Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 140 posts

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#111

Post by Turing_Machine »

maxerickson wrote: post #88
daodedickinson wrote: post #87

Citizens of Michigan should get a check every year like they do in Alaska. This keeps happening because only Nestle and a few politicians get a cut and everyone with power is happy.

My city (in Michigan) charges large users of water 0.2 cents per gallon (~$2 per thousand, they charge small users more). That's for treated, metered tap water that they pump into a tower. So the cost includes distribution and such. Another town in Michigan charges something like 0.8 cents per gallon. Under the new permit, Nestle will be pumping about 210 million gallons a year. At the going rate for clean water in M…

The difference is that Nestle is drilling and maintaining its own well, purifying the water itself, and distributing the water itself. All of those costs are factored in to what your city charges for water (and it's breathtaking just how expensive a network of pipes to every single house is).

I don't know what a fair price in Michigan for raw, untreated, drill-pump-and-distribute it yourself groundwater might be.

I'd be surprised it it were more than a cent per thousand gallons, though.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#112

Post by Turing_Machine »

Zeta_Function wrote: post #106
Turing_Machine wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Homes usually pay ~$6,000 to fill a pool. Nonsense. Maybe in Phoenix or Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Not in Michigan.

I don’t know anything about the price of water in any of those places, can you cite some numbers? By the way, why are you so passionate about this topic? You’ve made 17 comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here as of this writing. Thst seems extreme to me. The one I’m responding to isn’t substantive, another is just a single word. Dominating a conversation with sheer volume seems extreme, and impoli…

> You’ve made 17 comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here as of this writing.

Because I hate innumeracy.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#113

Post by portofcall »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #98
domevent wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is arguing dishonestly, as you presumably understand the difference between using examples to illustrate a principle, and a direct comparison. Why not just address the point, instead of being “outraged” by his presentation?

> This is arguing dishonestly No, it isn't. He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws. There's dishonesty for you.

He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws. There's dishonesty for you.

Yes, you’re being dishonest.

If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.

He spelled it out in the post you’re aggressively misinterpreting and it’s decidedly not the fiction you’re peddling. So are you really losing track of what’s been said, in which case it’s time to step back, or are you being dishonest? You don’t seem like you’re losing track, so...

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#114

Post by Turing_Machine »

dajohnson89 wrote: post #103
perceptor wrote: post #95

I feel like Nestle in particular draws heat for two reasons: 1) They are a global multinational and don't demonstrate much sympathy for local environmental issues 2) They are specifically bottling water , which seems wasteful as a practice in general, adds minimal value, etc. I can't speak knowledgeably about #1 -- Nestle's track record probably speaks for itself -- but I do wonder about #2. If a Anheuser Busch or Co…

spring water isn't used to make Budweiser so your last point doesn't hold any....water.

> spring water isn't used to make Budweiser

Citation needed.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#115

Post by portofcall »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #112
Zeta_Function wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know anything about the price of water in any of those places, can you cite some numbers? By the way, why are you so passionate about this topic? You’ve made 17 comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here as of this writing. Thst seems extreme to me. The one I’m responding to isn’t substantive, another is just a single word. Dominating a conversation with sheer volume seems extreme, and impoli…

> You’ve made 17 comments on this thread, or 17% of all of the comments here as of this writing. Because I hate innumeracy.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16759428

Following that through, you clearly hate being backed into a corner, and don’t mind engaging in “innacuracy” when it suits you.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#116

Post by [deleted] »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #98
domevent wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is arguing dishonestly, as you presumably understand the difference between using examples to illustrate a principle, and a direct comparison. Why not just address the point, instead of being “outraged” by his presentation?

> This is arguing dishonestly No, it isn't. He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws. There's dishonesty for you.

[deleted]

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#117

Post by Turing_Machine »

portofcall wrote: post #113
Turing_Machine wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is arguing dishonestly No, it isn't. He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws. There's dishonesty for you.

He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws. There's dishonesty for you. Yes, you’re being dishonest. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed. He spelled it out in the post you’re aggressively misinterpreting and it’s decidedly not the fiction you’re peddling. So are you really losing track of what’s been said, in which case it’s time to s…

I'm not "misinterpreting" anything, aggressively or otherwise. He is lumping all states together as "the state", giving an example of some unethical states, and arguing from that that no state is ethical, or pays any attention to ethical concerns.

That argument is pure garbage.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#118

Post by portofcall »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #117
portofcall wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws. There's dishonesty for you. Yes, you’re being dishonest. If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed. He spelled it out in the post you’re aggressively misinterpreting and it’s decidedly not the fiction you’re peddling. So are you really losing track of what’s been said, in which case it’s time to s…

I'm not "misinterpreting" anything, aggressively or otherwise. He is lumping all states together as "the state", giving an example of some unethical states, and arguing from that that no state is ethical, or pays any attention to ethical concerns. That argument is pure garbage.

You said He is arguing that the government of Michigan's laws are bad because the Nazis had bad laws.

Which simply isn’t true. He actually said outright:

If you use the state as a metric for ethics you'll end up disappointed.

Now, you may think that’s garbage, but you’re not free to pretend that he said completely different things he didn’t actually say. Remember how you hate inaccuracy? Do you think that what you were doing before was accurate? How about playing semantic games now with the word “state,” is that accurate?

It isn’t, it’s evasive. So, what are you evading?

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#119

Post by white-flame »

perceptor wrote: post #95

I feel like Nestle in particular draws heat for two reasons: 1) They are a global multinational and don't demonstrate much sympathy for local environmental issues 2) They are specifically bottling water , which seems wasteful as a practice in general, adds minimal value, etc. I can't speak knowledgeably about #1 -- Nestle's track record probably speaks for itself -- but I do wonder about #2. If a Anheuser Busch or Co…

There's also their negative ethical reputation from situations like this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/09/16/health/brazil... and quotes around that air and water should not be a human right.

Re: Michigan OKs Nestlé Water Extraction, Despite Public Comments Against It

#120

Post by toomanybeersies »

nrdgrl wrote: post #77
rmason wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nestle is paying $5200 for all the water it is drawing. I'd be willing to wager they're paying 10-20x that on lobbying efforts. https://www.bridgemi.com/guest-commentary/opinion-nestle-wat... The county they're in has high unemployment and they make the case that it's all about the jobs they're creating.

That is the permit application fee (one time, $5,000) and reporting costs ($200 / year). They aren't paying for the water.

When you pay for residential water, you're not actually paying for the water. You're paying infrastructure costs, the cost of running the pumping station and repairing the pipes to your house.
Post reply on HN