Posting in Design
Water policy will come under closer scrutiny in 2010. What's your posture?
Sometimes, in our struggling to apply sustainability strategy to things of industry -- electricity in particular -- we forget about protecting the simpler, more basic stuff, like water.
Based on what I'm hearing recently from some of the largest high-tech companies, this isn't an oversight we'll be able to tolerate for much longer. I'd be willing to lay odds that you will start hearing just as much about water management during 2010 as you'll hear about the smart grid and carbon management.
Two examples from just the past week:
- Hewlett-Packard has come out big as a sponsor of Summit on the Summit: Kiliminjaro, a celebrity-driven climb that is intended to raise awareness of the "global clean water crisis." For every view of videos on its Summit on the Summit Facebook page, HP will contribute 100 liters of clean water. It's a unique example of how you can use social media to promote a worthy cause AND your brand at the same time.
- On the more tactical side, IBM just announced three different relationships illustrating how its resource management software and technology can be applied to the water problem. The first relationship is with the Lower Colorado River Authority, a public non-profit that manages water supply and other resources across Central and South Texas. The utility is specifically using IBM Maximo Asset Management software along with a mobile application that was developed by one of its business partners, Syclo. Here's more information. In a second agreement (worth $14.5 million to IBM), the company is designing an asset management system for Power and Water Corp. in Sydney Australia. The arrangement will focus on how to balance the utility's very diverse geographic territory, which ranges from desert to tropic climates. The final deal is with the Fukuoka District Waterworks Agency in Japan, which plans to use IBM technology to help design a system for increasing the availability of the usable water supply and to improve water quality in communities across its district. Among the district's assets are the Seawater Desalination Plant, which supports 2.3 million residents. Here's more information about the system.
Mind you, both the examples above clearly are public sector-type projects. But I believe businesses the commercial sector will be pressed to step up their own internal projects related to water waste associated with data centers, factors, unnecessary landscaping and the like.
Nov 15, 2009
Climate change, water, etc are supposed to go hand in hand with overall sustainability. We are supposed to blend in with the greenhouse called Earth that sustains all life and the reason we don't want to heat the atmosphere is because it changes the weather formula. The dangerous part of this is that policy and science is blind to temperature in education of the world. The company I work for documented the cause of urban heat islands and we are superheating the atmosphere, affecting hydrological cycles while we discuss the urgency of water management. Here is a link to urban heat island creation showing how we cook the air and change weather as well as how it can be addressed which will positively affect water. If we don't stop the heat, we will be rationing based on symptoms. http://www.thermoguy.com/urbanheat.html
Citation please, for this claim. Stomata for a particular species do not get larger or smaller, although they may become slightly more dense or less dense on the leaf surface because of growing conditions. Any change in stomatal density would have a limited effect on transpiration rate, when water is freely available to the plant, as the evaporation domes over adjacent stomata overlap and the leaf surface evaporates as fast as a free water surface. Basic plant physiology 201. Dr. Arthur R. Berg
Desalinization would avoid some of the pain of the water problems. Water shortages, aggravated by inaction to avert them, are expected to generate lots of emotional energy, to fill the coffer$ of the prescient. We already know that our elected leaders are not perfect, many are lawyers; that left the Justice System, and are now struggling to make ends meet, on their own recognizance. They were once trained to use the law, to their clients? advantage. Who are the clients of many of our leader's now? Would they be the people that paid, to get them elected? (Bought them, their distinguished jobs.) The only people that are allowed to win, an election, are politicians, because it?s the LAW. [Write-Ins, may be a loop hole, some places.] Bureaucrats, appointed by politicians, use taxpayer funds to run the elections. I think most politicians believe that a politician, Red or Blue, will always win in any large election. Is it possible politicians might also suspect that the electorate is chicken, stupid, or both? If we were smart as lawyers, we would have changed things around to our advantage; so that by now, The Pawns of Power, would not be allowed to get themselves elected; AGAIN ! I avoid additional disappointment, I expect politicians to do nothing, positive, for US. We must continue to depend on ourselves, as is usual. Humans will learn to desalinate seawater, more efficiently, to make up for some of the continuing losses to the snow pack, and glaciers. Why don?t we get started on that now? Well, are the people we depend on for leadership obligated, to those that pay to get them elected? The Powerful, will always retain control; of the water. It is a precious and limited resource, that can be sold for an even higher price, as the supply diminishes. Recall; gasoline at USD $ 4.599 per gallon? Think of it! Water at USD $ 4.599 per gallon. WOW! Oh, $h&t! It already is that much. . . when bottled; in a PREMIUM LABEL ! Water shortages, aggravated by inaction to avert them, are expected to generate lots of profits, to fill the coffers of the prescient. Desalinization would avoid some of the pain of the coming water shortages, so we can be sure desalinization will not be allowed. b9f8
Thanks for spreading the word about our Summit on the Summit program! Admittedly, the social media part is tricky to handle as it's a new medium for brands to advocate for causes. But check out our Twitter feed (@SOTSK) as well. Also, two of our supporters are starting fundraisers at their schools (SUNY and Georgia U.) you can check them out too: @d33pthoughts and @dofoxymorrons. This is a complicated, intense global issue that requires solutions from many different angles. Check out our beneficiaries page on the website, four different groups with four different ways to tackle the problem: http://www.summitonthesummit.com/#/basecamp And cheers to IBM for lending their smarts for the cause! nien for Summit on the Summit Twitter: @SOTSK
Something like a billion people do not have access to safe and clean drinking water....a billion and half do not enjoy sanitary sewers or waste treatment.
Don't care where you live... these issues will affect your life. so what happens when: - Thousands die daily from these issues (bad water, pollution)? - all evidence points to these issues becoming "un-fixable" within the near term? - the peoples of the world are overwhelmed with these issues? - people believe technology will save them..(without any plan)? (poof! magically, some technology will be sooo powerful it doesn't need any plan of implementation! it will cost nothing and do everything!) - The world has no unified view of what's required? look around... you have your answer. Before any technology or plan of action on the scale of world-wide pollution/resource management can be successful.. It needs unified support...or else it is doomed to failure. failure from .. - fighting over control of the solution - fighting over distribution of solution - fighting over any success of the solution! If a unified solution is ever put in place.. It will not be done with the tools of present or past. Meaning political, monetary incentives.. The world has to make some very big changes.
Didn't that battle start a few decades ago? Isn't it at full rage now such as the opposition to coal companies wanting to block off streams and small rivers at present. Or are you referring to the growing awareness of how super critical it is to keep our water clean.
Wrong river. The Colorado River in Texas is contained entirely within the state. No need to give any to Mexido.
in the late 1940s, when nuclear plants were being suggested as an answer to our power needs, one of the parts of the plants was to be the production of potable water by using the waste heat generated in the plant. however, because there did not appear to be a supply problem then, though there was, to decrease the cost the water purification part was left out. now that we have again a power problem rearing up, we could help solve two problems by building the nuclear plants and by using the waste heat to provide potable water. there are the numerous plants in japan and france to show that these plants can be built and operated safely. we do have large amounts of nonpotable water around and we could make a great headway to solving the water supply problem. we will not do it of course because we live in a country where the ruling opinion is mass hysteria. maybe this will undergo a bit of a change when both food is not grown because there is no water to irrigate and when there is a limit on the amount of water one can drink. starvation and thirst are wonderful teachers
A good test case is the going on right now. The cost of water is going up radically in Southern California, people will be tearing up lawns, replacing old toilets, taking short showers, etc. It is true in other parts of the globe as well.
Hi I am a normal person of our world and have been saying for the last twenty years or more"where is all our free water going to?".I am now retired and have time on my hand to think about things Like water,question why can rain be saved and stored with all our means at hand surely the world could do it.Forget we are different countries it is our worlds water which has to be saved some way or we will all died!!!. Regards WATER MO
Plants will get the CO2 they need for photosynthesis. Keep the concentration small, and the pores that let CO2 in get larger. That means more water vapor escapes. But as the CO2 concentration goes up the pores get smaller, and less water is used.
Agreements and treaties were poorly written in the first place. Should have started with the total flow volume at the mouth of the river and set the withdrawls 33% U.S., 33% Mexico, 34% allowed to naturally exit the mouth. 34% of normal flow probably wouldn't provide full sustainability of the natural riparian environment, but it would have been better than nothing.