C’ha provato, Mineracqua, ma è stata colta in fallo. Se non vedete più su quotidiani e periodici la pubblicità istituzionale della federazione nazionale delle aziende che imbottigliano e vendono acqua minerale, infatti, non è perché sono finiti i soldi.
È stato il Giurì di autodisciplina pubblicitaria (www.iap.it) a “bocciare”, giudicandolo ingannevole, il contenuto dello spot, il cui claim era “Acqua minerale. Molto più che potabile” e il cui messaggio era una (presunta) comparazione tra le caratteristiche delle acque minerali e di quella erogata dagli acquedotti (vedi Ae 121). Una comparazione a senso unico.
Ettore Fortuna, presidente di Mineracqua, intervistato a metà gennaio da Radio 24 in merito alla decisione del Giurì ha spiegato come, a suo avviso, si trattasse di “una decisione politica e non tecnico-giuridica”.
Altreconomia ha potuto visionare in anteprima la pronuncia del Giurì (la decisione è stata presa a fine novembre 2010, ma la sentenza non è stata ancora pubblicata), un testo che smonta la “tesi” di Fortuna e fornisce spunti di riflessione in merito al rapporto tra diritto a una corretta informazione e informazione commerciale.
Il Giurì, infatti, ha scelto di trattare (e sanzionare) il messaggio pubblicitario tanto nel merito quanto sul metodo. Da un lato scrive che “i quattro aspetti che il messaggio evidenzia quali caratteristiche che accrediterebbero alle acque minerali un grado di sicurezza per i consumatori maggiore rispetto a quello della cosiddetta acqua di rubinetto -sintetizzati dai titoli 'senza cloro', 'senza deroghe', 'senza trasformazioni' e 'senza paragoni'- risultano trattati con una impostazione non corretta, idonea ad ingenerare nel pubblico convinzioni errate e timori non giustificati circa una tendenziale insicurezza delle acque potabili, in particolare per la salute dei fruitori”. In particolare, l'affermazione secondo la quale l'acqua minerale è “solo” bevibile -scrive il Giurì- “ha in sé una valenza spregiativa non giustificabile”.
Poiché la pubblicità si chiude con la frase “Da un'informazione trasparente nascono scelte libere”, il Giurì ha ritenuto opportuno censurare anche il metodo utilizzato da Mineracqua, secondo la quale la pubblicità era una forma di contro informazione necessaria per pareggiare il conto con le campagne che, come la nostra “Imbrocchiamola!”, “hanno promosso verso i cittadini il consumo di acqua potabile a discapito della minerale imbottigliata”. “L'annuncio, che promette oltretutto una 'informazione trasparente', quasi a sottolineare una carenza di corretta informazione che circonderebbe e proteggerebbe il mondo delle acque di rubinetto, fa così leva sulla enunciazione di dati parziali, o di suggestione, per pervenire al risultato di una comunicazione tendenziosa che getta ombre di potenziale insicurezza, o comunque discredito, sull'acqua erogata dagli acquedotti” spiega il Giurì.
Mineracqua esce così con le ossa rotte dal primo tentativo di pubblicità istituzionale. Ettore Fortuna, cui la bocciatura ha senz'altro dato fastidio, nell'intervista con Radio 24 aveva fatto intendere anche che l’azione presso il comitato di controllo sia stata promossa da alcuni enti locali, con riferimento in particolare al Comune di Milano. Niente di più sbagliato, anche in questo caso: Vincenzo Guggino, segretario generale dell’Istituto di autodisciplina pubblicitaria (Iap), ci ha spiegato che “l’istanza è un’iniziativa autonoma del Giurì. La materia -ha continuato- è d’interesse perché la pubblicità mette in discussione la qualità dell’acqua di rubinetto. Il comitato di controllo, che istruisce l’istanza, è una sorta di pm; il Giurì, organo giudicante, è un giudice terzo”. Guggino ha definito “bizzarro” l’atteggiamento di Fortuna, visto che in passato “le associate a Mineracqua in più occasioni hanno usato il Giurì per ‘guerre commerciali’”. Non oggi però, e l’attività e i giudizi dell’Istituto vanno delegittimati.
Sintesi della decisione del Giurì
Altreconomi: Mineracqua, quando la pubblicità è ingannevole
Sunday, 27 February 2011
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Friday, 18 February 2011
Think outside the bottle
Renewing our public water systems begins by turning off the spigot to bottled water
Because water is a human right and not a commodity to be bought and sold for profit;
Because bottled water corporations are changing the very way people think about water and undermining people's confidence in public water systems;
Because up to 40% of bottled water in the U.S. and Canada is sourced from municipal tap water;
Because some bottlers have run over communities' concerns and the environment when they extract water and build bottling plants to get local spring and ground water;
Because bottled water travels many miles from the source, results in the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels, and contributes to the billions of plastic bottles ending up in our landfills;
Because worldwide there is a need for investments in public water systems to ensure equal access to water, a key ingredient for prosperity and health for all people; and
Because solutions to ensuring water as a fundamental human right require people acting together and standing up for public water systems,
The report "Tapping Congress to Get Off the Bottle," the third in a series, outlines bottled water spending in the House of Representatives, maps current trends in public water system investments and examines the additional costs associated with water bottling. The report also discusses the connections between bottled water marketing and the erosion of confidence in tap water. Finally, it recommends the elimination of all unnecessary congressional spending on bottled water and calls for renewed investments in the nation’s public water systems.
read the report
Because water is a human right and not a commodity to be bought and sold for profit;
Because bottled water corporations are changing the very way people think about water and undermining people's confidence in public water systems;
Because up to 40% of bottled water in the U.S. and Canada is sourced from municipal tap water;
Because some bottlers have run over communities' concerns and the environment when they extract water and build bottling plants to get local spring and ground water;
Because bottled water travels many miles from the source, results in the burning of massive amounts of fossil fuels, and contributes to the billions of plastic bottles ending up in our landfills;
Because worldwide there is a need for investments in public water systems to ensure equal access to water, a key ingredient for prosperity and health for all people; and
Because solutions to ensuring water as a fundamental human right require people acting together and standing up for public water systems,
The report "Tapping Congress to Get Off the Bottle," the third in a series, outlines bottled water spending in the House of Representatives, maps current trends in public water system investments and examines the additional costs associated with water bottling. The report also discusses the connections between bottled water marketing and the erosion of confidence in tap water. Finally, it recommends the elimination of all unnecessary congressional spending on bottled water and calls for renewed investments in the nation’s public water systems.
read the report
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Right to water and sanitation is legally binding
Probably an old news, but it's important
1 October 2010 – The main United Nations body dealing with human rights has affirmed that the right to water and sanitation is contained in existing human rights treaties, and that States have the primary responsibility to ensure the full realisation of this and all other basic human rights.
While the General Assembly declared in July that safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights, this is the first time that the Human Rights Council has declared itself on the issue.
“This means that for the UN, the right to water and sanitation, is contained in existing human rights treaties and is therefore legally binding,” said the UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque.
“This landmark decision has the potential to change the lives of the billions of human beings who still lack access to water and sanitation,” she said of the resolution adopted yesterday by the Geneva-based Council.
Almost 900 million people worldwide do not have access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation. Studies also indicate about 1.5 million children under the age of five die each year and 443 million school days are lost because of water- and sanitation-related diseases.
The Assembly’s resolution recognized the fundamental right to clean water and sanitation, but did not specify that the right entailed legally binding obligations.
The Council closed this gap by clarifying the foundation for recognition of the right and the legal standards which apply, according to a news release.
“The right to water and sanitation is a human right, equal to all other human rights, which implies that it is justiciable and enforceable,” said Ms. de Albuquerque. “Hence from today onwards we have an even greater responsibility to concentrate all our efforts in the implementation and full realization of this essential right.”
UN News Centre 1-10-2010
1 October 2010 – The main United Nations body dealing with human rights has affirmed that the right to water and sanitation is contained in existing human rights treaties, and that States have the primary responsibility to ensure the full realisation of this and all other basic human rights.
While the General Assembly declared in July that safe and clean drinking water and sanitation is a human right essential to the full enjoyment of life and all other human rights, this is the first time that the Human Rights Council has declared itself on the issue.
“This means that for the UN, the right to water and sanitation, is contained in existing human rights treaties and is therefore legally binding,” said the UN Independent Expert on human rights obligations related to access to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina de Albuquerque.
“This landmark decision has the potential to change the lives of the billions of human beings who still lack access to water and sanitation,” she said of the resolution adopted yesterday by the Geneva-based Council.
Almost 900 million people worldwide do not have access to clean water and more than 2.6 billion people do not have access to basic sanitation. Studies also indicate about 1.5 million children under the age of five die each year and 443 million school days are lost because of water- and sanitation-related diseases.
The Assembly’s resolution recognized the fundamental right to clean water and sanitation, but did not specify that the right entailed legally binding obligations.
The Council closed this gap by clarifying the foundation for recognition of the right and the legal standards which apply, according to a news release.
“The right to water and sanitation is a human right, equal to all other human rights, which implies that it is justiciable and enforceable,” said Ms. de Albuquerque. “Hence from today onwards we have an even greater responsibility to concentrate all our efforts in the implementation and full realization of this essential right.”
UN News Centre 1-10-2010
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
The drying of the West
The Colorado River and the civilisation it waters are in crisis
STANDING on the Hoover Dam and looking upstream at Lake Mead, America’s largest reservoir, the visitor notices a wide, white band ringing the cliffs. Nicknamed “the bathtub ring”, this discolouration comes from minerals that were once deposited on the volcanic rock by the Colorado River and have become visible as its level has dropped. It is one sign of a water crisis that threatens America’s south-west.
Other reminders abound. Farther upstream there are dry docks, jutting out ominously into desert, where boats were once moored. In one finger of Lake Mead buildings that were abandoned in the 1930s, as the water of the newly dammed river rose and submerged them, have eerily begun reappearing, like a ghost town.
The main reason why Lake Mead, currently only 40% full, has been getting emptier is a decade-long drought. Whether this is a cyclical and normal event, or an early sign of climate change, is unclear. But even if the drought ends, most scientists think global warming will cause flows on the Colorado River to decrease by 10-30% in the next half century, says Douglas Kenney, the director of a water-policy programme at the University of Colorado Law School.
The other reason, says Mr Kenney, is the rapidly increasing demand for the river’s water. The Colorado provides much or most of the water for many cities and farms in seven states—Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California—before it peters out in the sands of Mexico.
In the northern states, its water supports cattle empires. In its southern stretch, especially in California’s Imperial County, the river irrigates deserts to produce America’s winter vegetables. And all along the way, aqueducts branch off to supply cities from Salt Lake City and Denver to Phoenix and Los Angeles. The metropolis closest to Lake Mead, Las Vegas, gets 90% of its water from this one source.
That is why Las Vegas is a canary in the mine shaft, as Pat Mulroy, the boss of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, puts it. The Las Vegas valley gets its water through two long channels drilled through the rock. The first taps the lake at 1,050 feet (320 metres) above sea level, the second at 1,000 feet. Lake Mead’s water level is now near its record low, at 1,086 feet. Within a few years it could leave Las Vegas’s first intake, or even both, dry.
The threat to Sin City is a good example of the four dimensions—physical, legal, political and cultural—of water in the West. For the physical, the standard response is to summon the engineers. Ms Mulroy already has them digging a third intake at 890 feet. Given the weight of the water on top, this is fiendishly difficult and will not be ready until 2014. Ms Mulroy also wants to pipe groundwater from the rural and wetter northern counties of Nevada to Las Vegas, but that has caused a vicious row.
Another response is to call in the lawyers. This was the preferred approach a century ago, in the era of the “water wars”. Starting with the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and continuing with statutes, a treaty with Mexico and case law until the 1960s, a truce was achieved. Called the Law of the River, the resulting regime determines who along the river has what right to how much water.
At least, it does in theory. The problem is that the law took shape after two decades of record water flows, which became the basis for allocation. As a result it apportions more water than there is in the river. For decades that did not matter, since there were so few people. Then the cattle, fruit and people using the river multiplied.
The law’s seniority rules theoretically mean that, for example, the taps to Las Vegas would be shut completely before a single lettuce-grower in California’s Imperial County lost a drop. This “idiocy of who gets cut first and second”, as Ms Mulroy calls it, gives rise to the political dimension. These days, co-operation has supplemented, if not wholly replaced, the old rivalries among agricultural and urban users, and among the seven states. Nevada and Arizona, for example, have a water-banking partnership, whereby Arizona stores excess water in its aquifers so that Nevada could use it in a pinch. In California, the water utility of Los Angeles has bought water rights from farmers in Imperial County. But arguments persist.
The final dimension is the culture of the West. Does every middle-class house really need a lawn in a desert? Ms Mulroy has already started paying Las Vegans to rip out their turf and opt for desert landscaping, which can be chic. Her own husband put up a fight but lost. So out went that lawn, too, just as the low-flow toilets and taps came in.
The Economist 27-1-2011
STANDING on the Hoover Dam and looking upstream at Lake Mead, America’s largest reservoir, the visitor notices a wide, white band ringing the cliffs. Nicknamed “the bathtub ring”, this discolouration comes from minerals that were once deposited on the volcanic rock by the Colorado River and have become visible as its level has dropped. It is one sign of a water crisis that threatens America’s south-west.
Other reminders abound. Farther upstream there are dry docks, jutting out ominously into desert, where boats were once moored. In one finger of Lake Mead buildings that were abandoned in the 1930s, as the water of the newly dammed river rose and submerged them, have eerily begun reappearing, like a ghost town.
The main reason why Lake Mead, currently only 40% full, has been getting emptier is a decade-long drought. Whether this is a cyclical and normal event, or an early sign of climate change, is unclear. But even if the drought ends, most scientists think global warming will cause flows on the Colorado River to decrease by 10-30% in the next half century, says Douglas Kenney, the director of a water-policy programme at the University of Colorado Law School.
The other reason, says Mr Kenney, is the rapidly increasing demand for the river’s water. The Colorado provides much or most of the water for many cities and farms in seven states—Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and California—before it peters out in the sands of Mexico.
In the northern states, its water supports cattle empires. In its southern stretch, especially in California’s Imperial County, the river irrigates deserts to produce America’s winter vegetables. And all along the way, aqueducts branch off to supply cities from Salt Lake City and Denver to Phoenix and Los Angeles. The metropolis closest to Lake Mead, Las Vegas, gets 90% of its water from this one source.
That is why Las Vegas is a canary in the mine shaft, as Pat Mulroy, the boss of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, puts it. The Las Vegas valley gets its water through two long channels drilled through the rock. The first taps the lake at 1,050 feet (320 metres) above sea level, the second at 1,000 feet. Lake Mead’s water level is now near its record low, at 1,086 feet. Within a few years it could leave Las Vegas’s first intake, or even both, dry.
The threat to Sin City is a good example of the four dimensions—physical, legal, political and cultural—of water in the West. For the physical, the standard response is to summon the engineers. Ms Mulroy already has them digging a third intake at 890 feet. Given the weight of the water on top, this is fiendishly difficult and will not be ready until 2014. Ms Mulroy also wants to pipe groundwater from the rural and wetter northern counties of Nevada to Las Vegas, but that has caused a vicious row.
Another response is to call in the lawyers. This was the preferred approach a century ago, in the era of the “water wars”. Starting with the Colorado River Compact of 1922 and continuing with statutes, a treaty with Mexico and case law until the 1960s, a truce was achieved. Called the Law of the River, the resulting regime determines who along the river has what right to how much water.
At least, it does in theory. The problem is that the law took shape after two decades of record water flows, which became the basis for allocation. As a result it apportions more water than there is in the river. For decades that did not matter, since there were so few people. Then the cattle, fruit and people using the river multiplied.
The law’s seniority rules theoretically mean that, for example, the taps to Las Vegas would be shut completely before a single lettuce-grower in California’s Imperial County lost a drop. This “idiocy of who gets cut first and second”, as Ms Mulroy calls it, gives rise to the political dimension. These days, co-operation has supplemented, if not wholly replaced, the old rivalries among agricultural and urban users, and among the seven states. Nevada and Arizona, for example, have a water-banking partnership, whereby Arizona stores excess water in its aquifers so that Nevada could use it in a pinch. In California, the water utility of Los Angeles has bought water rights from farmers in Imperial County. But arguments persist.
The final dimension is the culture of the West. Does every middle-class house really need a lawn in a desert? Ms Mulroy has already started paying Las Vegans to rip out their turf and opt for desert landscaping, which can be chic. Her own husband put up a fight but lost. So out went that lawn, too, just as the low-flow toilets and taps came in.
The Economist 27-1-2011
Monday, 14 February 2011
We use how much water? Scary water footprints, country by country...
A country's water footprint, as opposed to simple water use, is the total amount of H2O needed for the production of goods and services. Figuring out a country's water footprint means adding all the water used plus the water inherent in products imported, then minus the water in exports. Using this top-down method, the average water footprint in the world is 1,243 cubic meters a year. As you already might have guessed, in the U.S. we are water hogs - we use more than twice the world average, or 2,500 cubic meters. That's equivalent to an Olympic-sized swimming pool for each and every one of us, or 2.5 million liters each. The Chinese, to compare, use 700 cubic meters annually. Read on for the water burden of American beef eating, Italian pasta slurping and India's vegetarianism.
Water riches, water poverty
The top five biggest average daily users of water are the U.S., Australia, Italy, Japan, and Mexico - all five of these use well over 300 liters daily. The countries where water poverty is the worst and water usage is the lowest are Mozambique, Rwanda, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Uganda - these five use 15 liters or less daily. While some parts of our water footprint, including how much corporations and agriculture use or waste water, are not under our control, we can find simple ways to cut our daily water use, and even save money.
Where's the beef? It's our big water footprint
The U.S. has one of the largest water footprints, and the absolute highest daily household use of 575 liters. Our large footprint is primarily because of our beef habit - large consumption of meat per capita. High consumption of water-guzzling industrial products also contributes.
Amazingly, one kilo of boneless beef takes a massive 16,000 liters of water to produce, much of that used to grow the grain the cows will eat. One hamburger uses 2,400 liters of water! We in the U.S. also have the dubious distinction of being one of the eight countries - the others are China, India, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and Pakistan - that together represent 50% of the entire world's water footprint. Weekday vegetarianism, here we come. We can also stop buying bottled water (the bottle itself entails the use of 7 liters of water) and really reduce paper consumption (10 liters per sheet).
Italy: No more pizza, no more pasta?
For a small country, Italy has a very high consumption of water - 2,330 cubic meters annually, nearly as high as in the U.S. Studies have shown that in daily living Italians use about 380 liters of water a day. But when the amount of water used to make the foods Italians eat and the clothes they wear are taken into account (i.e. the water footprint), the consumption is approximately 17 times higher. Figures from water researcher Maite Aldaya show that the water required to make a standard Pizza Margarita is about 1,200 liters, while a kilo of pasta has a water footprint of 1,900 liters of water. And leather shoes? 8,000 liters of water. Experts say illegal wells are a big problem in Italy, as are scant water resources and high leakage rates in the Italian water supply system.
India: Biggest water problems, and promising solutions
The simple truth is that in many countries, water is pumped up for agricultural use at a higher rate than it can be replenished. While India's water footprint is below average at 980 cubic meters per capita, the massive population makes the country's overall footprint 12% of the world's total. India has faced dire water shortages, but on the bright side the country has adopted more rainwater harvesting than in other regions. By harnessing rainwater, villages like Rajsamadhiya have become self-sufficient in their water supplies. India's higher incidence of vegetarianism (approximately 30% of the population) does play a role in keeping individual footprints lower - the water contained in our diets varies with a vegetarian diet using 2.6 cubic meters of water each day, while a U.S.-style meat based diet uses over 5 cubic meters.
China: low individual use but big water problems
In many parts of China, people are getting by with just two 86 liters of water each day (2002 figures). Compare that to the Italians (380 liters) or to us (575 liters). Two of the biggest water variables, however, are population and diet. China's big population gives it one of the world's biggest water footprints (12% of the global footprint, as opposed to the United States' 9% share), and as the country develops, per capita meat consumption is also rising. Water shortages are concentrated in Northern China, so the challenge is for regions of China to become water self-sufficient.
read more...
Water riches, water poverty
The top five biggest average daily users of water are the U.S., Australia, Italy, Japan, and Mexico - all five of these use well over 300 liters daily. The countries where water poverty is the worst and water usage is the lowest are Mozambique, Rwanda, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Uganda - these five use 15 liters or less daily. While some parts of our water footprint, including how much corporations and agriculture use or waste water, are not under our control, we can find simple ways to cut our daily water use, and even save money.
Where's the beef? It's our big water footprint
The U.S. has one of the largest water footprints, and the absolute highest daily household use of 575 liters. Our large footprint is primarily because of our beef habit - large consumption of meat per capita. High consumption of water-guzzling industrial products also contributes.
Amazingly, one kilo of boneless beef takes a massive 16,000 liters of water to produce, much of that used to grow the grain the cows will eat. One hamburger uses 2,400 liters of water! We in the U.S. also have the dubious distinction of being one of the eight countries - the others are China, India, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil, and Pakistan - that together represent 50% of the entire world's water footprint. Weekday vegetarianism, here we come. We can also stop buying bottled water (the bottle itself entails the use of 7 liters of water) and really reduce paper consumption (10 liters per sheet).
Italy: No more pizza, no more pasta?
For a small country, Italy has a very high consumption of water - 2,330 cubic meters annually, nearly as high as in the U.S. Studies have shown that in daily living Italians use about 380 liters of water a day. But when the amount of water used to make the foods Italians eat and the clothes they wear are taken into account (i.e. the water footprint), the consumption is approximately 17 times higher. Figures from water researcher Maite Aldaya show that the water required to make a standard Pizza Margarita is about 1,200 liters, while a kilo of pasta has a water footprint of 1,900 liters of water. And leather shoes? 8,000 liters of water. Experts say illegal wells are a big problem in Italy, as are scant water resources and high leakage rates in the Italian water supply system.
India: Biggest water problems, and promising solutions
The simple truth is that in many countries, water is pumped up for agricultural use at a higher rate than it can be replenished. While India's water footprint is below average at 980 cubic meters per capita, the massive population makes the country's overall footprint 12% of the world's total. India has faced dire water shortages, but on the bright side the country has adopted more rainwater harvesting than in other regions. By harnessing rainwater, villages like Rajsamadhiya have become self-sufficient in their water supplies. India's higher incidence of vegetarianism (approximately 30% of the population) does play a role in keeping individual footprints lower - the water contained in our diets varies with a vegetarian diet using 2.6 cubic meters of water each day, while a U.S.-style meat based diet uses over 5 cubic meters.
China: low individual use but big water problems
In many parts of China, people are getting by with just two 86 liters of water each day (2002 figures). Compare that to the Italians (380 liters) or to us (575 liters). Two of the biggest water variables, however, are population and diet. China's big population gives it one of the world's biggest water footprints (12% of the global footprint, as opposed to the United States' 9% share), and as the country develops, per capita meat consumption is also rising. Water shortages are concentrated in Northern China, so the challenge is for regions of China to become water self-sufficient.
read more...
Thursday, 10 February 2011
USE LESS PLASTIC to Save Our Oceans
Every piece of plastic ever made still exists today, and much of this plastic has traveled from our hands to our oceans. The most important thing you can do is use less plastic. Join the Blue movement and sign the plastic pledge at www.SaveMyOceans.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)