Carbon Taxes and Bottled Water

This editorial piece in the New York Times today argues the valid case that citizens of the US would be better served by drinking water from the tap as opposed to buying bottled water. It extends the argument by alluding to the environmental cost of bottling several million liters of water when a cheaper and ready substitute is available.

Earlier posts here and here questioned the real value of bottled water especially taking into account the existence of tap water as a substitute. I suspect that this is a lifestyle aspiration in addition to ignorance that makes consumers susceptible to the view that bottled water is safer for consumption. The expenditures in consuming up to 8 glasses per day amount to US$ 1400 against 49 cents for bottled and tap respectively. This is a compelling argument for a person who may need to save that much money. That it is has not led to reductions probably show that there's a stronger motivation informing that choice.

The environmental argument about the contribution of plastic bottles to environmental degradation merely shows that the taxes are not appropriately aligned and bottled water consumers ought to take up the cost of the disposal of the bottles. In addition, were a carbon tax to be instituted, the consumers of bottled water would fully pay for their contribution through their consumption choices.