DescentBB

Well I’ve been saying for years we need to build reservoirs and piping systems, but the problem is, the US government is carrying such a huge debt load, there is no room to float bonds for major works projects, because the market is saturated with debt bonds.

(one of those intangible affects, TG was asking about)

What can we do…what we always do…wait till there is a crisis, then fix things.

woodchip wrote:Can't argue with you there slick

don't worry,woody.....we all have moments like that.

not averse, as you know, Spidey, to using debt to finance core infrastructure, I still have to think that pipeline/reservoir thing could get real pricey were it large enough to cope with California alone, let alone other regional shortfalls across the South/Southwest/Plains parts of the nation. One massive usage of money(albeit to generate other assets) is hydraulic fracture extraction of oil and gas. California shoots a few billion gallons of water that is rendered unusable, and essentially never again usable due to toxins and low level radiation. Therein lies another 'sustainability' issue around human behavior. There is no need to consume anything close to what Americans use, and in fact as much as most of the 'civilized' world uses. Were that power drain not so strong, and growing, we'd have a lot less eco-hostile options to accept by way of coal, oil, gas, nuclear. Some of that can be laid at the feet of 'capitalism' I suppose, but most is human egos needing the most toys. As I used to note, when living in Berks County, PA, the Amish will have the last laugh on us yet, along with the Mennonites.....

Any water is recoverable from toxins, it’s called distillation, the natural hydro cycle does it all the time. No, you couldn’t use the water directly from the ground, as in well water, but as soon as that water is evaporated by natural processes, it will become clean again.

There are actually some substances that evaporate at the same rate as water, and tend to move along with it, but those substances are diluted to safe levels as the water returns to the world’s hydro system. (as well as being removed by other natural processes)

The real problem is contaminating the areas water table, and should be avoided.

We are on the verge of desalination becoming a viable option for places like California. So, what we do about the water shortage? What we always do....we wait until we have no choice but to do something difficult and/or expensive and then we do it.

desalination, as I've understood it, is STILL far more expensive than water purification plants treating human waste water. For California's needs, the costs would be massive.

Spidey wrote:Any water is recoverable from toxins, it’s called distillation, the natural hydro cycle does it all the time. No, you couldn’t use the water directly from the ground, as in well water, but as soon as that water is evaporated by natural processes, it will become clean again.

There are actually some substances that evaporate at the same rate as water, and tend to move along with it, but those substances are diluted to safe levels as the water returns to the world’s hydro system. (as well as being removed by other natural processes)

The real problem is contaminating the areas water table, and should be avoided.

can you show me a paper which demonstrates speedy distillation purification of water containing radium or strontium? I'm not aware of being able to distill away solubilized radioactive elements to a potable degree. Not that I'd not imagine it COULD be done, but just not aware of any examples of us putting treated radioactive waste on food crops or into public water supplies.

I didn’t say a word about speedy distillation. There is no immediate need to purify that particular water…it’s not like the oceans are about to run out of water, because a small percentage of it is placed out of circulation for a relatively short (in geological terms) time.

But hey…you go right on ahead arguing with that imaginary Spidey.

callmeslick wrote:desalination, as I've understood it, is STILL far more expensive than water purification plants treating human waste water. For California's needs, the costs would be massive.

It is now only a 2:1 cost increase thanks to filtration technology rapidly improving. It was 20:1 not too many years back, so it is moving toward viability.

Shale oil reserves, of which North America has in abundance, were too expensive to extract but the price of oil rose so high that it started to look like a reasonable pursuit until the price of oil dropped. So where we set the tipping point can sometimes change.

There is no market factor driving water to be scarce and could be reversed.
So, my point is, If water remains scarce the cost that lack of water imparts to the economy could soon rise enough to make the cost of desalination viable.

Governor of CA already said desalination is in the works.

Oh and to the point of the expense of a national water storage system’s cost, yes, it would cost a huge amount of money and resources…but I never said we should build it overnight, I would envision something on that scale to take many decades. (at least 10)

Weigh that against the cost of not doing it in the face of climate change.

Spidey wrote:Governor of CA already said desalination is in the works.

Oh and to the point of the expense of a national water storage system’s cost, yes, it would cost a huge amount of money and resources…but I never said we should build it overnight, I would envision something on that scale to take many decades. (at least 10)

Weigh that against the cost of not doing it in the face of climate change.

true, and valid points all.....my cynicism stems from the fact that getting this nation and its government to do anything by way of long-term committment to very real needs seems near-impossible.

Hell on Earth

You will not see this in the commercial for the latest Apple widget. The news channel will show you the line of happy customers stretching around the building while taking ad dollars from technology companies.

Capitalists inform us.

Vander wrote:

How does Freedom and Self-Determination play into this? Are we rational actors in our survival? Do we know what we're doing and choose to do it anyways? Do we choose Freedom and our long term death over living under the thrall of being beholden to environmental sustainability? I mean, that's one of our cherished sayings isn't it? "Give me liberty or give me death." I suppose it's a valid choice. Many people choose to die for a cause or way of life.

The first question in response, if sustainability is crucial, why would a nation allow unlimited and uncontrolled immigration? At one time it was important to have a flood of immigrants to build the country up. With 300 million Americans, do we still need mass immigration. More importantly do we need a influx of ignorant people who have no concept of sustainability nor the economics to aid the goal of environmentalism? Poverty does not promote a desire to recycle. Having traveled in Honduras, Mexico and Uruguay, I could clearly see how trash is handled and it ain't pretty.

Your question of freedom and sustainability would appear to be subsumed by a calculated lust for political power.

wow, Xenophobia rears its ugly head..............like immigration is draining our resources, compared to gross overconsumption of the natives.

oh, yeah, you travelled to Central America, you know all about it.......

woodchip wrote:The first question in response, if sustainability is crucial, why would a nation allow unlimited and uncontrolled immigration? At one time it was important to have a flood of immigrants to build the country up. With 300 million Americans, do we still need mass immigration. More importantly do we need a influx of ignorant people who have no concept of sustainability nor the economics to aid the goal of environmentalism? Poverty does not promote a desire to recycle. Having traveled in Honduras, Mexico and Uruguay, I could clearly see how trash is handled and it ain't pretty.

I'm coming at this from a different, less jingoistic angle as you. You seem to look at this as our tribe and their tribe. We are a single tribe. This is a global human issue. National boundries are completely irrelevant to our ecosystem. They are arbitrary lines on a map we create to divide ourselves up. Ignorant people with no concept of sustainability are just as dangerous on either side of these imaginary lines. Pollution does not stop at a border. The fish do not know who "owns" the territory they swim through.

So, to answer your question: Yes, there is probably benefit or necessity in limiting regional population. (think Southern California) But that has little to do with your hatred of illegal immigrants, and the politicians you think enable their presence. Perhaps if we didn't spend the last century looking down our nose at them, destabilizing them, and arming them for capitalist conquest, we wouldn't see the strife that drives them north.

Stop thinking petty and small. The world depends on it.

callmeslick wrote:wow, Xenophobia rears its ugly head..............like immigration is draining our resources, compared to gross overconsumption of the natives.

oh, yeah, you travelled to Central America, you know all about it.......

Once again you parried and missed the thrust. First, where's the xenophobia as I mentioned no nationality. Second you your epee got tangled up in your foil as the question was why import more bodies if we have too many already.

Vander when you say arming does that include arming the drug dealers ala Fast and Furious? Do the third world countries not have the ability to band together for mutual economic benefit? Perhaps if their leadership hadn't worried about how much they could rape the land and citizenry, they wouldn't have to have their population want to leave.

Yes woodchip. Of course I was talking about some horribly irrelevant "scandal."

I apologize. I should not have followed you down the rabbit hole.

and this is the point where a discussion in EnC has a horrible explosion in the air; crashes into the ground creating a crater and scattering its pieces in a three mile radius.