US Forest Service Ignores Nestlé’s Illegal Take Over of Water Supply
That’s right, the US Forest Service has been turning their heads while a multinational corporation, whose former CEO thinks water is not a human right, and should be privatized, has been stealing our water.
Talk about being asleep at the wheel.
Nestlé is the largest bottled water producer in the world – the corp has been known for extracting pristine ground water from towns everywhere, and then selling it back to them at inflated costs. But illegally extracting water from one of the most drought-stricken places on the planet while the U.S. Forest service simply allows it? That sounds almost premeditated.
After all, what would be the best way to make a killing on water? Make sure you have it in places that don’t – right?
The first call to action is to boycott all Nestlé foods and water brands. This includes Perrier and San Pellegrino brands.
Additionally, we must demand that the U.S. Forest Service take immediate action to stop this multinational company from stealing our water. A similar action happened in Ontario, Canada, when residents demanded that the company be stopped from taking their water during times of drought – but I say Nestlé should be stopped completely.
What’s worse is that Nestle’s former CEO believes that water is not a basic human right, and that corporations should own the water we drink and determine who is allowed to drink it. Back in 2013, Nestle’s former CEO and current Chairman went on record in saying that water should in fact be privatized — owned entirely by corporations like Nestle.
If we don’t act, Nestlé will use California as a stronghold to privatize water like is has in places like Africa. Private contracts are awarded to companies to suck the countries water up, and you can guess who goes thirsty.
It is appalling that the U.S. Forest Service has allowed this, but it would be even more egregious if we don’t act to correct it. Sign a petition here, and also let Nestlé know you know what they are up.
Additional Sources:
Photo credit: (The Canadian Press/Mario Beauregard) | CP
that makes the US Forest Service illegitimate
it always was.
water should be privatized, if you want to make sure everyone has enough water.
Rothbard makes the case far better then I. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/murray-n-rothbard/water-shortage/
And so. do you have the same absurd and pernicious attitudes about oxygen? By the sound of it, you’d be all for commodifying that too, just as soon as someone could figure out how to do that. And then there is your notion that water rights are “justly acquired”. Yeah, right. Tell us about how that happens.
there is one thing we have that exists in superabundance. That is our atmosphere. It exists in such a supply that it does not need distribution to get it to market, it does not need processing to make ready for consumption, it does not even have a price because it is so abundant it is effectively free. To equate the atmosphere with anything else on the Earth including water is to show your ignorance of basic economic principles of scarcity and abundance. The atmosphere exists in abundance, water does not. It needs to be labored over in order to provide it to those who want it. Piping, collecting, aqueducts, reservoirs, reprocessing plants. All sorts of infrastructure is necessary for water to get from where it is to where it is needed in a usable state. There is no comparing the two things economically.
As to property being “justly acquired” i thought that the meaning was plain. It simply means not stolen from someone else by force or fraud. For example if I collect rain water from my roof for a small garden. The water in my cistern is mine. I made or bought the collection mechanism, installed it, and now I collect rain water, justly. It is my property. If someone comes along and siphons off my water without my permission at night, or at gunpoint, they may now have the water but they did not justly acquire it.
I hope that is plain enough for you.
So- the atmosphere is “free” and exists in abundance? If you’re talking about a breathable (i.e. non-toxic) atmosphere, I am sure that there are a few million residents of the manufacturing centers in China who would dispute that notion. In those areas, the atmosphere has essentially been appropriated by commercial interests (in collusion with regional governments) and is being used/polluted by those entities to the detriment of the people who, to use your word, consume it. And I’ll remind you that free oxygen is also a molecule, and an elemental one at that.
The means by which you acquire “your” water is quaint (I do the same thing), but as an analogy to water distribution to a general population, meaningless. After all, the very infrastructure that you mention is, almost without exception, funded directly or indirectly by taxes and rate-paying consumers of water, and to suggest that water might be “justly acquired” simply because someone can pay more for is rapacious capitalism at its worst.
By the way, if, in the future, I’m ever looking to engage in conversation with a condescending, pompous twit, I’ll look you up. Okay?
See ya later, sport..
you do realize that resorting to name calling means that your out of things to say, and realize that my point is valid.
Your logic is just as flawed as your punctuation- but yes, I have run out of things to say… to you.
G’bye.
nothing worse then an aging hipster.
Your comment is ignorant of fundamental economics as most are these days thanks to government education. That atmosphere is polluted in a particular place in no way changes the fact that the atmosphere over the earth exists in super abundance. As evidenced by the fact that it does not require any distribution in order to get to where it is needed, it does not need to be “processed” by man to be usable, It is everywhere and in enough quantity for everyone.
Secondly, how water infrastructure is actually funded today in no way has any implication for how it could be or should be funded. That is the whole point here. The debate is over how water infrastructure should be funded, but taxation or by private investment. I am making the case that private investment will provide the most good for the most people who want it.
Unfortunately we still have socialists left overs from the 20th century who still think in the old ways. It doesn’t matter what Capitalism achieves, cell phones, computer, etc. they will always cling to the old statist ways. By your comments I take you to be one of those people.