Maryland Buying Trucks for Anti-Environment Nestle

Is Maryland’s hybrid truck initiative benefiting an anti-environment company?

The Maryland Energy Administration received a $5,924,190 grant from the U.S. Department of Energy for the “Maryland Hybrid Truck Goods Movement Initiative.” This initiative provides financial and technical assistance to corporate truck fleets so they can transition to hybrid-electric trucks.

The goal of the initiative is to bring 150 hyrbid trucks onto Maryland’s highways, displacing an estimated 461,400 gallons of petroleum each year. The companies receiving the funds include ARAMARK, UPS, Sysco, Effeciency Enterprises and Nestle Water Company.

The controversial aspect of Maryland’s program is the selection of Nestle Water Company as one of the recipients of this hybrid truck funding. Nestle currently controls greater than 30% of the bottled water market.

Bottled water has been the subject of debate recently as cities across the country work to move consumers away from bottled water to tap because of the incredible environmental impact caused by transporting huge volumes of water across the country in bottles made of petroleum-based plastics. Not to mention the massive waste generated in landfills from plastic water bottles. Nestle has fought these efforts across the U.S. and in Canada, Australia and the U.K.

In Florida, Miami-Dade County was threatened with a lawsuit by Nestle for airing a radio ad that touted the county’s tap water as being cheaper, purer and safer than bottled water.

In New York, Nestle fought expansion of the five-cent bottle deposit program. In a lawsuit, Nestle argued that applying the deposit to non-carbonated beverages, in addition to carbonated beverages, violated their equal protection rights. Bottle deposit programs create incentives for consumers to return and recycle their used containers.

Towns that have granted Nestle permission to take some water from their springs have suffered environmental and legal consequences after trying to stop the company from destroying municipal water supplies. The city of Fryeburg in Maine interfered with Nestle’s use of their water as reservoirs began shrinking. Nestle struck back with a lawsuit accusing the city of “interfering with the right to grow their market share.”

In the case of Maryland’s hybrid truck program, the question is…why would Maryland help a bottled water company save fuel costs using federal funds if Nestle’s operations create additional waste, use petroleum products, deplete precious municipal water supplies and fight environmentally beneficial legislation?

In exchange for this free federal funding that will ultimately benefit Nestle, Maryland should require that Nestle invest in development of recycling plants or improve public education on the benefits of recycling. Better yet, the state should require that Nestle promote use of tap water as an environmentally beneficial alternative to bottled water.

As long as a company like Nestle is willing to use any tool at their disposal to fight environmentally beneficial municipal programs, states should hesitate before handing them millions of tax-payer money for fuel savings.

Photo Credit: Flickr CC User shrff14