This may or may not have already been addressed at some point earlier, but I felt an urgent need to bring the issue up now. I apologize if it is redundant.

We as feminists know and understand the importance of water and access thereto in all of its different forms:   as a commodity, essential for survival, as a basic human right, etc. We also know that when looking at water through a gender lens, it becomes particularly important.  I am not going to make this post about women and water rights, but I think a little context is important. As we know, women are [most often] burdened with the responsibility of finding water, retrieving water, carrying water, utilizing water, etc.   More importantly, the water that women are required to find needs to be able to be consumed by humans, animals, etc.   Water in many parts of the world is a scare commodity, and this may be due to environmental and climate factors, or human created circumstances (think Coca Cola in India or Burma). It is a luxury to be able to turn on a tap and have water at your immediate disposal. Even more of a luxury is water that you are able to drink straight from the tap, without fear of parasites, typhoid, etc.   In tune with the importance of water, has come the privatization of access to water in many forms, including bottled water. Poland Springs, Evian and others  have sparked outrage, legal battles and political debate over buying access to community water supplies, and then turning around and selling the same water at a profit; often leaving devastating environmental factors behind. Here in Maine where I live, this issue is of particular importance, as Poland Springs stretches its tentacles deeper and deeper into our communities.  

  In thinking about this issue the other day, I came across in article in the most recent issue of Mother Jones. It is a phenomenal article about FIJI water, and the American owned company behind the label that has become ubiquitous with the elite. (I won’t even get into the ideas of elitism, sense of entitlement (white and otherwise), etc.   that this article touches base on). A company that has essentially stolen an entire country’s water supply (They have a 99 year lease on the country’s only aquifer), shipped it halfway around the world, and then calls this blatant hypocrisy good for the environment and for the people that they originally stole the water from. Not to mention that this is country in the midst of another coup, under severe military rule, and without any sort of government agency able to look out for the best interest of its citizens.   I won’t detract from the article, but I will say one last thing. The article captures, what in my mind, has become a completely out of control acceptance of “Green-ism.” Or in other words, just another scheme by the consumer market place to get people to spend more money, only this time on things that they have been falsely lead to believe are good for the environment, human rights and all the other warm and fuzz y issues people find it “trendy or cool” to support, without really finding out the facts for themselves. This is not to detract from the wonderful work that happens within grassroots movements, green or otherwise, or any other organization, movement, etc that is doing its best to promote change, sustainability and equality.

Here is a link to the article.

I am sorry if this post is incoherent and one big, long ramble; it’s my first one.

2

You recommended

2 Comments

September 30, 2009 12:20 PM

[0+]  Meggy B said:

Great post. I work for an environmental nonprofit in Texas and our campaign coordinator recently spoke to our staff about this article. FYI: There is already an established term for what you've described as "greenism". It's called greenwashing.

From Urban Dictionary: "greenwashing-The act of corporations using public relations propaganda to distract from corporate malfeasance in their environmental policy, in order to give the impression that the degraders are benign, beneficial, or caring about the environment.
Instead of addressing environmental concerns, all Exxon Incorporated did after their last oiltanker spill was a greenwashing of the issue by printing up lots of glossy advertising posters with happy children playing in the ocean, talking about the 100 birds they scrapped oil off of out of the kindness of their hearts--while completely ignoring they destroyed hundreds of square miles of oceanfront."

Similar to this is pinkwashing, when companies slap pink labels on products with cancer causing ingredients (for the cause of supporting breast cancer research) just to make a buck off of your concern. thinkbeforeyoupink.org

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

September 30, 2009 12:35 PM

[0+]  LivingOutLoud replied to Meggy B :

Thanks so much Meggy B. I knew there was a term out there for it. I know I've heard/read/seen it before, it just didn't surface when I was writing the post; but now I definitely won't forget it!

Thanks also for the pinkwashing information, I will definitely be checking the site out.

I  Liked  Liked this comment  |  Reply |

Leave a comment

Comments (You may use HTML tags for style)