SF votes to ban plastic water bottles on city property


San Francisco continues to lead the way in the nation’s environmental policy, with the Board of Supervisors today [Tues/4] voting unanimously to bar the city from buying plastic water bottles and to ban distribution of plastic water bottles smaller than 21 ounces on city property starting Oct. 1. The ban excludes city marathons and other sporting events.

"We all know with climate change, and the importance of combating climate change, San Francisco has been leading the way to fight for our environment," Board President David Chiu, who authored the legislation, said at the hearing. "That's why I ask you to support this ordinance to reduce and discourage single-use, single-serving plastic water bottles in San Francisco."

Chiu held up a water bottle at the board meeting, a quarter of the way full with oil, to illustrate how much oil is used in the production and transport of plastic water bottles. He also reminded San Franciscans that the current fad of buying bottled water only started in the 1990s when the bottled water industry mounted a huge ad campaign that got Americans buying bottled water.

Somehow, Chiu noted, “for centuries, everybody managed to stay hydrated.”  

Proponents say they hope the ban will put a dent in the nearly 60 million water bottles Americans use daily and decrease the amount of plastics that take up room in the oceans and landfills.

“We applaud Supervisor Chiu and San Francisco’s leadership in the movement to think outside the bottle,” said Katherine Sawyer, Campaign Organizer of Think Outside the Bottle at Corporate Accountability International, which took part in a taste test event comparing SF tap water to bottled water before the hearing. “By taking this step, San Francisco continues to be a pioneer, paving the way for cities, states, and national parks across the country to follow suit and buck the bottle. Not only does this measure eliminate wasteful spending on such an eco-unfriendly product, but it also opens doors to increased investment in the most essential of municipal services—water.”

The ban will return to the board next week for a final vote, after which it will head to Mayor Ed Lee for his signature. 


Posted by Guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 6:53 pm

Can't you see that? Petroleum depletion, pollution and global warming are all now solved because the BOS DID SOMETHING.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 7:11 pm

and peak oil, even if those concepts had validity, which has not been proven.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 7:18 pm

They solved that too. And let's not forget the little lecture so we all can understand that we were impacted by a marketing campaign.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 7:29 pm

It's much easier to legislate shit like this than finding solutions to real problems.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 12:16 am

have to say on this subject in San Francisco.

Posted by guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 7:07 pm

That is all.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 10:55 pm

Busybodies like Chiu and Scott Wiener should worry about fixing MUNI and potholes instead of naked people and bottles.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 04, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

I take it you said the exact same thing with Eric Mar's ban on Happy Meal Toys right?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 12:36 am

I take it you said the exact same thing with Scott Wiener's ban on naked people right?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 9:31 am

No I didn't because Weiner was responding to his constituents. The exhibitionists were coming from around the city to show off in the Castro and the residents had had enough. Mar decided to come up with that idiocy on his own because he thinks parents are too weak or stupid to tell their kids "no".

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 12:28 pm

I'm sure some constituents supported Mar's thing too.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 1:27 pm
Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 1:49 pm

Again. Two separate issues. Weiner was responding to the complaints of his constituents. Lots of residents (mostly parents) did not (and do not) appreciate exhibitionists coming into their neighborhood to get their jollies flashing people.

Mar decided (on his own) that parents are too stupid, ignorant, or strong enough to tell their kids they can't have a Happy Meal toy without eating healthy. That legislation goes right up there with his non-binding resolution telling the Grammy's that they need to reinstate a bunch of awards.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 5:06 pm

Mar is a self-absorbed idealist.

Wiener likes to listen and Mar likes to talk.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 5:24 pm

And the nudity ban is a norm everywhere else. Including Progressive Berkeley (for over a decade).

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 12:29 pm

in his neighborhood, he even threatened a new law, and yet voted against the nudity ban.

If those gross dudes were in Mar's neighborhood he would have pushed for and voted for the ban most likely.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 8:39 am

Supervisors could vote for it with no worries. Mar was doing what supervisors should never do, which is vote their own opinions rather than that of their constituents.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 8:49 am

Mar buys into the notion that pornography = violence against women. Mar believes it's exploitative. I think that's rubbish, and I've actually had conversations with him about it. In this respect, I really miss Jake McGoldrick, who let SWOP work out of his City Hall office. Jake's view of the sex industry was much closer to my own sex-positive feminist view.

That said, whatever your view, you can't say that commercial porn and public nudity are the same thing. One can be opposed to both on purely prudish grounds, but it's not inconsistent to be OK with nudity but not ok with commercial porn. It's an opinion I strongly disagree with, but it's not necessarily inconsistent.

Posted by Greg on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 8:58 am

Could somebody pass me a sick bag?

Posted by Guest on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 9:09 am

Let's stitch the supervisors together into one glorious, multicultural alimentary canal, with Sheriff Ross chewing furiously as he brings up the rear.

Posted by Chromefields on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 7:24 am

1. Make it illegal for food trucks to sell bottled water.
2. Increase CITY tax for alternative drinks by 24 cents per bottle. Tell people it is to fund health programs(suckers).
3. Multiply by a couple of milion bottles. Increase City coffers increase by $2-5 MILLION.
4. Divert existing resources for health programs by $2-5Million.
5. Spend money however you see fit.

Posted by Richmondman on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 1:35 pm

When we go into super drought mode or if your building has water maintenance happening all the time like mine does you need bottled water. It's a sad day and age that state government can come up with something silly like banning bottled water and banning plastic bags. What else are they going to prohibit so they can make our lives worse everyday? Don't say I didn't tell you so when they start banning toilet paper. I wouldn't put it past that collective group of morons to do something like that.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 2:19 pm

sale and (with considerably more hassle) use of them on city property.

You will still be free to do what I do and drive to WalMart and buy a decade's worth of plastic water bottles, for earthquake and safety reasons, or just to spite the asshole supervisors.

And the city trash services still haul away all those plastic bottles. and of course recycle them.

Posted by Guest on Mar. 05, 2014 @ 2:32 pm


instruction as to cui bono ;

marketing companies, water bottlers, etc.

you fucking white male philistines!

Posted by onlycapitalistsockpuppetswouldbeopposed on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

If someone attends a public function and suffers dehydration or a serious medical problem from a lack of available drinking water...

the lawsuit payouts alone should negate whatever this measure would benefits.

Posted by egg on Mar. 06, 2014 @ 1:08 pm

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.