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

Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#121

Post by samstave »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

There are a range of other factors.

My family owns a water company in Lake Tahoe.

We are precluded from bottling or otherwise selling our water by the PUD to anyone other than the homes for which our water serves.

The bullshit factr in this is that PUDs (public utility districts) have made deals with companies like Nestle to allow them to slurp up thousands of litres per penny from wells/springs/aquifers and then sell that water for thousands % more than they pay...

Yet they limit small water companies who own their full infra and prevent them from going after market value for their water.

So as a small family water company, fuck nestle. I find your argument BS from the front lines of regulations that favor mega-corps and fuck over small companies.

We have been trying to get our Tahoe water bottled for decades - but it takes big money. And our water comes from a natural spring, not from the lake - and should not be regulated the way it is.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#122

Post by freeflight »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #36
ErikVandeWater wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I don't get exactly what it means to declare water a human right. There are certainly people in the world not getting the clean water they need. But how do you solve this? You set up an international agency to acquire water for them. But where do you get the funding for this agency? If it really is a _human_ right, is this agency above local laws? What are the restrictions on this agency? Can this agency ban the…

Exactly. I often hear this whole "water a human right" argument from the left and when asked about what would change they really can't answer that. I think everyone knows how water is essential for the human life but declaring it a human right won't change anything. After all what would we do the next day after making it a human right?! Send the US Army to Malawi bearing Super Soakers?

> Send the US Army to Malawi bearing Super Soakers?

When you put it like that it, of course, sounds silly but try to see it the other way around: Take all the money spent on wars, where lots of infrastructure (usually among the first targets) and environment ends up being destroyed, and imagine it's instead spent on infrastructure projects helping the actual civilian population.

Yes it's naive, yes it's very unlikely to ever happen, but I still like to think that the US Military acting as a demilitarized "global infrastructure building force" would have done far more good for humanity than constantly waging wars on barely defined things like "terrorism", leaving destroyed wastelands and lot's of disgruntled people in their wake.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#123

Post by Retric »

mikeyouse wrote: post #109
whyenot wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your linked article does not support your assertions that they are "stealing" water. By the way, the 36 million gallons mentioned in the article is about 110 acre feet, or the same amount of water used to irrigate a 25-50 acre almond orchard (depending on location). It's nothing, and it's being used as drinking water, not to wash cars, water lawns, fill swimming pools or any of the other more wasteful ways people use…

The local impact is much greater though if the water is pumped out of the ground and then shipped out of state. All of your other examples end up back in the local water table. It's silly to argue that 30 million gallons of water being shipped out of range of the local reservoir is inconsequential -- especially in a state with constant droughts and rapidly depleting reservoirs. (I've helped manage large aquaculture p…

Irrigated water tends to largely evaporate which is why water tables are dropping so quickly.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#124

Post by ams6110 »

manachar wrote: post #101
jamestimmins wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally distinguish between 1)Human Rights, 2) rights as a member of a specific society, and 3) simply things that are "right" to do for peoples in the moral sense. 1. Something that can't be taken away by someone else. 2. A contract between an individual and the country/state with which they are a citizen. In return for paying taxes and following laws, they can expect services, utilities, military, education, e…

Using your definition, there's no such thing as human rights. Life, liberty, and property are all things that are only guaranteed by societal standards and enforcement. Murder, theft, and enslavement is the norm where the rule of law and enshrinement of rights are absent. Much of the US enslaved human beings for hundreds of years - liberty is clearly only something we get by being a member of a specific society.

You've got it backwards. Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness are inherent in being human. Governments can only take them away, they do not confer them.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#125

Post by srtjstjsj »

nsxwolf wrote: post #81
minikites wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about all of their other corporate abuses, including pitching infant formula as safer and better than breastfeeding (an outright lie no matter how you spin it)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott#Baby_milk_...

Formula is certainly safer and better than getting zero milk from women that can't lactate, no?

That's an offtopic nonresponsive reply.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#126

Post by srtjstjsj »

artursapek wrote: post #4
ceejayoz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget pushing "free" baby formula on new mothers in developing countries, so their milk supply dries up.

I imagine the blue bottle customer base is made up of the type of people who would boycott over something like this.

Why? Blue Bottle customers are hipsters who like to pay extra for faux fancy goods. Why would they be especially likely to disacommodate themselves to benefit faraway people?

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#127

Post by nielsbot »

santaclaus wrote: post #37
dkhenry wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can do much better the Philz, depending on where you are at there are lots of good options. In you're in the bay area look up Four Barrel, they roast great beans and their SF coffee shop is really nice.

I wish counter culture had cafes in the Bay -- they have a huge roasting center in Emeryville and their beans are delicious.

I have seen their coffee being served at various cafés in SF..

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#129

Post by tanilama »

diogenescynic wrote: post #2

That's a major bummer. Nestle is one of the most evil companies there is--their CEO once said water isn't a human right. Nestle uses cocoa from slave labor and bottle water in drought stricken communities and national forests on expired permits, and do shady stuff like hiring the regulator who gave them their water license. Very few companies are as vile and amoral as Nestle. Unfortunately, this will taint Blue Bottl…

Blue Bottle sucks. Line is long, coffee is so-so.

Re: Nestlé Takes Majority Stake in Blue Bottle

#130

Post by jieiieifnfj88 »

mrleiter wrote: post #12

As this thread will ultimately will end up discussing the corporate evil that Nestlé apparently is, I want to, for the sake of the discussion, point out the reasonableness of the CEOs statement regarding water as a human right: He argues water should have a market value so that it is treated more like a resource that should be well managed. Of course a state can also do this and in my opinion should, but of course as…

I agree with his position

Still don't want him or the company he manages anywhere near any of it

Post reply on HN