Debunking the "Food Miles" Myth
We here at FIJI Water hear a lot of complaints about “food miles,” ours in particular. The concept is that the longer your food travels, the worse it is for the environment.
We think this is a load of hooey…and so do scientists who have studied lifecycle carbon footprints. The key word hereis lifecycle – how a product is developed or packaged, what the transport mode is, and other factors can have a far greater impact for better or worse than the mere distance traveled.
The New Yorker recently published an article about carbon footprints that, among other things,summarized major scientific studies on “food miles.” These studies have shown:
- Apples imported from New Zealand to Northern Europe or New York can have a lower carbon footprint than apples raised fifty miles away. Adrian Williams of the Natural Resources Department of Cranfield University, in England, explains: ‘In New Zealand, they have more sunshine than in the U.K., which helps productivity.’ This means you get more good apples per acre, and the manmade energy required to grow the crop is therefore lower. New Zealand also has many renewable energy sources with little or no carbon impact.
- Lamb raised in New Zealand and shipped to England has one-fourth the carbon footprint of lamb raised and consumed in England. Lambs in New Zealand feed on pastures that generally require less fertilizer than grazing land in the U.K., and fertilizer has a big carbon impact.
- Importing beans from Uganda or Kenya to Europe is less carbon-intensive than growing beans in Europe. The farms in Uganda and Kenya are small, rarely use tractors, and fertilize the crop with manure, while European farms often require energy-dependent irrigation systems.
- Roses shipped from Holland to England have a seed-to-store carbon footprint six times that of roses air freighted from Kenya. That’s because the Dutch roses almost always are grown in greenhouses, which use lots of energy.
And here’s an example closer to home for us: We used to send product to New York by ship from Fiji to Los Angeles, then truck from Los Angeles to the East Coast. Now we send the product by ship through the Panama Canal to Philadelphia or Newark, then truck to New York – a route that covers 50% more miles, but reduces emissions by 55%. This is because ocean freight causes 85%less emissions than trucking. Had we used food miles as a metric, we would never have made this change.
The real problem with the “food miles” concept is that it misleads people who are genuinely trying to make ethical decisions. There are still people who are choosing to “buy/eat local” and thereby actually making their environmental impact worse than it otherwise would have been. It’s unfair to them and to the environment. Of course, it’s hard for people to make the right decisions unless they have the right information, which is why it’s so important for companies to publish the full lifecycle carbon footprints of their products.
Leave a Reply
Legit Online Jobs
This is a good blog. Keep up all the work. I too love blogging and expressing my opinions. Thanks :)
LED TV
Great articles & Nice a site….
MARC
i think the fundamentalist attitude to food miles is naive. what if we dont want to buy local, but want to buy what we want? should we make everyone spend their vacations within 20 miles by public transport, or allow them to fly overseas if they want to? let's ask the Queen of England. figures this would be popular in the soggy UK. many of the loudest voices in food miles, are travel demons and narrow minded outcasts. how do we value cross cultural food sharing, unique product offerings that are not immediately recognizable, opportunities to value innovation and build economies worldwide, safety benefits of being financially interconnected with other nations, etc. often, imported food products are more expensive and this culls many to start with. i am tired of food miles, fair trade and organic certifications, etc. they have all become markets in their own right feeding themselves and protecting their own patch.
Paula
This is quite an interesting post & comments thread. I have mixed feelings about the information here ó on the one hand, I think it's great that the Fiji company is making what appears to be an honest attempt to be transparent about its environmental impact and to take steps toward mitigating it, as well as engaging the general public on a forum like this. Credit it where it's due! Do Fiji's competitors have the courage to do the same?
On the other hand, it is extremely disingenuous to assert that buying/eating locally is fundamentally harmful to the environment across the board, as the closing graf of this post states unequivocally.
I do understand the emissions-to-weight ratio of the anti food-miles argument, but this is just as flawed an approach as the original food-miles rule of thumb. The emissions-to-weight ratio implies that GHG emissions shrink as a function of increased weight and distance shipping, such that there comes a point when enough food has been shipped long enough distances that GHGs are actually removed from the atmosphere. This is clearly absurd.
Ultimately, the atmosphere simply cannot absorb ANY further GHG emissions without catastrophic climate consequences. Shipping ANYTHING halfway around the world contributes countless tons of GHGs to the problem, regardless of how few tons those may be compared with anyone else. Planet Earth is going down in flames; decreasing the number of matches one throws on the fire is not helpful.
Relocalizing food production ó ALL aspects of food production, including local production of renewable fuels, recycling everything possible, and relearning to eat seasonally ó is a major step in the right direction, not only because of the reduced GHGs that result from reduced transport, but because it would give population centers a chance to reach some level of homeostasis with local ecosystems. I don't see why any national food brand can't create local and regional supply chains utilizing low-emissions inland transportation like rail and river barge. That would go a lot further toward reducing GHG emissions than replacing a continent-wide trucking scheme with an additional 8,000 miles of ocean freight.
A final note ó the concept of "food miles" originated among the peak oil crowd and was co-opted by environmentalists. It was never intended to address carbon emissions. Originally, "food miles" was used as a rule of thumb to determine a community's food insecurity in the face of escalating fuel costs. The logic was that the further a food item had to travel to get to the grocery store shelves, the likelihood of its disappearance increased along with fuel prices. Turns out, the peak oil crowd was right, regardless of whether shipping food long distance equates to fewer GHG emissions or not.
Luizhou
Congratulation for earning a spot on my GREEN WASHERS blog.
Fiji Water's attempts to project a green image is nothing short of hilarious.
gliscameria
How long does it usually take a comment to post on this site? I've tried to reply in another thread a few days ago and it's not posted, along with telling me that I've already posted if I try to re-submit...
I sticking to my guns on increased CO2 concentration being good for the planet. (Not insane levels, but an increase to what we have today)
Chu
"recycling rate is over 40%...better than the U.S." Yes, better than the US, but who doesn't. Check this: http://www.container-recycling.org/plasrate/sweden.htm. Why is this happening to the US? Because of the culture (I don't want to dig up capitalism for now). That's the fundamental question we need to think about. Fiji water is just one of the million companies in this culture who wants to make more money, by claiming green or not. FIJI Green Gal is just a person who need a job to pay her mortgage and raise her kid.
FIJI Green Gal
Hey Marc - Gliscameria argues on another posting that "this 'Carbon Footprint' stuff is garbage" because "CO2 is GOOD for the planet, period." You can check out my May 1 response there: Finding inspiration in recycling-and more. Enjoy!
Marc
D*** Gliscameria, you got it all figured out (lol). Where'd you run off to, GreenGal?
gliscameria
Maybe Fiji can expand into shipping fresh air to city dwellers. They can compress it in Fiji and ship it all the way to NYC where mindless coffee shop types can suck it in for a few cents a breath. Then they can offset the shipping and compressing energy by buying carbon credits, so for every breath of fresh air you take you are actually giving the planet a breath of fresh air! It can come in nifty pretty jug looking things that when empty can be used as flower pots! Work out a deal with Glade, have it seep out slowly and smell like the ocean, well, the clean parts of the ocean, away from shipping routes.
Better yet...
Sequester CO2 from the atmosphere, ideallllllly from your packing plants, convert it to dry ice and sell half for carbon credits and sink the other half deep into the ocean, combating both global warming both directly, through lowering ocean water temperatures, and through atmospheric CO2 removal!
Yes Fiji, I will gladly do PR work for you.
Marc
The worst part about it is that this FijiGreenGal actually believes the tendentious nonsense she is spewing. You can spin anything you want any way you want, but common sense will always prevail: stealing Fiji's water, packaging it in wasteful oil-based plastic containers, shipping it to people who already have an abundance of local water resources, and advertising it as something more than what it is is irresponsible. History will see it as such even if you can't, GreenGal.
Scott
It is not only not impractical to carry around a water bottle and refill it from the tap, it is a healthy reminder to drink more water, and a terrific way to save money over buying bottled water. You mentioned what a hassle it is to go through airport security. OH HEAVENS SAVE US. On average, each of us flies round trip once every 3 months. 8 times per year I'd have to, OH MY GOD, empty my water bottle, then refill it on the other side of the line from "restroom taps" (oh how gross! Why you wouldn't say from a water fountain? Just to make the case that it's icky...).
FIJI Green Gal
Awww, Hydroman, you missed me? Haha... okay, maybe not. Anyway, most of my thoughts on these points have already been posted here or in other blog postings, in response to earlier commenters who raised identical points. No need to repeat myself, I think. Also, some commenters are doing a nice job of engaging in true dialogue via this blog. A big "thank you" to all of them!
Hydroman
Haven't heard from Fiji Green Gal in awhile. Not to make it personal, but as the spokesperson for the "green" image your company's ad campaign is putting forth, could you please give some straightforward, factual, spin-free comments/rebutals of the many excellent points that have been raised? Thanks!
FIJI Green Gal
FIJI Water is the kind of product that is sometimes referred to as an "affordable luxury." The idea is that while not everyone might be able to afford a luxury car, a mansion, or a tropical vacation, most people can enjoy a bottle of FIJI Water on occasion. Some folks have described the experience to us as a "$1.50 vacation to Fiji." We love that - everyone should have the opportunity to treat themselves to something special that makes them feel good.
dillhole
With all of these initiatives and "greening" has there been any discussion on how to reduce the price of your product so lower-class people can afford it too?
Mike
I just like to share the fact that Tap water as some people are suggesting is full of containments chlorides, metals, pestisides, flourides; yes flouride is a chemical that the body was never designed to consume. But the reason we are consuming bottled water is for it's purity. Of course you pay a premium for it. In Metro NY recently it was identified that our water supply had dozens of pharmacuetical chemicals in it. Ranging from blood pressuere meds to diabetic medicines and everythin in-between. THIS HAS A DETRIMENTAL HEALTH IMPACT! Furthermore, it alters the affect of perscription meds if you must take them for your health. But are on a daily unhealthy regiment through your Tap water consumption. Can you see the domino effect?
Now you can filter your tap water as well but that has a carbon impact to. You are buying a filter and it's components made from who knows where. The filter needs to be replaced frequently and discarded (just like a Fiji water bottled).
(Tap water uses chemicals made from who knows where they need to be transported and require a lot of electricity to pump etc.)
How much more of a carbon impact would you create by getting sick from tap water over time and needing dozens of disposable items made all over the world in order to regain your health?
Please do not misunderstand I hardly buy Fiji water (to expensive). One needs to look at the "whole" impact that one has by either buying bottled water, filtering it, or drinking tap water. There is no panasia from carbon impact to purity impact. We are in a dilema which ever way you look at it. What is the lesser of two evils???
Something has to give so for me I try to filter my water with high end filter and reuse my water bottle as often as possible.
I hope I have provided some further thought when it comes to water and what is best with the least amount of enviromental impact.
Side note since we are on the topic of minimizing our carbon footprint through water consumption PLEASE consider using air-conditioning drain water and dehumidifier water for your household plants, gardens and landsacape shrubs. Every year I use over 900 gallons of pure clean drain water that use to just go into the ground as waste. Now I use it to water my plants. If you do not use these two components then yo will have to resort to either tap water, well water, or if you are lucky river water.
Robert
The concept of food-miles may be inadequate in assessing environmental impact, but it's a start. The counterexamples cited may well be exceptional. There is enormous ideological bias towards global trade, which impedes an holistic understanding of the environmetal issues involved. Here, as several commenters have noted, there is the clearest economic motivation behind all of your sophistry.
The fundamental issue to consider in relation to bottled water is that it constitutes a cultural pathology; it is surely an exemplary sign of the decadence of our times that consumers (ugly word though it be) should send round the world for a drink of water available to them by placing a glass under a tap. Your website marshals considerable rhetorical and graphical resources for the express purpose of obfuscating that issue. Rephrase your 'Sustainability' blurb:
Discarded water bottles comprise .33% of municipal waste in the US, and Fiji Water's bottles are almost 2% of that total!
Everybody's got to eat, and you may be helping the people of Fiji, but I for one am not buying. Those PET water bottles are ubiquitous, almost indestructible, and refillable. I am given more of them than I need. We should agree as a society that it is preferable to encourage people to remember to bring things like water bottles or grocery sacks with them rather than to permit them to endlessly consume them. The free-traders would have it that it is somehow beneficial to transfer vast amounts of intellectual property and all manufacture to China, in exchange for the privilege of buying throwaway consumer goods at a discount -- I don't buy that either. In the overall scheme of things, the question of whether it makes sense to sell bottles of water from Fiji isn't very important, but your overweaning attempt to persuade us that it does is macabre.
Esteban
It isn't about tap water vs. bottled water, it's about Fiji making money, simple. If them being "green" gains more consumers, then they have their motivation.
Christine
That is so true, it is NOT bottled water vs. tap water! I think as both consumers and manufacturers work towards being more green, consumers have to decide where they will draw the line as far as purchasing products that are or are not green. I personally love Fiji water, especially for the minerals that are in there. And though they may not be currently 100% green, they are making progress in heading towards that direction. That is something that many other manufacturers cannot say (just look at the American automobile industry!But we still buy cars and SUV's...) Lots of people are saying to drink tap water. I guess that's fine if you don't mind heavy metal toxins and other chemicals in your water, as well as pharmaceutical wastes... I do not want that in my body so I choose to drink bottled water - particularly Fiji. It's a process for the entire world to work towards a green environment and that won't happen overnight. Keep up the good work Fiji!
Sam
what i can't understand is why everyone is so focused on bottled water, specifically fiji water, as the whipping boy in your environmental crusades. they may be taking all the heat, but they are the smallest percentage of waste in our landfills and carbon in our air compared to all of american's other wasteful activities. congrats to fiji water for bucking up and actually taking a step to be transparent, pushing competitors to do the same.
many of you squeaky wheels should focus your anger elsewhere. no one's raising h*ll for poland spring even though it takes more energy to ship water from Maine to LA via truck than via ship from Fiji.
living green and loving fiji
let's be realistic about this. we as people who breathe out the very thing that is polluting our air will never have a zero carbon imprint without off-setting it in other ways. i reduce reuse recycle. grow a majority of my own food. compost. use organic fair-trade items in my businesses. plant trees and flowers. and i drink about 4 and half liters of fiji bottled water A DAY (just me). with traces of chemicals and drugs being present in tap water. i kindly say no thanks. i am not rich nor drinking fiji for the "status". i am simply very picky about what i put into my body and fiji is the only one for me and my family. the goal of having no carbon imprint is great. however unrealistic. thank you fiji for being one of the first to take responsiblity and become as clean as you can possibly be TODAY. we need to stop focusing on the companies trying to provide us with the best. and start focusing on the real culprits. fuel. toxins. people living and working without regard for their environmental impact. we need laws put into place to protect us and our children from chemicals and toxins in our food. clothing. furniture. etc. laws for alternative energy and fuel. laws requiring recycling. companies are slaves to these things just as we are. i truly believe if fiji could ship their water on ships using old vegetable oil. they would. it is just not an option for them. so let's stop wasting time and energy on the wrong people. thanks again fiji for providing me with the best water that i have ever tasted!
FIJI Green Gal
Charles, economic growth and social/environmental stewardship are not diametrically opposed. A business cannot be profitable over the long term unless it does right by its community and environment. Conversely, a business cannot care for its community and environment over the long term if it is not financially viable - after all, where would the funds that support good community and environmental causes come from then?
Charles Spink
What percentage of Fiji's water business is devoted to it's world marketing, and what are your projections for the future. Also, without that expansion, could Fiji water be remain a sustainable company?
H2Oisfree
It's not tap water vs. bottled water. It's good that people are going for water as a healthy alternative to other bottled drinks. Their next realisation will be that water is is the single most abundant resource on the planet, so maybe Fiji should get a foot in the filter market. It's not tap water vs. bottled water now, but it will be.
"You can fool some people sometimes, but you can't fool all the people all the time"- Bob Marley
"In the abundance of water the fool is thirsty"- Bob Marley
j
Tap water has fluoride and since last month even the major bottled waters do too. Recommending people to switch to tap with the psycho drug traces will have destructive moral society effects down the line. Perhaps this is what you mean by evolution? Learn dowsing before it's made illegal.
gary clark
I didnt see anywhere that says Fiji water is better for you than tap water, i am lucky enough to be able to drink my premium water out of my own mountain spring, i rarely drink tap water as i dont know where it has come from, most consumers are at the mercy of companies who package a product.
paul harris
Dear Fiji Green Gal:
I suggest you find a job that really helps the environment instead of attempting Madison Avenue green washing a bottled water company. You'll be happier in the long run and your conscience will be clean.
Paul Harris
Hydroman
First, I salute Fiji for having the courge to publicly air this debate, unflattering and challenging as many of the comments are. That said, Fiji water is so full of red herrings that no hint of green remains. Though many meaningful points are being raised, most are tangents diverting from the core issues.
As American and global citizens we are caught in a contradiction. We live in a capitalist economic system. Capitalism demands constant growth for it's survival. Growth demands consumption. As diligent, patriotic citizens, we have our work cut out for us (remember Bush's advice that our best response to 9-11 was to go out shopping?).
Constant growth, on the other hand, is inherently non-sustainable. Human activity can ultimately be seen as mining the earth and turning it into garbage. Hopefully, somewhere in between, justifiably necessary, nurturing, longlived products are created. Since virtually all of Fiji's potential customers are blessed with perfectly drinkable tap water, bottled water represents an unnecessary product. And, if one must have bottled water, how can you possibly make a case that it is in any way greener to ship it halfway around the globe (no matter by what means or route) than to use a locally bottled product. Better yet, if you don't trust your tapwater, or can't afford a good filter, take your own container to the health food store or supermarket, and fill it with their perfectly good, far far less expensive, freshly filtered (hasn't sat in plastic for who knows how long) product.
Think about it!
FIJI Green Gal
Just to clarify a point brought up in Robert's posting: Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical intermediate used to make plastics and resins. Bisphenol A is most often used to make large (18 liter) polycarbonate plastic containers. Polycarbonate is a hard plastic. Bisphenol A is not used when we make FIJI Water bottles, as our bottles are made of PET, not polycarbonate.
Steve
OK, so consuming 1000 grams of Fiji Water (a 1 Liter bottle) produces 571 grams of Carbon Dioxide emissions (and the ratio is even worse for smaller bottles). You don't see a problem with marketing a product that produces nearly 60% of its own weight in C02 emissions? And how many of those 571 g come from shipping little plastic bottles from Fiji? Subtract those grams of C02 from your 571 gram estimate, and we'd have a pretty good estimate of the emissions from plastic bottles of water that DON'T come from Fiji.
Robert
After hearing on NPR that Fiji was going "carbon negative", I was curious and am therefore reading these entries.
I congratulate Fiji on its reforesting and other carbon-neutralizing efforts.
However, the inescapable fact is that there are half as many grams of carbon dioxide produced per gram of water produced, in addition to the everlasting plastic waste. In addition, the bisphenol-A used in the production of soft (flexible) plastic bottles has been shown to have potential health and reproductive dangers.
I avoid tap water due to its flouride and chlorine contents, as well as whatever contaminants are picked up in the piping. 20 years ago, I purchased gallon jugs of distilled water at 69-99 cents per gallon. Then I owned a distiller, which was probably my best choice. However, a replacement is outside my present budget.
My current solution is to purchase water processed by reverse osmosis and filtration at my local Whole Foods store. I fill five (found/bought cheap) reusable #7 hard plastic and one glass 5 gallon jugs (looking for more of the latter). I'm now concerned about whether there is an issue with bisphenol-A in the plastic jugs, but I have read that, as long as I don't clean them with hot water and detergent, the chemical is stable. I drive about 2 miles each way to and from the store, pay 39 cents per gallon, and get some exercise hauling the jugs upstairs. Six jugs last me two-three months. From the water dispenser (found here in my flat when I moved in), the water goes into a Nikken Optimizer (normally $300-400, found for $7 at a local Goodwill) for oxygenating and magnetizing (useful? Who knows?). For dispensing into drinking glasses and for coffee, it goes into a half-gallon glass jug. For taking out into the world on my bike, I put the water into my daypack in an unbreakable stainless steel Klean Kanteen. For the car, I have a glass Voss bottle (50 cents at the flea market) and a glass Gerolsteiner bottle (okay, I bought it retail; I'm sorry). The Voss bottle opening is a bit large and allows for some spillage on the go; the Gerolsteiner is just right. All of the bottles and the dispenser, when they get a little musty-smelling, which they inevitably do, get cleaned with water and distilled vinegar and/or baking soda.
I emit some CO2 while driving four miles; the amount is shared with the other food items I buy and the other stops I try to include in the trip. The water processing takes place on-site at Whole Foods at some energy expense. Still, I imagine there's a lot less CO2 emitted and no plastic waste created, as compared with buying plastic bottles.
My solution is somewhat elaborate, but there's little waste. I hope sharing this information helps others.
FIJI Green Gal
Travis, thanks for your feedback. You bring up some interesting thoughts, and I agree with you that, as you put it, "Corporate sustainability is an essential part of greening our world."
FIJI Water is a tiny part of the bottled water market (less than 2% in the U.S.), and therefore an even tinier part of the corporate world. Despite this, we hope that our work will have a big impact by influencing and encouraging other companies to follow suit.
Since you mentioned recycling and biodegradable plastics as two areas that FIJI might explore, I thought I'd share with you what we're doing (or not doing) in those areas. In Fiji, we currently fund the largest recycling program in the country in partnership with Coca-Cola Amatil. Largely as a result of this program, Fiji's recycling rate is over 40%. This is one of the best recycling rates in the world, and better than the U.S., the U.K., and other industrialized nations. And we're looking for ways to make it even better.
In the U.S. and other markets, we believe we'll have the greatest impact by advocating for expansion of curbside recycling programs and container deposit laws, which have both proven to be highly effective ways to increase recycling rates. You can learn more about their impact at http://www.fijigreen.com/HelpByRecycling.html.
Regarding biodegradable plastics, we've considered them, but given the currently available technology we do believe PET is still the most responsible choice. The first issue is disposal - biodegradable plastics don't actually break down unless they're composted, and often need to be composted in a commercial facility. As most people don't have access to composting facilities, biodegradable plastics usually end up either in a landfill - where they won't break down because landfills are designed to prevent decay and leaching of contaminants into surrounding areas - or contaminating the recycling stream.
There are also issues around food crop resources and environmental consequences, as noted here: http://www.fijigreen.com/LessPackaging.html.
Ultimately, the ideal solution is to close the loop and recycle valuable resources. We want to encourage and help people to recycle all eligible materials, not just FIJI Water bottles or other beverage bottles.
Thanks again for sharing your opinions and insights, Travis.
Brigid
FGG - Did you think Vicki - the bright young 9 yr. old - would fall for your hoopla if you used iPods as an example. She certainly would understand 'big plastic bottles filled with water from Figi'
Shame on you for assuming that we are all able to be mesmerized by your spinning of so-called "facts".
Kathleen
Make every argument you care to. Bottom line: bottled water has no environmental redeeming values. None. It's big business in a plastic bottle that is choking our air and landfills.
Travis Eckhart
FGG: I am very impressed by your patient and thoughtful responses. I echo previous postings that Fiji water has taken a brave step in becoming transparent in regard to carbon footprint practices. I admire the thoughtful, analytical explanations as to how and why Fiji has become a *less* carbon intensive product. I agree with previous postings that the most eco-friendly decision is to drink tap water. I also agree that Fiji (previously unbeknownst to me) is not attempting to break that market, according to you. Fiji is battling sales of soft drinks with much higher carbon output. From what I've gather, it appears my future choice will be to drink tap at all costs, and, when buying bottled is the only option (or for those chosing between bottled water and soft drinks), buying Fiji water is one of the best decisions (which could only be outmatched by a local, green, bottling source--the likes of which I've yet to see in my area, Arizona). Thank you for hangin' in there, and working for a company that is *working towards* a more environmentally sustainable business practice. We live in a world dominated by corporations. I've heard statistics that suggest the top 100 wealthiest businesses now have more money than the US and China. Corporate sustainability is an essential part of greening our world, and taking the steps that Fiji has taken is a fantastic initial step. I look forward to Fiji's future as I hope they will consider developing biodegradable bottles, or a recycling program that will make up for the output of plastic waste.
FIJI Green Gal
Paul, that's a great question. We'd like all our industry peers to report this information, but very few companies share their total (aka "absolute") carbon footprint, and the companies that do so often look only at what the GHG Protocol calls "Scope 1" and "Scope 2" - the sources that are directly under the company's control, plus the electricity the company purchases. They don't include "Scope 3" - sources that are a consequence of the company's activities, but not under the company's direct control. Examples include suppliers, partners, customers, employee commuting, business travel (b/c the company usually doesn't own the airlines its employees travel on), and more.
FIJI has accounted for Scopes 1 and 2, and everything in Scope 3 required to get the product to you. The three scopes total 85,396 tonnes CO2eq. Just fyi, our Scope 1 & 2 total was 17,559 tonnes CO2eq of that total.
I checked out the Carbon Disclosure Project (www.cdproject.net) for other companies. Here are a couple of samples from the reports listed at http://www.cdproject.net/responses/cdp5/index.asp:
The Coca-Cola Company: About 20,000,000 tonnes CO2eq for Scopes 1 and 2, and a couple of Scope 3 sources. This estimate still excludes emission sources like packaging production. The 20 million tonnes comes from 4,867,778 tonnes CO2eq for Scopes 1-2 only, plus estimates of a couple of Scope 3 sources that add another 15,000,000 tonnes for the cold drink equipment, and another 55,000 tonnes for air travel.
Scottish & Newcastle: 312,000 tonnes CO2eq for Scopes 1 and 2 only
The Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) is an amazing initiative, by the way. Take a look through the site to see what it's doing. FIJI Water is the first privately held company ever to join the CDP's Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration. Our CDP response will be published along with the rest of the CDP6 responses this September - but we didn't want to wait that long to share the info, so it's on www.fijigreen.com as you've already seen.
Paul
According to your site your carbon footprint is "85,396 tonnes CO2 eq"? Can you put that into perspective? Is that good? Can you provide an approximation of what soft drink companies or US based bottled water companies produce?
Sean Davis
And this is even more funny... The article in the New Yorker that you quote in support of your argument says:
"Paying attention to the emissions associated with what we eat makes obvious sense. It is certainly hard to justify importing bottled water from France, Finland, or Fiji to a place like New York, which has perhaps the cleanest tap water of any major American city. Yet, according to one recent study, factories throughout the world are burning eighteen million barrels of oil and consuming forty-one billion gallons of fresh water every day, solely to make bottled water that most people in the U.S. don't need."
Tim
I just wanted to congratulate Fiji Water on winning Elle's 2008 Green Award! It's so funny that they won that, especially after purchasing a ton of advertising from Elle's parent company!!!
http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003788882
That's so cool that a magazine that specializes in nothing science related takes the time to talk up their advertising customers!
Sean Davis
There's so much wrong with this site I don't even know where to start. First of all, the article presents a strawman argument that shipping water around the world is somehow comparable to shipping food products from Kenya. Also, the effectiveness of carbon offsets are highly controversial, and should never be used as a substitute for direct carbon emissions when possible. In short, planting trees, while they may provide an offset in the short term, may not offset carbon in the long term (e.g., the problem with carbon offsets). Also, planting trees is not a global solution to a global problem. It is simply one small piece of low hanging fruit, and is at best a very minor solution to the incredible challenge. Thinking that you can simply offset away the guilt associated with shipping fresh water from Fiji is delusional.
Matt
I would disagree with your comment that tap water will not replace bottled water. I buy a bottle of water about once a year, as I try very hard to always carry a reusable glass jar. My work place will for free install a water line and filter to any office that wants to replace its bottled water cooler. I'm sorry but I do agree that water from Fiji, no matter how good, is an un-necessary luxury that many will learn to do without.
John
FijiGG,
You did not debunk the food miles myth for your product at all.
Shipping elitist water around the globe in square plastic bottles is not a sustainable practice.
It is like the car companies that make HumVees going green.
You can try to put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
JW
FIJI Green Gal
Hi trees4me, thanks for sharing your thoughts. That's exactly what we're trying to achieve - share the information we have so that people can make up their minds for themselves. Most people are trying to make the best possible decisions for the environment, for their loved ones, for their communities, etc. They have the right to get the information they need to do so.
And I love that you're so fired up about recycling! That's been one of the most exciting things we've learned along the way - what a big impact the simple act of recycling can have. If you haven't had a chance yet, check out http://www.fijigreen.com/HowYouCanHelp.html. Recycling is the single most significant action anyone can take to reduce the carbon footprint of FIJI Water...or any packaged beverage.
trees4me
Great job Fiji for getting involved with the debate. FINALLY a company steps up and talks to their customers like we... you know...have feelings and opinions or something. It lets us know that you realize we are real people with real concerns.
I agree that plastic bottles are a hot issue but it is not the companies fault for people not recycling their product. You can put a hundred "please recycle" logos on things and still WE are going to toss them. Everything is plastic now...ketchup bottles, shampoo bottles, pop bottles... the problem is how we handle it after use. Everyone can get upset about plastic but we are the ones that have to change things and until there is a safe biodegradable material that is durable enough for food/beverages we have to make do with what we have. I am all about using tap water. I usually buy a nice bottle of water (I love the Fiji bottles, they are perfect) and use it for a week or so until it either break it or it gets too grungy to use. By the way for me reusable steel/plastic containers don't work, the steel is too bulky and I usually leave my bottles in the car or at school/work and end up with nothing. This way if I leave my Fiji bottle somewhere I can recycle it when I get back to it and not have to worry about how long it sat with stagnant water in it...etc. So once again thank you Fiji Girl for all the information.
Ron
There is no food miles myth.
There is however, corporate spin and green washing.
FIJI Green Gal
Steve, FIJI Water is the first bottled water brand ever to publish the carbon footprint for the full lifecycle of its products - every step required to get the product into your hand. See http://www.fijigreen.com/WhatItMeans.html.
So we don't have official, third-party verified, lifecycle footprints for other bottled water brands. We wish we did. But we can think about the bits and pieces we do know.
Looking at the full lifecycle is important. For example, take packaging materials - production of a glass bottle will result in significantly more emissions than that of a plastic bottle of the same volume. The weight of one of our competitors' 1L glass bottles is 585 g. The EPA's waste management report offers a typical 'raw materials acquisition and manufacturing' emission factor of 0.65 metric tonnes CO2eq per short ton of material, which translates into a CO2eq/material ratio of 0.72. (1 metric tonne = 1.102 short tons)
So the emissions from manufacture of the glass bottle alone would be about 421 g - which is not far off the 573 g per 1L bottle of FIJI Water. And this is before filling the glass bottle, not to mention the rest of the distribution chain, refrigeration in outlets where applicable (e.g., restaurants), etc. Nor does this include the heavier cardboard boxes required to carry the heavier bottles. When the full lifecycle is complete, it's highly likely the glass bottle's footprint will exceed 573 g even if it's a local product.
Another issue to consider is how much the water is processed. Spring and artesian waters are natural waters and go through little processing other than filtration. (FIJI Water is an artesian water.) Purified waters, on the other hand, treat municipal water with energy intensive processes like reverse osmosis or distillation. How significant the carbon impact of these processes will be depends heavily on how emissions-intensive the local grid or proprietary energy source is.
Lots of stuff to think about-with a few key points: First, a carbon footprint isn't really a carbon footprint unless it looks at the full lifecycle of the product. Second, the lifecycle perspective is important because it's dangerous to simply assume what the major emission sources will be for any product. You can't manage what you don't measure. Finally, people are trying to make thoughtful and responsible environmental choices, but have incomplete information. In my ideal world, people will have as ready access to the carbon footprint of a product as they do to nutritional information, so they can make decisions and tradeoffs as they see fit.
Steve
Thanks for the information. So according to your own figures, consuming 1 Liter of Fiji water (which is 1000 grams of water) puts 573 grams of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. How does this compare with the carbon emissions for other brands of bottled water that aren't shipped halway around the world?
FIJI Green Gal
Steve, thanks for your interest. I agree, which is why this info is already on the web site. Please take a look. Per bottle footprints are here (http://www.fijigreen.com/ACarbonNegativeProduct.html) and percentage splits across the supply chain are here (http://www.fijigreen.com/OurAnnualFootprint.html). Keep in mind we consider not only transportation emissions in the footprint, but every step required to get the product to the consumer, as explained here (http://www.fijigreen.com/WhatItMeans.html).
Steve
Fiji Green Gal:
Please tell us: what are the carbon emissions caused by transporting water in bottles from Fiji, in grams of carbon per bottle? If you're really for "transparency", then you should be providing this information on your website, shouldn't you?
FIJI Green Gal
Vickie, that's a great, thoughtful question. Here's one way to think about it.
Ships and trucks run on engines. Engines use a certain amount of fuel to run, even if the ships and trucks are not carrying cargo. ("Cargo" means pretty much anything someone will buy and use, whether it's food, iPods, computers, or soccer balls.)
When you add cargo for the ships or trucks to carry, they need a little more fuel to carry the extra weight. But still, most of the fuel they use is just to run the engine, not to carry the extra weight.
So that means if you can put more stuff on a ship or truck, you're using less fuel for each item. You're taking all the fuel needed for the engine and dividing it up across a larger number of goods (like 100 iPods instead of one iPod), so each item (iPod) needs less fuel.
Burning fuel is what causes pollution/emissions. And because ships can carry lots of stuff (like millions of iPods), much more than trucks can, the amount of fuel burned for each item a ship carries is smaller than it would be on a truck.
We use both ships and trucks in our business, as we sometimes need to take our products over the ocean, and sometimes over land. Either way, we try to transport our products in ways that cause less pollution. We're learning a lot about how to do this, and working together with the companies that own the ships and trucks to keep learning more and making things better.
vickie
hi i am 9 years old
my name is vicky. i notice that you said you use water transportation, which you said was less emissions than by car, but isnt it because all the pollution goes into the ocean? then that makes all the fish wildlife dying? k thx bye
FIJI Green Gal
Ecodaddy, thanks for your feedback. Since you're interested in the methodology (and I think it's great that you are!), please refer to http://www.fijigreen.com/OurAnnualFootprint.html for more info on FIJI Water's lifecycle carbon footprint assessment. ICF International, a leading authority on GHG inventories and climate strategy, provided the third party verification for the assessment. (Their experience includes projects like the annual U.S. GHG inventory.) The last two sentences on the page provide links to the assurance report and detailed description of the methodology used. Have fun reading!
ecodaddy
FGG - keep up the good work - you have a tough mission!
Personally, I'd love to see you take this one step further. Show us the math and actual numbers behind the marketing in detail and build credibility with transparency.
Complete transparency would certainly give you a leg up on competitors and could mollify many critics!
Deniz Yeter
Bottled water is not green, you ship this from the Pacific Ocean.
You don't get increased productivity when it comes to water and sunshine, so how is this comparison apt?
No one is buying into your sham argument.
You're still filling up landfills and the Pacific Ocean with plastic carcasses...
Daniel Jordan, PhD
Dear Fiji Water & Fiji Green Gal
I must give credit where due: Fiji Water has taken a bold step by trying to stress green, and by even putting up a blog where people can criticize and debate. I'll honor your effort.
FYI, I own land in Taveuni, had planned to build to have a way to get out of the U.S., but the tsunami in Indonesia led to massive cost hikes, so we could not afford to do it.
Fiji Green Gal notes rightly that the debate is not between bottled water vs tap water. But part of the point is to change that debate.
Finally, Fiji Green Girl, I have a request: 800,000 plastic water bottles are used every day in the US. Most are "thrown away" (where is this place called "away"?). I noted when in Fiji that the bottles there appear to be recycled. I'd often buy one where the label had clearly been through at least a few cycles. Some may have been put off, I thought it great. It is not just the water, its the plastic containing it. That plastic will be degrading for the next thousand years, poisoning our progeny. We have no right to do that. We need to move toward the hiker's motto of pack it in, pack it out, applied to time itself.
I challenge Fiji Water to adopt this policy stance: Push hard (not just greenwashing) for true first cycle direct recycling. You appear to manage it in Fiji, work to help make it happen here where those of us with a much larger carbon footprint need serious help to stop destroying the planet for everyone, you included. Fiji is still under thrall of neo-colonialism, and a process in which you harm yourselves to serve that neo-colonial "master" is just part of the ongoing process.
Kindest Regards
Dan
FIJI Green Gal
Patrick, thank you for your comment. I think you've hit precisely on the main reason that some people focus on food miles to the exclusion of all other considerations when looking at environmental impact: "China" - i.e., foreign economies. If food miles are really one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn't you also be advocating that the U.S. stop exporting goods to countries overseas, when those countries are perfectly capable of producing their own food and other consumer goods? If you're not doing so, why not?
(btw, the two biggest causes of global greenhouse gas emissions are actually power generation and tropical deforestation.)
Patrick
malarkey
I agree with Dan...the water is damn good. But everyone should drink tap water to have a lesser impact on the environment. How you define or even mitigate your inevitable food miles makes no difference really- drinking something that exists locally already, with an infrastructure/process in place already- will ALWAYS be less wasteful than importing something you already have. It is wasting energy to bring a REDUNDANT product over to the western hemisphere.
Furthermore plastic is inherently wasteful/harmful- It is derived from petroleum. Most recycled plastic is sold to third party businesses who sell the recycled plastic to China. That recycled plastic is turned into cheap products that are sold to America, which gives the Chinese economy dollars to further develop a country that is expanding on coal power....new scientific studies linking plastic use to increase in cancer rates over the last 60 years...I could go on and on
bottom line is- your water is great, but people in Figi should drink it.
FIJI Green Gal
With all due respect, James, I'm not quite sure what to do with a recommendation to brand a home purifier as "FIJI."
James Glave
Forget about carbon for a moment. Think about the peak.
Extend your brand into the home-purifier business now, or you won't be around in 15 years, because you won't be able to pass along the ever-increasing fuel costs to your consumers. That trip through the panama is going to start biting hard. Not only will the very idea of bottled water grow more and more socially unacceptable - and this, I am afraid, is inevitable - but folks will only be prepared to pay so much for the stuff... A double whammy. Evolve, or expire.
FIJI Green Gal
Andrea, thanks for your comment. I'm going to quote my response to Sarah above: "The facts show that bottled water is not competing against tap water - it's competing against other packaged beverages like carbonated soft drinks. In fact, the rise in bottled water sales has closely mirrored the decline in carbonated soft drink sales. People aren't trading tap water for bottled water, they're giving up soft drinks for a much healthier (and less carbon-intensive) option."
I'm certainly not going to argue that FIJI Water (or any bottled water) has a lower carbon footprint than tap water. (Though tap water itself does require energy - e.g., 20% of California's electricity usage is dedicated to tap water infrastructure activities.) I will argue, however, that bottled water isn't replacing tap water - it's replacing soft drinks, which have a greater lifecycle carbon footprint. So as bottled water grows in share of the beverage market, it is actually reducing the overall impact of the beverage industry. (People can only drink so much, after all, so you have to take the total volume of beverages they drink and figure out how to make that more environmentally friendly.)
Andrea
Figi Green Gal,
maybe you're analysis is right, maybe not -
but the fact of the matter is that BOTTLED WATER is much, much, much less environmentally friendly than regular tap water - not matter your shipping analysis. As you claim the devil is in the details, and the biggest detail of all is that drinking water is and should always be free! So no matter how much you try to green-wash your product, it'll never be environmentally friendly, sustainable, or just. Everyone, spend your money on your public water infrastructure not on bottled water.
FIJI Green Gal
Sarah, I understand your point. However, the facts show that bottled water is not competing against tap water - it's competing against other packaged beverages like carbonated soft drinks. In fact, the rise in bottled water sales has closely mirrored the decline in carbonated soft drink sales. People aren't trading tap water for bottled water, they're giving up soft drinks for a much healthier (and less carbon-intensive) option.
Perhaps you could (would?) argue that people should just stop drinking any packaged beverage (soft drinks, juice, beer, wine, water etc.) entirely and always carry around a jug of tap water. But that isn't always practical - for example, travelers in an airport would need to empty out the jugs before they pass through security, then refill from restroom taps on the other side. If you've ever complained about the length of a restroom line, this might seem just a bit problematic!
sarah
How I hate it when people are referred to as "consumers"-ewww. You're overlooking something bigger than shipping...namely that water from a tap in the US is safe and doesn't require shipping/trucking(emissions on one truck equals about 30 cars) or plastic packaging(which has created that huge floating island of waste in the Pacific ocean the size of the state of Texas) . If people just used their own reusable thermos or mug instead of buying individually packaged water of any brand, they would seriously help the environment.
FIJI Green Gal
Azrael, we share your concern about making sure Fijians have access to good drinking water. Here's some info from our FAQ at www.fijigreen.com: "Reliable access to clean, safe drinking water is common throughout much of Fiji, but there are still remote villages where infrastructure is lacking. FIJI Water has taken direct responsibility for providing water access to the villages that surround our source in the Yaqara Valley. We have completed projects that serve the towns of Drauniivi and Togovere, and by the end of 2008 we will complete similar projects in Naseyani, Nananu and Rabulu. In addition, FIJI Water has partnered with the Rotary Club to fund the Pacific Water for Life Trust, which will provide the infrastructure, expertise and skills necessary to deliver safe, clean and sustainable water to over 100 additional communities, schools, health centers and nursing stations throughout Fiji over the next two years."
And of course, we're aware that our activities do have an impact on the environment, as demonstrated by the information on www.fijigreen.com and our becoming the first privately held company ever to join the Carbon Disclosure Project's Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration. There are very few things that people do any more that are free from adverse impact to the environment, but the first step is to measure that impact so that we can figure out how to manage it and reduce it.
Azrael
Let's look at the motives for this for a moment:
You WANT to sell you're product, if people think that you are making things worse for the environment then they won't buy your product. So it makes sense for you to publish this. But, you are picking and choosing what you want to tell people, so you only tell then the good stuff, but hide the cons.
When you package bottled water, that takes energy, that energy comes from carbon, which increases you're foot print.
CARBON: ONE FIJI: ZERO
Next, once the water has been bottled and packed, it must GET to where ever you're shipping it. That takes energy. And yes while it does take less energy to get around the Panama Chanal, it still takes more energy to get a bottle of FIJI WATER to my tabletop, than say, DEER PARK. That beggs the question: Why Buy Fiji Water?
CARBON: TWO FIJI: ZERO (oh what the heck, I'll give a 1/2)
And *off topic* why muck up the atmosphere with "artesen FIJI WATER" when CITIZENS OF FIJI DON'T HAVE CLEAN WATER!!
FIJI Green Gal
Lori and Dan, please take a moment and reread the entry. You will see that our purpose is to encourage companies to report full lifecycle carbon emissions - we're not saying that bottled water has a lower footprint than tap, or comparing local vs. imported water.
Evaluating the full lifecycle matters - the few consumer product companies that have done lifecycle analyses have learned, for example, that packaging production and material choice often have a bigger impact than transportation.
Addressing your point, Dan, bottling from a local spring doesn't necessarily require the same energy as bottling abroad. It could be more or less. There are many factors that make a difference, whether it's packaging choice, emissions intensity in the local grid, the amount of processing involved, and more. Bottling in glass instead of PET, for example, has a greater GHG impact that can sometimes outweigh a shorter transportation distance. Again, this is why a full lifecycle analysis is important - a scientific approach that evaluates every contributing factor will generate more accurate information than broad stroke assumptions.
It sounds like you want to make sure that people have correct information. We agree, but we also believe that information should reflect the full impact of the product, not just the transportation piece. Consumers are trying to make the right decisions and deserve to have complete, accurate information that allows them to do so.
Dan
You're analysis of food miles while perhaps correct for some products doesn't apply to water. Compare Apples to Apples, or literally bottled water to bottled water.
Bottling water from a local spring requires the same energy (and carbon output) as your spring in Fiji. However, shipping it across town as opposed to across the Pacific is the idea behind food miles.
I think people should have the right to choose their products, but employing disinformation about yours is not going to solve the environmental challenges and worse, just proves that you're not taking this seriously. Because of your red-herring approach I think I'm going to have to give up drinking Fiji water - I just can't support a company that lies.
Too bad, damn good water.
Lori
I think this is a travesty. You are twisting the New Yorker's argument for your own selfish purposes. Their examples are about food crops that require fertilizer, etc.--water is just bottled. Bottom line--local bottled water will always be less carbon-intensive than imported; better still, drink tap water.
Highlights
