Bottled water ethics
I've been having a little debate with myself recently, it's concerned with something that seems small, but affects my life on a daily basis.
At the University of Manchester there are vending machines and outlets that sell bottled water from One. This is part of a charity scheme, from which all profits are donated to charity, mostly towards providing clean water in underdeveloped countries.
Charity is always a concern to me, it sometimes becomes so undefined that it becomes a simple financial venture in guilt removal. However, in this case, where _all_ profits are donated to relevant and noble causes (by buying this water I help provide people who need water, access to water), and discounting any corruption or over-administration within the organization itself (take the American Red Cross as an example), I can't really have a problem with this particular organization, nor it's presence in the university.
Unfortunately, that isn't a conclusion, as it has become apparent to me that access to drinking water in most parts of campus is restricted to One's product. No water fountains, no taps without a 'NOT DRINKING WATER' sticker above them, no handing your bottle behind the counter and having it filled up for free, and, with the exception of the student union shops, no alternative brand bottled water.
On the University of Manchester campuses, One sells 500 ml bottles for £1 and 330 ml bottles for £0.80. This is quite a bit of money, following in the footsteps of the Fairtrade products around campus (although, at £0.75 for a cup of tea, in most cases fairtrade is not an issue). As I have previously stated, I have nothing against One on its own; however, marketing water, that is more expensive than tea or Lucozade, to students who will leave university with an average of £13252 in debt, who have limited to no access to free water while on campus is not in line with my own ethical thinking.
Surely the university, who are cutting back massively in IT services, selling many University buildings, while making over £10,000 in library late fees alone, and constructing and renovating all over campus, should be able to make technological and financial donations without depending on their students to pay extra on a daily basis to maintain the University's psudo-moral high-ground.
And in that light, it seems in the university's interests to remove the competition to this guilt fee / moral step-ladder / primary source of water.
Local students are amongst the most in-debt people in this country and, although my flat-mates drinking habits seem to suggest they are unaware of this, surely those with no money of their own should be the last that the collection plate is forced upon?
Or is the dehydration messing with my head...