Rise of new power cartels and financial debt system. What they thirst to control next: water.

What resource is the most demanded for not only humanity but for all life on earth? Water.

From the point of view of the World Bank's Dr. Briscoe, a big part of the solution is to make the cost of water reflect its value. Now, people use it virtually for free.

Source Article: LET THEM DRINK PEPSI The Globe and Mail, August 5, 2000
www.watercrisis.net...

We are on a precarious path today, as we scramble and bicker over energy resources, oil running out, whether Obama is a Reptilian and so on, it appears the single most devastating impact of human consumption has not only gone relatively unchecked, but also perhaps deliberatly created. A crisis is being created that doesn't need to exist. Quite a farce.

What are we up for in the future?
*Privatisation of water.

*Companies with technologies to capture, divert, process or manufacture water will spring up and make a killing.

*Providing financial credit for agricultural and personal consumption from financial institutions creating a new commodity and debt system.

In elections to come, water management will be a lead political policy garnering much attention. A crisis that was totally manageable and preventable had action been taken. Be under no misconception, the economics of water will be THE resource industry being vied to control in the near future particularly in developing countries. In modern global economies and multi-national operations, it is difficult to ensure socially and regionally equitable solutions. I hope we ATsers can come up with some.

The worlds water supply it has been suggested will not only run out, but be in deficit by upto 40% in China, India, Brasil, Asia, Australia and Africa by 2030 with current population growth and over consumption.

Researched figures are provided within a report released today.What better way to control the masses globally than to privatise water.1 child dies every 15 seconds from drinking dirty water, as we worry about having our ads removed from web pages, our guns restricted, the aliens landing and so on, right in front of our very faces our controlling is being played out by Bankers and Private corporations vying to control our number one resource for life.One of their solutions: providing credit to buy water....Read on

Through research I have found the following players who appear to be the at the forefront of addressing globally the water shortage, possibly for their own economic motives.

Meet Mckinsey and Company.

Charting our water future is a report of the 2030 Water Resources Group, which was formed in 2008 to contribute new insights to the increasingly critical issue of water resource scarcity. Members include McKinsey & Company, the World Bank Group, and a consortium of business partners: The Barilla Group, The Coca Cola Company, Nestlé SA, New Holland Agriculture, SAB Miller PLC, Standard Chartered and Syngenta AG.

The McKinsey Group says water is everybody's problem and requires new government policies and investment, involvement of the private sector, efficiency measures, research and education
www.mckinsey.com...

I have read the report (being presented in Copenhagen at the Global Climate Change conference), it provides a "solution" by stakeholders....Stakeholders are classified as individuals, and countries, but then the main solution is pressed upon the private corporations and banks to assume responsibility as "stakeholders' and drive solutions.

" Governments are not the only stakeholders that matter, nor are they the only ones that need help managing water decisions. We outline a path forward for five specific private sector players who can contribute to water security solutions."

www.mckinsey.com...

The World Bank and the International Finance Company, combined with the BIG BIG BIG business giants who are users of water warns in the report that without global action, demand for water in 2030 will outstrip supply by 40 per cent, a dismal scenario indeed.

The biggest problems will be in India and China, and without concerted action, India will not be able to meet half of its water needs by 2030. In neighbouring China, the problem is even worse, with demand expected to outstrip supply by 25 per cent.

www.abc.net.au...

The cost could be between $54 billion and $64 billion, but the savings could be enormous according to the report... 64 billion in costs? That's Big Business indeed.
Whilst they provide solid discussions for individual and governmental solutions, I can't help see their summary as the crux of their solution:
Put people in debt and charge for water. Same money masters game, different product.

Financial institutions. There is wide agreement that water has suffered from chronic underinvestment. Financial institutions are likely to be an important actor in making up this shortfall. The cost curves provide such institutions with transparency on the financial costs and the technical potential of measures in the long run to close the water supply-demand gap, as well as on the barriers to their adoption, thus helping them construct credible investment theses— particularly important at a time when credit is hard to find.
Investment opportunities span all sectors—the measures that in aggregate require the most capital in each country are municipal leakage reduction in China, and water transfer schemes in São Paulo and South Africa. In India, drip irrigation offers potential for lending and equity investments alike: our analysis implies that the penetration of this technology will grow by 11 percent per year through 2030, requiring increased manufacturing capacity and credit for farmers.

Technology providers. Innovation in water technology—in everything from supply (such as desalination) to industrial efficiency (such as more efficient water reuse) to agricultural technologies (such as crop protection and irrigation controls)—could play a major role in closing the supply-demand gap. Also, many of the solutions on the cost curves developed for each country imply the scale-up of existing technologies, requiring expanded production on the part of technology providers. The cost curves provide a framework that technology providers can use to benchmark their products and services for an estimate of their market potential and costcompetitiveness with alternative solutions...... By demonstrating which measures have the greatest impact in delivering solutions, a robust fact base can also spur focused financial investments from the private sector as a key engine for reform. A number of approaches exist, from public/private water financing facilities, to public projects that create the space for private financiers to scale-up their investments, to innovative, microfinance solutions for end-users.

Policymakers, financiers, conservationists, farmers, and the private sector need to cooperate to develop and promote innovative financial tools to ensure those willing to improve their water footprint are given the opportunity—and capital—to do so. .... It is critical to ensure incentive design emphasizes the value of water productivity—for example through clearer ownership rights, appropriate tariffs, quotas, pricing, and standards—and at the same time recognizes the impacts such incentives can have on the companies’ profitability. A fact base on the economics of adoption and on the real potential of efficiency measures in such sectors can help identify and prioritize the right regulatory tools for action.

www.theage.com.au...

Following are some commonly asked questions about water management:

"Why Cant Stormwater be renewed instead of wasted"

"If 70 per cent of the freshwater on Earth is contained within the Antarctic ice sheet and each year approximately 1000 cubic kilometres of this is calved from the ice-sheet as icebergs why cant we access icebergs to be processed?.
The above point, I am just waiting on big companies to stake a claim on Antarctica in order to use that resource to sell off, perhaps I am being over the top, but deperate times will call for separate measures and if they can make a buck, they will.

"What happens when there is no water?
click below to get answers.
www.abc.net.au...


[edit on 26-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

What is the impact for North Americans?

Yet, at least in the case of the American West's recent bout with several severe water shortages, some researchers have stepped forward and confidently asserted that there does indeed exist a link between anthropogenic global warming and the scarcity - the shrinking snowpacks. At the fall meeting of the AGU, Tim P. Barnett, a climatologist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, explained that the West typically depends on a large, late-melting snowpack to replenish its reservoirs in late spring.

However, due to global warming-induced effects, the snowpack has been shrinking earlier and at a faster pace, a trend that will worsen in coming years - depriving the West of a significant source of freshwater. This, he said, would result in a large-scale "water crisis in the West." The concern for water users in the West, Barnett explained, is that while there is still the same level of precipitation as in years past, more is falling as rain instead of as snow. Dammed reservoirs already overflowing with water in the winter risk producing floods downstream; in the late spring, when the level of stored water is decreased to allow for meltwater from the snowpacks to come in, it will already have been much depleted by the warming and additional rain

.

www.treehugger.com...


An article with the World Bank, highlights sadly their solution, it appears to be: charge for it, and make money.

LET THEM DRINK PEPSI The Globe and Mail, August 5, 2000 John Briscoe, senior water adviser at the World Bank, is blunt when he describes the looming water shortage: Unless people learn to use water more efficiently, there won't be enough fresh water to sustain the Earth's population. "If nothing happens, the situation is really quite terrifying," he said. "Without innovation, you're dead." The coming water crisis is partly driven by population growth. But even more, it stems from a spirited overuse of the Earth's fresh water for agriculture, industry and all sorts of uses that turn good water bad. The Sri Lanka-based International Water Management Institute projected earlier this year that by 2025, only about a quarter of the world's population will have enough fresh water.

Roughly a third of the world's population will have too little water to meet their needs. That includes people in Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, Israel, South Africa and half of India and China. This figure even takes into account that these countries will learn to use water more efficiently. As well, about 40 per cent of the world's people will experience serious financial and development problems in their quest to find the increased amounts of water required. Among those countries are Brazil, Mexico, Australia, Nigeria and Turkey, as well as large parts of India and China.
In fact, even those frightening projections may underestimate the problem. Most scenarios don't take into account the effects of global warming. When that's taken into account, even such water-rich countries as the United States and Canada may be in for some trouble.

From the point of view of the World Bank's Dr. Briscoe, a big part of the solution is to make the cost of water reflect its value. Now, people use it virtually for free.

www.watercrisis.net...

Without water, all life ends.

Manage it within your communities before you are regulated overly or its privatised, and then we are charged to use it or forced to buy it as it becomes a glabal commodity, and then we are endebted for using this precious resource that we are all entitled to.

I'll repeat the World Banks quote, we have been warned...

"....a big part of the solution is to make the cost of water reflect its value. Now, people use it virtually for free. "


[edit on 26-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Wait a minute, Obama is a Reptilian? Show me the photos.

edit: regarding water, I'm not worried. Nuclear powered desalination plants will solve that problem easily and cheaply.

[edit on 26-11-2009 by ChristinaA]

How amazingly insightful, thank you zazz.

When they move to outlaw the collection of rainwater people will finally realize this is true.

They've already moved to this in other countries. I believe the website water crisis talks about this.

reply to post by ChristinaA


They address desalination as expensive and not viable. It works well in Dubai and Bahrain, I've seen it, however this report will be presented at the Global Climate conference and it doesnt really allude to desalination as a solution. If this report is the basis for global leaders to create policy, then the desalination premise will not be implemented, unless of course it is to be privatised and become a commodity.

Cheers Zazz

EDIT to add in Australias drought over the last decade, deslaination and sewage water filtration was reviewed and not implemented, and our major resource The Murray Darling Basin was in a critical crisis

[edit on 26-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

I don't think there is an actual shortage of water, apart from countries that are prone to droughts, of course. In my opinion the main problem is more mismanagement of the resource.

Major corporations such as Coca Cola are consuming most of the water. They are buying the water and turning it into poison. Factories etc also consume vast amounts of water

This is a scam to me, just like Global Warming. We have been conditioned for the last ten years or so to 'buy' water. How ridiculous is this, really? Buying water! Soon we will be buying 'clean' air!

And coca cola and Nestle are indeed part of the 'Cartel' putting this report together. Other scientists have researched that there will be a water deficit, but this thread is really about this report putting forward their solution to global leaders which pretty much relys on privatisation and farmers being given credit to pay for water in a ddition to individual and local management. I also believe whilst it may be a manufactured crisis, we will be in deficit as it has gone unchecked, it will be a great political pawn and economic commodity.


Also I just lived through a drought, so I am torn as I said between is this a farce to make money, and it really isnt nice not having water. The population growth and consumption rates are not made up, so we do need to address the supply versus demand.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

that population rate is so interresting, I think:

Around 1800 we were 1 bill people in the world, and 200 years after we are around 6 billion !
This year we are 6.79 billion and we reach 7 billion in 2010.

Here in Denmark, our population around 5,5 million people have been steady for decades (from 5 million in 1975)

Its clear, that world population is gonna be a problem.

I guess its just a matter of time, before "some" is gonna do something about that problem...

It took me a while but I found it.

s.787

See if you can make sense of that.

) all other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds;

Quite an interesting wording. The law now refers to the waters under jurisdiction of the government as navigable waters.

Did someone suddenly put a brake on the water cycle or what? Where is the evidence for the water cycle to stop suddenly a world over? New Zealand ain't got no water cycle issue. We have 'extreme' (a relative term) dry periods every now and then (none I can remember for long time) but very rarely, none in Auckland for years anyway. These are the same frequency they have always been for many years.

A hotter temperature in claimed global warming merely means less snow and instead, it [the snow] would fall as rain. A warmer cloud can hold more moisture anyway! Nature has its checks and balances..
If this scenario is occuring e.g. an aquifer supply only has a maximum rate of absorbtion of x and increasingly dense population ends up using y, I can see the issue. It reqiures innovative solutions like slowly capturing water as to not dry the land up, causing water to no longer reach underground reserviors or rivers. What about capturing stormwater that is normally pumped straight out to sea and ground soaking it instead?
Hotter temperatures = more air moving upwards from surface insolation = more evaporation from the sea and land = more moisture into the air = more updraughts to build clouds = bigger clouds = bigger raindrops and massive falls, especially in cumuloform clouds. The same moisture that just came from the land or sea around an area is now falling on it, where appropriate conditions are met: frontal airmass lifting (two or more large bodies of air with one warmer than the other going on top), surface convergance of air (air rises and you get low pressure), orographic rainfall due to landmass forcing air upwards, advection of moisture (fog moving over cold surface) and thermal lifting like you get in a large, hot, asphalt carpark. The adiabatic process responsible details that as air rises and cools, its pressure decreases and it expands. This expansion means less air molecules to hold the water molecules which cannot be compressed or expanded. Eventually gravity wins then rain comes and hits you when you get off ATS and go outside

Unless the entire, local, affected climate changed into a desert because of removal of vegetation, I don't see why the water cycle can suddenly stop.

Global “dimming” and “brightening,” the decrease and subsequent increase in solar downwelling flux reaching the surface observed in many locations over the past several decades, and related issues are examined using satellite data from the NASA/Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Surface Radiation Budget (SRB) product, version 2.8. A 2.51 W m−2 decade−1 dimming is found between 1983 and 1991, followed by 3.17 W m−2 decade−1 brightening from 1991 to 1999, returning to 5.26 W m−2 decade−1 dimming over 1999–2004 in the SRB global mean.

www.agu.org...

Obviously some desert places will need a different solution with no nearby sea to call upon. Moisture is in the air almost always and can make up to 4% of the atmosphere. Why not get your water from the atmosphere like animals and insects do? Nature has a solution for almost anything already.

I agree that over irrigation, various factories and a denser population could constrain water supplies a little if using a reserve based system e.g. massive storage dams for dry periods (or aquifer example previously). However in places where it is most importantly measured, its cycle understood and then managed where appropriate for the largest users, I do not see the issue. How do you destroy water? It can re-associate. Contamination is also interesting - can water evaporate and pollution remain attached to it, from the sea?

ga.water.usgs.gov...
Interesting bit of reading about the water cycle from the horses mouth.

Privatising = more costs. It's only for profit and big business lobby, not for you, or the govt would care enough to do it instead...

In regards to water cycle slowing, most of the google results throw up: 'could geoengineering slow the water cycle' repeated a million times. Of course.. desertification is not a good thing. Sprawling out everywhere and leaving little to no green bits for vegetation transpiration, water storage, ground integrity preserving and many other reasons is not a good idea... I guess nature does not have an easy cure for people not thinking, other than death. Darwin might have been onto something more than he imagined.

[edit on 26/11/09 by GhostR1der]

I think water your right, is the only thing these people in the enviroment movement have going for them.





[edit on 11/26/2009 by andy1033]

Interesting piece, thanks for sharing.

Indeed in certain areas of the globe drought is becoming more of a problem each year. Though there are various different reasons for the different areas around the World. I don't think it's only related to population growth.

Over half of the World's population lives in Asia. A continent already in short supply of fresh water for a very long time, this is nothing new to them. The West never cared about it until we started to have problems here and suddenly it's worth discussing because some people see $ to make from it.

From a global perspective, we see that Urban areas account for only 3-4% of the World's land mass, but hold roughly half of the total population. This means we are far from evenly spread across the globe. Of course not all land area is habitable but this is where the main problems arise. Rural populations in most areas are stable or declining. The cities are using up water supplies which used to supply farmland, leaving the farmers no choice but to test their luck in the city as well, only increasing the problem.

In my opinion there should be more than enough fresh water to go around, but it's the population concentration that's the issue. This is the same the world over. The monetary system is the primary cause of this, because nowadays if you don't have money, you can't obtain the resources you require in order to stay alive. In the past, no money was needed to survive in a rural area, you could just trade what you grew with your neighbours. And the only place to get a decent paying job is in a city. We shouldn't blame the poor people in the densely populated areas for this, we created the problem ourselves (the rich industrialised nations)

'We' don't only want to control the natural resources, but also what everyone is allowed to grow and eat (think of the likes of Codex Alimentarius and Monsanto etc)

And to think that all of the above is merely humanity's own doing, we also have a climate which is changing. Some places don't see a drop of rain for years, where others are flooded every year. Environmental migration will become more of a problem in the coming time. And all those migrations will be to urban areas, no matter where they came from. Just think of what will happen if the Seawater level would really rise. Coastal areas are the most densely poplated.

People who live in poverty are in survival mode. They don't care about the environment, they live from day to day and worry only about having something to eat & drink. Even if they cause a global crisis, pointing fingers at them isn't going to help anyone. It is up to the wealthier nations to recognise this and help us all out instead of trying to make more money off the backs of the poor. Making fresh water a commercial commodity will only make for more poverty. More poverty means less people who care about the environment, and the snowball just keeps rolling down the hill, getting bigger and bigger and eventually taking all of humanity down with it (although I'm not so sure if that's such a bad thing in the end...)

Star and Flag - this is important theme and was well presented by OP. I'll compile my thoughts on long time soil/water pollution here.
Now just one remark: "innovative financial tools" should raise red flag every time ...

reply to post by GhostR1der


The water cycle will not suddenly stop, it will out strip supply by up to 40% is what is being claimed, given current population growth, and wasted consumption this figure though possibly exagerated, will still happen, its simple supply and demand economics.

My New Zealand cousins are indeed lucky, and you have pretty good enviromental government management, though you never know who gets in to power over the next 30 years....

Who knows mabe some clever poppet will sell off your water to China or Australia we are your neighbour afterall? Natural resources are easily transported, look out for a pipeline being developed, then you being asked to restrict your water consumption to offset the sale.....they do it with gas world wide, why not water? The Russians have had a stranglehold on Europe with their gas supply.

Think privatisation and technological companies springing up to either capture, divert, process or create water as awell as under supply, the money masters have long arms to reach the south......

I'll reiterate having lived in a country with a drought, water restrictions are not fun, it was a matter of months perhaps if we didnt get rainfall before our personal supply was restrcited also. Water is essential for life, but is now seen as THE commodity.



[edit on 26-11-2009 by zazzafrazz]

Here in the UK, our county was selling water by the tanker
truck-full to another county a few years ago.
I can only assume it's still going on.

But i suppose the folk of Cockermouth and Workington
in the North-West will be happy right now for someone to
take the water off their hands.

Originally posted by Seiko
How amazingly insightful, thank you zazz.

When they move to outlaw the collection of rainwater people will finally realize this is true.

Hate to be the bearer of bad news....

Who owns Colorado's rainwater?

Currently under Utah law the state owns rainwater. However, there is a bill being drafted (Bill 128) which will allow residents to collect up to 2,500 gallons at a time, whatever that means.

There is on the market a water cooler which makes water from the ambient humidity in the air. I was researching alternatives to our fluoridated water supply and ran across it.

reply to post by Rapscallion


I was thinking on a federal level. The link to the new fed bill might shine light on what I meant.

the world is 70% water. im more worried about obama being an alien.

Originally posted by Seiko
How amazingly insightful, thank you zazz.

When they move to outlaw the collection of rainwater people will finally realize this is true.

They've already moved to this in other countries. I believe the website water crisis talks about this.

Last summer, in Colorada, my newspaper reported on a woman sued by the local authorities because she was collecting rain water as her right to do so. She lost her case. She was found by the court to not own the water and legally could not claim it as hers.

Old news, but as to the issue, (look up "Seven Sisters" water Conglomerates.)(7 major and 3 minor co.s who currently control 80-90% of global potable water supplies.

I don't know if this statement will be considered off limits, but look at my title line#2 "2010 Govenor of California", I am going to be running for Govna' of CA, next year! As An "Official Write-In Candidate" (no political party as they are "Criminal Gangs" used to keep "Real People" from attaining public office.

One of the first things I am going to do is Build a couple dozen gigantic de-sal plants up and down the Coast, build pipelines EAST to the ca. border and offer cheap water to inland states, earn revenue(not for welfare)/help water(adjoining states can hook into the pipelines at a resonable fee) America!

I will be posting Ca. National Guardsmen(after recalling them from anywhere they're at outside Ca., Hence "California" natl. guard!) at Sites to protect projects. If any Unions/Enviro-wackos/Feds try to stop us, they will be shot on site, yes, the Gov. has that right!

Thanx, I will reveal who I am later as I don't want to give the "Commie Scum" time to slander me before the election!