Showing posts with label Great Lakes watershed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Great Lakes watershed. Show all posts

Monday, October 12, 2009

Tom Hayes: Will the next wars be fought over water?

WaterOver two billion people do not have adequate water to address basic sanitation needs (according to the World Health Organization/UNICEF report, “Meeting the MDG drinking water and sanitation target: the urban and rural challenge of the decade,” Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment, [World Health Organization and United Nations Children’s Fund, 2006].)

    Here are three questions:
  1. Do you know how much water it takes to put a pound of beef on the table?
  2. Is there much difference in the water content between a cup of coffee and/or a cup of tea?
  3. How many people don't have access to clean drinking water?
answers below



In the United States and elsewhere a number of local governments now rely on "privatized" water systems.  The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy [IATP] has produced a map and a report on the impact of water privatization in the U.S.  Links to those documents and other related materials can be found at "Helping Local Communities Thrive" at the henoticworld blog.

Water "Remunicipalization"

Nonetheless, some communities have insisted on returning water and sewage treatment services to public management -- "remunicipalization" -- forcing water multinationals to pull services out of communities world-wide. Do you know how many communities in your state are buying their water from for-profit multi-national corporations?  Is it the end of water as we know it? I know this: it's enough to make Lewis Black curse. (The following clip contains strong language that may not be appropriate for some readers.)

The answers:

  1. It requires 1500 gallons to raise and deliver a pound of beef to your kitchen (over six times more than a pound of chicken!)
  2. It takes roughly 4 times as much water to make a cup of coffee compared to a cup of tea.
  3. Over 1 billion people do NOT have access to clean drinking water.

Friday, October 17, 2008

Obama's earmarks - Proper or Pork?

In 2006, according to an Associated Press report, Senator Obama inserted $400,000 for an unrelated project into an emergency bill for the Iraq war and hurricane relief. Do you want to know more, or will you share McCain's new anti-earmark stand? Earmarks can be abused, yet they can expedite passage of matters needing little or no debate, too.

Senator Barack H. ObamaObama has pledged to finish construction of an electronic barrier in Chicago to keep the carp from invading Lake Michigan from the Illinois River. That $400,000 earmark from 2006 was targeted for the barrier project. Great Lakes fishing is a $4 billion fishing industry; do you prefer carp to salmon?

I won’t suggest all earmark funding supports projects intended to protect the environment and/or preserve regional jobs and industries; clearly the potential for abuse exists, and doubtless the mechanism is exploited for pork-barrel projects. To my way of thinking, even the “$3 million overhead projector” McCain keeps hammering away at in debates and stump speeches was a reasonable use of the technique: do we really need Congress to hold extended debate on a stand-alone bill about the value of supporting the educational goals of Adler Planetarium in Chicago?

How different are McCain and Bush?

Apart from the economic and ecologic impact of the project in question, clean water is a precious resource, essential in and of itself.

During 2004 George Bush established an inter-agency task force to develop the “Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy.” He hasn't funded it much, the priorities of the Bush administration have not exactly matched the campaign promises, and they certainly haven't focused on research outside the Defense Department. Additional money was included in a 2007 package for water projects ultimately enacted over President George Bush’s veto. Senator McCain sided with the president on that vote as he has on some 90% or so of the opportunities he's had, from Wall Street deregulation to trickle-down tax theories. Obama supported the veto-override.

But back to earmarks:

McCain has decided to take a public stand against earmarks, causing the public to equate them with pork-barrel abuses. It's great for sound-bites on the evening news, but is it tantamount to throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

Introduced to the U.S. in the 1970s to control algae in catfish farms in the South, bighead and silver carp have spread due to flooding into the Mississippi River. They're taking over parts of the Illinois River. Barack Obama used an earmark to try to control this threat to the Great Lakes ecosystem, to protect the people, jobs, and industries that are at risk. Isn't that a textbook example of what a U.S. Senator is supposed to do?

The focus on earmarks distracts both the media and the voters from more significant problems, and Obama was responsible not to rise to the bait when McCain floated the "overhead projector" during the 2008 Presidential debates. The economy is a much more pressing issue, but McCain doesn't want to have to explain how he's going to ramp up some new federal department to handle the 11 million mortgages he proposes to evaluate and take over.

John McCain, keynote speaker, ACORN 2006I admit, while I'm not surprised when a Republican claims a Democratic challenger will raise taxes, I don't understand McCain's real priorities, why he's suddenly turned on his old companions at ACORN, or why his voting seems so closely aligned with the current administration despite his mavericky protests to the contrary. If you'd like to read more about the research into and problems of invasive species in the Great Lakes watershed, or contribute to a discussion about earmarks, check the longer article that was the stimulus for this post.