New recipes

Nestlé CEO on Bottling Water in Drought-Stricken California: ‘If I Could Increase It, I Would’

Nestlé CEO on Bottling Water in Drought-Stricken California: ‘If I Could Increase It, I Would’


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Despite criticism, Nestlé’s CEO Tim Brown confirmed that the company will not stop bottling water in California

Nestlé CEO Tim Brown sees no reason to curb his company's use of California water.

Although thousands of concerned California residents and water advocates across the nation have signed a petition to stop Nestlé from continuing to bottle water in drought-stricken California, it looks like their efforts were for naught. Nestlé CEO Tim Brown has confirmed that he will not stop bottling California’s precious, dwindling water supply, saying in an interview with KPCC radio’s AirTalk, “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would.”

Yikes. Is Brown really that unconcerned with the devastating drought the Golden State is now enduring? Apparently yes — but he has an explanation for his refusal to turn off the tap in California:

"If I stop bottling water tomorrow," said Brown, "people would buy another brand of bottled water. As the second largest bottler in the state, we’re filling a role many others aren’t filling. It’s driven by consumer demand; it’s driven by an on-the-go society that needs to hydrate. Frankly, we’re very happy [consumers] are doing it in a healthier way.”

In contrast, Starbucks has agreed to stop bottling water in California after a similar petition put the coffee chain in an unwanted spotlight. Scientists at the International Bottled Water Association have defended Nestlé and other brands that currently source from California’s water supple, saying that bottling water is really just a drop in the bucket: “Bottled water accounts for less than 0.01 percent of all the water used in the United States each year…. And bottled water uses only 0.02 percent of the all the water used in California every year.”

But Jay Famiglietti, a NASA scientist and outspoken advocate of water conservation in California, says that their assessment is not quite true, and notes that even drops in the bucket can make a huge difference:

“An acre-foot [nearly 326,000 gallons] is enough water to supply an entire family for a year,” Famiglietti told SCPR. “So, in this time when we’re being asked to flush our toilets less and less, we have to ask the question: Is this really an environmentally, ethically correct thing to be doing right now?”


Nestle bottled water operations spark protests amid California drought

Hundreds of protesters gathered in front of two Nestle bottling plants in California on Wednesday to deliver petitions demanding the company stop bottling operations in the drought-stricken state.

The petitions – carrying more than 500,000 signatures – were accepted by Nestle staff members at both the Sacramento and Los Angeles bottling plants, protesters said, as residents and activists chanted slogans like “Our water is not for sale” and “Water is a human right, don’t let Nestle win this fight.”

In Sacramento, where around 50 protesters gathered, one eight-foot-long banner read: “Nestle, 515,000 people say leave California’s precious water in the ground,” referring to the total number signatures collected on the delivered petitions.

California has now entered its fourth consecutive year of drought, and residents of the state’s cities have been told to cut their consumption by as much as 36%.

“It is very disturbing and actually quite offensive that a foreign company is taking our water, bottling it and selling it back to us,” said Nick Rodnam, one protester at the Los Angeles plant, who launched one of the petitions on Change.org.

While Starbucks recently pulled its water bottling operations from the state on ethical grounds, Nestle and other companies like Walmart continue to source water for bottling in California, buying at the same rate as residents and selling at one hundred times the profit.

Morgan Goodwin, a 30-year-old city council member in Truckee, California, who took part in the protests at the Sacramento plant, said Nestle was treating California water as a “free-for-all”, while his constituents had been ordered to cut their water consumption by 28% in a state-issued mandate.

At the beginning of last month, California governor Jerry Brown took a historic step by issuing an executive order outlining mandatory water conservation measures, including a 25% average cut in urban areas.

Last week, Nestle CEO Tim Brown declared he had no intentions of pulling his water sourcing operations out of the state. If anything, he said in a radio interview, he would like to increase operations.

“There are over 1 million Californians who are without safe access to clean water in California today,” said Walker Foley of Food & Water Watch, a Washington-based NGO.


Nestle Blames Consumers for Bottling Practices During Cali Drought

'In fact, if I could, I'd increase it,' said Nestle's CEO in response to accusations that his company should stop taking water from California while the state is in the midst of a full-blown drought.

In an attempt to clear beverage giant Nestlé from the idea that its business practices is contributing to the drought in California, its CEO said he hopes to keep bottling water from the state.

Nestle made headlines last month when the company was exposed for bottling water from the San Bernardino National Forest under an expired permit during the last 25 years.

&ldquoWe feel good about what we&rsquore doing,&rdquo Brown said. &ldquoIn fact, if I could increase it, I would.&rdquo

Nonetheless, Nestlé revealed this week that one of its milk-bottling plants in California was going &ldquozero water&rdquo potentially saving 63 million gallons of water a year.

&ldquoWe have to look at design and how we touch water in a water-scarce environment,&rdquo Brown said.

OUTRAGEOUS: Nestlé CEO wants to pump more water out of #drought stricken CA for bottled water http://t.co/DJdYOi6LGr pic.twitter.com/AN5jsfxMqh

&mdash Earthjustice (@Earthjustice) May 15, 2015

California&rsquos historic drought is affecting several industries including the oil and gas sectors which have come under scrutiny for questionable waste water practices. Residents are being asked to cut back on water use, and celebrities have been shamed for having &ldquotoo-green lawns.&rdquo

About 80 percent of California&rsquos water is used in the agricultural industry.

Nestlé&rsquos bottled water production in California accounts for more than 700 million gallons a year, according to Brown.

Related:

All comments

In reply to (Show commentHide comment)
Recommended
Multimedia

Trending

Hello, !

Hello, !

Hello, !

The fact of registration and authorization of users on Sputnik websites via users’ account or accounts on social networks indicates acceptance of these rules.

Users are obliged abide by national and international laws. Users are obliged to speak respectfully to the other participants in the discussion, readers and individuals referenced in the posts.

The websites’ administration has the right to delete comments made in languages ​​other than the language of the majority of the websites’ content.

In all language versions of the sputniknews.com websites any comments posted can be edited.

A user comment will be deleted if it:

  • does not correspond with the subject of the post
  • promotes hatred and discrimination on racial, ethnic, sexual, religious or social basis or violates the rights of minorities
  • violates the rights of minors, causing them harm in any form, including moral damage
  • contains ideas of extremist nature or calls for other illegal activities
  • contains insults, threats to other users, individuals or specific organizations, denigrates dignity or undermines business reputations
  • contains insults or messages expressing disrespect to Sputnik
  • violates privacy, distributes personal data of third parties without their consent or violates privacy of correspondence
  • describes or references scenes of violence, cruelty to animals
  • contains information about methods of suicide, incites to commit suicide
  • pursues commercial objectives, contains improper advertising, unlawful political advertisement or links to other online resources containing such information
  • promotes products or services of third parties without proper authorization
  • contains offensive language or profanity and its derivatives, as well as hints of the use of lexical items falling within this definition
  • contains spam, advertises spamming, mass mailing services and promotes get-rich-quick schemes
  • promotes the use of narcotic / psychotropic substances, provides information on their production and use
  • contains links to viruses and malicious software
  • is part of an organized action involving large volumes of comments with identical or similar content ("flash mob")
  • “floods” the discussion thread with a large number of incoherent or irrelevant messages
  • violates etiquette, exhibiting any form of aggressive, humiliating or abusive behavior ("trolling")
  • doesn’t follow standard rules of the English language, for example, is typed fully or mostly in capital letters or isn’t broken down into sentences.

The administration has the right to block a user’s access to the page or delete a user’s account without notice if the user is in violation of these rules or if behavior indicating said violation is detected.

Users can initiate the recovery of their account / unlock access by contacting the moderators at [email protected]

  • Subject - the restoration of account / unlock access
  • User ID
  • An explanation of the actions which were in violation of the rules above and resulted in the lock.

If the moderators deem it possible to restore the account / unlock access, it will be done.

In the case of repeated violations of the rules above resulting in a second block of a user’s account, access cannot be restored.


Nestle CEO Says He Would Profit More from CA’s Drought if He Could

According to Credo, Nestle CEO Tim Brown was asked in a radio interview recently if the company would consider halting their water extraction from a national forest in drought-stricken California. The answer may not be what you’d expect.

Did Brown apologize for the corporation’s contribution to California’s water crisis? Nope. He doubled down and said, “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would.”

Many of the 200,000 activists who signed a petition asking Nestle to stop extracting water from the national forest reserve found out about Nestle’s actions through Natural Society. In all, the sheer amount of protest drummed up quite a bit of negative press for Nestle. The company has still refused to change its ways.

Water privatization, as they’ve made clear, is their goal. Nestle’s former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe also has a long history of disregarding public health and abusing the environment to take part in the profit of an astounding $35 billion in annual profit from water bottle sales alone. It is clear that this corporation doesn’t think clean drinking water is a human right.

Nestle recently updated their website to address the question – Have you been sourcing water illegally in the San Bernadino National Forest without a proper permit?

“No. We understand that our permit is one of hundreds awaiting renewal by the US Forest Service (USFS). The USFS has repeatedly informed Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA) that we can lawfully continue our operations pending the reissuance of our permit and that the provisions of our existing permit are still in force until the effective date of a new permit. NWNA has continued to receive and pay invoices from the USFS for the annual permit fee, as we have since it was first issued. We also continue to report our water use from the spring to the State Water Resources Control Board.”

Never mind that California is going through the worst drought in history, and that other companies have been responsible enough to halt the bottling of water in order to honor the environmental devastation that the state faces.

Also, never mind that Nestle’s permit to extract water expired 27 years ago!

It’s time to halt Nestle’s water privatization plans, especially while utilizing an expired license in a state that is having serious water issues. Nestle is taking water and then selling it back to a drought-stricken population. It has to stop.


Nestlé and the Privatization of Water: Are You Boycotting Bottled Water Yet?

In a world where food has become political, it’s easy to forget that there’s something even more essential than food: water.

Water is after all what helps our food grow not only do we need to drink it, but so do the plants that we consume everyday. Without water, we have nothing.

The severity of the drought in California has put the water crisis at the forefront of our minds, but it’s nothing new. Over the last century, water use has grown at more than twice the rate of population increase, and by 2025, approximately 1.8 billion people will suffer from water scarcity. Water is an issue that we must take seriously.

In the face of such an issue, it seems near insanity that companies would profit off of water. The corporate face of water privatization is of course Nestlé. As the owner of a handful of water brands, like Poland Spring, Pellegrino, Perrier and Evian, Nestlé dominates the bottled water market.

Consumers spend up to 2,000 times the price of tap water to drink out of a bottle. And when an estimated 25 percent of all bottled water is actually tap water, I think we can all agree that a bottled water habit is simply idiotic.

But in the mind of the corporations, it’s their right to make money off of water. Nestlé CEO Peter Brabeck has publicly come under scolding for his comments back in 2013 in regards to water rights. “Water is of course the most important raw material we have today in the world. It’s a question of whether we should privatize the normal water supply for the population. And there are two different opinions on the matter. The one opinion, which I think is extreme, is represented by the NGOs, who bang on about declaring water a public right. That means as a human being you should have a right to water. That’s an extreme solution. And the other view says water is a foodstuff like any other. And like any other foodstuff it should have a market. Personally I think it’s better to give foodstuff a market value…”

While that might sound like extreme thinking, it’s definitely in line with Nestlé’s global push to privatize water sources. In Pakistan, Nestlé has been accused of draining groundwater levels and affecting local health in order to bottle Pure Life, a bottled water brand marketed as a healthy option for families. What’s so healthy about drinking contaminated groundwater because the levels are so low? At the World Water Forum in 2000, Nestlé successfully lobbied to keep water from being declared a universal human right (Nestlé defines water as a “need”).

If you think that’s appalling, check out The Story of Stuff Project that made the fantastic video on bottled water back in 2010 and has recently launched a campaign against Nestlé and the privatization of water.

As Nestlé lays claim to 700 million gallons of water in thirsty California, the corporation’s leadership publicly holds that it is providing a benefit to people. With five bottling facilities in California, Nestlé claims to run its own operation because “people need to drink water.” But that’s a benefit that really only benefits the company, financially speaking, and for the citizens of California, means drawing from its groundwater, an act that is unfortunately goes unregulated by the government. In fact, Nestlé Waters North America’s CEO Tim Brown said in a public radio interview, “If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy a different brand of bottled water. We see this everyday. In fact, if I could increase [bottling], I would.” It seems nothing, not even a debilitating drought, will make Nestlé stop.

Boycotting Nestlé is of course one option, and you might be surprised at what brands that fall under the Nestlé umbrella. Time to kick your PowerBar habit, athletes. Got a Nespresso maker? Time to ditch that as well, sorry George (although, I don’t know why you are drinking capsule coffee in the first place). Also, you should probably stop feeding your dog Purina Dog Chow.

The other option, and the simplest one which you can implement on an everyday basis, is to boycott bottled water, of all brands. All things considered, when we live in countries where access to clean, potable water is as easy as turning on the tap, there is no excuse for drinking bottled water. None.


Nestlé CEO on Bottling Water in Drought-Stricken California: ‘If I Could Increase It, I Would’ - Recipes

Above photo: Nestle CEO Tim Brown (right) stands in front of some of the water bottles that are ready to be shipped out and sold. From CA Public Radio.

The boss of Nestlé Waters has said the company wants to increase the amount of water it bottles in California despite a devastating drought across the state that has triggered demonstrations at the corporation’s bottling plant.

Tim Brown, chief executive of Nestlé Waters North America, said the company would “absolutely not” stop bottling in California and would actually like to “increase” the amount of ground source water it uses.

Asked in a local radio interview if Nestlé would consider following Starbucks’ lead and stop bottling water in California during the drought, Brown said: “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would.

“The fact is, if I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy another brand of bottled water,” Brown said in a discussion with a Nasa hydrologist on 89.3 KPCC radio. “People need to hydrate. As the second largest bottler in the state, we’re filling a role many others are filling. It’s driven by consumer demand, it’s driven by an on-the-go society that needs to hydrate. Frankly, we’re very happy they are doing it in a healthier way.”

Brown admitted that Nestlé currently wastes about 30% of the 700m gallons of water a year it draws from the ground in California. On Tuesday, the company announced plans to reduce water waste at its bottling plants in Bakersfield and Tulare by 12%.

More than 82,000 people have signed a petition calling on Nestlé to stop bottling from a spring in southern California, and protesters armed with plastic pitchforks have blocked the entrance to a Nestlé plant in Sacramento.

Despite the protests, Brown said: “We feel good about what we’re doing delivering healthy hydrating to people throughout the state of California.”

Starbucks has announced plans to stop sourcing its bottled water from California after embarrassing revelations that its “water conservation” Ethos brand bottled water was sourced from the drought-stricken state.

“It seems hard to imagine, but more than 1bn people on our planet can’t get clean water to drink,” Starbucks says on its website. “Ethos® Water was created to help raise awareness about this terrible crisis and provide children with access to clean water.” Five cents from the sale of each Ethos bottle, which costs about $2, goes towards Starbucks’ Ethos Water Fund supporting water, sanitation and hygiene education programs across the world.

The company said it would move Ethos production to Pennsylvania for the duration of the drought. “We are committed to our mission to be a globally responsible company and to support the people of the state of California as they face this unprecedented drought,” John Kelly, Starbucks’ senior vice-president of global responsibility and public policy, said last week.

Walmart, which also bottles water in California, has refused to move its production out of the state. “The drought in California is very concerning for many of our customers and our associates,” a spokesman said. “We share those concerns and are tracking it closely. Our commitment to sustainability includes efforts to minimize water use in our facilities. We have and continue to work with our suppliers to act responsibly while meeting the needs of customers who count on us across California.”

Sustainability charity Food & Water Watch has called for a moratorium on all water bottling across the state. “It’s the worst drought we’ve seen in a long time, and it’s irresponsible of the state to allow Nestlé to bottle water that’s supposed to be a public resource,” a spokesman said. “We’re calling for a moratorium on bottling water for private profit.”


Protesters are trying to 'drought shame' Nestle out of California

Pressure is growing for Nestle Waters to move its water bottling operations out of drought-stricken California.

Last month, Southern California newspaper The Desert Sun reported that Nestle had been drawing water from an area just north of Palm Springs for nearly 30 years without officially testing how the bottling operation may be affecting the environment. According to the Sun, the company also has not renewed its permit to transport water from the forest since 1988.

In response to these reports and a growing sense of alarm about the situation in the state, protestors gathered outside two Nestle plants on Wednesday to demand that the company stop bottling water in the state. Many of them waved signs referencing a petition that has gotten 500,000 signatures and demands that the company leave California.

From a protest I was at earlier today outside Nestle's water-bottling facility in South LA. pic.twitter.com/ebSkRIDRQo

— Charles Davis (@charliearchy) May 20, 2015

Growing protest outside #Nestle bottling site demand company stop tapping CA #Water amid #drought @KNX1070 pic.twitter.com/qbytPbBhED

— Margaret Carrero (@MargaretCarrero) May 20, 2015

Representatives from the San Bernardino National Forest Service, the area of land where Nestle is bottling its water, told the Sun they didn't know the permit had expired. They also said that they were in the process of investigating the operation's environmental impacts.

Business Insider's request for comment from the San Bernardino National Forest Service wasn't immediately returned.

Despite the protests, Nestle seems unlikely to back down from its water bottling operations.

In an interview with KPCC earlier in May, Nestle Waters North America's CEO Tim Brown defended his company's decision to draw water from the state, pointing out that "If I stop bottling water tomorrow, people would buy a different brand of bottled water." He then added, "In fact, if I could increase [bottling], I would.”

Other companies have responded to calls to stop bottling operations in California. Last week, for example, Starbucks declared it would be moving its bottling operations out of state.

But others have continued to bottle water despite the drought. Wal-Mart, for example, still bottles water in California, as do companies at more than 100 other plants that are still licensed to bottle water in the state.

More From Business Insider

China’s Factory Outlook Steadies as Recovery Passes Its Peak

China Huarong’s Journey From Safe Bet to Bad News: A Timeline

China's factory activity slows slightly in May as raw materials costs surge - official PMI

China Wrecks IPO Plans for High-Flying Education Startups

PropertyGuru to Acquire REA Group Malaysia, Thailand Units

Bitcoin's in a slump — here's why Warren Buffett has hated it all along

The billionaire has never made a secret of his loathing for cryptocurrency.

Bitcoin’s Volatility Spawns New Crypto Balance Sheet Alternative

(Bloomberg) -- Corporate treasurers fed up with rock-bottom returns on their cash are about to get another pitch from the world of crypto.Circle Internet Financial Ltd., one of the digital-asset firms behind the so-called stablecoin dubbed USDC that is pegged 1-to-1 to the dollar, has cooked up an alternative for the legions too conservative to follow the likes of Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey into Bitcoin. Park your extra cash in USDC and earn as much as 7% annually through high-yield accounts, the marketing says -- more than 10 times the return on an ultra-safe 1-year Treasury bill.The idea may be appealing to some treasurers who were initially seduced by the big gains in crypto, especially following Bitcoin’s roughly 40% decline since mid-April. Stablecoins such as USDC are gaining increased attention because of their ability to maintain their pegs during the wild crypto price swings, suggesting they could actually serve as a store of value. Even so, not all long-term digital market observers are convinced.“If companies wish to put their corporate reserves into a stablecoin and that is fully audited, it is like putting their money in a bank account which is what they normally do,” John Griffin, professor of finance at the University of Texas at Austin, said in an email. “However, if the account is paying out a higher yield than bank account yields, then it is not merely invested in some risk-free asset.”Here’s how Circle’s program will work: Treasurers would open a “digital-dollar account” where the company’s fiat money is converted into USDC and interest is paid out in USDC. The yield is generated by Circle lending the digital dollars to a network of institutional investors that are willing to pay an interest rate for access to additional capital.The companies would lock in their return when the account is opened, similar to a bank certificate of deposit. Circle plans to offer accounts with maturities ranging from one month to a year, with no early withdrawals allowed. Rates available will be updated on a weekly basis, depending on demand for USDC loans.That’s a bit tamer than the strategy first highlighted last year by MicroStrategy Inc. Chief Executive Officer Michael Saylor, who advocated pouring company reserves into Bitcoin because he said the dollar is being debased by surging inflation. Musk’s February announcement that Tesla Inc. had added Bitcoin to its balance sheet helped fuel the rally that took the largest cryptocurrency to a record in April before it lost more than one-third of its value.“Corporate reserves are not for investing in stocks, going to Vegas, or something more volatile and more rigged against you like Bitcoin,” Griffin said.With few companies outside the crypto realm following MicroStrategy, Tesla and Dorsey’s Square Inc. into Bitcoin, Circle hopes that stablecoins may be the next logical step. The company is working with Genesis Global Capital, one of the largest crypto lenders.The service will be first made available in the U.S. and Switzerland, and will launch “imminently,” Jeremy Allaire, Circle’s CEO, said in an interview. Thousands of businesses are already on the waiting list, according to Circle.“We are seeing the opportunity for the treasury use-case grow a lot,” Allaire said.Other providers of stablecoins are rolling out similar offerings. On May 26, Gemini exchange -- the brainchild of the Winklevoss brothers -- said investors can earn up to 7.4% annually on Gemini dollars through a program called Gemini Earn. The Gemini token is also pegged to the dollar and its reserves are held with State Street Bank and Trust, the largest financial custodian in the world. Each month, the dollar deposit balance is examined by BPM LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm.USDC reserves are attested to monthly by accounting firm Grant Thornton LLP and published online.Various small crypto lenders already offer yield accounts for different coins, including less regulated stablecoins like Tether.For these products, “appropriate users would be people who invest in junk bonds or similar risky lending,” said Aaron Brown, a crypto investor and writer for Bloomberg Opinion. “It might offer a better risk-adjusted return than alternatives. . . or not. But whatever it is, it’s not a savings account in the way most people understand that term.”More stories like this are available on bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

China Huarong’s Journey From Safe Bet to Bad News: A Timeline

(Bloomberg) -- It’s nearly two months since turbulence erupted around China Huarong Asset Management Co.At the end of March, its 4% perpetual dollar bond was trading at 102 cents on the dollar as investors figured the January execution of former chairman Lai Xiaomin for bribery put a line under past wayward behavior. But the failure of the company to release 2020 results by a March 31 deadline, and a subsequent report by mainland media Caixin that the firm will restructure, sparked weeks of turmoil. The same bond is now at 57 cents.The heart of the matter is whether the central government will rescue a state-owned company that’s integral to the smooth running of the financial system. While there are signs Beijing wants to ensure China Huarong can repay its debts on time, uncertainty prevails.Here’s a look at the key events for China Huarong:May 28The company has wired funds to repay $978 million of notes maturing within the following week, according to Bloomberg News, the biggest bond payment since the 2020 results delay.May 27Liang Qiang, who currently heads another bad-debt manager, is on track to become president of China Huarong, reports Bloomberg News.May 24China Huarong dollar bonds climb after the managing editor of Caixin Media wrote in an opinion piece that the asset manager is “nowhere near” defaulting on its more than $20 billion of offshore notes.May 21Some of China Huarong’s thinly traded onshore bonds slump after having held up better than the company’s dollar-denominated notes, signaling broadening concern about the firm’s financial health.May 18China Huarong has transferred funds to repay a $300 million note maturing May 20, Bloomberg News reports, the first dollar bond to come due since the delayed 2020 results. Prices for the firm’s dollar bonds slump earlier in the day after the New York Times reports China is planning an overhaul that would inflict “significant losses” on both domestic and foreign China Huarong bondholders.May 17The company has reached funding agreements with state-owned banks to ensure it can repay debt through at least the end of August, by which time China Huarong aims to have completed its 2020 financial statements, according to a Bloomberg News report. That as at least two of its onshore bonds see big price declines in recent days, worrying some investors.May 13The firm says it’s prepared to make future bond payments and has seen no change in the level of government support, seeking to ease investor concerns after a local media report that regulators balked at China Hurarong’s restructuring plan.May 6The company says it transferred funds to pay five offshore bond coupons due the following day, its latest move to meet debt obligations amid persistent doubts about its financial health.April 30China Huarong breaks its silence, with an executive telling media it is prepared to make its bond payments and state backing remains intact. The official also says the week’s rating downgrades “have no factual basis” and are “too pessimistic.”April 29Moody’s Investor Service downgrades China Huarong by one notch to Baa1, adding the firm remains on watch for further downgrade. The cut reflects the company’s weakened funding ability due to market volatility and increased uncertainty over its future, according to the statement.April 27China Huarong units repay bonds maturing that day. The S$600 million ($450 million) bond was repaid with funds provided by China’s biggest state-owned bank, according to a Bloomberg News report.April 26Fitch Ratings downgrades China Huarong by three notches to BBB while dropping the company’s perpetual bonds into junk territory. The lack of transparency over government support for the firm may hamper its ability to refinance debt in offshore markets, Fitch said.April 25China Huarong says it won’t meet an April 30 deadline to file its 2020 report with Hong Kong’s stock exchange because auditors needed more time to finalize a transaction the company first flagged on April 1. Securities and asset-management units said in the days before that they wouldn’t release 2020 results by month’s end.April 22The China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission asks lenders to extend China Huarong’s upcoming loans by at least six months, according to REDD, citing two bankers from large Chinese commercial lenders.April 21China is considering a plan that would see its central bank assume more than 100 billion yuan ($15 billion) of China Huarong assets to help clean up the firm’s balance sheet, according to a Bloomberg News report. Peer China Cinda Asset Management Co. was said to be planning the sale of perpetual bonds in the second quarter.April 20China Huarong’s key offshore financing unit says it returned to profitability in the first quarter and laid a “solid” foundation for transformation. Reorg Research reports that regulators are considering options including a debt restructuring of the unit, China Huarong International Holdings Ltd.April 19Huarong Securities Co. says it wired funds to repay a 2.5 billion yuan local note.April 16The CBIRC says China Huarong’s operations are normal and that the firm has ample liquidity. These are the first official comments about the company’s troubles. Reuters reports Chinese banks have been asked not to withhold loans to Huarong.April 13Fitch and Moody’s both put the company on watch for downgrade. The finance ministry, which owns a majority of Huarong, is considering the transfer of its stake to a unit of the country’s sovereign wealth fund, Bloomberg News reports. Chinese officials signal they want failing local government financing vehicles to restructure or go bust if debts can’t be repaid.April 9China Huarong says it has been making debt payments “on time” and its operations are “normal.” Bloomberg News reports the company intends to keep Huarong International as part of a potential overhaul that would avoid the need of a debt restructuring or government recapitalization. S&P Global Ratings puts China Huarong’s credit ratings on watch for possible downgrade.April 8China Huarong is preparing to offload non-core and loss-making units as part of a broad plan to revive profitability that would avoid the need for a debt restructuring or government recapitalization, Bloomberg News reports.April 6Selling gains steam in China Huarong’s dollar bonds, following a holiday in China. Huarong Securities says there has been no major change to its operations, in response to a price plunge for its 3 billion yuan local bond.April 1China Huarong announces a delay in releasing 2020 results, saying its auditor is unable to finalize a transaction. Stock trading is suspended and spreads jump on the firm’s dollar bonds while China Huarong tells investors its business is running as usual. Caixin reports the company submitted restructuring and other major reform plans to government officials and shareholders.More stories like this are available on bloomberg.comSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2021 Bloomberg L.P.

Fourth stimulus check in jeopardy while the last payments keep dwindling

Will President Biden and Congress provide more relief? It's looking iffy.


Nestle CEO Says He Would Profit More from CA’s Drought if He Could

According to Credo, Nestle CEO Tim Brown was asked in a radio interview recently if the company would consider halting their water extraction from a national forest in drought-stricken California. The answer may not be what you’d expect.

Did Brown apologize for the corporation’s contribution to California’s water crisis? Nope. He doubled down and said, “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would.”

Many of the 200,000 activists who signed a petition asking Nestle to stop extracting water from the national forest reserve found out about Nestle’s actions through Natural Society.

In all, the sheer amount of protest drummed up quite a bit of negative press for Nestle. The company has still refused to change its ways.

Water privatization, as they’ve made clear, is their goal. Nestle’s former CEO Peter Brabeck-Letmathe also has a long history of disregarding public health and abusing the environment to take part in the profit of an astounding $35 billion in annual profit from water bottle sales alone.

It is clear that this corporation doesn’t think clean drinking water is a human right.

Nestle recently updated their website to address the question – Have you been sourcing water illegally in the San Bernadino National Forest without a proper permit?

“No. We understand that our permit is one of hundreds awaiting renewal by the US Forest Service (USFS). The USFS has repeatedly informed Nestlé Waters North America (NWNA) that we can lawfully continue our operations pending the reissuance of our permit and that the provisions of our existing permit are still in force until the effective date of a new permit. NWNA has continued to receive and pay invoices from the USFS for the annual permit fee, as we have since it was first issued. We also continue to report our water use from the spring to the State Water Resources Control Board.”

Never mind that California is going through the worst drought in history, and that other companies have been responsible enough to halt the bottling of water in order to honor the environmental devastation that the state faces.

It’s time to halt Nestle’s water privatization plans, especially while utilizing an expired license in a state that is having serious water issues. Nestle is taking water and then selling it back to a drought-stricken population. It has to stop.


Nestlé’s Solution to Selling 700 Million Gallons of Calif. Water Is to Stop Using Far Less

During the historic drought now parching California, multinational food corporation Nestlé has been pumping water in the state to sell as its Arrowhead brand of bottled water under an expired permit to operate in the San Bernardino National Forest. The company did so during the last three extended dry stretches as well.

Though Nestlé is still in good standing with the Forest Service (paying bills, following regulations), the very idea of its diverting and profiting from scarce resources to sell a product that requires yet more water to manufacture its container—which often ends up in the ocean—has incensed many.

Now, the company has a new plan to reduce its water consumption. Announced Wednesday, the solution is to wring water from milk, turning a Modesto, California, factory that produces dairy products into a “zero water” facility.

As for halting the Arrowhead bottling operation? “Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would,” Tim Brown, CEO of Nestlé Waters North America, said in a recent interview with Southern California Public Radio.

Zero water factories are just one innovation that will help us reduce our water usage: http://t.co/lzv6QhyPuP pic.twitter.com/UVyZgrvWUU

&mdash Nestlé (@Nestle) May 13, 2015

Brown contends that the 705 million gallons his company pumps out of the San Bernardinos each year—enough to supply about 2,100 homes for a year—is both negligible and put to good use.

“The reality is, demand for bottled water is higher than it has ever been, in large measure because people are looking for healthier alternatives to juices, soft drinks, and, in some cases, beer and wine,” he wrote in an op-ed for The San Bernardino Sun. “On top of that, the production of these beverages requires two to eight times as much water as bottled water, and that does not include the additional water necessary to grow the ingredients in those products.”

By making its Modesto factory its second “zero water” facility—the first opened in Mexico last year—Nestlé will stop drawing on dwindling municipal water resources for industrial uses, such as cooling storage tanks full of milk.

The estimated amount of water that would be saved, however, is 63 million gallons—less than a tenth of what Arrowhead takes. All told, Nestlé’s nine factories in California, some of which will also become “zero water” facilities eventually, use 1 billion gallons annually.

Nestlé's Permit to Pump California Springwater Expired Decades Ago

The technology that will be employed in Modesto takes advantage of the wastewater generated by dehydrating milk for Nestlé food products. The Mexican “zero water” plant processes nearly 370,000 gallons of fresh milk daily, yielding more than 260,000 gallons of water. That water is used in production, and more than half is captured and treated to be used again.

It’s inspiring efficiency if you’re only considering the factory itself. But the notion that wresting water from milk doesn’t draw on local water resources ignores what goes into dairy products. While cows themselves are relatively water-efficient—drinking three gallons of water to produce one gallon of milk—their feed is not. According to a 2012 study published in the journal Ecosystems, 98 percent of dairy’s water footprint is feed production. Because it’s more expensive to buy enough land for cows to pasture on, they are more typically kept in concentrated lots and fed alfalfa, which requires huge amounts of water to produce.

Estimates for the exact amount of water that goes into one gallon of milk vary wildly, but Mother Jones, based on USDA data, calculated 638 gallons.

So even if a “zero water” dairy facility is able to reuse 70 percent of the liquid in the milk it processes, as with the Nestlé factory in Mexico, it’s still deep in the hole when overall water use is considered.

As for Nestlé’s continued bottling operations in California, José Lopez, the company’s head of operations, said it would work toward greater efficiency there too.

“We are focused on how to adapt our bottling and our manufacturing operations, and our supply chain, to make them more resilient and more resistant to drought conditions,” he said in a company announcement about the “zero water” facility. “We will test innovative solutions, prove they are efficient and effective, and will share what we learn with others.”


700 Million Gallons of California Groundwater Isn't Enough for Nestlé

“Absolutely not. In fact, if I could increase it, I would,” said Nestlé Waters North America CEO Tim Brown Wednesday on KPCC, when asked by NASA hydrologist Jay Famiglietti whether he would ever consider moving his water bottling operations out of drought-stricken California, like Starbucks is doing. By Brown’s estimate, Nestlé’s bottling business currently uses 700,000,000 gallons of California groundwater a year.

Nestlé isn’t the only company draining California’s aquifers and shipping the water out of state in the middle of a megadrought. In fact, as I reported here this week, the Crystal Geyser Water Company is getting ready to open up a brand new operation in Mount Shasta, at the headwaters of the Sacramento River. And, just down the road from the Crystal Geyser site, plans are being drawn up to build yet another, “boutique” water bottling plant on the site that Nestlé abandoned just six years ago, in the face of local opposition.

“People need to hydrate,” Brown argued on KPCC, and Nestlé is “delivering healthy hydration” in response to “consumer demand.”

If only there were an easy way to healthily hydrate with clean and well-regulated drinking water at 1/300 the price that Nestlé charges, and that didn’t produce .39 parts wastewater for every one part potable water, available at every kitchen sink.

The Courage Campaign will hold rallies next Wednesday, May 20th, at 11a.m., in front of two Nestlé bottling facilities, at 8670 Younger Creek Dr., Sacramento, and 1560 E. 20th St., Los Angeles.

Sign up for Leighton Woodhouse’s email list on the drought at Land of Thirst.


It Gets Worse

As California struggled with its worst drought in history, Nestlé continued to extract over 80 million gallons of water from Sacramento aquifers every year. Just in like Fryeburg, the company sold it back to local residents in bottles.

This was occurring at a time when California’s water supply was expected to run out in 12-18 months, and Californians were being urged to cut their water usage by at least 20%.

Nestlé CEO Tim Brown said at the time, in 2015, that he would not apologize for the company’s contribution to California’s water crisis. On the contrary, Brown said:

Nestlé also tapped into the San Bernardino National Forest reserve for its water, essentially stealing 1,838,451,342 gallons of water from the public trust, and then profiting from it. This resulted in activists suing the National Forest Service.

Source: The Desert Sun

Once again, the people lost. Last week, a federal judge ruled that a 1988 permit allowing Nestlé to tap the San Bernardino National Forest for water is valid, despite the fact that the permit listed 1988 as the expiration date and was never renewed.

Money talks, and it doesn’t look good for the people of Centre Wellington.


Watch the video: 3η Ημέρα Ξηρασία! (June 2022).