Vero Water

[clo]

1 hour ago, edgee said:

OMG this link contains scary nanny state rules of San Francisco. Goes way beyond prohibiting plastic straws. If imposed in most other places Nationwide backlash to such management of our lives would be overwhelming. So sad that some want to over control lives of others for the sake of feeling self rightous but not making any kind of significant difference.

LOL.

[DeeniEncinitas]

1 minute ago, clo said:

LOL.

Hi Cath!!!!! I knew I’d find you! We’re watching football went upstairs got some drinks with MY BAMBOO STRAWS THOUGHT OF YOU AND WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WERE ON BOARD! 

Denise😊

[clo]

Just now, DeeniEncinitas said:

Hi Cath!!!!! I knew I’d find you! We’re watching football went upstairs got some drinks with MY BAMBOO STRAWS THOUGHT OF YOU AND WANTED TO SEE IF YOU WERE ON BOARD! 

Denise😊

Hairy Red Dog and I had a lovely nap and getting ready for a drink myself 🙂

[DeeniEncinitas]

Gin and tonic for me! What is your call? 

We would have fun on a O cruise!

Denise😊

[clo]

1 minute ago, DeeniEncinitas said:

Gin and tonic for me! What is your call? 

We would have fun on a O cruise!

Denise😊

Vodka rocks with some water added.

[DeeniEncinitas]

I’ll call that! Grey goose! 

I toast you! LOL!

Denise😊

Have a good night Cath! 

[clo]

1 hour ago, DeeniEncinitas said:

I’ll call that! Grey goose! 

I toast you! LOL!

Denise😊

Have a good night Cath! 

You're so cute, Denise 🙂

[tropicalkerry2002]

Tonight I asked if they had sparkling Vero water...they did, and it was lovely.

[RJB]

14 hours ago, edgee said:

OMG this link contains scary nanny state rules of San Francisco. Goes way beyond prohibiting plastic straws. If imposed in most other places Nationwide backlash to such management of our lives would be overwhelming. So sad that some want to over control lives of others for the sake of feeling self rightous but not making any kind of significant difference.

So very sad but true.  No way I could live in San Fran.  They want to control everything you do. 

[clo]

2 hours ago, RJB said:

So very sad but true.  No way I could live in San Fran.  They want to control everything you do. 

LOL.

[DrHemlock]

Considering the real estate prices in SF and the number of wealthy/powerful people who live there, maybe their "nanny state rules" aren't so "scary" after all.  Just good for the environment ..... especially now that China no longer accepts our one-use (or any-use) plastic refuse.  

 

Heaven forfend we shouldn't do exactly what we want to do for our personal convenience and comfort at all times with no regard for the health and safety of those around us -- including the flora and fauna.  Unfortunately, so many people subscribe to that mantra that we (and the Pacific Ocean) are awash in trash.  If "scary nanny state rules" are what it takes to effect change, then it's our own fault.  

 

There are too many of us to continue living in a throw-away world.  It was nice while it lasted, but it belongs in the dustbin of history.  JMO.

[clo]

5 hours ago, DrHemlock said:

Considering the real estate prices in SF and the number of wealthy/powerful people who live there, maybe their "nanny state rules" aren't so "scary" after all.  Just good for the environment ..... especially now that China no longer accepts our one-use (or any-use) plastic refuse.  

 

Heaven forfend we shouldn't do exactly what we want to do for our personal convenience and comfort at all times with no regard for the health and safety of those around us -- including the flora and fauna.  Unfortunately, so many people subscribe to that mantra that we (and the Pacific Ocean) are awash in trash.  If "scary nanny state rules" are what it takes to effect change, then it's our own fault.  

 

There are too many of us to continue living in a throw-away world.  It was nice while it lasted, but it belongs in the dustbin of history.  JMO.

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

I don't know if this is a real quote or not but I use it:  Your right to swing your fist ends when it meets my jaw.  

[DrHemlock]

An excellent quote -- or at least aphorism -- clo, but your meaning is a but unclear in this context.  Are you saying, "Your right to trash the environment ends when I have to live with your trash?"  Or the opposite: "Your right to make laws regarding environmental protection ends when it affects my right to do whatever I want?"

 

Either way, you're entitled to your opinion and I'm only asking because of uncertainty regarding your meaning.  There are arguments on both sides, obviously.  That said, I do think -- referring back to edgee's SF comment -- that too many people start yelling "Tyranny" when all they're being asked to do is, e.g., use a paper straw instead of a plastic one.  An exaggeration, to be sure, but a symptom of the problem nonetheless.  

 

Further, I must respectfully disagree with edgee's statement that "...some want to control the lives of others for the sake of feeling self-righteous but not making any kind of significant difference."  Yes, there will always be a few self-righteous folks on either side of the aisle, but that ignores the far bigger problem.  When somebody says, "Well, it's only my one little plastic bottle.  What difference can it make?"  The answer is that it doesn't make any difference in and of itself.  The problem lies when billions of people make that same rationalization every single day.

 

Asking -- even requiring -- people to reduce the amount of garbage they produce or to drive a car with better fuel milage hardly constitutes "controlling'" their lives.  Refusing a medical procedure is controlling their lives; sending them off involuntarily to Vietnam is controlling their lives; luring them into debts they'll be paying off for decades is controlling their lives.

 

How did we ever manage to live before single-use plastic bottles?  I'm old enough to remember and, if they disappeared from the face of the earth tomorrow, my life would go on without a hiccup.  Naturally, YMMV.

 

Google "Great Pacific garbage patch" for an eye-opening look at the result of individuals thinking they don't make a difference.  Individuals, collectively over time, created the darn thing.  And the fact that it's there and probably will remain for millennia doesn't mean that we are therefore authorized to add to it.  The longest journey begins with a single step and, if Vero water is a step in the right direction, then I'll be happy to drink it.  

[clo]

2 minutes ago, DrHemlock said:

Your right to trash the environment ends when I have to live with your trash?"

Closer to this but change it to "when it effects the whole dang planet."

 

What you wrote was superb.  Really eloquent.  May I share it without attribution, of course?

[DrHemlock]

Thanks for the compliment.  Sure, you're welcome to share anything I write since, as far as I know, I'm anonymous on this board except for my "handle."

 

However, I would defend my version of the above sentence.  Just as with your fist analogy, it works best when the second clause is personal rather than general.  Yes, trashing the environment affects the entire planet, but too many folks believe that that's either fake news or wishy-washy generalization.  My point is, "Hey, buddy, I'm living here with my family; this is our 'house' and you're trashing it.  Don't make me call the cops."  

 

If people would simply adhere to the biblical principle of stewardship of the earth, we wouldn't need environmental laws.  

[clo]

1 minute ago, DrHemlock said:

My point is, "Hey, buddy, I'm living here with my family; this is our 'house' and you're trashing it.  Don't make me call the cops."

Good point.  Thanks again.

[ropomo]

This could be summarized by understanding the current situation was created by "individuals", while not consequential on their own, the sum produces the result.

[clo]

6 minutes ago, ropomo said:

This could be summarized by understanding the current situation was created by "individuals", while not consequential on their own, the sum produces the result.

And I take actions that on their own aren't "consequential."  And I regularly learn other itty bitty things that I can do and incorporate those into my day to day actions.  And SO many people are doing the same and loads more.  YAY.

 

And then there's that entitlement.  Sigh.  Yeah, straws.  Sheesh.

[Traveling Fools]

How about this idea....In the interest of reducing pollution attributed to improper disposal of plastic bottles "O" provides each cabin with 2-insulatated, reusable souvenir bottle like containers with their logo and a statement regarding their interest in bettering the environment. Oh.....just thought of something. In the event you either run out of water from the ship and need more, or forget to take the ship's flask and need to wet your whistle while on that excursion you are on, what will the water you purchase while on shore come in?

[RJB]

On 9/30/2019 at 12:57 PM, DrHemlock said:

Considering the real estate prices in SF and the number of wealthy/powerful people who live there, maybe their "nanny state rules" aren't so "scary" after all.  Just good for the environment ..... especially now that China no longer accepts our one-use (or any-use) plastic refuse.  

 

Heaven forfend we shouldn't do exactly what we want to do for our personal convenience and comfort at all times with no regard for the health and safety of those around us -- including the flora and fauna.  Unfortunately, so many people subscribe to that mantra that we (and the Pacific Ocean) are awash in trash.  If "scary nanny state rules" are what it takes to effect change, then it's our own fault.  

 

There are too many of us to continue living in a throw-away world.  It was nice while it lasted, but it belongs in the dustbin of history.  JMO.

The wealthy and powerful people that live there can afford not to abide by those rules, for example the loudest climate change person over the years in this country was Al Gore.  Flew private planes always and look at the carbon emissions they made.  And look at the money he made off of it.  Many more like him.  Their rules are for us peons not for them.  

[Rob the Cruiser]

34 minutes ago, Traveling Fools said:

How about this idea....In the interest of reducing pollution attributed to improper disposal of plastic bottles "O" provides each cabin with 2-insulatated, reusable souvenir bottle like containers with their logo and a statement regarding their interest in bettering the environment. Oh.....just thought of something. In the event you either run out of water from the ship and need more, or forget to take the ship's flask and need to wet your whistle while on that excursion you are on, what will the water you purchase while on shore come in?

 

Excellent idea and very well written. Which one of you are/were in Marketing? 

Edited October 1, 2019 by Rob the Cruiser

[LHT28]

1 hour ago, Traveling Fools said:

How about this idea....In the interest of reducing pollution attributed to improper disposal of plastic bottles "O" provides each cabin with 2-insulatated, reusable souvenir bottle like containers with their logo and a statement regarding their interest in bettering the environment.

I believe that is the goal 

suppose to happen  sometime this year according to the announcement  maybe not insulated but reusable

[tvmovielover]

Thanks to the person on the previous page that mentioned their Galapagos Water bottles.  We have a set too which I will bring on our cruise next year.  I do not mind schlepping them back to the ship and reusing them.  We did it on our 20 day land trip this year after finding just the right size liter bottle that fit in my bag.

[DrHemlock]

RJB makes a valid point above regarding the wealthy and powerful.  However, I would posit that even if the rules are only for "us peons" -- a group in which I include myself -- there are so many more of "us" than there are of "them" that if all the peons behave as if they care about the environment, then the effects of the rich who avoid or ignore the rules will be negligible.

 

Also, I feel the Al Gore/carbon emissions example is irrelevant to this discussion in which we're advocating (or lamenting) the push for less single-use throwaway packaging.  Both affect the environment, to be sure, but in significantly different ways so it's apples to oranges.

 

If we do want to talk about carbon, we might also look at the flights nearly all of us take in order to begin and end our cruises -- not to mention whatever the pollution is from ships fueled by burning bunker oil as Oceania's are.  Compare and contrast: Gore's private jet emissions while working to promote conservation vs. our passenger jet and ship emissions in an essentially unnecessary pursuit of pleasure.  Not that I plan to stop taking cruises!  Just making a point, and it's just my opinion.  

 

[RJB]

32 minutes ago, DrHemlock said:

RJB makes a valid point above regarding the wealthy and powerful.  However, I would posit that even if the rules are only for "us peons" -- a group in which I include myself -- there are so many more of "us" than there are of "them" that if all the peons behave as if they care about the environment, then the effects of the rich who avoid or ignore the rules will be negligible.

 

Also, I feel the Al Gore/carbon emissions example is irrelevant to this discussion in which we're advocating (or lamenting) the push for less single-use throwaway packaging.  Both affect the environment, to be sure, but in significantly different ways so it's apples to oranges.

 

If we do want to talk about carbon, we might also look at the flights nearly all of us take in order to begin and end our cruises -- not to mention whatever the pollution is from ships fueled by burning bunker oil as Oceania's are.  Compare and contrast: Gore's private jet emissions while working to promote conservation vs. our passenger jet and ship emissions in an essentially unnecessary pursuit of pleasure.  Not that I plan to stop taking cruises!  Just making a point, and it's just my opinion.  

 

You make some good points,  Just saying this subject is not a one way street. Valid arguments on both sides.  Need to hear them all.