moment, it will begin to decrease again shortly, and has nothing to do with societies influence on global warming.
5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?
The paper does NOT have an argumentative thesis statement using the ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE method.Content6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give this paper a 5. It is an interesting topic, however if the organization and facts were cleaned up a bit, it would be much more interesting.
7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).
The author can more fully develop ideas throughout the paper. Starting with the first paragraph, he jumps right from the “thesis” into his main argument. By his expanding his first paragraph with interesting and intriguing statements, it will entice the reader to keep reading. This paper if full of information and data, so maybe putting in your own opinion in some areas might make the paper a better read, than just a paper full of statistical jargon.
8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.
Someone that might disagree with the author’s viewpoint might question the accuracy of the data given, and if it isn’t data from a credible source, then paper might be thrown out all together.
9.Has the author dealt with these objections?
The author has not really addressed the other side of the argument. A paper can still have a counter argument, just not argued as much or well. However by bringing to the paper both sides of the topic, you let the reader decide what side they want to take.
10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?
Each paragraph has something to do with sea level rising, however could be polished to improve connection and sharpen the relevancy.
Style11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?
Transitions from one paragraph to the next are somewhat choppy, but that can be expected with a technical subject such as this one. Keeping in mind what you are going to write about in the next paragraph might help with the transitions. In the last sentence of the paragraph, setup the opening of the next paragraph by writing something that pertains to both of them. This is not possible for every transition, but it is an idea.
12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?
The opening of the essay is not very interesting. It is a general and vague statement, and isn’t specific enough. A better one might be, the coastline of the United States and throughout the world are in grave danger. If I were to choose a place to live in the U.S., it wouldn’t be along the coast because of the potential sea level rises today and for years to come. By making it more specific, it draws the reader in, because they might feel personally affected.
13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?
In this draft of the paper, there is no concluding paragraph. The paper ends with another paragraph dealing with salt water levels causing sea level rises.
Research14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited or References (depending if it's MLA or APA); look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)
There are 5 times where he has cited quotes using parenthetical citations. However only once does he give credit to the author using the authors name before the statement.
15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?
I can not tell if he did or did not rely on just 1 or 2 sources because he did not have a work cited page in his paper.
16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?
The author does not really state his own opinion, relies more on statistical data that wasn’t cited or sourced. 17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited or References that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)
N/A due to no work cited.
18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).
N/A due to no work cited.
19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.
Does not comment after quotes.
Workshop Questions
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.
I like the overall topic presented in this research paper. You present some good arguments based on statistical data which is important when dealing with scientific matters because it provides legitimate backing of an argument.
2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.
Thesis3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?
The author does not clearly express his opinion of the topic in the thesis, in accordance with how the thesis statement should be set up for this class. All that is written is “If I could choose anywhere in the world to live, I would not pick a place on the coastline.” You then go on to describe why you wouldn’t want to live on the coast; so the argument makes sense, just need to clear up the wording of the thesis.
4. What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?
Environmentalists would agree with the author, people that agree that global warming is causing sea levels to rise, causing coastal cities to suffer the consequences. People that would disagree with the author would be scientists and others who believe that is warming pattern is cyclical and that according to historical data, although it is warm at the moment, it will begin to decrease again shortly, and has nothing to do with societies influence on global warming.
5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?
The paper does NOT have an argumentative thesis statement using the ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE method.Content6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give this paper a 5. It is an interesting topic, however if the organization and facts were cleaned up a bit, it would be much more interesting.
7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).
The author can more fully develop ideas throughout the paper. Starting with the first paragraph, he jumps right from the “thesis” into his main argument. By his expanding his first paragraph with interesting and intriguing statements, it will entice the reader to keep reading. This paper if full of information and data, so maybe putting in your own opinion in some areas might make the paper a better read, than just a paper full of statistical jargon.
8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.
Someone that might disagree with the author’s viewpoint might question the accuracy of the data given, and if it isn’t data from a credible source, then paper might be thrown out all together.
9.Has the author dealt with these objections?
The author has not really addressed the other side of the argument. A paper can still have a counter argument, just not argued as much or well. However by bringing to the paper both sides of the topic, you let the reader decide what side they want to take.
10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?
Each paragraph has something to do with sea level rising, however could be polished to improve connection and sharpen the relevancy.
Style11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?
Transitions from one paragraph to the next are somewhat choppy, but that can be expected with a technical subject such as this one. Keeping in mind what you are going to write about in the next paragraph might help with the transitions. In the last sentence of the paragraph, setup the opening of the next paragraph by writing something that pertains to both of them. This is not possible for every transition, but it is an idea.
12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?
The opening of the essay is not very interesting. It is a general and vague statement, and isn’t specific enough. A better one might be, the coastline of the United States and throughout the world are in grave danger. If I were to choose a place to live in the U.S., it wouldn’t be along the coast because of the potential sea level rises today and for years to come. By making it more specific, it draws the reader in, because they might feel personally affected.
13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?
In this draft of the paper, there is no concluding paragraph. The paper ends with another paragraph dealing with salt water levels causing sea level rises.
Research14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited or References (depending if it's MLA or APA); look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)
There are 5 times where he has cited quotes using parenthetical citations. However only once does he give credit to the author using the authors name before the statement.
15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?
I can not tell if he did or did not rely on just 1 or 2 sources because he did not have a work cited page in his paper.
16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?
The author does not really state his own opinion, relies more on statistical data that wasn’t cited or sourced. 17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited or References that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)
N/A due to no work cited.
18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).
N/A due to no work cited.
19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.
Does not comment after quotes.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Research Paper First Draft: Bottled Water
Research Paper First Draft: Bottled Water
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment and the world and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. By the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of 500,000 bottles a year1. This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year2.” According to a survey in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was increasing seven percent each year3. Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water4. “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries5.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, 90 percent of bottled water is not recycled6. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap7.” The NRDC also found in their study that bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines8.
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much9. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption10.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God.” So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions12.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
1. American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
2. Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
3. Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
4. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
5. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
6. Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
7. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
8. Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
9. Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
10. Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
11. Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
12. Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment and the world and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. By the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of 500,000 bottles a year1. This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year2.” According to a survey in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was increasing seven percent each year3. Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water4. “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries5.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, 90 percent of bottled water is not recycled6. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap7.” The NRDC also found in their study that bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines8.
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much9. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption10.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God.” So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions12.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
1. American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
2. Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
3. Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
4. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
5. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
6. Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
7. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
8. Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
9. Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
10. Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
11. Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
12. Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)