3 thoughts on “Can This Entrepreneur Save Flint From a Plastic Bottle Crisis?”
As someone who grew up 30 minuets from Flint this article gives me hope that the people living in the city might have another option available to them beyond just water bottles.
However, one of the arguments for investing in the use of this reverse osmosis water purifier seems slightly flawed. Near the end of the article the author points out that the overuse of water bottles in Flint leads to excess and unmanageable plastic waste. At the same time only 13%-16% of the residents participate in a recycling program. This makes me wonder whether an investment in a social entrepreneurship program that educates residents on recycling and raises their awareness might be more beneficial and cost effective then investing in machines that cost $45,000 per system.
Michael Moore urges people to stop sending bottled water to Flint, saying in the article that each American uses 200 bottles of water a day. I think that figure is grossly inaccurate and belittles the attempt of many Americans who are trying to help. I agree with Carly that a better recycling program would make a huge difference. To complement the recycling efforts, if the purifier actually pays itself back in roughly 6 days, that seems like an alternative that the Michigan government should go with quickly.
I really like this article for the intersection of environmental concerns. For one, I am surprised that the response has remained individual bottles of water as it should have been foreseeable that this would have environmental implications, though I can understand that the pressure to get water to Flint fast obviously overtook any other concerns. However, now that the city is past the initial crisis repsonse stage and is able to move forward and find other solutions, something has to be done quickly decrease the dependence on water bottles. This needs to be done from a precautionary standpoint rather than at the back end. Additionally, I think the point about this response being unique to the US in a water crisis is very interesting because it seems unimaginable that masses of bottled water would be sent to communities in need in Africa.
As someone who grew up 30 minuets from Flint this article gives me hope that the people living in the city might have another option available to them beyond just water bottles.
However, one of the arguments for investing in the use of this reverse osmosis water purifier seems slightly flawed. Near the end of the article the author points out that the overuse of water bottles in Flint leads to excess and unmanageable plastic waste. At the same time only 13%-16% of the residents participate in a recycling program. This makes me wonder whether an investment in a social entrepreneurship program that educates residents on recycling and raises their awareness might be more beneficial and cost effective then investing in machines that cost $45,000 per system.
Michael Moore urges people to stop sending bottled water to Flint, saying in the article that each American uses 200 bottles of water a day. I think that figure is grossly inaccurate and belittles the attempt of many Americans who are trying to help. I agree with Carly that a better recycling program would make a huge difference. To complement the recycling efforts, if the purifier actually pays itself back in roughly 6 days, that seems like an alternative that the Michigan government should go with quickly.
I really like this article for the intersection of environmental concerns. For one, I am surprised that the response has remained individual bottles of water as it should have been foreseeable that this would have environmental implications, though I can understand that the pressure to get water to Flint fast obviously overtook any other concerns. However, now that the city is past the initial crisis repsonse stage and is able to move forward and find other solutions, something has to be done quickly decrease the dependence on water bottles. This needs to be done from a precautionary standpoint rather than at the back end. Additionally, I think the point about this response being unique to the US in a water crisis is very interesting because it seems unimaginable that masses of bottled water would be sent to communities in need in Africa.