San Fran Major Ban Bottled Water

[Little-Acorn]

SF Mayor Gavin Newsome is to be credited for getting one right. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. One of the reasons Newsome mentioned for stopping the city from buying bottled water where tap water was available, was that bottled water was too expensive, or unnecessarily expensive.

Of course, he had to throw in all the usual language about preventing global warming, the usual tripe for those bottled-water-drinking types who have also convinced themselves that man had something to do with global warming and/or can do anything to alter it. I don't know if Newsome actually believes that bunk himself, or is just tossing it in to make his constituents think he's as nutty as they are and so get their votes. But in indicating the pointless expense of bottled water over tap water, Newsome came dangerously close to telling the truth for once.

 

[uscitizen]

How much energy is used in the making of the water conatiners, the bottling process, delivery process, etc ?
I would suspect that bottled water contributes many tons of pollutants to our environment daily.

 

[Superlative]

How much energy is used in the making of the water conatiners, the bottling process, delivery process, etc ?
I would suspect that bottled water contributes many tons of pollutants to our environment daily.

As does recycling itself.

 

[maineman]

Why are the people of San Fran letting this idiot humilate their city?

from my vantage, that would seem to be the business of the citizens of San Francisco and NONE of yours.

why do YOU give a shit what an uber-liberal city like San Francisco does, anyway? If it really pisses people off, they can drive to Oakland on their day off and stock up!

 

[red states rule]

How much energy is used in the making of the water conatiners, the bottling process, delivery process, etc ?
I would suspect that bottled water contributes many tons of pollutants to our environment daily.

If that is the case, next the Mayor will shut down all the men and womens toilets to save water and from polluting the enviroment

Then it can called the smelly and thirsy city

 

[mattskramer]

If that is the case, next the Mayor will shut down all the men and womens toilets to save water and from polluting the enviroment

Then it can called the smelly and thirsy city

I thought that you’d be too embarrassed and humiliated to post again on this thread, after you had me convinced that the employees had to bring candles to their job if they work at night. After all, they are not allowed to have light bulbs. LOL.

 

[red states rule]

I thought that you’d be too embarrassed and humiliated to post again on this thread, after you had me convinced that the employees had to bring candles to their job if they work at night. After all, they are not allowed to have light bulbs. LOL.

They went to the more "green friendly' bulbs

That cost much more and do not put out any more light then the old bulbs

 

[red states rule]

One can hope

Why stop with SUV's?

The Major should then ban workers from driving any gas powered car/truck

That would help the enviroment

 

[red states rule]

San Fran Bottle Ban Not Enough for Greenpeace or CNN
Posted by Dan Gainor on June 25, 2007 - 17:30.
Make a crazy eco-rule that affects thousands and the mainstream media finds critics – who said it doesn’t go far enough.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome banned city departments from purchasing bottled water, even for water coolers. But that wasn’t good enough for Greenpeace Energy Policy analyst Samantha Rogers.

Rogers told CNN’s “American Morning” fill-in host Rob Marciano she wanted to see the mayor do more than just ban plastic bottles, but to sign a plan championed by global warming doomsayers that would force the city to have more than 50 percent of its energy come from renewable resources by the year 2017.

Marciano joined in and suggested to viewers that “one way everybody could save the environment” is drink tap water instead of bottled water.

The city, built near the volatile San Andreas Fault, is susceptible to earthquakes and has witnessed major earthquakes, notably in 1906 and 1989. Another earthquake could damage the city’s volatile public works structure that delivers tap water to the city’s 700,000-plus population. CNN’s coverage skipped that little possibility.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13725

 

[90K]

Why stop with SUV's?

The Major should then ban workers from driving any gas powered car/truck

That would help the enviroment

that is why they have the BART

 

[90K]

Marciano joined in and suggestedThe city, built near the volatile San Andreas Fault, is susceptible to earthquakes and has witnessed major earthquakes, notably in 1906 and 1989. Another earthquake could damage the city’s volatile public works structure that delivers tap water to the city’s 700,000-plus population. CNN’s coverage skipped that little possibility.

http://newsbusters.org/node/13725

I moved out there in 1989 right after that quake,not only did the Giants and A's go to the world series but the upper span of the Bay bridge collapsed on the Oakland side. After that a lot of the commuters actually used the BART but eventually started to drive and things got back to normal with total gridlock on the roads.

 

[red states rule]

that is why they have the BART

You mean there are people using BART?

 

[90K]

You mean there are people using BART?

not enough. But it was pretty efficient when I'd go from Down Town SF up to Concord and it took a lot less time than driving and having gridlock.

 

[red states rule]

not enough. But it was pretty efficient when I'd go from Down Town SF up to Concord and it took a lot less time than driving and having gridlock.

I woinder how many liberals are driving THEIR suv's on the crowded highways

 

[90K]

I woinder how many liberals are driving THEIR suv's on the crowded highways

Oh and those ragged out Volvo's and BMW 2002's that smoke like a factory, you can bet your ass a lot and make no mistake they like us address things when it is convenient. I mean we are all guilty of something. You have to make taking the train more than just affordable but reasonable and worth the sacrifice.

 

[red states rule]

Oh and those ragged out Volvo's and BMW 2002's that smoke like a factory, you can bet your ass a lot and make no mistake they like us address things when it is convenient. I mean we are all guilty of something. You have to make taking the train more than just affordable but reasonable and worth the sacrifice.

I would like to see their reaction if you tried to take THEIR car away from them - as they would like to take SUV's from their owners

The key is lowering the cost of taking the train - it would make it more attractive to the people. Like cutting taxes - it would increase revenues and you get the desired effect

 

[90K]

Well like taking there car I'd be a bit upset as well. I live in the country and commute but I'd take the train if we had one and it were reasonable and affordable after parking and pass fare. Next to free parking and gas prices and freedom to leave when you want!

 

[red states rule]

Well like taking there car I'd be a bit upset as well. I live in the country and commute but I'd take the train if we had one and it were reasonable and affordable after parking and pass fare. Next to free parking and gas prices and freedom to leave when you want!

Libs have been out to ban SUV for years - and if you drive on you are the devil

If government made mass transit more affordable more people would take it. They keep raising the price, even though alot of taxpayer money is poured into it

 

[90K]

But it is hard to have affordable mass transiet systems for many reasons. I mean the up keep of the equipment and rails and buses is a lot of money and to pay these people cost a fair share as well, unless you use immigrants who have shade tree skills..... So really it has to be a decision to make the effort. The SUV war and liberals is a farse they are equally as to blame.

 

[Edward]

from my vantage, that would seem to be the business of the citizens of San Francisco and NONE of yours.

why do YOU give a shit what an uber-liberal city like San Francisco does, anyway? If it really pisses people off, they can drive to Oakland on their day off and stock up!

Because he is a tryant and he thinks that his faction should rule the entire country and that their opinion is the only one that matters. It doesn't matter to him that the people of San Francisco agree with their mayor on this issue because in RSR's and that of his buddies in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Texas, and many other places they don't have the right to self government. It doesn't matter that these people live in the same community, and that their children attend the same schools, and that they have different issues and concerns than do people in other cities that are located in other states. You are correct in stating that it is the business of the citizens of San Francisco and not RSR's but RSR isn't going to mind his own damn business anymore than the assholes he votes to represent him will mind their own damn business.