What's with the French and the wasteful showers along the Riviera's beaches
 

I have a question for you Fodorites out there that are familiar with the French culture (or this may be a European culture question in general).

When I was in France for a couple of weeks this month, I noticed that every beach I saw had these outdoor showers where you could take a cold shower after you went into the sea. These showers were all free.

You should have witnessed my surprise when I watched people press the shower button four or five times to make sure that every once of sand/salt is washed off. All I could think is this is wasting an enormous amount of fresh water, gallons and gallons per person.

This was even true at the private beaches. The shower was totally free, yet if I wanted water I had to pay.

What I ended up doing was buying an initial water bottle, and then filling it up with the tap at the shower (there was usually a small tap at the shower used for kids to wash and also for feet I presume). That water was fresh and free so we used that. However, we got frowns from doing that.

On top of that, our hotel manager said that sometimes in the summer they ration out water to different cities at different times of day. All I was thinking was if they just took those showers away, they probably would have all the water they needed in their cities...

My question is what is the deal here? I know Europeans tend to say we waste, but these showers waste an enormous amount of water.

In the US, there are usually no such showers at beaches, or if they are, they are indoors and you must pay for them (but they also include hot water). So, what's the deal?

Free showers on the beach are considered a plus for tourists, especially in the case of sandy beaches.
When I lived and worked in Nice (pebble beach), I used to go for a swim during lunch break and it was nice to be able to rinse the salt off my skin for the remainder of the working day. Just think how uncomfortable it must be to live with sand under your clothes and to feel sticky until you get home!

Showers are not free at private beaches, they are included in the price. They are not free at the beach either : the locals pay for them through various property taxes.
There are "free" showers with hot and cold water in each harbor for the people who moor there. The price is included in the daily fee they pay.

I agree that it seems like a waste. But the water used on the beach is not used elsewhere: you shower, you dress, you go back to your hotel or to your house and you don't undress and shower immediately afterwards.

Where I live now there are talks about suppressing them when summers are particularly dry but so far no mayor has dared take the necessary steps.

All the beaches I go to in the US have 'free' showers to wash off the sand, so I'm not sure where you get "in the US usually......"

As for waste, aren't beachgoers going to take a shower back at home/hotel if the don't at the beach? For me washing at the beach means I don't need to shower later. Which shower do you think will be longer and more 'wasteful'?

To me this is a pretty reasonable usage of water, not waste. Watering lawns and golf courses in the desert, excessive carwashing, and growing crops like rice in arid climates are far bigger examples of waste.

I think pvoyageuse and j62 hit the nail on the head.
When you need to shower after a swim, it does not matter whether you "waste" 3 gallons: on the beach or later at the hotel.
Furthermore, when you rinse off the sand at the outdoor showers it remains on the beach and does not clog the pipes of the hotel or your private home.

I'd be very wary of filling up a water bottle unless the tap was clearly marked to be drinkable.
That may be why people were concerned

I remember there being free outdoor showers in Hawaii.

Been to several places in the US where there are free outdoor showers.

As someone mentioned, the facilities probably are there at the behest of the hotels, since it eases problems with their plumbing.

I'd agree with missprism on the filling of water bottles - the water may not be potable water.

Compared to the wastage of water we saw in Arizona the beach showers are nothing. All that green grass, sprinklers on in the heat of the day, golf courses everywhere, in the middle of a desert? Is that not wasting water?

<b>EAU NON POTABLE</b> is the sign you should see on any fountain or faucet that does not dispense drinkable water.

Compared to the wastage of water we saw in Arizona the beach showers are nothing. All that green grass, sprinklers on in the heat of the day, golf courses everywhere, in the middle of a desert? Is that not wasting water?

At least in my city, that's reclaimed wastewater, not drinking water.

And that is probably true of the showers on the beaches in France!

But I am sure that many private individuals are not using reclaimed waste water to achieve those emerald lawns we saw. It's not only in Arizona, California has it's bad spots too.

As said above:

They are there for the tourists.

Increasingly, it must be said, bkluvsNola, tourists are destroying the planet. The demand constant air conditioning in places that historically never had it, they waste food and water to astonishing degrees. They burn up fuel and create greenhouse gases with jet flights, car rentals, tour buses, etc.

I was just reading an article the other day in an American newspaper about a scientific research project in an unspoiled part of Colorado that is being ruined by tourists looking to &quot;get away from it all&quot; who not only disturb the habitat but who knock down sensors and inadvertantly destroy underfoot other carefully laid out parts of the data collection project when they go hiking around, oblivious (despite signs not to do it).

bkluvsNola, if you want to be good to the planet, seek out eco-friendly places to visit that emphasize non-wasteful behavior. The French Riviera is all about showing off you've got assets to burn -- gambling, yachts, helicopters. I'm surprised people weren't rinsing off in Dom Perignon.

On a less exotic note, the amount of fuel consumption and greenhouse gases produced by not only jets, but tour buses, car rentals,

Interesting statement &quot;tourists are destroying the planet&quot;

So is your theory that if all tourism stopped then the planet would be saved? The dense haze covering many of the big cities around the world is caused by tourists? Beijing, Mexico City, etc, etc? CO2 emissions from coal fired power plants and automobiles are primarily caused by tourists? Excessive nutrients in coastal waterways is caused by tourists spreading fertilizer while on vacation?

What a bunch of hogwash.

Interesting statements:

&quot;A family of four flying to the USA would cause more emissions than their entire domestic energy use in a year, and about twice the emissions from a car travelling 12,000 miles.&quot;


&quot;Air travel is the fastest growing contributor to climate change, and remains the most popular means of transport for international trips. Just one long-haul return flight can produce more CO2 per passenger than the average UK motorist in a year.&quot;

&quot;As far as climate change is concerned, the growth in air travel is an utter, unparalleled disaster. It's not just that aviation represents the world's fastest growing source of carbon dioxide emissions. The burning of aircraft fuel has a 'radiative forcing ratio' of around 2.7. What this means is that the total warming effect of aircraft emissions is 2.7 times as great as the effect of the carbon dioxide alone.&quot;

&quot;A typical flight to the tropics has a greater impact on global warming than a flight in temperate latitudes.

As well as producing carbon dioxide and contrails, planes also produce nitrogen oxide, which triggers both the creation of the warming gas ozone, and the destruction of another greenhouse gas, methane.

In mid-latitudes, these ozone and methane reactions cancel each other out and you get zero net warming from nitrogen oxide emissions.... But the brighter sunlight in the tropics is very efficient at converting nitrogen oxide to ozone - in fact it creates ozone five times faster than in the air of mid-latitudes, whereas methane destruction only increases marginally. Worryingly, the warming effects of ozone are particularly strong at a plane's typical cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.

And this report from May 2008

&quot;Air travel is resulting in 20% more CO2 emissions than previously predicted. How much? Try 1.5 billion tons of it's gettin' hot in here carbon dioxide a year, by 2025. That's about half of what the entire European Union emits today (3.1 billion tons annually).&quot;

http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/ai...tha-003098.php

And:

&quot;Air travel is fast emerging as the biggest single obstacle to halting climate change. It is in danger of swamping all efforts to cut greenhouse emissions elsewhere, according to a study which shows that predicted growth in air travel is incompatible with government promises to cut emissions.&quot;

http://technology.newscientist.com/c...aviation_rss20

J62 wrote: &quot;What a bunch of hogwash.&quot;

You give the classic cop-out argument in pointing to other people's contributions to global warming as if that makes yours immaterial. We who live the comfortable life of the wealthy western world generate more CO2 per capita that do people in the developing or underdeveloped countries. Air travel, as zeppole has pointed out, is one of the biggest contributors (and exacerbated by the fact that the CO2 is emitted high in the atmosphere).

&quot;The French Riviera is all about showing off you've got assets to burn -- gambling, yachts, helicopters. I'm surprised people weren't rinsing off in Dom Perignon&quot;.

Amazingly enough there are real people having real jobs and leading real lives on the French Riviera who do not have the time and the money to gamble and bathe in champagne.

FWIW, I do believe at least most of the golf courses in Palm Springs, CA also use reclaimed (&quot;grey&quot;) water to get that gorgeous green.

I doubt that tourism alone is ruining our planet, as I doubt that my turning the temp as low as it will go in a hotel is alone ruining our planet. Both contribute, however, as do many other things.

I'd say the bigger problem is overpopulation, especially in countries/areas least able to afford more people... Unsustainable logging and deforestation, poor farming techniques, overfishing, pollution.

Regarding airplane travel causing massive emmissions, maybe it would help if the States introduced bullet trains which are far more environmentally friendly, for example, a link from LA to San Francisco, etc.

Regarding the showers on the beach, it does lessen having showers at the hotel. Property and local taxes pay for the water.