If a tree falls in the forest does it still make a sound? Along those lines, if a bottled water company loses its namesake water source, will it still stick to the same exotic, yet bullshit, branding?

That’s the question we can all ask this week in light of the announcement that Fiji Water is closing its operations in, wait for it – Fiji. The company is allegedly “being singled out by the military appointed government for a massive tax increase.” Hmm, maybe Fijans are just a little smarter when it comes to understanding the nuances of the bottled water industry.

What kind of taxes are we talking about?

Fifteen cents per liter on companies extracting more than 3.5 million liters (920,000 gallons) of water a month. That’s up from the current one-third of one percent rate. Guess what? Fiji Water is the only company responsible for extracting that much liquid. Yes, that’s a hefty tax for a company to handle, and although it’s unclear exactly what that tax money would go to, it’s easy to posit that the Fijan government simply wants to make a decent profit off of what is already theirs. Private companies can only unabashedly profit off of a public resource for so long. At some point, someone says “stop.”

But politics aside, with their namesake facility shutting down, the real question is, does the name “Fiji Water” still hold or is a rebrand in order? I’m thinking “Crap Petro Product Drink That’s No Better Than What Comes Out of Your Tap” would be fitting.

Sorry for the bobo-types who were conned into believing that drinking water from the South Pacific would somehow make them healthier, smarter, and sexier. Give the Fijans their water and quit global marketing campaigns that glamorize a resource that most of us don’t need to be paying $4 plus for – a price tag that certainly isn’t internalizing the environmental and health costs that come from single-use plastics.

Image: Magpie372

Like a water fight in an online school cafeteria, Fiji Water and Mother Jones Magazine have begun a volley of facts and fascinating accusations back and forth at each.

What’s the deal with these water wars, you ask? As Mother Jones’ muckraking Anna Lenzer debunks Fiji Water’s self-proclaimed “green” status, Fiji Water continues to toot its carbon-footprint-minimizing horn.

If you can get around the idea that shipping water halfway around the world in plastic bottles is somehow green, then you might be interested in Fiji Water’s carbon offset program and their path towards “carbon negativity” in the near future.

But Lenzer’s article points out the truly disturbing fact that Fiji’s pristine aquifer has been tapped and rather expensively sold to upscale American clientele while the Fijian people themselves have little access to clean water and must buy it bottled, at nearly the same price Paris Hilton pays for it.

Will all this mudslinging sully Fiji Water’s image, or is their for-profit cause worthy enough – via positive social investments – to prove that they’re actually doing the country of Fiji some good, and that they’re even a truly green company? The claims of both sides are being blogged for all the world to see.

I understand the desire to drink pure and pristine water – what with the hazards of prescription drugs coming through the tap and all – but buying it in bottles is not the cleanest way to go. Our resources may be better spent ensuring our own local water supplies are kept flowing and pollution-free.

Image: lashopaholic