The Transition Movement discussion
Discuss: State of the World 2013
>
Chapter 5. Sustaining Freshwater and Its Dependents
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Ted
(new)
Apr 18, 2013 09:10AM
Mod
reply
|
flag
Mod
After a bit of a slog in the first few pages, I was interested to read that the sustainability problems we have with water is not because there isn't enough fresh water for mankind, but because of the problems of location and timing of rainfall.
So the author defines the problem of sustainable use of water as a "watershed" (ie, essentially local) problem. Because of the difficulty of moving water, it must mostly be used where it's found, even if that's not where it's needed. And if we do move it, that introduces other problems.
It was also useful to read how the damming of water for human use turns nature's regulation of river flow into a human-regulated river flow, with a host of attendant environmental problems (Box 5-2).
What other items of interest are there in the chapter? Do you think that the fact of water sustainability being more of a local rather than a global problem should make it easier to address?
In answer to the second question, yes, I think water sustainability will be MUCH easier to achieve in the US because it is a local problem. That does not mean it will be easy (see CA's Central Valley), but at least the "winners" and "losers" will be in a single state/region/country and they should be able to relate to each other (as opposed to the "winners" being in a foreign country half-way around the world - remember that Americans do not like foreign aid very much!).I wish the author would have talked more about the amount of water needed to produce meat and other goods. She mentioned in briefly at the end of the essay, but I am very interested in this. It also seems like consuming less meats and goods is a positive step that an individual could take, so I wish that was highlighted more.
But water in the US is not a local (single-state) problem. See Ogallala Aquifer, which is a primary water source in 8 states.As for the "winners" being in a foreign country — Canada has a huge percentage of the world's fresh water, and you guys keep looking at it thirstily.
Mod
I suspect that the issues you mention will be discussed further in a subsequent chapter? Or at least (you're right), they should be.
Mod
As for the "winners" being in a foreign country — Canada has a huge pe..."
I would hazard a guess that the point of winners/losers was meant to imply that action in the U.S. on problems like this is easier to contemplate when the benefits of sacrifices made accrue to the same nation that is doing the sacrificing.
Thus, as the area in which changed habits are required to produce sustainability becomes smaller, it should be easier for people who admit a problem exists to find solutions to it.
I would certainly agree with this, and in fact it is probably the unstated assumption of the Transition movement, which is above all trying to come up with ways of framing issues locally, and then working with local people to find local solutions.
As for Canada's fresh water, I have no doubt that it's coveted by many. Not to say that Canada isn't doing a good job of wasting some of it themselves what with the exploitation of the tar sands.
But I'm interested in finding out if you have any specific examples of this. One I can think of is of course the Great Lakes, which I assume are partly on the Canadian side of the border.
I know there have been proposals to siphon water from the Great Lakes to other parts of the country, especially the plains and the Southwest. Last I heard there was a consortium of Great Lakes states in the U.S. which had come to some sort of agreement that in principle they would resist such plans. If so, that would seem to keep Canada's share of the Great Lakes safe also. But maybe I don't understand this issue very well.
Ted wrote: "I would hazard a guess that the point of winners/losers was meant to imply that action in the U.S. on problems like this is easier to contemplate when the benefits of sacrifices made accrue to the same nation that is doing the sacrificing."I'm sorry, I'm not understanding the point you're trying to make. The "winners" would be simply those who have enough water.
The Great Lakes are (mostly) exempted from syphoning by treaty. The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909) ensures that, except for a limited amount of water flowing through the Illinois Ship Canal (connecting L. Michigan to the Mississippi), all water taken from the Great Lakes watershed must flow _back_ to the same watershed. There was an attempt to subvert that in Wisconsin a few years back. Still, even if the waste water returns to the lakes, we're both taking more water out of the lakes than is sustainable. Lake Huron levels dropped over a meter in the brief time my parents lived right on the lake (10 years in the 80s/90s), and they're now at their lowest levels ever recorded on all the lakes.
There have been proposals to dam various Ontario rivers flowing northward to James Bay (and the Arctic Ocean), and pipe all of the water to the US. I'm not sure how serious any of those have been, and they've been nipped in the bud.
But the main foreign threat to Canadian water is sale by the tanker load - which is entirely legal and happening already. Thanks to our Free Trade agreement, it cannot be blocked.
And I don't disagree that our water problems are mostly of our own making. The tar sands are only the most obvious large target.
Mod
I'm not sure why the confusion about winners and losers. Apparently we're talking at cross-purposes.
As for the sale of water by tanker, this is something I haven't heard of (by tanker, you mean a ship? or a truck?).
According to this article in Wiki, most if not all of the schemes for transferring large amounts of Canadian water out of country were just talk, never implemented, or dropped after some minor implementation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_ex... ) The article notes that Canada cannot be forced to export water by NAFTA, but that if they agreed to start doing it, it might be difficult by the treaty to back out later.
Apparently Canada is not very interested in this idea. I hope they stick to that position.
There's a lot of disagreement on whether Canada can be forced to sell water under NAFTA. The government who signed the deal insisted we couldn't. Many legal experts say we can. Water is certainly being trucked out, and there's nothing to stop it being sent by ship, though I don't know that that happens.
But you're right - no large scale schemes have ever got beyond the talk stage, except transfers through the ship canal, and diversions of what is originally American water, anyway (from rivers crossing the border), and even those are heavily regulated these days.
