Maybe we can simplify what we agree on here and identify the source of our disagreement.
I think we have already said we all agree on the following items.
The world has an enormous supply of water.
Most of of the water is not drinkable
We also have a very large supply of solar energy.
Solar energy is not cheap nor available everywhere
The cost of building desalinization plants to supply a significant portion of the worlds water requirements would be extremely high with current technology
There are real practical shortages of readily available potable water in many parts of the world today and these problems may be more widespread in the future if current trends continue.
I think where we disagree with you Robert is in your characterization of the problem as “stupid”. The point of bringing this issue up is that the problem is a difficult one to solve. Not because people are stupid but because there are enormous financial and political obstacles to solving this issue and in the U.S. at least it is not currently enough of a problem to be seen as a priority. In parts of the world where it is more of a crisis there isnt the money or the political organization to tackle the difficult logistics.
Reading back over the posts we dont really disagree on a lot. Its your approach that has people arguing with you more than your arguments themselves.
to Robert Wolper- DarronS is not a scientist. He is an environmentalist. He sees the sky fall where ever he looks. I bet he is almost ready to write a book about it. As informative and truthful as ‘an inconvenient truth’.
He is not much fun most of the time…ask him about his specialty…climate change…or running out of oil…
Robert, Brownsville, TX, is facing a water shortage because people upstream are using the water in the Rio Grande before it reaches Brownsville. I don't know if you are familiar with the area, but South Texas is a very poor region and the people living there cannot afford a desalinization plant. This is not a matter of logistics, it is overpopulation and economics.
Furthermore, citing the Earth as being 78 percent covered in water is disingenuous. Ninety-eight percent of that water will kill you if you drink it, or kill your crops if you trying watering them with the water. I'm sure you knew that, which is the reason I suggested you are being disingenuous.
Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink. Another cosmic joke?
theoretically perhaps,
but in the real world with real distances between sources and needs
there isn't enough water and energy, nor infrastructure.
I agree on the third point, but not the first two.
Ok Robert, I'll concede the point concerning my title. I left out the adjective Potable,but as to Darron's point there is ample evidence to back his contention that there is a water shortage and it will lead to a crises in the future. Here is only one example, there are many others:
http://engineering.columbia.edu/will-we-run-out-fresh-water-21st-century
I strongly disagree with the notion there will be any major water crisis in the future. Not because I dispute the existence or potential of the problem, but because I'm convinced it'll be solved well before it becomes too big a one.
to Robert Wolper- DarronS is not a scientist. He is an environmentalist. He sees the sky fall where ever he looks. I bet he is almost ready to write a book about it. As informative and truthful as 'an inconvenient truth'.
He is not much fun most of the time....ask him about his specialty....climate change...or running out of oil.......
Climate change and finite oil supplies are serious and real issues. DarronS is quite justified in being concerned about those. He's also justified in being concerned about developing available water supplies beyond that which natural systems can produce. I simply don't share a pessimistic attitude on any of those three issues.
Maybe we can simplify what we agree on here and identify the source of our disagreement.
I think we have already said we all agree on the following items.
1) The world has an enormous supply of water.
2) Most of of the water is not drinkable
3) We also have a very large supply of solar energy.
4) Solar energy is not cheap nor available everywhere
5) The cost of building desalinization plants to supply a significant portion of the worlds water requirements would be extremely high with current technology
6) There are real practical shortages of readily available potable water in many parts of the world today and these problems may be more widespread in the future if current trends continue.
I agree with these points with the exception of point 4 and partially disagree with point 5.
I think where we disagree with you Robert is in your characterization of the problem as "stupid".
I didn't claim the problem was stupid, I said the claim we're running out of water is stupid. As per my previous analogy, massive areas of land completely devoid of human settlement and life is not evidence of shortage of human life in the big picture. Particular areas facing drought and water shortages does not reflect the bigger picture of our planet.
The point of bringing this issue up is that the problem is a difficult one to solve.
I never claimed otherwise, although I submit I think the problem will be solved much easier and sooner than many believe.
Not because people are stupid but because there are enormous financial and political obstacles to solving this issue and in the U.S. at least it is not currently enough of a problem to be seen as a priority. In parts of the world where it is more of a crisis there isnt the money or the political organization to tackle the difficult logistics.
I suspect the perception of the problem is warped by the notion of sticking to large scale centralized systems for water treatment and distribution, rather than a far better model of much smaller and more distributed water treatment and distribution systems.
Reading back over the posts we dont really disagree on a lot. Its your approach that has people arguing with you more than your arguments themselves.
That's a classic Style over Substance fallacy, however.
I strongly disagree with the notion there will be any major water crisis in the future. Not because I dispute the existence or potential of the problem, but because I’m convinced it’ll be solved well before it becomes too big a one.
So, is that an IMO Robert, because I see no research to back your claim. Personally though as a fellow optimist I hope you're right. At present there are approx. only 14,000 desalination plants World Wide and these are powered by fossil fuels that add to the greenhouse effect not to mention the continuing cost of daily maintenence due to continuous use. Over 400 are now in the planning stages but the need for potable water is increasing exponentially with the rise in usage due to population and draught. I don't want to think that people are profit driven, stupid and shortsighted but you know the facts. From where will the Deus Ex Machina come?
Cap't Jack
Speaking of desalination its got its down sides too.
http://greenopedia.com/article/desalination-seawater-can-do-more-harm-good
As for developing solutions, how’s that going to happen when a huge portion of our population don’t even believe there’s a problem?
Yeah, they'll blame it on god's wrath or Obama and trust the evil "tax and spend government" to solve the problem then whine about the cost and how the people without water should get off their ass and dig wells.
Cap't Jack
I’m actually in favour of nature disappearing in its current form. Nature is a brutal, vicious, amoral, and inefficient system. While the beauty of nature exists, it’s only appreciated by those who live outside of it in the comforts of modern living in artificial environments.
I'm actually in favour of nature disappearing in its current form. Nature is a brutal, vicious, amoral, and inefficient system. While the beauty of nature exists, it's only appreciated by those who live outside of it in the comforts of modern living in artificial environments.
Are you a Jehovah's Witness by any chance?
~ ~ ~
Alternately, what do you think of the "mega-corporate free market" system? Have they figured it out?
I’m actually in favour of nature disappearing in its current form. Nature is a brutal, vicious, amoral, and inefficient system. While the beauty of nature exists, it’s only appreciated by those who live outside of it in the comforts of modern living in artificial environments.
You are being facetious right? You're aware that you're an indelible part of the system and what you are advocating is your own suicide. I agree that it is an amoral and sometimes brutal system but there were many humans who lived outside of the modern comforts of our artificial environment who appreciated the wildness of nature and it's challenges, e.g. Henry David Thoreau comes to mind.
Cap't Jack
Ha ! Thoreau was a bum who sponged off of his buddy Ralph…He did not rough it. He liked the idea of roughing and loved to write about it but he was not fond of the back breaking work and the boredom…so he hoofed it into town and lived on and off with the Emmersons. Nature is not kind or nice. All of the comments that I read here are romantic but are lacking in reality when it comes to nature. None of the global warming boohoos would survive three days in northern Canada. We in Canada are gleefully awaiting global warming…more heat more CO2 for our wheat and Douglas Firs…so what now ? Polar vortex ( too much cold) caused by too much heat…WOW.
Ha ! Thoreau was a bum who sponged off of his buddy Ralph….He did not rough it. He liked the idea of roughing and loved to write about it but he was not fond of the back breaking work and the boredom….so he hoofed it into town and lived on and off with the Emmersons. Nature is not kind or nice. All of the comments that I read here are romantic but are lacking in reality when it comes to nature. None of the global warming boohoos would survive three days in northern Canada. We in Canada are gleefully awaiting global warming….more heat more CO2 for our wheat and Douglas Firs….so what now ? Polar vortex ( too much cold) caused by too much heat…..WOW.
Sorry Sine but you can't casually wave off Thoreau by misbranding him a bum which he wasn't, at any time in his life BTW. When he stayed with Emerson he paid for his keep by tutoring Emerson's kids, working as a repairman, and was Emerson's Gardner as well as for Nathaniel Hawthorne. He also worked at his father's pencil factory. Secondly, he did "rough it" in the cabin he built and stayed in near Walden Pond for over two years, only visiting the town nearby for needed supplies. If you read the book you'd have known that of course. He also traveled extensively writing about his experiences in nature. Did he live exclusively in a natural setting? No he didn't but he was a naturalist who believed in preserving and learning about the environment as did Darwin. They were contemporaries. As to "romantics" on this site, that's a strawman argument at best. This is a forum for skeptics who demand empirical evidence e.g. AGW is a provable fact. If you in anyway believe that it would be beneficial to Canadians then you've been drinking too much Moose Drool, to borrow a cliche. So you believe that skeptics wouldn't survive on the tundra? Are you implying that being a romantic or skeptic (I don't really know what a boohoo is) couldn't survive with the proper gear and shelter? In fact there is nowhere on this planet that hasn't been at one time occupied or explored by humans, not one. You naysayers seem to forget that we originated in the natural World, lived within it for 7 million years and became HomoSapiens in the coldest and harshest climate in geological history, the Pleistocene era. We survived with scant clothing, stone weapons and animals that considered us prey. A mere five hundred years ago our Native American ancestors were still living in nature and surviving just fine. And gosh, some of em are still living an iron age existence. So, nature may be brutal to the "civilized" man but we haven't yet lost our ability to live within it, at least not yet. Let's hope we don't destroy what's left or we're doomed and that means you Canadians too.
Cap't Jack
I like you Cap’t Jack.
That was a roaring good response to my rant.
I am not sure how we could destroy nature.
We can change it…but I don’t believe that we can destroy it…nature responds…re-invents and rebounds. It has for a long time and I think that it will for a long time to come. We are nature after all.
I’m actually in favour of nature disappearing in its current form. Nature is a brutal, vicious, amoral, and inefficient system. While the beauty of nature exists, it’s only appreciated by those who live outside of it in the comforts of modern living in artificial environments.
You are being facetious right?
Actually no I'm not. I think what we define as nature in it's natural form leaves much to be desired and should be re-engineered intelligently when it can be.