Our access to fresh water in the western world is something we too often take for granted, this must not continue.
Alarmingly, only 2.8% of our planets water supply is fresh water, of which the drinkable percentage is even less. Conserving this remaining 2.8% is vital – not only for the physiology of the planet but for human survival, which ceases to exist without fresh water.
Sadly, there are various problems associated with water supply and demand. These can be categorized into ‘human‘ and ‘physical‘ factors such as increasing demographics and global warming. They can be further subdivided into economic and regional factors. Hence these issues, a series of arguable solutions have been proposed.
In an attempt to forge a sustainable water supply China built ‘The Three Gorges Dam’ in 2012. It became the largest hydroelectric (supposedly ‘environmentally friendly’) scheme in the world, generating thousands of megawatts to meet the demand of China’s growing population. It also has long and short term socioeconomic benefits, supplying 10% of China’s electricity and creating employment. Conversely it has many negatives; 12,000 cultural and archaeological sites were demolished for the dam to be built. It also flooded 13 cities and 140 towns. Despite the governments promise of compensation for peoples livelihood loss, families are still living in makeshift accommodation or alternative basic living areas. This caused both political tension and social unrest, so arguably was not politically or socially sustainable. The dam also set China’s economy back by $29 billion. Furthermore, if one error occurs in the dam it could collapse the whole system. If the dam were to flood there would be severe socio-environmental consequences. These include health risks, loss of crop yields and damage to ecosystems. The dam will also need constant maintenance costing more money and nearly 7000mg watts of the electricity produced by the dam is wasted, suggesting it is not economically or environmentally sustainable long term.
‘Grey Water’ is another potential solution. It involves the recycling of water and storing it beneath houses in pipes. Water is recycled from appliances such as baths and sinks, subsequently it is reused for tasks such as watering plants; it could be considered environmentally friendly to some extent. They could also be implemented on a larger scale in countries such as France, where nuclear energy is dominant; grey water could be used to produce steam at the power plants. For MEDCS the systems are easy to access, they can be bought online for approximately $118, this seems reasonably cheap for the amount of water that can be recycled (people will also get more for there money on water rates if they recycle the water they pay for) and the systems can store up to 5000l of water per day. However there are draw backs:Grey Water can only be stored for up to 24 hours. Additionally the system can only recycle from certain appliances which do not produce ‘black water’ such as toilets. Additionally, if there were an error in the system black water may escape and releases toxins into the environment (environmentally unsustainable.) Largely LEDCS may not have the housing structure, economic funding or technological (internet) access to implement this strategy. This implies it is a regionally rather than a globally suitable scheme.
Perhaps another way forward may be the use of ‘Virtual Water.’ This strategy occurs through the trading of water dependent goods from water abundant countries to water stressed countries; the countries which face water stress then reduce strain on their natural resources by not using it to produce products (such as grain for instance). This suggests it is an environmentally sustainable tactic. In 2000 Egypt imported 8 million tonnes of grain and saved 8.5 million m3 of water. However, although this benefits MEDCS economically and reduces strain on environmental resources, it may strain economic resources within LEDCS. Due to the ‘Development Gap’ they may not be able to keep up the payment demands of the trades. Unfortunately, yet another scheme seems regionally sustainable rather than globally. Furthermore as suggested in Franks Dependency Theory, it may increase LEDCS dependency on funding from MEDCS, stunting economic development. Simultaneously, MEDCS such as Australia would also suffer in periods of drought with the excess use of their water recourse to produce trade goods; this could have negative socio-environmental implications, with the strain of natural water resources and the limits it would put on the populations water consumption. On the plus side, this could be managed with water conservation schemes. However, a drought would create a domino affect by impacting the countries reliant on Australia as a water resource.
Overall it seems that the proposed solutions are sustainable on a regional scale rather than a global scale. Majoritively, MEDCS put economic initiatives before environmental ones. Where water is abundant in MEDCS it is wasted (eg the water features of Las Vegas) while still under great stress in various regions. Arguably, the most powerful solution would be to change the attitudes of people. Implementing higher rates on water may persuade people to use their water more sustainably. This has been a successful strategy in parts of Australia. Educating people on the importance of sustaining water and how they can do this ( eg one most of us know: simply turning off taps while brushing teeth) may also be a socially successful tactic.