Should private companies own our most precious resource?

[Dover]

Should fresh water be a traded commodity?


Water - the new oil and even more scarce.




I think this is where the line must be drawn on what we label and trade as a "commodity".
Water belongs to all of us and is essential for life. It's a complex issue, but it is a
subject that will surely become a HUGE area of contention. In fact it is past time to begin to have
this public debate, as this practice has already begun without ANY serious public debate, consultation
or agreement.


Last year Newsweek reported that Sitka, Alaska is looking at selling 3 billion of gallons of water for bottling in Mumbai India shipped via tanker. This will mark one of the first major water transfers of this sort, making water a globally traded commodity. It also brings up some interesting questions around climate change and how it will affect population centers. It is said that water always travels uphill towards money, if this deal goes through we will determine if it will also cross oceans...cont'd


http://blog.longnow.org/2011/01/14/water-becomes-a-global-commodity/


Newsweek

...Everyone agrees that we are in the midst of a global freshwater crisis. Around the world, rivers, lakes, and aquifers are dwindling faster than Mother Nature can possibly replenish them; industrial and household chemicals are rapidly polluting what’s left. Meanwhile, global population is ticking skyward. Goldman Sachs estimates that global water consumption is doubling every 20 years, and the United Nations expects demand to outstrip supply by more than 30 percent come 2040.

Proponents of privatization say markets are the best way to solve that problem: only the invisible hand can bring supply and demand into harmony, and only market pricing will drive water use down enough to make a dent in water scarcity. But the benefits of the market come at a price. By definition, a commodity is sold to the highest bidder, not the customer with the most compelling moral claim. As the crisis worsens, companies like True Alaska that own the rights to vast stores of water (and have the capacity to move it in bulk) won’t necessarily weigh the needs of wealthy water-guzzling companies like Coca-Cola or Nestlé against those of water-starved communities in Phoenix or Ghana; privately owned water utilities will charge what the market can bear, and spend as little as they can get away with on maintenance and environmental protection. Other commodities are subject to the same laws, of course. But with energy, or food, customers have options: they can switch from oil to natural gas, or eat more chicken and less beef. There is no substitute for water, not even Coca-Cola. And, of course, those other things don’t just fall from the sky on whoever happens to be lucky enough to be living below. “Markets don’t care about the environment,” says Olson. “And they don’t care about human rights. They care about profit.”...cont'd


http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/10/08/the-race-to-buy-up-the-world-s-water.html


Water: The Ultimate Commodity
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/06/Water.asp#axzz1bG3Efr00

[PDJane]

1. No.

They are part of the commons, and should remain that way.

[meow2u3]

2. Absolutely not!

What next, criminal corporations charging for the air we breathe? :grr:

[Kingofalldems]

3. No way.

[nichomachus]

4. Not water, not health care, not education -- NO

[Terry in Austin]

5. Air is next

For old-time sci-fi buffs like me, it was always kind of a buzzkill to think that living off-planet somewhere would mean that I'd be dependent on a corporation to sell me the very air I breathe.

I have no doubt about the coporations' willingness to make similar arrangements for Spaceship Earth.

I don't believe in sci-fi any more, but that's another story...

[slay]

7. Like it was in "Total Recall"

speaking as a fellow sci-fi buff. :hi:

[Terry in Austin]

43. Bingo!

:hi:

[slay]

6. No

not at all - energy and healthcare should be nationalized right now!

[RoccoR5955]

8. We don't want them to in NY, that's why we don't want any FRACKING!

They want to poison our water so that they can sell us clean water. Bass turds!

[Scuba]

9. That should be dismissed as a whacko conspiracy theory....

...except for all the evidence.

[saras]

10. Given that they've failed with every other resource they've been trusted with managing...

...I can hardly think of a way to pollute the world's water faster than to give ownership of it to corporations, thereby making the creation of scarcity the most profitable move for them.

[MFrohike]

11. This is a tough issue

I never spent much time thinking about water until recently. I read two books: The Ripple Effect by Alex Prud'homme and Water Wars by Diane Raines Ward. One idea I drew from the reading, from The Ripple effect I think, was to guarantee a minimum amount of daily water to people then charge for amounts over that minimum. The purpose would be to promote both efficient and smart use of water. Prud'homme seemed focused on the lunacy of farming in deserts, which seems to be common in the US, and looked for methods to lessen the waste of this practice.

I feel like I'm writing a bad book report here, but I think, given the energy costs in transporting water, that lessening wasteful uses of water, like desert farming and outdated irrigation practices, is a good first step in ensuring future supply.

[badtoworse]

12. I'm OK with market based solutions to this problem.

I have more trust in industry maintaining an adequate supply than the government. The government can't deliver the mail on time and you want to trust them with a vital commodity such as water? With industry, you'd have an adequate supply at some price, but with government, you'd likely not have an adequate water supply at any price.

[Dover]

13. My mail gets delivered on time, and keeps the prices affordable/competetive

The primary problem with corporate governance in general is that there is no mechanism for input or shared power (checks and balances) with the people. Profit incentives distort 'value' and don't serve the planet or the people.

[badtoworse]

14. A competitve market place is what is needed.

If customers have the option of taking their business elsewhere, corporations will pay attention to their wants and needs.

[Dover]

16. I've never had an issue with getting my wants and need met by the US mail

If they were out of the picture (as has happened with utilities and other public services that were privatized)
then the prices would shoot up and worse...there would be little avenue for recourse. The government is not
supposed to be in it for profit. Big difference.

[badtoworse]

22. I had an important letter mailed from Jericho on Long Island to Manahattan about 30 miles away.

It was mailed on Wednesday and didn't get delivered until Monday. Five days to go 30 miles? That's pretty crappy service in my book.

People are willing to pay a premium for good service. Why do you think UPS and Fedex are eating the Post Office's lunch?

[Dover]

25. Because the US postal service is not in it for a PROFIT...n/t

[badtoworse]

28. You're making my point for me

You're excusing crappy service by the Post Office because it has no profit motive. Any reason to believe service would be better if government was responsible for maintaining an adequate water supply? Water supply is a vital service and I'd rather pay a premium for good service than get crappy service from government because it's not in it for the money.

[Dover]

32. Your little anecdote does not mean the U.S. mail is crappy, if it's even true.

That's the kind of story the right uses to slander an otherwise excellent service. In fact "service" is not
in their vocabulary.
There was a campaign in my area by right wingers who took to the blogs and wrote op-eds with all kinds of
sob stories about the U.S. mail. They clearly had an agenda and tried to get everyone up in arms.
It wasn't any more effective than your efforts. Very transparent.

[badtoworse]

36. If it was a one off event, you might have a case, but it isn't.

In my experience, it's common. Do you think businesses typically use Fedex or UPS because they like pissing money away?

[fascisthunter]

18. no... that way of thinking is getting old and it doesn't work

[badtoworse]

26. There are umpteen suppliers of bottled water

Keeps prices reasonable and the quality high. Coke and Pepsi compete for each other's business and the consumer benefits. There are scores of examples of a competitive market doing its job. That model works fine for me.

[fascisthunter]

40. sorry... markets have destroyed the well being of way more than it has enriched

your theory is libertarian googoogaga. Oh, and Coke and Pepsi have some of the same Board of Directors so no, they are monopolies that should never be ALLOWED to control something people essentially depend on. Sorry, your money has no value compared to human life... learn a little empathy unless you were born with the inability to do so. In that case, money would be the answer for everything, a sociopath's dream come true.

[WinkyDink]

21. Just how far would YOU GO to obtain potable water?

OMG.

[badtoworse]

23. It depends on where I am

What difference does that make?

[WinkyDink]

27. Oh, you think private companies would just see to it that every citizen had potable tap water every

time they wanted?

Are you at all aware of the fact that a large portion of the US had no electricity until the federal government stepped in with the TVA?? I'm thinking you're not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Valley_Authority

Yeah, somehow "private enterprise" hadn't bothered.

[badtoworse]

30. Don't forget the BPA

I'm well aware of them - I've worked in the power industry for 28 years. TVA and BPA do a great job, but electricity generation was not the only reason they were created - flood control was a big part of it. Those parts of the country were regularly devastated by floods and benefited greatly from the projects. They would have been electrified in any case, but the development and the generating resource would have been different.

Saying private industry hadn't bothered is not a fair statement because it doesn't take into account the way the country was electrified. The infrastructure was built to serve the largest populations centers first and expanded out from there to serve more rural areas. That was the logical and most practical way to do it and it fact, substantial electrical infrastructure was built all around the country from the 20's through the 70's in just that way. Even so, there would likely still have been areas that did not get electrified until much later, if at all. That is still true today - it's not economically justified to build certain infrastructure everywhere whether the government does it or private industry does it. That's why many parts of the country still have wells instead of municipal water and septic systems instead of sanitary sewers.

I stand by my opinion, however, especially as it relates to power generation - I'll go with a privately owned company. In fairness, to public power companies, however, they generally do a good job. Keep in mind that all stakeholders in the power business must conform to the same federally enforced reliability standards.

[Dover]

35. Remember how Enron manipulated the markets in California?

I think it was Krugman who brought that up in a recent op=ed as a little reminder of just how
private companies can abuse power (literally). And the horrific tapes that got of Enron employees
gleefully poking fun at the distress they caused Californians. Sickness...

[badtoworse]

37. Have you ever heard of the Hanford Nuclear Site?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site


This pointless - you have a lot more faith in government than I do. We're not going to find common ground, but I enjoyed kicking it around.

[Dover]

38. I just think privatizing and ultimately turning decision making power over to

corporations is NOT any kind of solution, regardless of the problems of government.
Relatively few people trust corporations over government no matter how flawed the government because they are inherently
anti-democratic and have a long history of abuse of power. They are profit and power driven rather than people driven -
a very distorted and dangerous set of 'values'.
So you are right, there is very little room for agreement.

[WinkyDink]

20. What a maroon. The govt delivers SS checks on time, FYI. Oh, you'd rather an exploiter OWN WATER???

[badtoworse]

31. Have you ever been to Alaska? I have.

There is so much water up there it doesn't make any difference.

[annabanana]

33. As soon as you privatize, there are people looking to profit. As

soon as there are people looking to profit, and an organization who's first priority is TO that profit, prices will rise and there will be pressure to cut corners on safety.

Privatizing the water supply is a terrible idea.

[badtoworse]

34. We've had privately owned water supply companies in this country for decades

Were you unaware of that?

[TheKentuckian]

15. No. Oh, hell naw. Fuck no!!! NO! No way, no how.

Seriously, thems is fighting words.

[fascisthunter]

17. NO... it should be a human RIGHT and it should be free

by way of collectively paying for it.

[WinkyDink]

19. I think the answer is obvious. And water is not simply a "precious resource"! IT IS LIFE, LITERALLY!

[derby378]

24. The Water Is OURS, Dammit!

And if you know the historical significance of that statement, you get a gold star. For the rest of you, Google "Cochabamba," "Bolivia," and "Bechtel."

[Scruffy1]

29. Check out this link

It was made about the attempted takeover of the Bolivian water supply. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMM7vM7aiNI

Somewhere our history has been lost. Privatization of essential resources has always been a disaster since Roman times, but of course there is money in it. And of course the greed heads are adept at selling the idea to the stupid.

[fascisthunter]

41. thank you... I believe our war is against sociopathic tendencies

wrapped in the capitalist flag, which really is fascism. I love how they claim "free-markets" are the answer for everything, as if they were non-feeling borgs with numbers replacing morals.

[Cleita]

39. No. But I believe that private companies shouldn't

own any of our resources. They belong to us, we the people of the United States. That means all the oil, lumber, copper, gold, silver and anything that is derived from the land and especially the water. It belongs to us to use and manage as we see fit and for the benefit of all, including all non-human species who share the land with us.

[hifiguy]

42. Absolutely NO!

NEVER.

[TwilightGardener]

44. No.