California Wildfires Underscore Value of Bottled Water
Hypocritical politicians malign this product of "convenience"—until they need it.
In December 2023 Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass publicly congratulated herself for taking “steps towards building a greener” city, one of which was banning the sale of bottled water at LAX, the eighth busiest airport in the world. Bass elaborated on this “bold” policy in a related statement:
"The climate crisis is a great challenge facing our city, and phasing out single-use plastic water bottles at Los Angeles World Airports facilities is an important step to reducing our environmental footprint and protecting the health and livelihood of all Angelenos.”
Following the outbreak of a dozen blistering wildfires in southern California–which have so far killed 28 people and scorched 60 miles of Los Angeles–mayor Bass has changed her tune. She’s issued no grandstanding statements about sustainability (that is, when she’s not ignoring the press entirely). But she has taken to Twitter, urging the public to report any business that engages in price gouging when selling essential supplies. The first product on the list? Bottled water.
Bass has an obligation to ensure that Angelenos have access to clean drinking water, especially during a crisis of this magnitude. But the mayor’s about-face illustrates a critical point about the value of bottled water that many policymakers and activists have failed to grasp: bottled water is an essential and, in some cases, a life-saving product that makes our lives better. Restricting its use for the sake of some self-aggrandizing environmental campaign is not only wrongheaded, it’s downright dangerous.
Bottled water deniers
The value of bottled water is most apparent in crisis situations. It’s one of the first supplies officials request in any emergency. And when municipal water infrastructure fails–for instance, when LA’s drinking water supply is thoroughly contaminated during a wildfire–it’s retailers like Walmart that routinely rush in to supply victims with the water they need, often in the form of charity. A product that many critics dismiss as a convenience enjoyed by the gullible and privileged is clearly much more important when lives are on the line.
The related and critical point is this: major retailers and ordinary people are able to bring truckloads of bottled water into disaster zones precisely because it’s consumed in abundance. Since Americans buy some $48 billion worth of bottled water annually, grocers stock their shelves with it and convenience stores prominently display it next to the wide variety of other beverages they sell. Put simply, a plentiful supply of bottled water–the “convenience” unbalanced activists decry–is precisely what enables the charity we’ve seen in LA and previous disaster zones. Consumerism has overlooked benefits, in other words.
Convenience makes us healthier
There’s more to be said for convenience, however. One thing everyone knows intuitively is that we make better decisions when those decisions are convenient. For example, living closer to a gym incentivizes us to work out more frequently and intensely, and the same health-boosting phenomenon is at work when Americans have access to bottled water.
Much like Mayor Bass, the University of Vermont (UVM) learned this lesson accidentally. Several years ago the school banned the sale of bottled water and publicly praised itself for being oh so very eco-conscious. The results were disappointing, as Reason reported:
“The problem: Bottled water consumption … creating waste! The solution: Eliminate single-use bottled water from campus vending machines, give away reusable containers, and spend $100,000 to add filling stations around campus. Sounds like a great idea with the best of intentions. What could possibly go wrong?
Students don't always remember things, like their reusable water bottles. Faced with limited choices, a study revealed the demand for sugary drinks on campus surged 25 percent and plastic bottle use per capita had increased by 6 percent.”
The lead author of that study, UVM nutrition professor Rachel Johnson, summed up our point nicely. “We need to make the healthy choice the easy choice,” she told the media after her research was published. Restoring student access to bottled water was the simplest way to do that.
This wasn’t an outcome restricted to a single university. More recent research has shown that widespread access to bottled water has drastically cut calorie consumption—by five trillion calories in 2020 alone. Given the choice between soda and bottled water, the vast majority of respondents in the study (91 percent) said they preferred water. However, 74 percent of them said they would opt for less-healthy packaged drinks over tap water if bottled water wasn’t available.
These results lend credibility to studies showing a connection between higher water consumption and weight loss. When we consider that adequate hydration is also linked to improved physical and cognitive function–and that a majority of Americans don’t drink enough–the obvious conclusion is that ample access to bottled water is an important public health development.
Plastic mythology
The final plank in the anti-bottled water platform is the fable that single-use plastic is bad for the planet. But this beloved environmentalist mantra is plainly false. According to one recent study, in 15 out of 16 applications, plastics have proven to have lower greenhouse gas emissions than their alternatives. As we said of that research at the time:
“Plastic is lighter, uses less energy to produce, is often stronger and lasts longer. Even in the field of waste management, across different processes, plastic fared much better … In many cases, like food packaging, there is simply no viable alternative …”
PET, the plastic utilized to manufacture single-use water bottles, has the smallest effect on greenhouse emissions because it weighs less than glass and aluminum and has low energy intensity during production. “Aluminum cans release twice the emissions of PET bottles,” the study found, “and glass bottles release three times the emissions.”
Conclusion
It’s undeniable that bottled water serves several critical functions. When it’s not standing in for failed municipal water supplies, it helps millions of Americans stay hydrated and lead a healthier lifestyle.
And it does all that while exerting a smaller toll on the planet than the inferior alternatives. Mayor Bass and her activist allies need to find a new environmental villain, because bottled water surely doesn’t fit the bill.