There's a certain negligence in countries (and even localities) migrating their water production (pg. 43) and biofuel production (pg. 49) to other countries. In essence it's externalizing the problems that the local governments are having with these resources and ignores the overall issue that demand is simply too high within that locality. If it was a matter of balancing out global demand, with some places having demand too high and some places with supply too high, then it's a simple matter of trade and economics to deal with. However the implication is that the *global* carrying capacity is lower than what is being consumed.
In a way, global trade provides a form of blinders for nations, allowing them to get the resources they need externally, while ignoring the consequences behind their purchase. 'Reduced water supply? That's their problem now. It's their water production, not ours.' It's not that trade is inherently evil, but that it makes it easier to ignore the consequences of one's actions, as the deed is being done by another at the payment of the needing nation. When the nation selling water runs out, the needing nation will look for another nation to trade with, and when there's no more nations willing to trade their water, what's left? You have a nation with a population that cannot sustain itself at its current level, and people will start dying from dehydration.
In a sense, having an unsustainable population and/or food production is genocidal.
- Jason
No comments:
Post a Comment