but in the real world with real distances between sources and needs
there isn’t enough water and energy, nor infrastructure.
I agree on the third point, but not the first two.
Ok Robert, I’ll concede the point concerning my title. I left out the adjective Potable,but as to Darron’s point there is ample evidence to back his contention that there is a water shortage and it will lead to a crises in the future. Here is only one example, there are many others:
I strongly disagree with the notion there will be any major water crisis in the future. Not because I dispute the existence or potential of the problem, but because I’m convinced it’ll be solved well before it becomes too big a one.
to Robert Wolper- DarronS is not a scientist. He is an environmentalist. He sees the sky fall where ever he looks. I bet he is almost ready to write a book about it. As informative and truthful as ‘an inconvenient truth’.
He is not much fun most of the time….ask him about his specialty….climate change…or running out of oil…....
Climate change and finite oil supplies are serious and real issues. DarronS is quite justified in being concerned about those. He’s also justified in being concerned about developing available water supplies beyond that which natural systems can produce. I simply don’t share a pessimistic attitude on any of those three issues.
Maybe we can simplify what we agree on here and identify the source of our disagreement.
I think we have already said we all agree on the following items.
1) The world has an enormous supply of water.
2) Most of of the water is not drinkable
3) We also have a very large supply of solar energy.
4) Solar energy is not cheap nor available everywhere
5) The cost of building desalinization plants to supply a significant portion of the worlds water requirements would be extremely high with current technology
6) There are real practical shortages of readily available potable water in many parts of the world today and these problems may be more widespread in the future if current trends continue.
I agree with these points with the exception of point 4 and partially disagree with point 5.
I think where we disagree with you Robert is in your characterization of the problem as “stupid”.
I didn’t claim the problem was stupid, I said the claim we’re running out of water is stupid. As per my previous analogy, massive areas of land completely devoid of human settlement and life is not evidence of shortage of human life in the big picture. Particular areas facing drought and water shortages does not reflect the bigger picture of our planet.
The point of bringing this issue up is that the problem is a difficult one to solve.
I never claimed otherwise, although I submit I think the problem will be solved much easier and sooner than many believe.
Not because people are stupid but because there are enormous financial and political obstacles to solving this issue and in the U.S. at least it is not currently enough of a problem to be seen as a priority. In parts of the world where it is more of a crisis there isnt the money or the political organization to tackle the difficult logistics.
I suspect the perception of the problem is warped by the notion of sticking to large scale centralized systems for water treatment and distribution, rather than a far better model of much smaller and more distributed water treatment and distribution systems.
Reading back over the posts we dont really disagree on a lot. Its your approach that has people arguing with you more than your arguments themselves.
That’s a classic Style over Substance fallacy, however.