I'm not sure if people realize this, but major corporations have been (and continue to) focus on concentrating their power to own access to and distribution/sales of fresh water in the US, as a business strategy. They are actively betting on the water running out and planning long term to control your water. You can't live without fresh water, so it's not like you're not going to pay the exorbitant prices they'll be able to charge when it really starts getting tight.
Michael Burry, one of the guys that shorted the house market in 2008, started to invest in water since 2013
From Wiki:
"In 2013, Burry reopened his hedge fund, this time called Scion Asset Management, filing reports as an exempt reporting adviser (ERA) active in the state of California and approved by the SEC.[19] He has focused much of his attention on investing in water, gold, and farm land. He has said, "Fresh, clean water cannot be taken for granted. And it is not—water is political, and litigious."[20]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Burry
Fun fact, while we learnt about the Bolivian Water War in India, we were never told that after the exit of the international consortium, about half the population of Cochabamba continue to lack access to water, while those who do have only intermittent supply. Meanwhile, SEMAPA, the government entity at the center of the protests, has a budget of only $5 million, which renders them unable to expand or revamp the current water supply network.
It's not a fun fact. Miracles don't happen. But what is a fact is that the World Bank fucked up terribly by more or less blaming the poor for being poor and putting a bunch of capitalists in charge of the water supply in a way that was bound to escalate.
The problem with privatization is that it tends to turn into a monopoly that extracts a toll from those worst positioned to bear the burden. That of course doesn't change if you let them to rot. What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation. How they would have done that in light of corruption and local graft is another problem entirely.
You can't just take 20% of people's meager income (more than they spend on food) for a first level requirement like clean water. That's the sort of infrastructure that the world bank exists to bankroll, once the necessities are taken care of a society has a much better chance to lift itself from poverty.
I'm not denying your PoV. Water is a basic necessity and shouldn't be charged a king's ransom for.
> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation.
But does the World Bank even do that kind of financing? They and the IMF seem only intent on financing assured projects in developed countries or projects in developing countries which simply siphon money into politicians' pockets, with their tacit knowledge. That was part of the motivation behind Asian Investment Bank, and the other Chinese propped competitors.
My point was that in spite of the "revolution" succeeding, and in spite of the revolutionary leaders taking charge of power for a record number of years, the town continues to suffer from the lack of water.
They suffer from the lack of water but there is no clarity on whether or not they are better off than if they had not resisted, besides, some of the terms were so far beyond unacceptable that they had every right to protest the deal.
When the humanity about these things is lost and it all becomes just numbers people suffer. And right now they are suffering too but they are at least nominally in control of their fate. The best solution would be one where graft and greed would be cut out because to just have a choice between the two is always going to be bad for those caught in the middle.
> What should have happened instead is that the world bank should have helped to finance the new system as a way to make up for their previous disastrous handling of the situation
That seems like charity, which granted i am all for, but i don't think the World Bank is a charitable organization, plus 300 million is a MASSIVE amount for charity. In the absence of charity it seems like the two choices are 1. Have no water or 2. Pay a lot to have water. At least with 2 you have the potential for the lowering of water prices over time.
Is there an alternative? Or am i wrong about the world bank and these charitable acts are it's purpose?
Also betting that municipalities can't/won't just pull an eminent domain to regain access to the water.
Honestly it sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I'm sure companies are buying rights to water, but I suspect it's for straightforward near term interests, like, say, Poland Spring's owners buying water rights so they can sell bottles of water - not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever.
You underestimate the power of corporations, and the logistical and political difficulty of supplanting them.
I receive internal company newsletters that talk about the need to get more water contracts due to climate change and the opportunities/competition ahead. It's not conspiracy, it's commerce. Like real estate, you buy it now when it's cheap because you predict it'll be worth a fortune in a decade or two.
> Also betting that municipalities can't/won't just pull an eminent domain to regain access to the water.
They can’t just seize the water rights, they would have to purchase them at fair market value. Land with perpetual water rights happen to be worth *a lot* of money, which is why there haven’t been more government entities buying out current holders of water rights.
> not because they think they will be our overlords in 20 years or whatever.
Isn’t that what fruit companies like delmonte did to Central America in the mid 20th century? Seizing all of the farmland with the support of the government to grow fruit for Americans?
That won't fly - someone may have bought a valuable asset 50 years ago that is now worth 100X what they paid for it - only giving them what they paid for it can hardly be called 'just compensation' and I suspect most all courts would agree.
I'm talking about speculators engaged in predatory flipping (and was also assuming adjusting for inflation).
Water rights speculation has apparently only been going on in Arizona for around 30 years. While some of this speculation may be net beneficial (use of recharge areas to recharge ground water), others just seem speculative and aimed at making a premium when municipalities are eventually forced to buy.
The scientist talks about reducing phosphorus but I live in Central Florida and see trains almost every day carrying phosphorus. At least they converted an old phosphorus mine (Alafia State Park) to bike trails, apparently the only bike trails with any kind of elevation in Florida.
It talks about warding off rising sea levels but does not mention what happens if all or most of the everglades is under sea water, which looks possible in the lifetime of people who are children now.
The NOA predicts sea level rise of 2 feet by 2100. There might be small chunks of the Everglades on the Southern tip of Florida that are 2 feet or lower, but I believe the vast majority of the Everglades are 10 feet or higher. We probably won't see that in our lifetimes.
This isn't to downplay climate change or the risk of rising sea levels. These are very real, but I think that many people overestimate it. Even for Miami, which is very elevation, I don't think we will see it underwater... but we will see lots of flooding since the sewage systems won't be able to drain when the ocean level gets too close to the land. This already happens, but it will get worse.
> I believe the vast majority of the Everglades are 10 feet or higher
The Everglades are 0-8 ft[1] above sea level and average depth of the water is 4-5 ft[2]. If that elevation is measured at the surface of the water, then it would only take a few feet of sea-level rise to contaminate the Everglades.
> Even for Miami, which is very elevation, I don't think we will see it underwater
Most of Miami-Dade County was projected to be under water by 2060[3], and that was before the recent discovery that glaciers are melting much faster than we expected[4].
As others have noted 2 feet is the low end of the estimate, but the threat isn't just from land lost to sea level rise, that's the.
The first thing you'll notice living in Florida is coastal flooding, but the imminent and more pressing danger is salt water intrusion. You don't need to cover all the surface of land with water for that happen. If sea levels rise only 2 feet the fresh water sources along the coasts are threatened from salt water coming in from the sides. Florida is particularly vulnerable because it has very porous limestone geology. This geology allows for deeper interior advancement of salt water compared to other coastal areas, meaning less sea level rise is required for large fresh water impacts
Is this the report you are referring to?
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelr...
It carefully says two feet if we curb emissions in the future - are they claiming we could agree on a freeze in the USA (as we are number one!) and developing large nations(China), but it will be many times higher but unpredictably so otherwise. It's also a year old and doesn't reflect the latest news on Greenland and Antarctic glaciers melting much faster than expected.
Everglades restoration would also help the aquifer fight off rising seas that make it vulnerable to saltwater intrusion and pollution caused by run-off from agricultural lands and residential areas.
“Restoration is key because when water can once again move north to south, more clean water can fill up the Everglades and the aquifer, allowing fresh water to push back the salt water,” Crowl says.
I don't know what your source is for the 2 ft number, as any predictions of future sea level are dependent on emissions scenarios. Further, sea level is local--that is, different areas of the world will experience different amounts of local sea-level rise in the future, based on regional conditions.
In south Florida, the estimated sea-level rise for the intermediate-high emissions scenario is approximately 5.5 feet by 2100. Attaining 2 feet of SLR requires an intermediate-low scenario. The high scenario results in 7 feet.
I was imprecise. I meant the worse storms would get more frequent. My point was that more frequent bad storms combined with modest sea level increase meant greater chance for overrun compared to just the sea level increase.
This is noted in the document you linked to, where they mention most of the models project an increase in of Atlantic hurricanes reaching Category 4 or 5 even at an optimistic 2 degree C rise. They do note it's somewhat uncertain though, I'll give you that.
I was going to make a refined criticism but this typo makes it clear - neither you nor anyone else knows what is happening with sea level rise. Why question "NOA" - named NOAA ? because of recent activity in the western antarctic ice shelf.
sorry to dismiss this comforting thought, but no, nobody knows what the sea levels will be in the year 2100 -- this is a serious situation and it is getting worse now.
I'm guessing the models are extra conservative and there's going to be some oopsies in how it plays out. I'm not a climate scientist but it's already clear that things are happening faster than earlier predictions.
What's doubly distressing is that it's been so highly politicized. I'm not $ure why that i$...
"With nearly 30 years of data showing significant progress, it’s clear that farmers in the EAA have done more to improve water quality in South Florida than any other private group in state history."
