|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
. .. Then there are just outright absurdities like this "the U.S. wants our water!" claim that exacerbate the issues...
. |
I just wanted to focus on this part of your post because it needs a rebuttal.
Outright absurdities?
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20051128_116618_116618
When even your own president has talked about this, I fail to see how you can come on here and boldly deny it in the face of such evidence.
I would like to draw your attention to Paragraphs 6,7,14 and 18 in particular. And then number 8 and 16. Better yet if you have the time read the entire article.
And just for the record, I am not one of the Not-Americans. I like America AND I support Bush. In fact I have fought a raging web war over the last 2-3 years with the Bush bashers and the anti-Americans on this forums. My reputation here(defending Bush and America) is well established on this. Point being, when even one of the most pro-American people on here tells you that there is a image problem (on certain issues) it might be wise to listen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think something that should be pointed out in this discussion is, regardless of the merits for and against exporting water to the US, there are some practical details that may preclude it from ever happening.
First of all, how do you "sell" water? From what I understand of resource and environmental law in Canada, unless it's bottled and trucked, it's not clear who has the legal mandate to pipe or transport water from one natural water body to another. I don't think private companies can do it, because as far as I know freshwater is (technically) public property. But although it's public property, I don't think it's clear that the federal government has the right/mandate to "sell" it, in the way that water exporters conceive it.
In fact, I don't think it's very clear under the Canadian Constitution that the federal government even has the right to export water.
Second, any large-scale transfers of water would be subject to review under the Federal Environmental Assessment and Review Process. The federal EARP in Canada kicks in if there are significant environmental impacts of a project, or significant public interest/concern about potential environmental effects. Any water exports are likely to have deleterious environmental effects on the local environment (watershed, lake, etc.), so the federal EARP is likely to rule against allowing a particular water export project.
Third, water is not really 'priced' in Canada. Companies and individuals don't pay a price to the federal government for extracting water from a water body, except for public utilities extracting water for cooling purposes in thermal and nuclear power plants. Consequently, in any discussion of water exports, there is confusion as to who would be paying the 'purchase price' of the water, and to whom would they be paying it.
In a way Ambassador Celluci is right: there is so much surface freshwater in Canada, there is so much of the resource, that it isn't really priced, in the traditional economic sense of the word. In the end, this is probably why water exports to the US will never happen. Although US users may want to buy it, there is no price incentive, a lot of price confusion, and little interest for Canada/Canadians to sell it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Urban Myth: thanks for the article.
Speaking of W. Bush, second- or third-hand...
| Quote: |
| U.S. President George W. Bush made an offhand comment that he'd like to begin discussions with Ottawa about a framework for international trade in water to alleviate shortages. |
...does not justify the "swift, shrill, and unequivocal" claims that the U.S. wants "to take [control]" of Canadian water resources, even if it does fit in with many Canadians' very erroneous worldviews on how the U.S. operates.
To its credit, the article does acknowledge what looks an awful lot like ignorance-derived stinginess on the part of many Canadians, with respect to this issue:
| Quote: |
| Whether it's inherent distrust of corporations, latent anti-Americanism, or simple fear of ecological destruction, Canadians recoil at the very thought of treating water like oil or natural gas, or any of the other commodities that form the bedrock of the Canadian economy. |
And, yes, posts like Igotthisguitar's and words like these below, are simply absurd.
| Quote: |
| "I predict that the United States will be coming after our fresh water aggressively within three to five years," former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed wrote in a recent article for the Globe and Mail. "I hope that when the day comes, Canada will be ready." |
As I acknowledged earlier in this thread, water is going to be a critical issue in international relations in the near and intermediate future. But Canadians are apparently looking at this in the typical U.S.-centric way. The problems will be in Saharan Africa and other spots.
And of course the U.S. Southwest, and other regions, too, have pressing water management issues. But more disciplined water management will go far in alleviating these issues somewhat. Many Africans don't even have this alternative.
Still, I would like to think that 30 million Canadians aren't going to selfishly and obstinately cling to such a vast water supply in the midst of what may become a global crisis simply because they are so focused on their southern neighbor, a neighbor they apparently don't understand or like, and a neighbor who, I reiterate, may certainly be thinking about water deals and exports but is not at all thinking about stealing from you.
If is frustrating that this must be explained. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Still, I would like to think that 30 million Canadians aren't going to selfishly and obstinately cling to such a vast water supply in the midst of what may become a global crisis simply because they are so focused on their southern neighbor, a neighbor they apparently don't understand or like, and a neighbor who, I reiterate, may certainly be thinking about water deals and exports but is not at all thinking about stealing from you.
|
I dont really care for the statement:
| Quote: |
| selfishly and obstinately cling to such a vast water supply |
It is a valuable natural resource and should be treated as such.
As for not understanding our neighbor to the South I would say that most Canadians understand American foreign policy quite well.
Perhaps there is some bitterness from some Canadians over the underhanded dealings of the Americans over the softwood and beef policies of the last few years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grotto wrote: |
I dont really care for the statement:
| Quote: |
| selfishly and obstinately cling to such a vast water supply |
|
Sorry to hear that. Did you read Urban Myth's article?
| Quote: |
| Canadian reaction was swift, shrill and unequivocal: "We're absolutely not going to export water, period," then-environment minister David Anderson said. The issue quickly faded from the headlines, but not from the public consciousness. Whether it's inherent distrust of corporations, latent anti-Americanism, or simple fear of ecological destruction, Canadians recoil at the very thought of treating water like oil or natural gas, or any of the other commodities that form the bedrock of the Canadian economy. |
Looks pretty selfish to me. Indeed, not only selfish, but also obstinate, particularly where this is cited...
| Quote: |
| The United Nations estimates that by 2025, two-thirds of the world population, or almost 5.5 billion people, will face chronic water shortages, and scientists expect global warming will only make things worse. |
and this...
| Quote: |
| Canada is a country of unbelievable water wealth. This country boasts more than 20 per cent of the world's fresh water, and the flow of rain, spring water and snowmelt that courses through our waterways represents seven per cent of the planet's renewable water supply -- all to satisfy the needs of just 0.5 per cent of the world's population. |
Maybe "selfish" and "obstinate" are poor choices of words, not entirely catching the nuances of what's going on. Then again, maybe not. The author, after all, chose to use "intransigent."
And digging in your heels, refusing to do all that you can -- indeed, refusing to do anything -- in the face of an increasingly likely world catastrophe because you are angry with the U.S. over softwood lumber is just plain "churlish."
In any case, I strongly suspect that part of this issue is related to the Canadian govt's smug and condescending style of opposing the U.S. on Iraq...so do not pretend that, suddenly, an innocent and virtuous Canada was betrayed by an underhanded U.S. for no apparent reason on softwood lumber. Because it takes two to tango, and if Canada and the U.S. are tangled up in a complicated tango at present, it is because both parties have let things get out of hand, and neither of the two has made sufficient effort to reconcile the differences. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| I think something that should be pointed out in this discussion is, regardless of the merits for and against exporting water to the US, there are some practical details that may preclude it from ever happening... |
Good post, Manner of Speaking.
I'll wager, though, that as the global crisis picks up momentum, these issues will have to be dealt with in Canada, certainly in the next thirty years or so.
In any case, do you know if the Canadian govt claims "imminent domain" over Canadian lands? If so, that might be the most practical mechanism to export water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't get it. Most of the potable water is underground. You think there's a lot of water in Canada because of the lakes and rivers? That's only a fraction of what lies beneath the surface. I'd guess that's the water they would get from Canada. But, it already flows into the US because we're on the same continental plate. So, what's the whole debate about?
Last edited by Hollywoodaction on Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This article it presented to place U.S. water management issues in the Southwest in their proper global context:
| Quote: |
An estimated 11 million people in the Horn of Africa "are on the brink of starvation" because of severe drought and war, with some deaths already being reported in Kenya, the United Nations said Friday.
People in Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia need food aid, water, new livestock and seeds, the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization said in a statement.
"Millions of people are on the brink of starvation in the Horn of Africa due to recent severe droughts coupled with the effects of past and ongoing conflicts," the agency said.
FAO economist Shukri Ahmed said the region's dry season had begun and the rains forecast for March and April were not expected to be significant.
Normally, the herdsmen of the area would move from place to place for water and food for their livestock, but the recent drought had covered too large a swath of territory for them, Ahmed said.
"The whole area is affected," he said. "The situation is deteriorating."
The food situation in Somalia and eastern Kenya is particularly serious, FAO said. Ahmed said local newspapers, citing Kenyan medical officials, have reported at least 30 famine-related deaths.
The government of Kenya has said its efforts to distribute food to famine-stricken areas in its north have been hampered by the nation's nomadic culture and poor infrastructure. President Mwai Kibaki has declared a national disaster.
In Somalia, the secondary rainy season from October to December failed in most of the eight agricultural regions in the south, "resulting in widespread crop failure" that could be the worst in a decade, the agency said.
The country of 7 million that has not had an effective government since clan-based warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. Warlords then turned on each other.
Nearly 150,000 people in Djibouti -- or almost a fifth of the population -- are believed to be facing food shortages because of severe drought conditions, FAO said.
In Ethiopia, severe food shortages have been reported in the east and south, even though the prospects for the current harvest were favorable, the agency said. It said more than $40 million in aid was needed to stave off starvation.
About 3,000 U.N. soldiers guard the frontier between longtime enemies Ethiopia and Eritrea after a two-year war ended in 2000. Tensions have risen in recent weeks, with both countries massing troops along border and Eritrea restricting peacekeeping activities.
Ahmed said the United Nations had not yet issued a consolidated appeal for the Horn of Africa, but may do so now that the situation was worsening.
The World Food Program has said Somalia needed 64,000 tons of food aid through June, but only 16,700 tons had been donated. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/01/06/africa.starving.ap/index.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Not to mention, if America is good at anything, it's creating new technology especially when it's needed. When lagging behind in the space race, they decided they wanted to be number one, and they got there. If chronic water shortages appear, that just means that American scientists will start focusing more on it (though they should probably start focusing on it now and leave things like a lot of it's military program alone, but that is just my opinion), and I am sure that they will come up with a way to renew a lot of their water. Like people said, it is in third world countries we should be focusing this discussion on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grotto
Joined: 21 Mar 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In any case, I strongly suspect that part of this issue is related to the Canadian govt's smug and condescending style of opposing the U.S. on Iraq...so do not pretend that, suddenly, an innocent and virtuous Canada was betrayed by an underhanded U.S. for no apparent reason on softwood lumber. Because it takes two to tango, and if Canada and the U.S. are tangled up in a complicated tango at present, it is because both parties have let things get out of hand, and neither of the two has made sufficient effort to reconcile the differences. |
thats funny.....smug and condescending...Canada said 'we havent seen sufficient evidence of WOMD to support invading Iraq'
Which time has proven true. American ?intelligence  agencies lied in order to get the go ahead to establish a further military presence in the middle east.
I love your segway on how you justify stealing 5 billion dollars from Canada because Canada didnt back the US up on invading Iraq. 
The states never apoligise, they havent apologised to Cuba yet...Their ongoing boycott and prosecution of Cubans is one of the biggest sulk jobs by any nation in history 
Selfish...hmmm. Typical American attitude...HEY! WE WANT YOUR OIL...GIVE IT TO US...HEY YOU! WE WANT YOUR WATER!!!
Sorry NO! We will not sell you our water!
BUT WE WANT IT YOU SELFISH CANUCKS!
Perhaps if you learned how to manage the resources you have tha...
SCREW YOU! GIVE US YOUR WATER BEFORE WE KICK YER ASSES
Nope...We are not going to give you our water.
| Quote: |
| And digging in your heels, refusing to do all that you can -- indeed, refusing to do anything -- in the face of an increasingly likely world catastrophe because you are angry with the U.S. over softwood lumber is just plain "churlish." |
When the American government starts doing something about acid rain, pollution and global warming then we can talk.
As to the world catastrophe....exporting water isnt going to help or solve the problem. Too many people living in some places is the biggest problem. Forests being destroyed for lumber or just to clear land for farming, grasslands being overgrazed increasing erosion, populations putting too much of a demand on the resources they have.
I could sit here and state honestly and factually that: If the USA spent as much money alleviating world suffering as it does on its military there would be no world suffering.
I have often found it curious that deals Americans make with other countries end up benefitting the Americans far more than the country they made the deal with. Does the term "short end of the stick" mean anything to you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pyongshin Sangja
Joined: 20 Apr 2003
Location: I love baby!
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| a neighbor who, I reiterate, may certainly be thinking about water deals and exports but is not at all thinking about stealing from you. |
Would you stop spreading such mis-information? The only reason the criminals in the White House haven't moved on our water yet is that they are too busy turning your country into a dictatorship. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hogwonguy1979
Joined: 22 Dec 2003
Location: the racoon den
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
This article it presented to place U.S. water management issues in the Southwest in their proper global context:
| Quote: |
An estimated 11 million people in the Horn of Africa "are on the brink of starvation" because of severe drought and war, with some deaths already being reported in Kenya, the United Nations said Friday.
People in Somalia, Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia need food aid, water, new livestock and seeds, the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organization said in a statement.
"Millions of people are on the brink of starvation in the Horn of Africa due to recent severe droughts coupled with the effects of past and ongoing conflicts," the agency said.
FAO economist Shukri Ahmed said the region's dry season had begun and the rains forecast for March and April were not expected to be significant.
Normally, the herdsmen of the area would move from place to place for water and food for their livestock, but the recent drought had covered too large a swath of territory for them, Ahmed said.
"The whole area is affected," he said. "The situation is deteriorating."
The food situation in Somalia and eastern Kenya is particularly serious, FAO said. Ahmed said local newspapers, citing Kenyan medical officials, have reported at least 30 famine-related deaths.
The government of Kenya has said its efforts to distribute food to famine-stricken areas in its north have been hampered by the nation's nomadic culture and poor infrastructure. President Mwai Kibaki has declared a national disaster.
In Somalia, the secondary rainy season from October to December failed in most of the eight agricultural regions in the south, "resulting in widespread crop failure" that could be the worst in a decade, the agency said.
The country of 7 million that has not had an effective government since clan-based warlords overthrew dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. Warlords then turned on each other.
Nearly 150,000 people in Djibouti -- or almost a fifth of the population -- are believed to be facing food shortages because of severe drought conditions, FAO said.
In Ethiopia, severe food shortages have been reported in the east and south, even though the prospects for the current harvest were favorable, the agency said. It said more than $40 million in aid was needed to stave off starvation.
About 3,000 U.N. soldiers guard the frontier between longtime enemies Ethiopia and Eritrea after a two-year war ended in 2000. Tensions have risen in recent weeks, with both countries massing troops along border and Eritrea restricting peacekeeping activities.
Ahmed said the United Nations had not yet issued a consolidated appeal for the Horn of Africa, but may do so now that the situation was worsening.
The World Food Program has said Somalia needed 64,000 tons of food aid through June, but only 16,700 tons had been donated. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/africa/01/06/africa.starving.ap/index.html |
good article
and americans are worried that their golf courses in the desert will turn brown?
at some point though there will be a major problem meeting essential water needs for people and agriculture in the SW (anything west 100 degrees west longitude) as populations shift. As I have said before there is already been problems in San Antonio because their only source of water is the Edwards Aquifer and its level has been dropping for years |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Urban Myth: thanks for the article.
Speaking of W. Bush, second- or third-hand...
| Quote: |
| U.S. President George W. Bush made an offhand comment that he'd like to begin discussions with Ottawa about a framework for international trade in water to alleviate shortages. |
...does not justify the "swift, shrill, and unequivocal" claims that the U.S. wants "to take [control]" of Canadian water resources, even if it does fit in with many Canadians' very erroneous worldviews on how the U.S. operates.
To its credit, the article does acknowledge what looks an awful lot like ignorance-derived stinginess on the part of many Canadians, with respect to this issue:
| Quote: |
| Whether it's inherent distrust of corporations, latent anti-Americanism, or simple fear of ecological destruction, Canadians recoil at the very thought of treating water like oil or natural gas, or any of the other commodities that form the bedrock of the Canadian economy. |
And, yes, posts like Igotthisguitar's and words like these below, are simply absurd.
| Quote: |
| "I predict that the United States will be coming after our fresh water aggressively within three to five years," former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed wrote in a recent article for the Globe and Mail. "I hope that when the day comes, Canada will be ready." |
As I acknowledged earlier in this thread, water is going to be a critical issue in international relations in the near and intermediate future. But Canadians are apparently looking at this in the typical U.S.-centric way. The problems will be in Saharan Africa and other spots.
And of course the U.S. Southwest, and other regions, too, have pressing water management issues. But more disciplined water management will go far in alleviating these issues somewhat. Many Africans don't even have this alternative.
Still, I would like to think that 30 million Canadians aren't going to selfishly and obstinately cling to such a vast water supply in the midst of what may become a global crisis simply because they are so focused on their southern neighbor, a neighbor they apparently don't understand or like, and a neighbor who, I reiterate, may certainly be thinking about water deals and exports but is not at all thinking about stealing from you.
If is frustrating that this must be explained. |
It wasn't just Bush though. In the sixth paragraph it talked about dozens of communities who are trying to overturn the water agreement between the U.S and Canada.
And in paragraphs 15, 16, and 17 it talks about U.S cities who are trying to get more Canadian water.
So to call statements that theU.S wants our water absurb is simply not true. Regardless of Canadians being "selfish and obstinate" the U.S DOES want our water.
That is all I was saying. You were saying that such statements were "absurb" and I pointed out that they were not. Period. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
[
(1) In any case, I strongly suspect that part of this issue is related to the Canadian govt's smug and condescending style of opposing the U.S. on Iraq...(2) so do not pretend that, suddenly, an innocent and virtuous Canada was betrayed by an underhanded U.S. for no apparent reason on softwood lumber. (3) Because it takes two to tango, and if Canada and the U.S. are tangled up in a complicated tango at present, it is because both parties have let things get out of hand, and neither of the two has made sufficient effort to reconcile the differences. |
(numbers are mine)
1. So what you are saying is that Canada as a sovereign nation can not make up its own mind about whether or not to support the U.S?
2. The softwood lumber is a separate issue. Both the majority of NAFTA and WTO rulings (which I might add the U.S. is a signatory to) have come down firmly on Canada's side. The lastest ruling agreed with the U.S. but ONLY because the U.S. DID finally agree to lower tariffs.
3. It does take two to tango. But Canada is under NO obligation to support the U.S in ANY military operation (except as part of NATO.)
Anyway your claim that this is retaliation is not true
The Iraq war started in 2003
The dispute over softwood lumber begin in April 2001 and tariffs were imposed in 2002.
Maybe the refusal was retaliation for the softwood tariffs?
Anyway it is good to see that the U.S. is finally admitting that it was in the wrong and beginning to abide by its trade agreements. Maybe we will let you have (some) of our water if you are a good boy in future.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/HET/softwood |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pyongshin Sangja wrote: |
| The only reason the criminals in the White House haven't moved on our water yet is that they are too busy turning your country into a dictatorship. |
*wonk* *wonk* *wonk*, *wonka* *wonk* *wonk*.
You know, after a while you start to sound just like Charlie Brown's teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
