sensational publicity…

I spent last week ‘on the road’ and probably listened to too much news in the process. The one ’story’ that got me was the very small Australian town which decided to ban bottled water and seemingly managed to captivate the attention of the world media in the process.

The concept of banning something is quite fundamental and despite the subject matter being almost irrelevant in the context of human rights, I have to challenge the motivation of the small town’s folk (possibly their small minds?) for taking such a strong stance on something without seemingly thinking it through properly.

The act of banning a pure portable beverage means anyone planning a trip through that small town and finding themselves thirsty, means their choice when visiting a store before ‘hitting the road again’ is confined to flavoured, fattening or alchoholic beverages; all of which have measurably higher carbon footprints that the supposedly evil bottle of water they have discriminated against.

In a free society, the folk who live in this particular small Australian town should somewhere have found the wisdom to challenge or at least question themselves and their motives. A personal decision by individuals to not buy products as a statement is ok by me. Resorting to an over the top draconian motion which restricts the personal taste preferences of everyone living in or driving through their town seems ill considered – or could it be that the publicity sensation they have created is what it’s really all about…

To think, they could have broadened their minds to consider Aquapax mineral water as a genuinely low carbon alternative to the already pretty low carbon product it’s replacing, but I guess that might be crediting this particular small town’s folk with more than they deserve.