[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]

/realnews/ - REAL NEWS

Real News Without Shills or Trolls

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4
Max filesize is 8 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 1 per post.


File: 1442327047246.jpg (30.22 KB, 292x255, 292:255, un_agenda_21.jpg)

 No.440

Nestle Continues Pumping California Dry to Sell Public Water for Outrageous Profits

Drought-shaming in California – the calling out, usually via social media, of neighbors and others who break water-use rules – has become quite prevalent as the state continues to suffer through a historic drought. But not everyone is getting shamed equally.

As reported by TheAntiMedia.com, one company that is getting less than its fair share of shame is Nestle, which, though the giant company has drawn some of the public's ire, has not received nearly enough "to have spontaneously sprouted a conscience."

The drought-shaming phenomenon worked well enough for Starbucks to end its bottling of Ethos Water in California altogether, with the coffee company moving its entire operation to Pennsylvania instead.

However, Nestle has simply shrugged off any public outrage of its water-bottling operations in the arid state and has even doubled down by boosting its draw of water from natural springs, even in threatened areas like the San Bernardino National Forest, and despite the fact its permit is grossly out of date.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2168088/arrowhead-letter-1987.pdf

No current permit

Profit, it seems, is more important to Nestle than doing the civic-minded thing in a state where water resources are fast dwindling.

As TheAntiMedia.com further reported:

Nestle has somehow managed the most sweetheart of deals for its Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water, which is ostensibly sourced from Arrowhead Springs — and which also happens to be located on public land in a national forest.

In 2013, the company drew 27 million gallons of water from 12 springs in Strawberry Canyon for the brand — apparently by employing rather impressive legerdemain — considering the permit to do so expired in 1988.

However, as the company says, that's no big deal, really, as it has promised to be a good steward of the land, and because the expired permit's annual fee has been dutifully paid – to the tune of just $524.

TheAntiMedia.com went on to note that Nestle is not merely collecting spring water; the company also used some 51 million gallons of ground water from the same area over the same period of time.

Further, there is an additional site where the company is draining water for profit as the state's punishing drought endures: Deer Canyon. In 2014, Nestle drew 76 million gallons from springs there, a sizeable increase over 2013's draw of 56 million gallons, "and under circumstances just as questionable as water collection at Arrowhead," the alternative news site reported.

https://archive.is/fxOwx

http://www.naturalnews.com/051166_Nestle_bottled_water_California_drought.html

 No.476

Nestle sure seems confident that the people will never be able to compel the Californian government to take action.

Pure lobbying, or other connections? Or is Nestle just so big and multinational that they don't GAF because any potential fine is worth the profit margin?


 No.477

>>476

>Pure lobbying, or other connections?

Likely both.

The thing that pisses me off is the fact that everyone else has to suffer from water rations or face huge fines, but if you belong to multinational corporation then you are exempt from the laws. That's how fascism works, government is working for corporate interests, not national interests or the interest of the people. It very much reminds me of the UN's Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st Century) 'conspiracy' if you will, in which natural resources (like water) will be restricted and/or rationed but large multinational corporations can do whatever they please regardless how it effects environment or the people. The cost of the resources can then be controlled, prices will rise, and those in control (large multinational corporations) will profit even more from the public's dependance.


 No.478

>>477

That happens with most environmental measures too. The people are taxed, regulated, expected to use less, but the lion's share of the environmental impact is by large corporations, not the people.

When they manage to ram through a carbon tax, it won't change anything because all the people who will be paying taxes aren't actually creating most of the carbon emissions. Those who are can lobby their way out of it and probably receive tax breaks for minuscule token efforts, if they don't end up owning the carbon credit system outright.


 No.480

>>478

I agree. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I read reports a couple years back where several carbon credit exchanges were shut down by governments due to fraud and insolvency. There was even an ongoing federal investigation into CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) due to fraudulent derivatives trading that scammed many of the investors. The whole thing sounds very shady, that's exactly why when I hear politicians claiming they want to 'protect our environment' I wonder in what ways they benefit by doing so. Legitimate environmental problems (like pollution) I keep an open mind about, but when it comes to carbon credit schemes 'to protect the Earth' I know it's all about making more profits.


 No.485

Yeah there's been some bad business in carbon credits, but it's still alive and well and they badly want to turn all Americans into carbon credit buyers through taxes or tax incentives. Why do you think Al Gore loves the idea so much? He pushes what makes his investments grow like any smart businessman.

It's hard to trust environmental measures but it's also hard to have faith that they'll do anything other than further impoverish average people. And once you get past the corruption, exemptions, and loopholes, you still have China and India polluting like it isn't even an issue. It seems impossible to do anything for the planet, not while there are profits to be made and politicians to lobby.

But at least in California it's a local issue they could handle. There's no reason for anyone to want Nestle making the water shortage worse. But of course even on a state level, nothing meaningful is done about it. If there's no hope for such a clear problem that shouldn't even have sides to it, what hope is there for bigger problems? If something major like saving the ocean ecosystems became absolutely vital tomorrow, could anything even be done that mattered? You'd probably see a tax on people who go swimming or something.

People go on and on about socialism vs corporations on environmental issues, but you're completely right, it's both working together to gain while not changing anything. Everything seems to be working like that these days. Tax cuts, subsidies, new regulations, new mandates, all of it seems to do so little for the people and so much for politicians and large corporations. Every time I hear "small business" or "jobs" or "our responsibility" I just cringe.




[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
[]
[ home / board list / faq / random / create / bans / search / manage / irc ] [ ]