When it comes to water, issues of borders come into question. One demonstrative example from the videos we viewed this week was the vast quantities of water that Canada has per citizen compared to many other countries in the world. What responsibility do water-rich countries have to redistribute their supplies to other, less-water rich countries? And is any sort of redistribution simply a band-aid solution that increases dependence of less-developed countries on developed countries? For many years, Nestle was taking groundwater from Canada and then selling it for a profit in other countries - this was happening when there were still communities in Canada, often Indigenous, that did not have a safe water supply.
I envision a world where all countries have the ability to provide a safe and continuous water supply to their population, without having to be in debt to more water-rich countries or corporations. The only way I can see this happening is if corporations and governments cease to benefit off of water-insecurity, and redistribution of water happens in the public sector, not private.
Hi Sophia! I think you make a fantastic point! I agree that access to essential resources, such as water, should exist without borders and politics!
"And is any sort of redistribution simply a band-aid solution that increases dependence of less-developed countries on developed countries?"
I love this thought. It's intriguing to think what the balance between helping other nations versus increasing their dependence on us will be!
I agree with the idea that water should be distributed by the public sector rather than a private one to prevent the basic-human need resources from market and to ensure social equality.
Moreover, it leads me to think about other resources that are somewhat required by ordinary people to maintain their life, such as gas, petrol, coal and related fossil fuels. Do you think these resources should also be kept by the government or the private companies or a situation in between.
Hi Sophia, I like that your post highlights a point that I think many of us were thinking about when we watched the documentary for this week's content. I think corporations and governments would cease to benefit off of the redistribution of water if the people and corporations of the world were able to value water, perhaps by putting a price on it using a water tax system, as many posts have suggested. I think this would lead to us all using up much less water than we do now, and thus would eliminate the need to redistribute water at all, and ceasing to perpetuate any inequalities or injustices presented by the current system we have in place, which is to not value water at all.
Hi Sophia, your post also hints at ecosystem services trading sort of. Water should be available to everyone, and I feel that redistribution may include ecosystem services (water) trading through a sustainable process.
Hi Sophia, you make a good point!! I think there's a very fine line between boosting globalization (woohoo for exporting and importing resources) and depleting your home land to the point where you ship everything off yet you cannot provide for your own :( Transporting water is a tricky one because if water from here is going all the way to somewhere in southeast asia for example, then will it really be that affordable/accessible if there's a hike-up from transportation fees? And how do we balance that idea of dependency on these already vulnerable nations. Super thought-provoking post!
hi sophia! This also bring up interesting notions of how to share "resources" among a global community- especially when the need is *so far* from the source. Water is heavy and hard to transport- should we be shipping it from water rich to water scarce areas? I am not sure...
This makes me think about how much water is needed to sustain a growing global population. If water became inaccessible to those who live within dry climates is there enough water in places such as Canada to sustain everyone, especially as climate change is increasing the serverity and duration of droughts?
This reminds me of the ecosystem services discussion we had during class. Ecosystem services should not be traded on the market. And what the Canadian government and Nestle is doing is exactly that. Nestle is essentially taking water resources from marginalized communities (Indigenous communities in Canada) profiting off of other marginalized communities (people without access to clean drinking water).
Hi Sophia, I also agree that water should be available to everyone without countries having to worry about being in debt to the water-rich nations. The thought of water not being available is hard since when we are lucky enough to be in BC, but hopefully this problem improves everywhere else as well.
Good points! It is so sad to think about the indigenous communities in Canada who still don't have access to clean drinking water - especially when we have access to so much of it! In no way should water be privatized!
Water-rich nations could instead help other places that are struggling with water, come up with new solutions to solve their problem. We could offer technology or advice on ways to use and distribute water.
I think you make a really good point bringing up water-stressed nations. It's clear that if these places cross a tipping point with regard to water availability, there will be mass migration to water-rich nations, which will then face water insecurity themselves. I agree that public sector intervention is absolutely necessary.
I also thought of Nestle during this weeks material! I think it's interesting to think about the amount of power water-rich countries have and I feel like it's a topic that's not discussed much. I wish that we prioritized getting Indigenous people clean access to water more than the profit of selling it to corporations like nestle
I agree that it would be difficult to redistribute to allow equality in access to water. I think you are correct in that corporations first need to stop benefiting from the sale of water to regions of water insecurity.