In the case of Fiji Water, however, I'm not so sure.
This is a long but interesting read (in some ways it's more of a hit job) from Mother Jones...
Point:
The offsetting effort has been the centerpiece of Fiji Water's $5 million "Fiji Green" marketing blitz, which brazenly urges consumers to drink. imported water to fight climate change. The Fiji Green website claims that because of the 120-percent carbon offset, buying a big bottle of Fiji Water creates the same carbon reduction as walking five blocks instead of driving.
"Our export revenue is paying for the expansion of water access at a pace that Fiji's government has never achieved," the company told the BBC in 2008. "If we did...cease to exist," sustainability VP Mooney told U.S. News & World Report the same year, "a big chunk of the economy would be gone, the schools that we built would go away, and the water access projects would go away."
Counterpoint:
Nowhere in Fiji Water's glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island's faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has set up in tax havens; or the fact that its signature bottle is made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fueled plant and hauled thousands of miles to its ecoconscious consumers. And, of course, you won't find mention of the military junta for which Fiji Water is a major source of global recognition and legitimacy.
Ultimately, the issue boils down to a question of "should Fiji Water be doing more to help the local residents and economy?" vs. "would the Fijian economy be better off without Fiji Water?" vs. the meta question of "does the environment trump development in an impoverished region that has few alternatives for economic growth?"
I'm still thinking about all three.
No comments:
Post a Comment