Quote:
Originally Posted by mikephoen
I think you're missing GGG's point. He is saying that the cost of building the infrastructure to move water from Canada's north, where the water is, to the USA is significantly higher than the cost of building infrastructure for desalination much closer to where the water is needed. Even if the water was needed in Arizona, the cost to build desalination plants in California or Oregon and then move the water to Arizona would still be cheaper than building a pipeline from Nunavut or the Yukon to Arizona.
|
I honestly don't know enough about desalinization economics, or even the economics of moving water via pipelines to really know this for sure. The figure given in the OP was pulled from nowhere and based on the price to move oil which is harvested in a variety of complicated ways that requires very specialized infrastructure and workers. There's a lot built into that cost of moving water figure vs de-salinization that is going overlooked. Can the current amount of plants handle the increase demand? How much does it cost to build more and run them? How long will it take? If you have months left of water and no capacity to replace it and are years away from more de-salinization plants, your options become limited, because again, people need water every day to live. We don't need oil literally everyday to survive, but EVERYONE needs water all the time. It's not something you can handle a few weeks or even days of a shortage on.
Quote:
|
To your point about people not caring about how expensive or convenient a solution is, I think you're really wrong about that. Time and time again, humans have proven that we would rather let people die than spend a lot of money on solving a problem (see Covid, climate change, famine, malaria, AIDS, etc)
|
When s*** hits the fan, no they don't care about cost (see War). The amount of people dying of climate change, covid, famine, or malaria in the US is basically a statistical blip compared to what would happen if/when water runs out. Of course those things don't move the needle they don't affect everyone every day or even at all (at least not perceptually). Water does. When they need it, it won't mater what's cost effective. It will matter what's easiest and fastest. And honestly, if you're the US, from a pure "Game of Risk" standpoint, taking Canada is the best long term solution not just for water, but basically everything. Even from an environmental standpoint it might be the best option. A water pipeline uses way less energy and produces no waste compared to de-salinization. This is how places like China and Russia think. They don't care about the lines the "West" drew. They're not on democracy time, new directions every few years. They're on Empire Time. If they need something they will take it. Because so did you. They don't see a difference between British Colonialism, Spanish Colonialism, Dutch Colonialism, American Colonialism, or their own. It doesn't matter if it's 1650, 1850 or 2050. It doesn't matter if the UN exists or not. This is what Trump wants for himself too. That's why the water issue makes me nervous. Because yes, people who respect borders and human rights and international law know they have to find different solutions. Trump wants the simplest solution that can happen now.
Call a National Security Emergency.
Send the military to occupy the best watersheds.
Start it in barrels on trucks and trains until pipelines can be finished.
It sounds ridiculous but he's the one talking about it. He being THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. I don't care that he's a d***less moron. He's still a d***less moron in charge of the US military openly talking about hostile takeover of this country.