World running dry

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by gerrit

This is my point exactly. These are the kind of things governments should be doing.

Perhaps you didn’t bother reading my post that you quoted from. Sewage in Australia is a State GOVERNMENT responsibility. The corporations involved are wholly owned by the State Governments. Some examples, before you accuse me of lying again.

http://www.melbournewater.com.au/con...who_we_are.asp
Who we are
About Us - SA Water

Originally Posted by gerrit

Corporate-sponsored media is not always all that reliable.
Just because an event was a blip on the news doesn't mean that it wasn't something to be considered as important.

For example,
I attended a rally on Parliament hill to protest the Security & Prosperity Partnership along with hundreds of other angry protesters.

The event was barely even mentioned in the local news

I would hardly consider a couple of hundred people in a country of 33 million to be fierce opposition. More people turned up on the steps of Parliament here when Greece won the European Cup.

I am still waiting for that apology.

[gerrit]

[quote=Cricket Tragic;253190]This must be a different Australia to the one I live in. Perhaps it is one on a different planet? Or maybe in a different Universe?

Monitoring of raw sewage has nothing to do with either the Federal Government in Australia, nor with its water supplies.



This is what you wrote.

[gerrit]

[quote=Cricket Tragic;253299]Perhaps you didn’t bother reading my post that you quoted from. Sewage in Australia is a State GOVERNMENT responsibility. The corporations involved are wholly owned by the State Governments. Some examples, before you accuse me of lying again.

QUOTE]

Don't you think that federal government needs to have national water policies in place? I do; especially when it comes the export of water.

Anyway, I accused you of hiding the truth on the fierce opposition to Australian Coca-Cola plants, not this.

For this, I'll take the word of highly acclaimed activist and author, Maude Barlow, over yours any day.

[gerrit]

[quote=Richard;249783]

Water can be traded internationally but it's expensive to do so, e.g. it could be transported from Canada to Africa. QUOTE]


Getting back to the massive small container water diversion of Great Lake waters.

As I understand it, you live in England so maybe this next fact doesn't immediately register with you. Canada and the U.S. are big countries.
Transporting water from coast to coast in these countries is just as devastating as losing water abroad because it doesn't take very long for the water to leave its original basin.

I know for a fact that Canadian (Belgian owned) beer giant, Labatt's delivers its products from coast to coast.

I know this because I used to deliver "test bottles" to Labatt's in London, Ontario. "Test bottles" are newly designed bottles that are added to long distance loads to see how they fare in transport.

There's an enormous amount of water leaving the Great Lakes basin in small containers. The 5.7 gallon cap doesn't affect these companies and even if they do their products can easily be repackaged.

The Great Lakes Compact needs to be amended.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by gerrit

This is what you wrote.

Perhaps next time you might like to accurately quote what I wrote.

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

This must be a different Australia to the one I live in. Perhaps it is one on a different planet? Or maybe in a different Universe?

Monitoring of raw sewage has nothing to do with either the Federal Government in Australia, nor with its water supplies. Sewage, like water management, is a state responsibility in Australia.

Just so you don’t accuse me of lying again, here is the link to the post so you can check. World running dry

Originally Posted by gerrit

Anyway, I accused you of hiding the truth on the fierce opposition to Australian Coca-Cola plants, not this.

For this, I'll take the word of highly acclaimed activist and author, Maude Barlow, over yours any day.

Perhaps you might ask Maude Barlow how come 20 million Australians haven’t noticed this fierce opposition to Australian Coca Cola plants. While you are at it, you might also ask her where all those phantom Coca Cola plants that the Howard Government authorized are? Perhaps they are all Back’o’Burke or hiding out on the Oodnadatta track where no one can see them? Or perhaps there is a plant or two in Come-by-Chance? Or Dumbleyung, or maybe Chinkapook?

Haven’t you twigged yet? Maude Barlow is stringing you a line about Australia. Just about every ‘fact’ you have quoted from the book about Australia is wrong and easily demonstrated as wrong.

[gerrit]

I realize my post on perma-link #104 was off-topic to what Richard's quote was originally about, but I thought that what I wrote needed to be said.

[gerrit]

Originally Posted by Cricket Tragic

Haven’t you twigged yet? Maude Barlow is stringing you a line about Australia. Just about every ‘fact’ you have quoted from the book about Australia is wrong and easily demonstrated as wrong.

My comments seem wrong to you because sadly you've been believing propaganda dished out by corporate-sponsored sources. Wake up.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by gerrit

There's an enormous amount of water leaving the Great Lakes basin in small containers. The 5.7 gallon cap doesn't affect these companies and even if they do their products can easily be repackaged.

It's a question of degrees though. CT posted some stats a while back about the amount of water the commercial sector abstracts from the Great Lakes region compared to industry, agriculture and power generation. Commercial abstractions are only small compared to other uses so it would make more sense to tackle the larger users first (not exclusively perhaps but to concentrate most of the effort and resources you have here).

It is a similar situation in most parts of the world. Commercial abstractions tend to be small compared to other sectors. Even if you could stop all commercial abstractions it would not make a significant difference in most cases. If you stopped all commercial abstraction from the Great Lakes would it make much noticable difference to the long-term management of the basin?

[gerrit]

[quote=Richard;253463]It's a question of degrees though. CT posted some stats a while back about the amount of water the commercial sector abstracts from the Great Lakes region compared to industry, agriculture and QUOTE]

Does CT stand for Cricket Tragic?

If so, I can just imagine how inaccurate these stats would likely be and the dubious sources they might have come from.

I don't really think that I believe you on what you think is the actual amount of Great Lakes water leaving the basin in small container format.

Anyway, the Compact now prevents bulk diversion by industry etc.

Bush has already signed the resolution.

[Cricket Tragic]

Originally Posted by gerrit

Does CT stand for Cricket Tragic?

If so, I can just imagine how inaccurate these stats would likely be and the dubious sources they might have come from.

For the record the sources I posted with statistics for water use in the Great Lakes came from the US Geological Services and The University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. Clearly organisations that also have “been believing propaganda dished out by corporate-sponsored sources”.

There are other reports giving rather similar values. The Great Lakes Commission’s report for 2004 puts all industrial water use in the basin at 20% of consumptive use and less than 1% of withdrawals. http://www.glc.org/wateruse/database...04-gallons.pdf ground water and other surface water included.

P.S. I am still waiting for that apology.