Adios to Aquafina and Arrowhead?
By Chris Freeburg
In Fr. Engh's Inaugural Address, he challenged the University to become "a major center for discussions of environmental justice, and for examining the ethical dimensions of how we treat the physical world."
When discussing issues of justice, it can be easy to focus on large problems in society outside of our personal lives.
Examples include: greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. auto fleet, industry pollution that disproportionately affects impoverished neighborhoods, or widespread environmental damage from mining, oil and gas production activities.
These issues require time and energy intensive solutions because of the involvement of national and corporate interests and significant socioeconomic-political forces.
This should not hinder our efforts to create a more just world and, in fact, highlights the severity of the issue and need for change.
However, there are many issues of environmental justice in our daily lives that demand our personal attention. I would like to highlight just one in our consumption of single-use plastic water bottles.
Plastic water bottles have not always been a huge area of consumption. When I was ten years old, I remember toting around a water bottle with a screw-top lid and a straw to soccer practice because my parents thought buying bottled water was a waste of money.
Our society's approach to water bottle consumption has changed since then and, according to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, sales of water bottles in the U.S. rose from 3.3 billion in 1997 to 15 billion in 2002.
As such, the impact of water bottles sales and production has become a much larger issue in terms of environmental impact.
The Pacific Institute is a nonpartisan research institute that works to advance environmental protection, economic development and social equity.
In 2006, it estimated that production of bottled water for American consumption required more than 17 million barrels of oil, which is enough oil to fuel 1.3 million cars for a year, not including the energy for transportation, which produced more than 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide and took 3 liters of water to produce every one liter of bottled water.
Additionally, in the U.S. approximately 70 to 80 percent of water bottles are NOT recycled. Although there is no direct measure of the rate of recycling for water bottles on campus, Lindsey Cromwell, Director of the Office of Sustainability, has an estimate. "Based on our waste characterization, about 8 percent of total landfill waste [from the University] by volume is water bottles," she said.
On a campus with almost 11,000 staff, faculty and students, that means quite a lot of water bottles are not recycled.
This seems quite startling when you consider the focus of sustainability here at Santa Clara.
Along with the University's Sustainability PLEDGE, the Strategic Plan and Climate Neutrality Plan both highlight SCU's commitment to sustainability. Additionally, the University has pledged to reduce water bottle sales to 50 percent of the 2009 levels by 2012.
If we have a commodity that is free, proven to be safe — the EPA regulates tap water whereas roughly 60 to 70 percent of bottled water is unregulated — available in tap water, the question remains: why do we need bottled water when it creates so much waste and has such a large environmental footprint?
On SCU's campus, I can think of a few reasonable answers: on hot September days when prospective students are visiting campus and need a refreshing drink, or for families sitting under the scorching sun for hours during Commencement. However, for the majority of SCU's students, staff and faculty, the daily consumption of water bottles does not make sense.
Thus, I propose a University-wide commitment to a "Water-Bottle Free" pledge, where students, staff and faculty promise to bring their Nalgene or Sigg aluminum bottle to campus for use during class, meetings, Malley workouts and other daily uses.
I also propose the Administration ask Bon Appétit to remove water bottles from Market Square and Mission Café as a symbolic gesture that the University is aligned with this sustainability effort.
On its website, Bon Appétit proudly advertises itself as a "Sustainable Food Service," and I think this move would reflect that corporate support. Guests would still be able to purchase water bottles at the bookstore, the library or various other locations, but the University would also make a substantial statement that supports its commitment to sustainability.
Joe Sugg, Assistant Vice President of University Operations and Jane Barrantes, Assistant Vice President of Auxiliary Services, have already promised to install more goose-neck fountains at focal points around campus.
Now, if I haven't made my point already, let me offer this last tantalizing piece of information. Seattle University, one of our Jesuit sister schools and fellow Bon Appétit patron, and Gonzaga University, our friendly Bulldog rivals, have already implemented a ban on water bottles at their schools.
So, if not for environmental justice or sustainability, then why not for Bronco pride?
Chris Freeburg is a senior biology and international development double major.