Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Will the World's Oceans Be Our Next Drinking Tap?

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted January 15, 2008.


Desalination plants are popping up all over the world, but they may very well make the environmental crisis worse.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Stephen Hawking is no dummy. That much has been established.

Yet in 2006, when the acclaimed scientist told an audience of mostly university students and professors in China that he was "very worried about global warming" and that Earth "might end up like Venus, at 250 degrees centigrade and raining sulfuric acid,'' the dystopian prediction nevertheless dropped off the cultural radar after a few short weeks. Which, of course, is a sad commentary on the state of our minds, distracted as they are by horserace punditry possessed with the 2008 election, athletes on HGH, or the latest meltdown of pop tarts like Britney Spears and Amy Winehouse. After all, some might argue, the thought of our verdant Earth metamorphosing into the environmental nightmare that is Venus, whose oceans evaporated millions of years ago, is beyond sci-fi, a transformation so stunning and apocalyptic that it cannot be comprehended, much less be true.

But Hawking is not alone, especially among activists and scientists who have been keeping a sharp eye on our planet's precarious water situation. And that includes Maude Barlow, author of Blue Covenant: The Global Water Crisis and the Coming Battle for the Right to Water as well as the founder of the Blue Planet Project and the national chairperson of the advocacy group Council of Canadians.

"I fear that the global water crisis will destroy all life on earth if we do not deal with it soon," she confessed.

Wenonah Hauter, executive director of D.C.-based nongovernmental organization and consumer group Food and Water Watch, took pains to moderate Hawking's more dramatic statement but nevertheless agreed. "We are facing a time of great water scarcity and unpredictable climate change," she added. "It's time for us to take action to protect our planet."

But who are we protecting the planet from, when it comes to water scarcity? The answer, as always, is ourselves. But how to do that is the subject of great debate and controversy, especially as permanent droughts take hold in Australia, America and beyond, causing shortages, famines, social unrest and more. With declining rainfall and snowpack because of global warming, many countries have turned to desalination of the oceans for their water supplies. The process seems simple enough: Over 70 percent of the planet is covered in oceans, so take the salt out of the water and watch the tanks fill up.

And sure enough, desalination plants are popping up all over the world. The British utility Severn Trent, one of 10 water privatization entities in the United Kingdom, is building one for the Maravia Country Club Estates in La Paz, Baja California Sur, Mexico.

El Paso, Texas, cut the ribbon in August 2007 on the largest inland desalination plant in the world, which mostly benefited the city's Fort Bliss army outpost, which is expanding to accommodate the nation's already depleted military forces. A joint Israeli venture is building a plant for drought-stricken Australia, and Bahrain, awash in oil income and undergoing a construction boom also sweeping other countries in the Middle East, is fielding offers for a massive plant to cope with its rising water needs. India is commissioning General Electric to study the possibility, and the list goes on. "A number of private companies are proposing more than two dozen ocean desalination plants for the coast of California alone," added Hauter. "Most of these proposed plants are near the last remaining open-space corridors where the lack of water has limited development."

In other words, the entire world is gearing up for greater desalination plant construction in the years to come, but it's not just because everyone is getting very thirsty. Rather, it is because there are buckets of money to be made. But whether progress and salvation follows is another question entirely.

"The main desalination technology being proposed in the United States is reverse osmosis, a process by which highly pressurized saltwater is pushed through tiny membrane filters in order to produce drinkable water," Hauter explained. "This technology has yet to work on a large scale in this country. The Tampa Bay plant with a potential capacity of 25 million gallons per day has cost over $139 million and has never produced water as promised. Originally a private-public partnership, now the public agency is left with the burden of finishing the project and making it work. But despite the lack of a full-scale working model, plants double the size of Tampa Bay are being proposed in California and other places in the country."

It is that harried chase for cash that marks most of these projects as questionable, even as they proliferate around the world. It is worth noting that they are proliferating in places where cash is on hand, rather than the most thirsty places.

"Even with current plans to triple global production, including nuclear-powered desalination plants, this technology cannot meet the demand for fresh water in the world," Barlow asserted. "This is partly because desalination is a very expensive technology, which is why these plants are found in Saudi Arabia and Israel but not Africa, and partly because humans are destroying our freshwater heritage faster than any technology can catch. Governments and corporations are embracing desalination as if it is some kind of savior, which is understandable for the private sector: There is a great deal of money to be made from blue gold. But it is a huge problem that governments are not stepping back and looking at this so-called miracle solution with more scrutiny."

It is a problem, but it is understandable, as more scrutiny would doubtlessly take those governments to places they probably would rather not go. Especially in light of recent research, which suggests that global warming is not only drying up the planet's land masses and ice shelves, but it is also exponentially increasing the acidity of its oceans. And that trend may lead directly into Hawking's nightmare.

As Les Blumenthal recently reported for McClatchy Newspapers, "The oceans are already 30 percent more acidic than they were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, as they absorb 22 tons of carbon dioxide a day. By the end of the century, they could be 150 percent more acidic." And unlike atmospheric temperature changes, which can be modulated by decreases in carbon emissions and other methods, ocean acidification is for humanity's intents and purposes, a relatively permanent vacation to hell. Sure, acidification can be reversed or repaired, but only after thousands if not millions of years have passed. In other words, not in your lifetime, or your great-great-great grandchildren's lifetimes either.

Which begs the deeper question: Have global desalination efforts, already compromised by technological inefficiencies and overt waste, taken into account the dramatic rise in oceanic acidity? The answer is, not really.

"I do not believe desalination advocates have taken into account the resulting acidification of the ocean that will take place as intensive amounts of salt brine are returned to the seas," Barlow answered. "For every unit of freshwater derived from the process, an equal unit of poisonous salt brine is dumped back into the oceans. Currently, desalination plants produce 5 billion gallons of waste every day. Production of desalination plants is expected to triple by 2015, tripling brine waste dumping and the acidification of the oceans."

And that's just the desalination process itself: Forget about the naturally occurring processes that the climate crisis has introduced into our quickly drying lives. As the planet heats up, the oceans absorb more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, causing the seas to summarily heat and expel those gases skyward, creating a destructive feedback loop. When all is said and done, we may be left with not much more than acid after desalinating what we can get our cracked hands on. As Seattle-based National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration oceanographer Richard Feely told Blumenthal, "Everything points to dramatic effects. There are suggestions the entire ecosystem could change over time."

"As a serious answer to the global water crisis, desalination is not the answer," Barlow concluded. "The plants are polluting behemoths, use an incredible amount of energy, add to our climate crisis, and produce toxic brine that kills aquatic life for miles."

Hauter agrees. "Rather than solving water scarcity issues, desalination is an expensive technology that has the potential to cause many unintended consequences. Instead, we should be taking the proactive steps to stop polluting, diverting and wasting water." And while conservation and more efficient, conscientious management of the water we have left may not be as sexy an option for capitalists and technologists, it is so far the most inexpensive and least dangerous proposition on the table. "We are actually destroying the hydrologic cycle with our mismanagement" Barlow warned. And you can add desalination, at least in the near term, to that very long list of bad management plans.

Let's just hope the seas stay balanced in time for us to realize it.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, global warming, water privatization, water crisis, desalination

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Umm... and what happens to the water?
Posted by: ahmlco on Jan 15, 2008 12:52 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So let's see if I have this straight: we desalinate salt water, and end up with salt and water. We dump the salt back into the ocean, which theoretically is a problem...

But what happened to the water? Did it just evaporate? In which case it's going to return to the ocean. Dumped into a river as waste water? Back to the ocean again. Poured on yards or plants? Evaporated again.

It would appear we need to consider the effects of the entire cycle, and not simply focus on the negative aspects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tampa Bay Florida - there's a good example of desalination in action.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 15, 2008 1:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In that case, the water corporation involved was Poseidon Resources, who partnered with the city of Tampa Bay to build the plant. Poseidon also recently got permission from the California Coastal Commission to build another desalination plant: Four firms tapped for San Diego desalting facility, Jan 27 2007

Poseidon Resources was funded and is owned by Warburg Pincus, a large private equity firm:

"In 1996, Warburg Pincus and a group of former independent power executives and former General Electric employees (including Walt Winrow) formed Poseidon to pursue project development opportunities in the water industry. Poseidon has seven water projects in operation, including the Tirton project in Cranston, Rhode Island (one of the first privatizations of a munipal water treatment facility in the US); and five private water treatment facilities in Mexico...Poseidon is developing several high profile desalination projects across the United States including Southern California and Texas.”

Clearly, this is a company that aims to make a lot of money by controlling water supplies (which were once viewed as public utilities to be managed by the government).

Basically, we are seeing the rise of corporate water merchants - a tactic tried in the past by Bechtel in Bolivia and Enron in Argentina, as well as in Florida (via their subsidiary Azurix). For the Florida story, see Enron unit tried for water privatization in Florida, 2002

Despite some setbacks, large financial interests are thinking water privatization is here to stay - and privately-owned desalination plants will be very profitable to those who own them. It's part of the Milton Freidman agenda of total privatization of all government services.

A lot of this is taking place at very local levels, through arrangements between state water agencies, local city water departments, and large global engineering and water corporations. See the film Thirst (www.thirstthemovie.org) to see more details.

Also, all planned desalination plants in California will run off the grid or will use natural gas - meaning an increase in CO2 emissions for every gallon of water produced. It is possible to build solar- or wind-powered desalination, but none are on the board in the U.S. (unlike Australia). Chevron and Sempra want to start importing liquified natural gas to California, and desalination provides a high demand for natural gas and electricity.

Even without the swirl of government-business conflicts of interest, shady "public-private partnerships", and corruption in government contracting, the fact is that ocean water desalination is energy-intensive and expensive. For a good list of reasons to oppose desalination, see
Food and Water Watch: Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Ocean Desalination

This is yet another topic that the press has done a poor job of covering - the corporate press coverage of desalination has been busy glossing over the details of water privatization in almost every story run on desalination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

blinkered idiots endanger the future of the planet by treating it as theirs by right
Posted by: Suzon on Jan 15, 2008 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where one of us might see a beautiful view or a human need, they see only a business opportunity.

The one great challenge in the world today is to wrench power from the hands of these dangerous people!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

stop breeding!!
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Jan 15, 2008 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
stop breeding!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I second that! Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: stop breeding!! Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: stop breeding!! Posted by: yungdrung
10 Reasons are a farce
Posted by: lamar on Jan 15, 2008 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Like most things Alternet, this article cares more about whether somebody is making money rather than attempting to research the net harm of desalination.

The largest desalination plant is in Tampa Bay and run by the government. No evil corporation to make money from desal, just local governments doing their best to provide water to citizens in an area that has virtually no water.

Thoughtcriminal worries about "private water merchants" like Bechtel in Bolivia. Why not look at United Water or Utilities, Inc. in the US? Heck, Aqua isn't even as bad as Bechtel. Pretending that water privatization in some banana republic backwater is the same as in the heavily regulated US is misleading.

Thoughtcriminal linked to 10 Reasons to Oppose Desal. What utter bunk. Right off the bat the article claims that "It doesn't work." Like hell it doesn't. Not only does it work, advances in membrane technology have made it cheaper than drilling deep wells in many instances. What a crock. The article also says that estuaries are harmed by desal. It never mentions what happens when local governments suck up all the ground and surface water in an area. Wanna guess what happens? Rivers, lakes and estuaries die. Oyster beds die.

Don't pretend that desal is the culprit there. You take water away from natural waterways and wildlife will suffer. The "social injustice" angle is as hollow as the other arguments. It shows the authors don't know how ratemaking works. "Privatization is risky" is also bunk. What happens when a water utility goes under? The municipality buys it, usually at ED prices. Here is the only truth from that article: Desal is expensive and has its own list of issues.

But thoughtcriminal has a valid point. Desal is expensive and energy consuming. There need to be bona fide conservation measures, including a real investment in reuse. But the question becomes: is the price of expensive water (i.e., desal) worth saving our rivers, lakes, swamps, marshes and estuaries from certain doom?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't be so naive Posted by: PaulC
» RE: Don't be so naive Posted by: lamar
» Come, now... let's not be naive... Posted by: Ignatz deFyre
» RE: raindrops Posted by: solrev
» Curled in a corner Posted by: SavageDissension
So Paul Erlichman had it right all along?
Posted by: toppun on Jan 15, 2008 7:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Population Connection still little more than a footnote in history guffawed into Malthusian oblivion. Like I always say, "timing is everything!"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ANOTHER NOT SO NEW IDEA
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 15, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The ocean as a source of drinking water is an old idea. De-salinization projects are in the works. I guess when the timing is right and the most money can be made we'll hear more about it. DuPont was working on this decades ago. Once more we'll be saved but it won't be cheap. Business as usual. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Can't see the forest for the trees
Posted by: magiquarian1969 on Jan 15, 2008 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it so difficult for "educated" people to see the big picture. The earth is an organism just like our bodies are an organism. Our bodies cannot live without water, neither can the earth. Our bodies (like nature) are constantly trying to keep things in homeostasis (balance) If you add too much salt to your body, you get dehydrated and cannot function. Water makes up MOST of our bodies, just like the earth. If we have reached a level in our arrogance where we alter things (oceans/mountains)that have been around millions of years before we came along just to satiate our constant consumerism and greed, then we don't deserve the planet we have. The ideogoly of many is that the earth is ours to consume. If you don't take care of your body, it doesn't work, right? The fact of the matter is, the earth doesn't NEED us to survive! Mother Nature will work things out with or without us, DUH!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been thinking about this one
Posted by: willymack on Jan 15, 2008 9:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For some time, now. Most-if not all- solutions to our self-imposed problems seem to involve gee whiz technology such as "reverse" osmosis or evaporating seawater either with solar evaporators or by using nuclear energy, without ANY thought to the ORIGIN of our manifold problems, namely the fact that THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY OF US on this world, and that our thought processes are geared toward ENDLESS "GROWTH", mainly because corporatists see huge profits in this and are thus as blinded to any bad end as the rest of us. Unless and until ordinary citizens are willing to modify their behavior and set population reduction criteria, NATURE will do it for us, with horrifying results, and possible extinction of most life on our beloved and emperiled Earth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I figure Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: I've been thinking about this one - one problem Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Place in California is recycling toilet water.
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 15, 2008 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On Good Morning America today there was a bit about turning toilet water into potable water as there is such a water shortage there. I'm wondering if others caught this segment as I only glimpsed a segment or portion. Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Place in California is recycling toilet water. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Paul D Kennedy
Posted by: PaulDKennedy on Jan 15, 2008 10:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will the World's Oceans be our Next Drinking Tap
In the article Scott Thill states that the main desalination technology being proposed in the United States is reverse osmosis, and that this technology has yet to work on a large scale in this country. Perhaps reverse osmosis has not worked in the USA but it has certainly been successful in other parts of the world. In Kuwait, for example, a reverse osmosis plant in Sulaibiya outputs 82.5 million imperial gallons per day (and can be expanded to 132m gallons per day) of reclaimed waste-water. So the technology is certainly viable - far more than the potential 25 million gallons per day of the proposed Tampa plant. For further information see www.kharafinational.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Weary
Posted by: militaryhater on Jan 15, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw hope in this concept to the World's shortage on water. Maybe there is still hope for this technology as it is still in the 'infant' stage. As with all new technology, it is expensive i.e: DVD players, Blu-ray. The focus should be on what to do with this 'salt brine' that is left over instead of dumping it back into the ocean. Test and look at desalination plants currently in operation around the world to see the affects they are trully having on the environment. Think of ways to protect the ocean as we open this doorway to the water shortage.

I grow weary of all the negativity toward something, to me it is a positive solution and can be worked out if people are willing to try. Give it time, do more testing..but we all have to realize, something needs to be done. The people are here, global warming is here and we need a solution. We have to give it a try.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: money money money Posted by: solrev
It moves
Posted by: Monitor523 on Jan 15, 2008 2:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True, eventually (!) that water will make its way through the water cycle and come back into the ocean somewhere. In the meantime, water near desalination plants will be permanently saltier, and probably more acidic, than elsewhere, making life in those areas more difficult. If a significant fraction of inhabited coastline is used for this purpose, then a very large part of the area of the ocean in which most life actually lives will be uninhabitable. It's not much help that the water will gradually be added to some other area of the ocean.

It helps to remember that the ocean is what scientists call "large", and that conditions are not the same in all parts of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Moveon.org has A Petition to sign.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 15, 2008 2:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Subject: Blackout on global warming

Click here to tell top TV reporters:
"The American public deserves to know where all the candidates
stand on the climate crisis and the solutions they propose to
address it. Asking those questions is your responsibility."


Sign the petition

In the last year, the major TV networks asked the presidential
candidates 2,679 questions. Pop quiz: How many were about
global warming?

A) 514—after all, it's one of the top issues facing the country
B) 165—as many as were asked about illegal immigration
C) 3—the same number asked about UFOs

If you guessed 3, you're right: Reporters asked as many questions
about UFOs as they did about the climate crisis—the biggest
threat to our planet.

Can you sign our petition urging top TV reporters to ask the
presidential candidates about global warming? Click here to add
your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/climatequestions/


The petition to the reporters says: "The American public deserves
to know where all the candidates stand on the climate crisis and
the solutions they propose to address it. Asking those questions is
your responsibility."

Please forward this email to your friends, family, and co-workers.

The media help decide what's an "issue" in the '08 election. Unless
climate change is on the '08 election agenda, it won't be on the
next president's agenda. And the UN's top climate expert warned:
"If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the
next two or three years will determine our future."

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time.
And polls show that voters care about it. But somehow, the TV
networks never got the memo. NBC's top political reporter, Tim
Russert, didn't ask a single question about global warming last
year. Same for Sunday political show hosts on CBS and ABC.
CNN asked just 1. Incredibly, Republican-leaning Fox bested
them all with a grand total of 2.

Our friends at the League of Conservation Voters will deliver
your signature and comment directly to the TV networks at a press
conference in front of their Washington, D.C., headquarters. And
they'll use our petition signatures to prove there's public demand
for TV anchors to ask about climate change.

Sign this petition to urge TV anchors to ask about climate change.
Clicking here will add your name:

http://pol.moveon.org/climatequestions


Thank you for all you do.

–Noah, Wes, Ilyse, Justin, and the MoveOn.org Political Action
Team
Tuesday, January 15th, 2008


Sources:
1. "What Are They Waiting For?", League of Conservation Voters
http://www.whataretheywaitingfor.com/facts.html

2. "Desperate times, desperate scientists," Salon News, December
12, 2007
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/12/ipcc_report/

3. "Poll: Finding Their Voice as Agents of Change," Democracy
Corps, October 30, 2007
http://www.moveon.org/


MoveOn.org Political Action is entirely funded by our 3.2 million
members. We have no corporate contributors, no foundation
grants, no money from unions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Steve Hawking is wrong for once.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 15, 2008 3:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For once, I disagree with Steve Hawking. Gaia [the Earth] has slightly less
dramatic ways of getting rid of weeds like Homo Sapiens. The Earth will not go
Venus for about a billion years, give or take half a billion years, according to my
calculations.

BUT: if we don't mend our coal burning ways, we humans won't be around that
long. 5 groups of paleontologists have said the same thing: "If we don't stop
making CO2, H2S will bubble out of the oceans in a century or 2 and kill all of
us." Don't take my word for it. Go read the articles at:

http://www.sciam.com/
article.cfm?articleID=
00037A5D-A938-150E-
A93883414B7F0000&
sc=I100322

http://www.geosociety.org/
meetings/2003/
prPennStateKump.htm

www.astrobio.net is a NASA web zine. See:

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&file
=article&sid=672

http://www.astrobio.net
/news/modules.php?op=
modload&name=News&file
=article&sid=1535

http://www.astrobio.net/
news/article2509.html

http://astrobio.net/news/
modules.php?op=modload
&name=News&file=article
&sid=2429&mode=thread
&order=0&thold=0

http://www.marklynas.org
/2007/4/23/six-steps-to-hell
-summary-of-six-degrees-as-
published-in-the-guardian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bodies are the problem
Posted by: nzo on Jan 15, 2008 3:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But never fear...soon each of us will be able to have our 200 acres of paradise, within the chip, and give the poor old Earth a rest from our plundering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Better Living Thru Chemistry" is Pandora's Box
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 15, 2008 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is excellent in that it points out the fallacy of the Western belief in technological progress, summarized by the old Du Pont slogan, "Better Living Thru Chemistry." The Western belief in the relentless pursuit of technological and scientific progress, and that this progress will solve all our problems, is a false belief doomed to failure. As technology solves one problem, another is created. Desalinization is one example, the technology consumes huge amounts of electricity. And to create the electricity, even with nuclear reactors, dangerous radioactive waste is created. Instead of the clamoring for technological solutions, what is needed is a radical change in society. To embrace more simplicity, less consumption, less consumer goods. To scale back, and radically so. Mankind is like a rat running around on the wheel in a cage. Always, the food is out of distance, if the rat just works harder and jumps faster, it is promised a prize. The prize is always moved further and further away and the rat just keeps jumping. Until the rat has nothing left.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

liam99
Posted by: liam99 on Jan 15, 2008 5:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I had heard of the desalination process for a long time and knew there were problems with it. It always seemed like a simple process; remove the salt and have clean water. Obviously that's not the case. But even as a kid growing up with a number of aquariums in my house ,i knew that you always had to watch salt content closely. I had no idea that part of the process was to dump the salt back in the oceans! That's idiotic! The Earth would have a bunch of very large Dead Seas. The more i learn about our situations, the more i recognise we are in deep, deep trouble. The continuing rise in population, the innately virulent greed of the most aggressive members of our race( the so-called leaders), our increasingly complicated technology and society; man oh man! There are many heroic people desperately seeking solutions, but will there be enough time,and sanity to save us? It's little comfort to me that i will probably be dead before the worst of this happens because, well, for one , i'll be dead, but more importantly i do care about our next generations, my relatives and yours.
It's likely that we are handing our fate off to the forces of nature and as we all know, that while nature is not vindictive, it's neither kind nor merciful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evolution has tried to do it's part to control population, but....
Posted by: Aposterioriperception on Jan 15, 2008 5:44 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We as a species think we know better than nature what works best for us or as individuals.

Evolution has tried to limit population by triggering more homosexual offspring, but then religious cave-men, (yes, a religious oxymoron)
edit the bible and claim one of "god's" creation
is an abomination and supposedly the sperm or the egg "decides" to make the fetus homosexual and this all happens because there is too much
"x" in the world, not one mention of the obvious evolutionary genetic origins of homosexuality.

Next, evolution gives us diseases to "thin the herd", but we in our desire to "live forever" like in religiously rooted dogma decide that god
doesn't need me to die from a disease like cancer, so we waste time, billions of dollars and effort trying to defeat evolution, heck we even manage to let a couple of religious nuts in key school districts demonize evolution as if evolution is a religious myth and creationism is the science fact, go figure.

One thing is certain, if over-population doesn't kill us off, the dumbing down of the general population certainly will kill off more idiots via the Darwin Awards, Watch yer step! the next one could be your last!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

And we're counting on corporate ethics? Just lovely...
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Jan 15, 2008 6:49 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"...while conservation and more efficient, conscientious management of the water we have left may not be as sexy an option for capitalists and technologists, it is so far the most inexpensive and least dangerous proposition on the table. "We are actually destroying the hydrologic cycle with our mismanagement" Barlow warned. And you can add desalination, at least in the near term, to that very long list of bad management plans."

And of course, we've all noticed that the corporations and the "elites" who run them will always take the "less sexy", less profitable way that actually will work instead of taking the easy and more destructive one just for immediate profits...

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

every thing as a profitcenter is risky
Posted by: richholland on Jan 15, 2008 7:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
asume we produce services and products for the well being of the people instead of a source for making rich people more rich.

If a waterfactory NOT has to make profit , it can concentrate on efficient production and cooperation with envirnmental influences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Spent" nuclear fuel should be reprocessed, not wasted.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 15, 2008 11:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't recycle nuclear fuel because spent fuel is valuable and people steal it.
The place it went that it wasn't supposed to go to is Israel. This happened in a
small town near Pittsburgh, PA circa 1970. A company called Numec was in the
business of reprocessing nuclear fuel. I almost took a job there, designing a
nuclear battery for a heart pacemaker. [A nuclear battery would have the
advantage of lasting many times as long as any other battery, eliminating many
surgeries to replace batteries.] Numec did NOT have a reactor. Numec "lost"
half a ton of enriched uranium. It wound up in Israel. The Israelis have fueled
both their nuclear power plants and their nuclear weapons by stealing nuclear
"waste." It could work for any other country, such as Iran or the United States.
It is only when you don't have access to nuclear "waste" that you have to do the
difficult process of enriching uranium, unless you have a Canadian "Candu"
reactor that runs on unenriched uranium.
Numec is no longer in business. The reprocessing of nuclear fuel in the US
stopped. That was the only politically possible solution at that time, given that
private corporations did the reprocessing. My solution would be to reprocess the
fuel at a Government Owned Government Operated [GOGO] facility. At a
GOGO plant, bureaucracy and the multiplicity of ethnicity and religion would
disable the transportation of uranium to Israel or to any unauthorized place.
Nothing heavier than a secret would get out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

XTIML
Posted by: xtiml on Jan 16, 2008 1:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
JUST HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO VENUS?AND TECHNOLOGY TO TAKE SALT OUT OF WATER IS CHILDS PLAY TO THE GREAT TECHNOCRATIC SOCIETY, WHERE YOU BEEN. AND AS I SUSPECTED YOU WARNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF ADDING ALL THAT SALT BACK INTO THE OCEAN THUS MAKING IT MORE ACIDIC? i THINK IT MAKES IT MORE ALKALINE. YA THINK?THEN YOU GO ON TO COMPARE THE VAST USAGE OF OUR WATERWAYS FOR INDUSTRIAL SEWERS, wELL JUST WHO THE HELL DO YOU THINK DID THAT? THE SAME GOD DAMN CORPORATIONS THAT ARE YOUR FASCIST COMPANIONS TO OUR ARCHONS TODAY. i DID NOT POLLUTE THE RIVERS, SULLY THE AIR, DEGRADE THE TOP SOIL, MASACTRE EVERYUY WILD ANIMAL THAT WAS COMMERCIALLY VIABLE, YOU BIG BOYS AT THE TOP DID ASLL THIS AS IT WAS FINANCIALLY EXPEDIENT TO DO SO, AND THEN THEY BLAME US FOR THE EARTHS SITUATION(OVER EXAGGERATED AND DONE ON PURPOSE,I.E. STARVATION ZONES, POVERTY ZONES, PLANNED EXTICTION ZONES) THEY HAVE THE YTECHNOLOGY AVAILABLE AND READY FOR USE BUT IT IS NOT FINACIALLY EXPEDIENT OR VIABLE FOR THE M AND THEY LOSE CONTROL OF US AS WRELL. THEY PARTOOK OR GENOCIDE, EARTH DEGRADATION, WITH HOLDING OF BETTER WAYS ALL TO SERVE THEMSELVES AND KEEP US IN OUR PLACE, WHICH IS UNDER THEIR THUMB. ON AND ON. WE HEADED FOR SOEM BIG TIME HAPPENINGS AND ALL OF THEM MAY NOT BE PLANNED BY THEM AND THEY MAY NOT FORSEE THEIR OWN DEMISE . EVEN WITH THEIR CITIES UNDERGROUND. ALL OVER THIS DAMNED NATION. THEY HAD TUNNEL DRILLING NUCLEAR FUELED MACHINES SINCE 1972 AT LEAST.NASA RUN.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

disease
Posted by: karyse on Jan 16, 2008 8:32 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If earth is part of the larger organism the universe, a living, breathing, organism, then humans are the disease. We are akin to a bacteria or a cancer that invariably kills its host by doing nothing more than massively reproducing and spreading throughout the body sucking up all the nutrients and rendering the natual defenses useless.

The earth will attempt to rid itself of the disease, before succumbing to death. It will try to kill all of the germs (us) before we can spread to the other cells (other planets/cells).

If the earth (a single cell of the larger organism, the universe, which includes an infinite number of planets/cells) dies in the doing, so much the better for the universe -- it will not cry, nor even ever noticed that one of its cells, earth, had the disease of humanititis.

So, while I abhor the actions of capitalists in their total disregard of the health of the planet and fight them every step of the way, I cannot lament the eventual "killing" of the disease.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: disease Posted by: amandalewis
Anti-desal or anti-corporation?
Posted by: lamar on Jan 16, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Are people against desalination or just the corporations that may be selected to build a desal plant?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Conservation and Efficiency are the Point
Posted by: Morphizm on Jan 16, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's much distracting talk here about corporations, good and bad, or human populations, good and bad. But the point of this article is conservation and better management of the water we have. If a corporation can do that without screwing everyone for a profit, by all means do it. If a tech process comes up that can achieve desal without screwing the ocean or atmosphere in the process, right on. If humans can more efficiently manage their global imprint, great. This is the point. This article isn't here to explain that corporations are evil (although the evidence for the prosecution seems to exponentially grow by the day) nor that humans are. We're singular anomalies in the universe as we know it. We just have to act like it. That is all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A very simple equasion
Posted by: crazy carlos on Jan 16, 2008 11:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
6.5 BILLION People, Probably 4-5.5 BILLION in the grasp of Religions whose message is go forth and propagate and a planet with maybe a carrying capacity of under 2 BILLION.

P O P U L U T I O N!!

We change or Earth is going to do it for us.

Crazy carlos

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Drought, Deserts, and Shifting Global Winds
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Jan 17, 2008 2:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Downloaded FROM: Environmental Defense
http://environmentaldefenseblogs.org/
climate411/2008/01/14/global_winds/

This post is by James Wang, Ph.D., a climate scientist at Environmental Defense.

You may have heard about the persistent droughts in the western U.S., Australia,
and other regions. The Upper Colorado River Basin is experiencing a protracted,
multi-year drought that started in 1999. Australia's record drought is threatening
the livelihood of traditional farmers and ranchers.

At what point does a passing drought become a permanent shift to desert
conditions, and why would such a thing happen?

It can happen because of global warming. Climate change can alter global winds,
the strength and location of high and low pressure systems, and other climate
factors.

.........shortened.........Graphics and URLs omitted.

Global winds shape the Earth's climate, determining - in broad strokes - which
areas are tropical, desert, or temperate. Here's a simplified overview of how it
works.

The Sun heats the Earth most intensely in the tropical zone around the equator. The
heated air rises, cools, and then dumps its moisture as rain. That's why there are
rain forests in the tropics.

The now drier air is forced by the continuously rising equatorial air to move
towards the temperate latitudes on either side of the equator. At roughly 30° N and
S - called the "horse latitudes" - it can move no further due to the Earth’s rotation,
and settles to the surface. As the air sinks, it compresses and warms, creating hot,
rain-free conditions. This circulation pattern, called a Hadley cell, is why the
deserts of the world are located just poleward of the tropics, to the north and south.

Poleward of the desert belt, strong, high-altitude winds known as the jet streams
flow from west to east, carrying large storms with them. These mid-latitude,
temperate-region storms are an important source of rain and snow, especially
during the winter season. Much of the world's population lives in the temperate
region. It includes most of the U.S. and southern Canada, most of Europe, East
Asia, southern South America, southern Africa, and southern Australia and New
Zealand.

But climate regions aren't fixed. Several independent studies have found that
global winds are shifting due to global warming, and the shifts are faster than
predicted by climate models. Most recently is this new study in Nature
Geoscience. The tropical belt has widened by several degrees latitude since 1979.
This is consistent with other observations suggesting that the jet streams and storm
tracks have moved poleward.

The drought-stricken Upper Colorado River Basin, which includes Lake Powell, is
located just poleward of the horse latitudes at around 37° N. This has historically
been in the temperate zone, but the desert zone may be gradually encroaching upon
it. (Since nothing is simple, there are other factors contributing to this particular
drought, as well.) Similarly, water-starved Sydney, Australia at 34° S is just
poleward of the southern horse latitude.

What we may be seeing here is not so much drought as desertification - a shift in
global climate patterns due to global warming. Areas that used to be in temperate
zones may be shifting into desert, while areas that had been arid receive more
precipitation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wow
Posted by: amandalewis on Jan 17, 2008 9:41 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is really scarey, and opened my eyes to the fact the world is not going to last forever. The funny thing is that the few comments that I read regaurding this article said nothing about what can we do to stop it. I don't know the answer but I do know it is not really the money people should be upset about, people should be upset because our world is going to end sooner than everyone thinks due to global warming, and the planet running out of water. What happens when the oceans are gone? where do we get our fresh water from then? We don't. How much longer do you think we will have a fresh water supply? I personally many years ago was told by someone that in 2016 we would run out of fresh water. I am mad that nothing is really being done about things that are important; our environment, the economy, ect... Instead we focus on war, drugs, and Hollywood. Thats wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Wow Posted by: LLMystic
Problems of Scale
Posted by: Urgelt on Jan 20, 2008 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me get this straight.

The big worry here is that by removing water from the oceans and not the salt, the remaining water will be saltier.

I'm sorry, but that's a concern born of pure ignorance.

Ocean salinity is a function of how much water there is in the oceans, and how much salt.

In order to increase ocean salinity, ocean levels would have to measurably drop. Nobody thinks desalination plants will ever operate on a scale capable of doing that. Hence the amount of water and the amount of salt in oceans isn't affected by them. They are operating on a scale too insignificant to affect the ratio.

In fact, as fresh water glaciers and ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica melt, causing ocean levels to rise, the trend in ocean salinity is downward. Nothing we could do with desalination plants will alter that trend.

There are legitimate worries about ocean health. Acidification is certainly one of those worries. I'd be concerned about the energy consumption of desalination plants contributing to global warming through increased CO2 emissions, but not about their impact on ocean salinity, other than purely local effects.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Problems of Scale Posted by: YogiBear
Desalination in CA has been around since Reagan days
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Jan 21, 2008 1:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now R's are setting up co's to profit from the days of the 1977 drought which spurred the moves to desal, esp. in Santa Barbara (guess who lived there in Rancho del Cielo).

Desal wasn't intended to replace current water supplies everywhere. It can help in very arid places.

Also, if you care to read Cadillac Desert by the late Marc Reisner you'll see that the North American Water and Power Alliance is poised to carry out IT'S plan to ship water from British Columbia down through Idaho and Utah and Nevada and eventually to Las Vegas and possibly LA and Aridzona. My favorite part of the book, which PBS did a special on and never dared mention btw, is the part that said "It's not a matter of if this project happens but when."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yep ...
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jan 21, 2008 3:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the article:

"Hauter agrees. 'Rather than solving water scarcity issues, desalination is an expensive technology that has the potential to cause many unintended consequences. Instead, we should be taking the proactive steps to stop polluting, diverting and wasting water.'"

Meanwhile, we keep dumping potable water on lawns and flushing it down toilets. I, for one, would like to put in a system (actually, just a simple bit of plumbing and a storage tank) that would collect and store shower water to be used in toilet flushing; but my local building codes won't let me. I cannot use grey water from a shower, devoid of waste, to flood a bowl that no one touches, to flush my crap down the sewer. According to my building & safety dept., that requires DRINKING water!

As for the overall problem and the underlying cause: quite a few of us at Berkeley read "The Population Bomb" (Paul Erlich) and "The Limits To Growth" (Club of Rome) and were talking about this problem THIRTY YEARS AGO!! Yet nothing was done about it, for the same reason nothing WILL be done about it: it's bad for business – including the religious business that gains from anti-birth control efforts.

Today, as we contemplate devastating changes to the very fabric of our existence, we are forced to listen to the same drivel, the same hollow pontificating and outright lying from our latest crop of presidential candidates as we have tolerated for the last ten or so election cycles. I'm astounded that these half-assed pretenders to the presidency are not booed off of every stage they take; they should be. With only one possible exception, none of these political lifers have a clue as to how to deal with the chaos we face.

Politics as usual no longer has a place in the Kafka-esque world we've created, yet that's all we get from our political sideshow.

The title of Lewis Black's latest stand up comedy special is an apt description: "Red, White & Screwed." We will need to learn to adapt to abrupt changes, and soon, because with China's and India's TWO BILLION people wanting the wasteful lifestyle we've media-exported to them, and with ever-"improved" technology that can crank it out, there's no chance in hell, barring some miracle, that global warming, and the resulting environmental chaos, will be ameliorated any time soon. Especially by whom we laughingly call our "leaders."
------
(It's interesting that the above article mentioned the possibility of ocean acidity rising to lethal levels; a die-off of ocean life which would inevitably result from such a level of acidity was the plot line of "Soylent Green" – which,as we all remember, introduced a whole new line of recycling. Here's to hoping that science fiction writers don't know something our politicians do not ... but they might ....)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Desalinization is not the problem, in itself
Posted by: LLMystic on Jan 23, 2008 3:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If done right desalinization is no different in effect from what Nature does already, as the Sun evaporates moisture from the Oceans, and it falls on the land as fresh water. The problems described are the result of greed, short-sightedness, and bad use of technology. These problems are not intrinsic and can be dealt with.

As the article mentions, clean alternative energy can be used, even Solar power. Though the article does not mention it, the brine can also be dealt with in a relatively simple and inexpensive manner -- instead of dumping the brine back into the Ocean near the land, it can be diverted into ponds and dried. The residue contains useful minerals which can be used as industrial feedstock. Or the brine could be piped to the deeper Ocean further from shore, where it could mix back into the Ocean without harming marine life. (Solar evaporation also removes water leaving the salts, but they are not concentrated. And when the water flows back into the Ocean, the balance is restored.) Either way, the Oceans will not become more salty as a result of desalinization plants. At worst, harm would be local (but not necessary.)

Finally, we should consider the alternatives. There are too many humans for existing water resources. Yes we should begin to limit population! (For many reasons, not just water scarcity). But meanwhile, people who are already alive need water, and not many will volunteer to die so we collectively would use less water! If we do not build desalinization plants, we will take even more of the water from natural systems, at the expense of other animals and plants. All in all, desalinization plants represent the superior alternative. (Of course we should also look at recycling, conservation, and efficient use of water -- and cost will encourage this, since desalinization plants are expensive.)

I believe we should focus our efforts on making the new technologies environmentally benign, rather than foolishly resisting every innovation, which would force the more destructive alternative of continuing to loot nature to the point of destruction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement