Time To Consider Market-based Solution To Freshwater Shortage

by
Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/water...

Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleprint.html Other language versions: Català Czech español Finnish Greek Japanese Norwegian (bokmål) Portugese Romanian עברית Diné bizaad (Navajo) and no text and guess water vapor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The world’s ever-increasing population and overwhelming demand on the freshwater supply, combined with the adverse effects of climate change, has triggered a new and urgent focus on the issue of water security and the need to address looming threats to water shortages globally, and now includes conversations on market-based solutions to this problem.   Some readers may find it difficult to appreciate the reality of a water shortage given that 70 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by water; however, the facts are that (1) the majority of that 70 percent is saltwater and (2) clean freshwater for consumption, agriculture and other human activities is in short supply.

In the United States alone, the total use of water for agriculture, industrial and personal use is greater than the entire amount of water that flows in the country’s rivers.  The net amount required to meet the demand is pulled from ground water beneath the earth’s surface, thus creating a shortage there.  Consequently, our extreme demand on the water supply has led to a “new geologic era” in which “humanity has taken over key [planetary] drivers:  the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle”.  [1]  One proposed solution to the water shortage is the adoption of a market-based system that privatizes freshwater services and allocates a price for its use.  Under such a scenario, water quantity and quality would be traded as goods with the potential that water would become the “biggest commodity of the 21st century”. [1]

The greatest benefit derived here is that a market-based system would provide a strong incentive to conserve water.  Everyone would pay for what they use as priced on the open market.  This would then focus more attention on water quality.  The removal of water services from state, county and municipal control and placement in the competitive market also would encourage more efficient use of water.  Ultimately, with the creation of investment opportunities, private companies would be better able to fund research and development on sustainable practices and to build and maintain the necessary filtration, clarification and delivery systems without political and budget constraints inherent under public control.  On the flip side of such a proposal, privatized water could negatively impact poor communities, possibly leading to health catastrophes as people unable to afford water would use rivers, streams, ponds and lakes, which often are contaminated and pose health risks.  As such, any solutions that privatize freshwater delivery would have to include a component that provides affordable access to the water supply for basic consumption and hygiene to those unable to purchase service.  Interestingly, studies do show that people tend to find a way to purchase things they deem important.  As an example, statistics indicate that  in India, more people have access to cellphones “than to basic sanitation“, i.e., toilets. [1]

The privatization of water could be a boost to the green movement simply by the change in attitude with the realization that its use comes with a premium price tag.  Individuals would be more receptive to reduce their reliance on water in the home by carefully planning lawns and landscaping.  Hopefully, they would use more grasses and plants that are drought resistant.  Also, as the cost of water to feed farm animals is passed on to consumers, it is likely that people will entertain the notion of reducing their meat consumption to some extent.  Lastly, farmers hopefully will be more inclined to shift from flood irrigation of crops to drip irrigation, thereby reducing their agricultural water consumption by about 20%.

The reality here is that fresh water shortages are a major concern, particularly here in the United States where the availability of freshwater largely has been taken for granted.  A recent report by the U.S. Drought Monitor notes seven states, namely Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska are in the throes of severe drought. [2]  Clearly, this is an issue that deserves immediate attention simply because we cannot exist without fresh water.  Privatization of the management and delivery of freshwater through a market-based system is a possible albeit extreme solution and definitely merits discussion.  To save our freshwater is to save our lives.  To do this, let’s live green, be green.

_______________

Sources for this article:

1.  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/.
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/states-running-out-of-water_n_2984979.html.

"WATER WASTE MEANS WATER SHORTAGE" -...

“WATER WASTE MEANS WATER SHORTAGE” – NARA – 516053 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Reports on Stanford Organic Food Study are Misleading

by

Yesterday several television newscasts reported the findings of a Stanford University study on organic foods. The study, “[a]re Organic Foods Safer or Healthier than Conventional Alternatives?  A Systematic Review,” was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine on September 4, 2012.  The researchers concluded, “[t]he published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods.  Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria”.

Personally, I find the media reaction amusing and a clear example of the lack of understanding of the principal goals of the green movement.  Conversely, maybe I have it all wrong.  All this time, I believed that a berry was a berry with certain vitamins in it, and the point of being produced organically was to avoid the introduction of pesticides to it in the growing process.  In my mind, the same thing applied to the production of meat for human consumption.  Organically raised meat and poultry does not contain harmful drug-resistant bacteria.  However, these news reports seem to indicate that organic foods were somehow super foods that contain added ingredients that promote good health.

Informed buyers of organic food know that what makes the products better are the substances that are missing from them—pesticides and drug-resistant bacteria.  Also they know that the missing pesticides are not around to run off of the fields to pollute the water supply.  The pesticides are not around to negatively impact the health of the people working in the fields to produce the crops.  Finally, the pesticides are not around to kill the honeybees that pollinate the crops.

After garnering viewers’ attention with their misleading headlines, some of the news reporters mentioned as an aside that the study results did show that organic fruits and vegetables contain about a 30% lower level of pesticides than conventional fruits and vegetables and that the concentration of drug-resistant bacteria in organic poultry and pork is about 60% less than the amount in their conventional counterparts.  To this viewer, that is significant and is a step in the right direction.  Of course organic products cost more, but if organic foods were the rule rather than the exception, the cost differential would narrow.  Also, it is expected that the positive impact of a healthier diet would be realized in reduced illnesses and their accompanying medical costs.

Of note, it was pointed out that organic foods are a great choice for pregnant women.  Well—should we only maintain a healthy diet if we are reproducing, or should we eat healthy foods always?  It seems from the newscasts that the millennial generation understands what is going on because they were reported as the group most likely to eat organic foods.  Obviously, priorities are a matter of choice because compared with many older people, this group is just starting out in the workforce and generally have lower incomes and fewer assets.  Yet they put healthy food high on their priority list.

There is so much information out there on green initiatives.  It is so important that we carefully study the information fed to us and separate fact from fiction.  Let’s think green, educate green, live green, be green.