Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Drinking milk when there is perfectly good tap is strange too?

I'm defending this because I think it's just a typical idiotic upper middle class identity politics lifestyle leftist critique, where brand and posturing about "cool" things is seen as much more important than boring unsexy things that actually matter. Like water treatment plants. But hey, they're made of old fashioned things like steel and concrete, and they're smelly too! They've got lots os technology in them and they hence oppress lesbian miniority unemployed sculpters and further male patriarchic thinking, while destroying the third world, and whales!

Grrr.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 03:43:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's just a way for all these activists to feel good about themselves because they "are doing something". There's no logic to it, no quantitative reasoning, no reason at all. It's like with air travel. These people hate air travel (not that it stops them from using it, I guess they just hate it when other people use it). They never look at how big emissions air travel cause compared to other things, like coal power plants. That say China increases its annual emissions by more than the total airline industry emits, every year, is not relevant. Oh no, no proportions, just posturing on identity issues. It's the lefts mirror image of the gay marriage and abortion skit.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 03:51:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
</rant>

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 03:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Bottled water is a huge marketing niche that gets a colossal amount of pure green nature advertising imagery that it mostly doesn't deserve.

Tell me how it's "upper middle class...posturing on identity issues" to point this out and encourage people to use plain tap water that comes from old-fashioned steel and concrete water treatment plants?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:12:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Most of the time it doesn't, and when people buy uncarbonated water without a really good reason (like tap water tastes bad or you are a tourist and not used to the local bacterium, etc), well, those people are freaking lost anyway.

The same people who want to ban these things (around here anyway, where there is no uncarbonated mineral water) are the people I mentioned, and who'd become outraged if anyone wanted to ban their "organic" orange juice or wine.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:20:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
There was a time when carbonation, alcohol or boiling used to be the only way to drink water without risk of gastroenteritis...

But nowadays, with steel and concrete water treatment plants, drinking carbonated water, soft drinks, beer, wine or tea are a lifestyle choice as far as hydration is concerned.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:26:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It sure is. So why should they try to change my lifestyle for no good reason, without changing their own, the hypocrites?

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:33:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]
A case for changing lifestyle choices can be made on the societal/enviromental impact of said individual choices.

Unless the externalities are properly priced.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 04:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, and I certainly didn't say the opposite above. But these people cannot even pronounce "externality". They don't care, they don't want to care, they just want to posture so they can feel smug and that they are the good guys with the "right" ideas.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 09:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You wouldn't be doing any posturing yourself, of course.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 09:44:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Provoking people (including myself) into challenging their unreflected upon beliefs by pressing discussion points further than you really believe in them is a useful exercise, but works much better offline. I feel you can't really manage that unless you do it verbally.

Your implication that I'm marketing an ET iconoclast brand is, well, let's just say I disagree with that. I rather think it's the natural result from being the most rightwing person on a solidly leftwing site. I just really deeply disagree with the people who hawk these kind of politics, both because their ideas are wrong and because they are so ineffectual that you might actually believe they were a diversionary tactic used by, say, wineries and breweries. (No, I'm not saying they are, but that would make them seem more serious, like the theory that the "peace" movement was supported by the Soviets.)

Ironically, I do the same thing at other discussion sites I frequent, except as they are more to the right I'm the guy on the left muttering about wage equality and the states role in the economy...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 09:54:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
Your implication that I'm marketing an ET iconoclast brand

Not really what I meant. I just thought you were laying it on a bit thick about "these people" and the motives you ascribe to them.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:43:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really what I meant. I just thought you were laying it on a bit thick about "these people" and the motives you ascribe to them.

I have been known to do that, on occasion. ;)

They really do get my blood boiling, and in real life this often leads to a 45-120 minute non-stop rant until I tun out of steam, to the mild amusement of my friends, as in "here we go again". I'm sure you know the feeling.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:56:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Didn't see any talk about banning here, just countering abusive advertising.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:26:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And influencing consumer behaviour.

Hey, I have influenced my own consumer behaviour to minimize flying.

The peak-to-trough part of the business cycle is an outlier. Carnot would have died laughing.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:30:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Thankfully you don't live in Sweden and have to suffer through the infantile excuse of a public debate we have here. I guess the reason they don't talk about abusive advertising here is that, well, I don't think I've ever seen a water ad in this country. But as they can never think a single independent thought they've just copied this meme from "edgy" useless leftists abroad and mindlessly applied the ideological stance without any consideration to the local conditions.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:31:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
I don't think I've ever seen a water ad in this country

That might explain your position. What the people in this diary are pointing at is advertising portraying bottled water as "natural" and superior to tap water, when it is not necessarily, and when in some cases it simply is tap water in a bottle.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 05:07:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't begrudge Starvid bottled water.  Having endured the very-weird-tasting water in the UK, I can appreciate someone wanting bottled water, although personally I prefer the Brits' tactic of replacing water with beer.

The whole discussion doesn't strike me as coming from the right angle.

What I don't get about bottled water is how, knowing that tap water is better for you than bottled water (at least according to every study I've ever seen), why would you fork over the equivalent of $10/gallon for the privilege of drinking an inferior resource in a disposable bottle?  You could buy a Brita or Pur filter and a reusable bottle for the cost of the daily intake buying them.

Paying $3/gallon for the magic goop that gets you places in ten minutes that a hundred years ago would've required a month of planning is an outrage, apparently, protested by people choking on their $6 lattes from Starbucks or their $1.50 bottles of water.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:32:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Drew J Jones:
The whole discussion doesn't strike me as coming from the right angle.

So, er... What angle are you coming at it from?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:38:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The angle I would come at it from is that it's crappy water that costs way too much.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:42:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well I'd agree with that.

The more precise angle the Tappening people up there are attacking from is that this mostly mediocre product is sold at a high price thanks to mendacious advertising that uses images of natural purity and greenness.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 10:47:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]
would a country like Sweden ever need water ads, honestly...
by Nomad on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 03:00:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Denmark has plenty of bottled water ads.

Me, I drink bottled water too: I take a cola bottle and put tap water in it. That's good for something like three or four uses until it becomes too iffy for my liking.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 7th, 2009 at 02:09:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You have not seen the ads? So you do not get some imagery if I say "hälsokällan från Bergslagen"...

You must not watch television then. Or you just watch public service to get your blood pressure up.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 04:18:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I don't watch television at all. I might if I got Axess TV on my set, but I haven't got that one. I have my unplugged 12 inch screen TV (not even one of those new flat ones) standing forlorn in a corner. The only reason I still have a TV is to get a chance to avoid paying the TV licence.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
by Starvid on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 09:45:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yeah, well, if you look at sources of global warming and say 'but that source is bigger' you can always come up with something to excuse inaction.

Still, taxing flying and supporting HSR are more effective ways to deal with that than trying to create consumer guilt.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:09:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
nanne:
trying to create consumer guilt

is not the only communications option. Consumers are massively exposed to image advertising on bottled water or air travel. Why is it wrong to fight on the same ground?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 04:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In general regulation is preferable to these kinds of grassroots or media initiatives by activists or NGOs - specifically the kind of advertising reguation that you see in Nordic countries (perhaps part of the reason Starvid doesn't see too many bottled water ads).

The situation is complicated elsewhere because we live in a media environment and have a general discourse where bans on ads in which cars make trees grow and flowers bloom would be considered government intrusion on freedom of speech.

So there is a point - still, as regulation is better it should remain the ultimate goal.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Wed Aug 5th, 2009 at 05:22:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I agree regulation is the goal. But how to get there when, as you say, we live in a media environment?

If we just wave the "this-should-be-regulated" flag while sniffing at attempts to score points within the media environment (judgement of their quality and likely effectiveness set aside for the sake of argument), I suggest we are comfortably ignoring the way the world works. The image-makers, meanwhile, go on creating their "reality".

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Thu Aug 6th, 2009 at 01:47:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series