Crisis feared as US water supplies dry up

[Higgly]

The scarry thing is the amount of change in the last 10 years. I am 72 and In the last 10 years there have been more storms more changes in weather conditions than in the first 50 years of my life. Is it changing, yes, should we pay attention yes. I have my first Great granddaughter and what will life be for her. No I know some of you don't care its called being a sociopath, what I want it what you should get.

I'm not as old as you but I grew up in a town where the snowbanks were way over my head and the air was so clean you could smell it. You could walk to school on top of the snowbanks and you would be looking the driver of a transport truck in the eye. The stars sparkled at night and fish ran thick up the rivers. I go back to my home town every Christmas and it hasn't been like that for over a decade. Now there is no snow at all.

[margrace]

The water shortage is because we are wasting it. for example,Alberta uses 3 litres of water to extract 1 litre of oil from the tar sands. But may I ask a question. Why are you people so against this idea that the weather is changing and that we may be running out of water. Why are you so afraid to admit that the quality of the air is killing hundreds of people every week.

Do you own or run a company that relys on oil revenues, are you the owner of shares in a car builder? Is this not why some are against it and is your high standard of living in jeopardy?

Is this not sociopathic thinking? Do you care about the many thousands who have severe breathing problems because of your lifestyle. Have you ever seen a full blown asthma attack? I hadn't until this summer and my husband, asthma free since he was 10, had one. You can live for a month without food, you can live for a few days without water and you can live seconds without the next breath.

What I am trying to say here is that I do not understand the animosity towards anyone who dares to suggest that the shortage of water may be our own fault, that the air quality may be our own fault. Why?? What are you afraid of???

[Hydraboss]

What are you typing on?

A product of oil.

What did you watch the news on?

A product of oil.

How do we get that oil?

The oilpatch. And, yes, it uses water.

What do you find so hard to understand? Let's all remember that it was YOUR generation that started this problem, not ours. Yet you seem so willing to blame everyone else for these problems. What gives?

[margrace]

So exactly why are you so afraid of changing the status Quo? What problems am I blaming you for?

Edited November 3, 2007 by margrace

[jbg]

I thought this was a debate about water supplies. The US is running out of water and climate change is only part of the picture. Anybody been to Phoenix or Las Vegas? These people have no connection to reality.

Higgly, another of the rare issues we agree on. Subsidizing people living in places like Phoenix, Las Vegas or even Los Angeles when New York City was perfectly good, if a bit older, was the height of folly.

I believe in letting market forces work, whether that aids the so-called left or right. Those cities wouldn't exist without tilted military spending, senseless irrigation policies, and a very anti-urban Interstate Highway Program. I'm not againsst the highway program. I just believe that the need to appease the "small states" that make up much of the US Senate led to much wasteful construction of broad, empty highways with 120 km speed limits in the deserts where more 100 km speed limit highways in the urban areas were needed. These badly placed highways in turn spurred development where it doesn't belong.

[Amazing Atheist]

So anyone who doesn't believe in climate change/global warming is a sociopath?

Wow, Margrace, that's really deep. Have you ever NOT been scared by something? Is the water shortage Harper's fault, or GWB's, or both?

No anyone who doesn't believe global warming is stupid and don't understand the science involved to reach that conclusion.

I once questioned the validity of man made global warming until I went over some of the data that has been presented and it is scary. This is the biggest challenge for humanity to overcome and more of a threat to our existence as a species then a nuclear war.

The water shortage in Georgia etc is a direct result of abusing natural resources and should be an example of what happens when you take something for granted.

Edited November 3, 2007 by Amazing Atheist

[jbg]

No anyone who doesn't believe global warming is stupid and don't understand the science involved to reach that conclusion.

I plead guilty of both not believing in global warming and stupidity.

I once questioned the validity of man made global warming until I went over some of the data that has been presented and it is scary. This is the biggest challenge for humanity to overcome and more of a threat to our existence as a species then a nuclear war.

Have you gone over 200,000 years of weather and climate history?

The water shortage in Georgia etc is a direct result of abusing natural resources and should be an example of what happens when you take something for granted.

Regarding the alleged "open water in the arctic" isn't it true that the explorers like Franklin and Hudson were sucked pretty far in by open water and didn't quite make it out? And isn't it true that the South has known drought before?

[WestViking]

No anyone who doesn't believe global warming is stupid and don't understand the science involved to reach that conclusion.

I once questioned the validity of man made global warming until I went over some of the data that has been presented and it is scary. This is the biggest challenge for humanity to overcome and more of a threat to our existence as a species then a nuclear war.

The water shortage in Georgia etc is a direct result of abusing natural resources and should be an example of what happens when you take something for granted.

Al Gore insists we will all drown. The water shortages are because the water is needed to drown us all.

[wolfd]

While we in Ontario enjoyed a hot supper,

I'm in BC and we like a hot supper too.

Edited November 3, 2007 by wolfd

[Frankie]

I think it's time to start sending more of those ocean liners up North to collect some of that Iceberg Water. Hey, that would also be a good excuse to make more jobs, good ones too!

I also think the governments of North America might start implemeting population control, just like China, but of course in a more "patriotic way". I mean most people don't even want many kids nowadays, so we're halfway to solving the problem.

[jbg]

I'm in BC and we like a hot supper too.

I thought supper was Canadian for what we in America call summer.

[RedDaVinci]

I think it's time to start sending more of those ocean liners up North to collect some of that Iceberg Water. Hey, that would also be a good excuse to make more jobs, good ones too!

I also think the governments of North America might start [implementing] population control, just like China, but of course in a more "patriotic way". I mean most people don't even want many kids nowadays, so we're halfway to solving the problem.

It's a funny thing, population increase. I live in an area with a particularly low birth rate... I think somewhere around 1.3 children per family.

What makes it funny is that I also live in an area whose population is aging particularly rapidly and thoroughly, causing an impending dramatic decrease in the active population (i.e. full taxpaying, productive people). Our birth rate could drop even more and the population would still increase in theory, even without immigration (which by the way is the only thing keeping us afloat).

Given the average lifespan of a person living in China compared to one living in Canada, birth restrictions are much more likely to work where the population can't so very desperately cling to life despite almost anything. In contrast, Canadian population increases would be much less likely to be controlled with a restriction on child births. Yes, the birth rate would plummet, but the total population would not be affected for some time.

Instead, the active population would take a hideous blow with scores of "boomers" demanding social benefits, medicare, etc. without a sufficiently large active population to support them.

The only real way to control this increasing population problem is much, much more gruesome and anti-democratic than restrictions on child birth-- it is the removal of desperately-needed support systems and contrivances for an aging population. In theory, a decrease in the average lifespan would also solve the problem-- but that involves some very, very ugly methods, dare I say even putting a restriction on aging.

So you see, we would not solve as many problems by restricting child birth as we would be creating them.