|
27 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM (#2375895) Subject: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think From: Big Mick Michigan is surrounded by one of the world's great wonders, the Great Lakes. These lakes comprise the largest source of fresh water in the world. The States and Provinces that border the Lakes are in the midst of ratifying a compact that will place strict controls on the diversion of this resource away from the Great Lakes basin. This includes limits on the amount of groundwater that is taken out by companies like Nestle for sale as bottled water. I am interested in hearing other's views on who owns this water, so I will begin with my view. I believe this water belongs to the people who live in the region. It is a natural resource that should be used the advantage of those that live here. If we are lucky, that is in a good year, the rains and snow melt will only replenish about 1% of the water. That says to me that water that is used or sold cannot exceed that number or you start to diminish the resource. There are those, mostly in western and southern States that try to make the argument that these waters are a national resource and should be allowed to be piped to the desert areas or South to the areas that are struggling as the Cherokee Reservoir dries up. I remember when businesses and jobs left our area for cheap labor in the South, and for the resources of the West. So I feel that if you need the water for your business, then come back to Michigan with the jobs. The fact that an area allowed itself to be overdeveloped for the resources to support it, does not mean that we in the Great Lakes should allow our water to be strip mined to support that faulty plan. This is a crucial issue that must be examined. I fear that there is the real likelihood for armed conflict in the years to come. I must admit that I would consider drastic actions to stop the diversion of this region's most precious resource. What do you think? Does it belong to the region, the nation, or the world? All the best, Mick |
|
27 Jun 08 - 08:06 PM (#2375919) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: artbrooks "Belongs to the people who live in the region"? In a sense, but it is generally controlled by state law - which, of course, is allegedly made by the people. We (in New Mexico) see a lot of buying and selling of water rights, both between individuals and by municipalities, and this is governed by the law here. It sounds to me like the governmental entities surrounding the lakes need to make sure that water trading is covered by that compact. |
|
27 Jun 08 - 09:10 PM (#2375942) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Compacts between Canada and the U. S. on the Great Lakes- between the eight states and two provinces bordering them. A large and contentious subject. See The Great Lakes Basin Compact- Great Lakes Basin Compact Not all of the 'states' have signed this compact. Big debate in Michigan. The Detroit Free Press has some 95 articles. A June 26, 2008 article, "Water protection bills near passage"- Water Bills A rather shallow article on current debates- Water debate Diversion of water to areas far outside the Great Lakes area, I believe, would be a mistake. I would not presume to comment on water use in the Compact area; I don't know the region and its problems that well. Diversion of California water to Arizona is creating problems. California's diversion of water in the southern part of the state has damaged Mexican agriculture and the environment in a sensitive region. Artbrooks notes that water agreements must be entered into carefully. Once implemented, hard to change. Many rivers, including those in New Mexico, not only have contracts or agreements within the State, but have downstream rights granted to states beyond their borders. |
|
27 Jun 08 - 09:14 PM (#2375943) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Something wrong with my link to the Detroit Free Press, but googling the Free Press and searching for the article should find it. |
|
27 Jun 08 - 09:24 PM (#2375948) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Big Mick I believe I heard today that Michigan has reached an agreement and is in the process of getting it out for signature. |
|
27 Jun 08 - 09:24 PM (#2375949) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Janie I have a different view from you Mick,in that I think it very short-sighted to conceptualize water and other "natural resources" as primarily commodities available for immediate or near-term human consumption or economic development. I think it a grave mistake to vi doesn't "belong" to humans. It belongs to the earth. It seems to me there is ample evidence that extensive manipulation of earth resources leads to substansive imbalance in ecological systems, and these have now occurred frequently enough, on a large enough scale, and with a sufficiently large worldwide distribution, to make clear that such manipulations threaten the continued existence of many species, including, ultimately, the human species. With respect to water resources, one only need look at the West, aquifer levels, or salmon populations to understand what is at risk. The Great Lakes region is a large ecosystem in and of itself. In turn, it is part of and/or impacts an even larger ecosystem. Consider the global impact of deforestation of the Amazon rain basin. It is safe to assume that heavy manipulation and depletion of the water resources of the Great Lakes would have a global environmental impact. Man can't live without an appropriate environment. From my perspective, limiting use of the water in the Great Lakes ecosystem to the same ecosystem is the least envirnmentally degrading option. I don't know, however, that it is a good idea to encourage substantial increased local consumption by encouraging out of region heavy consumers of water to relocate to the region. Any economic relief it might add to the region is short-term, and far out-weighted by long term losses. |
|
27 Jun 08 - 09:28 PM (#2375952) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Big Mick Fair enough, Janie. But I am not advocating mass relocation. What I am saying is that the water should not be diverted to other regions. I view the resource much the same as you, and simply set a few predicates for the discussion. You will note that I mentioned the overdevelopement based on available resources in other areas. Mick |
|
27 Jun 08 - 10:42 PM (#2375971) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: open mike we are dealing with similar concerns in calif. water wars may be the next territorial dispute as population growth stretches the resources on our planet. several aquaducts have been constructed which carry water from northern tho southern calif. and there is a plan to pump water from the aquifer below the ground to send down south, too. this great lakes situation involves international issues, and I hope it will be resolved in a way that the most will be served by the outcome. (the google ad below says "Why to invest in Water companies, and how to profit from a global crisis") Yikes! |
|
28 Jun 08 - 12:45 AM (#2376017) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Escapee You're absolutely right, Mick. The lakes are too precious to waste on bankrupt development schemes. All that water is already being used right where it is. In addition to all the human activities the lakes support, the needs of the critters need to be considered, and not just the walleye, waterfowl and other commercially important species. In addition to keeping the water where it belongs, we need to do more to keep other water out, specifically, ballast water from foreign freighters which has introduced zebra mussels, round gobies and God knows what else into the lakes because its inconvenient to exchange ballast water at sea. Considerable damage has been done to the Great Lakes and and it must be addressed now if we're to save any of the system for anyone. Fair winds and Following (fresh-water) Seas, SKP (on the shores of Lake Erie) |
|
28 Jun 08 - 01:20 AM (#2376028) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: katlaughing I agree the water should be kept within the region and kept as ecologically sound as possible. There have been water wars in the West since it was settled; the last, recent, big fight I knew of was the eastern slope of Colorado wanting to literally put a "giant straw" at the border of western Colorado and Utah, to suck up some of the Colorado River and get it back over to the burgeoning eastern slope before it went out of the state. So far they have not been allowed to do so. The Colorado waters so much of the West. Wyoming literally has no water left of its own as it has sold it all down stream. Rog had a handout some gov. guy gave him a few years ago which explained where it all went. People have been killed over water rights out here forever. My great-granddad went to court several times over water and grazing rights and finally had to defend himself, lethally, against the neighbour who came gunning for him over it all when the courts couldn't settle it. My brother was greeted by a neighbour, toting a shotgun, when he went to let down some irrigation water one day. There's so much this country and others could do to conserve so much more water so that this wouldn't be so much of an issue. We do NOT need to move water from one region to another to make the latter less of a desert or whatever other natural habitat it may be. Things always get screwy when we mess with Mother Nature. |
|
28 Jun 08 - 01:33 PM (#2376226) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Peter T. I have always been in favour of diverting water. I mean, think of all the ways in which water diverts us -- it splashes, it rains down, it shimmers, and -- as the Taoists point out -- it remains humble. Should we not occasionally do the same in reciprocity? Now, I will admit that the sight of certain people (none of whom are Mudcatters) in bathing suits is somewhat diverting, but hardly enough. No. We need to engage in more diversions for water, including for example, more concerts by the water. Not to mention side trips. When was the last time you took water inland for a vacation, and a little sightseeing? yours, Peter T. |
|
28 Jun 08 - 01:43 PM (#2376234) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Muswell Hillbilly I was forst of all half convinced that Peter T was serious, then I pondered on what he was smoking when he typed his post, themn I back tracked upon realising the boyo was PERFECTLY serious.Leave the Grat Lakes alone, if you're so enamoured with them why not live next to one of the lakes, then you can enjoy it, and it can enjoy you (maybe) |
|
28 Jun 08 - 02:00 PM (#2376242) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Amos Peter needs education, is all. He has never been indoctrinated into the mystery of all Mysteries--that the human form was invented by water, as a convenient way to get from place to place. A |
|
28 Jun 08 - 03:08 PM (#2376271) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Peter T. Old Irish Woman: "You call that tea? When I makes tea, I makes tea, and when I makes water I makes water." Tea Drinker: "Mind you don't make them in the same place." (after James Joyce, Ulysses). yours, Peter T. |
|
28 Jun 08 - 03:14 PM (#2376276) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: John on the Sunset Coast Send all HOMES waters to southern California!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
28 Jun 08 - 03:47 PM (#2376289) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Muswell Hillbilly Next he'll be tellin' us that James Joyce is his favourite bedtime reading ....... |
|
28 Jun 08 - 04:55 PM (#2376320) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Art Thieme Mick, As I am fond of saying, "Necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows"----if ya know what I mean. If the need is deemed necessary, it will happen. Not now, but later. Art |
|
28 Jun 08 - 05:14 PM (#2376335) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Bobert Billions and billions of gallons of water flood the Mississippi valley about every other year and figure out that it is potentially usable for agriculture and treatment for drinking water... I'd say that what we need is some WPA, CCC, TVA thinking and some sacrifices and we could divert flood waters to reseviors west of the Mississppi for later use... And save us a ton in flood damages... Leave the friggin' lakes alone!!! God put 'um there fir a reason... And speaking og God, for God's sake don't let the Bush people get involved in this or they will be selling the Lakes off to some corporation which will privatize 'um... Thems is my thoughts... B~ |
|
28 Jun 08 - 09:22 PM (#2376425) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: GUEST,pattyClink We have allowed population centers in the Western states to develop completely unsustainable societies and economies where their existence depends on either 'mining' the aquifers or siphoning OPW. (Other People's Water). We have dense tracts of people living in desert lands, wholly dependent on water compacts for their existence. We have Central Valley farmers growing cotton and Arizona farmers growing pecans and Californians drawing down water tables to grow apricots. This stuff needs to be grown in Michigan and Mississippi and places where a lot of water actually falls from the sky. Our tax codes and shipping costs and water bills need to start reflecting this reality instead of encouraging stupid growth in all the wrong places. Anyway, yes, the water is regional, it belongs to the hydrologic regime where God put it. And the people there need to not outsource their water like their jobs were outsourced. Because the corporations who want to outsource your water have the same aims in mind as the ones who outsourced your jobs. And that is some variation on a theme of 'screw you so I can make 10 billion this quarter because I am an unaccountable greedy pig'. |
|
28 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM (#2376442) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: GUEST,heric sharing |
|
28 Jun 08 - 10:27 PM (#2376458) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Janie Sharing for what purpose, heric? To what end? pattyClink, I agree with you, but I would go further. Consistent with your observations about unsustainable development and growth, it is individual citizens who create the demand that creates the market opportunities that corporations exploit. We need to recognize all variables in the equation and hold ourselves and other individuals just as responsible as we hold the corporations. The water of the Great Lakes region needs to stay in that region. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. The notion of growth as a good thing anywhere needs to be deep-sixed. The human race has outgrown it's bounds. a new paradigm of sustainability needs to replace it. Globally, and even nationally, sustainability already requires shrinkage, not growth. Janie |
|
29 Jun 08 - 02:40 AM (#2376531) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: The Fooles Troupe Relax Big Mick. It's just Gaia working at relieving itself of a nasty little spreading annoying parasite... us... |
|
29 Jun 08 - 04:19 AM (#2376541) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Dave the Gnome As a UK-er I don't realy have an axe to grind here - Although I have flown over the lakes and seen Lake M on trips to Chicago. I feel that the lakes should definitely be left alone. It's got nothing to do with where water is needed. It's all big business and money. The surface of the world is 80% water. Water is the one true recyclable resource we have. It never disappears - It just changes and moves. If the businesses in other parts want water let them pay for it. De-salinate seawater if needed. As someone mentioned earlier - There are huge floods along the Mississippi every year - Treat that water and use that instead. They won't though. It's easier and cheaper to use the water from the lakes so they will ruin that area before they spend an extra few pennies. It's sick but the governments of the world (ours included) are in the pockets of the money men. IMO. Dave. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 09:22 AM (#2376615) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger But how will we water the golf courses in Phoenix? |
|
29 Jun 08 - 09:45 AM (#2376623) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Mooh My bias will be obvious, living within a ten minute stroll of Lake Huron, and with a family cottage on Georgian Bay. Our home is on municipal water and sewer services, the cottage has a cistern and holding tank for water and sewage. Leave the Great Lakes where they are, and the water that's in them. The real issue is living within the means of mother earth without diversion, consumption, and with re-use and recycling. The vain and wasteful use of water on lawns and golf courses (for example), and the dilution of natural water resources with sewage and various other forms of pollution are merely symptoms of the larger issue that we (as a race) insist on living in a manner unsustainable by global AND local means. There are too many people using too much water in too many places. Diverting water continues and enables the dependency on the resource in places where that resource does not exist naturally. To do this costs even more resources (electrical power, construction and maintenance costs, etc) to keep it going. It's an unending and self-destructing cycle of addiction. Just another example of what future generations will view as human folly caused by denial and lack of foresight. Peace, Mooh. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 10:00 AM (#2376630) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq "There are too many people using too much water in too many places." Perhaps we can shorten that and say "There are too many people." |
|
29 Jun 08 - 10:08 AM (#2376636) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: GUEST Not just too many people. Too many greedy, apathetic, and indifferent people lusting for too much. Lust, avarice, greed is what is driving this train. For too much material goods. For too much entertainment. For too much travel. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 10:45 AM (#2376652) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq fact: 70.8% of Earth's surface is covered by water fact: 97% of that water is salt water. We cannot use it, as is, for crops or drinking. fact: 2% of the water is in the form of glaciers, especially near the Poles. Way too far from population centers to be economical to melt and use. fact: Fresh water that we can drink and use to irrigate crops is about 1% of the total. Hard to put a price on something that precious. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 11:13 AM (#2376661) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: catspaw49 Aw hell.....Let's just send some their way. Of course that pipe is gonna' be plugged with Zebra Mussels right away and that's their problem! Maybe analyzing the cost of building the pipeline and keeping it clear of the fuckin' ZM's will dissuade them of further plans. Come to think of it, there are still some lampreys left around we can send as a bonus! Spaw |
|
29 Jun 08 - 11:31 AM (#2376667) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Bill D Having been acquainted with this issue for about 40 years..(not studied it in a professional capacity..just regular reading and thinking)...I believe that the only sane long-term solution to water rights and distrubution is to adopt strict land use policies, and by implication, population density restrictions. This means gradually stopping and reducing settlement & agriculture in areas where sufficient water is not naturally available. Yes...this means Phoenix and Las Vegas cannot continue as in the past. Details would be difficult, but simple math tells you what will work. *IF* desalinization can be added, it would ease the change, but obviously, it is no panacea. It does seem like 1% of Great Lakes water is still a lot of buckets, and perhaps some minor distribution could be figured out and rationed, but IF you start selling it, there will be no end to whining about who gets it...(look at the Colorado River disputes!). As a corollary of my opinion....it is ALWAYS the case that **population reduction** is the only long-term solution that fits almost any environmental argument. (Somehow, no one wants to face this one.) |
|
29 Jun 08 - 11:44 AM (#2376677) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Bill D (and 'spaw...you see? It ain't the "fukin' ZMs" that are a problem...it's the fukin' PEOPLE!)(( now if we can sneak some good contraceptive into that water, we might just distribute it with GOOD results!)) |
|
29 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM (#2376682) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq With all this copious "just regular reading", perhaps you would like to examine the population growth graphs for Maricopa Co. (Phoenix), Clark Co. (Las Vegas) and Los Anleses Co. Go back 40 years and see what has happened. Remember that native-born US citizens reached "zero population growth" in 1972! |
|
29 Jun 08 - 12:10 PM (#2376691) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Peter T. Nothing will stop growth except cutting if off at source. All the planning and rhetoric mean nothing as long as there are supposed to be infinite sources of water, oil, etc. Of course, Buddhistically, one could say that the original source is greed. So both the psychological and the ecological agree here..... yours, Peter T. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 12:54 PM (#2376726) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Mooh From: pdq - PM Date: 29 Jun 08 - 10:00 AM "There are too many people using too much water in too many places." Perhaps we can shorten that and say "There are too many people." You could shorten the statement, but it might miss the point that besides there being too many people, many of those people are in areas which cannot support them, and that, anyway, all of us use too much water. Population control policies are one way to help solve the problem (notice I didn't say the only way), but no government would go that far...yet...or until it's too late...like the worldwide response to pollution. Peace, Mooh. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 01:32 PM (#2376753) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq Most of the water from Midwest rivers dumps into the Mississippi River and goes out to the Bay. Most years have flooding during Spring and early Summer peak flows. The last few weeks have been very damaging, even deadly. Why don't we have a few huge pipes (with screens, of course), and pumping and reservoir systems to store some of that water for crop irrigation later in the year? Too logical, perhaps? |
|
29 Jun 08 - 01:54 PM (#2376760) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Richard Bridge Ironic that gobal warming is causing both the loss of inland water and the rising of sea levels. Two options seem to be reducing the outflow of inland water (but storage is a problem) and desalination. Am I right that desalination uses so much energy at the moment that it increases global warming and makes the overall water crisis worse? |
|
29 Jun 08 - 02:58 PM (#2376803) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Mr Red How much water flows out down the Chicago River? And that ain't natural, It is man made. And how much of it adds to the floods downstream? Do they want anyway? Mr Red - playing devil's advocate. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM (#2376996) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: The Fooles Troupe We Aussies have almost succeeded in destroying the lower reaches of the Murray - the date of October this year is the deadline for a decent flush of water to keep it alive for anoher year. The Murray-Darling system is one of the largest in the world. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 08:45 PM (#2377006) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger I agree with pdq. The problem is too many people. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 08:56 PM (#2377013) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: GUEST,pattyClink p.s. to everyone who wants to mine the 'extra' volume in the Mississippi. That water used to nourish the soils annually, but we've reined it in with the levees. Now, it at least helps to recharge aquifers, and it plays a role in wetlands, and washes out silting-up channels, yada yada. And its large normal flow dilutes the horrific load of nitrates coming down the pike from the breadbasket states, which is causing the dead zone in the Gulf. Even if were desirable to transport the spring highwater elsewhere, the cost to clean, ship, and store that water would be fairly grandiose. There's a witches brew in that water, there are thousands of compounds to clean up, from atrazine to caffeine. Better for desert communities to go local 'toilet-to-tap', or trap more rainwater in recharge basins, or somehow deal with their own local water problems. Just my opinion. We have got to get away from wanting to ship in the solution (via diesel-sucking trucks or pipelines) to our problems instead of solving them locally. |
|
29 Jun 08 - 11:57 PM (#2377096) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger I'm all for solving things locally, and I think one of the first things that it would make sense to do would be to carefully analyze what a local area will support in human numbers. But I find it very depressing to drive through Phoenix and see all the water being pumped out onto the golf courses, and then go just a few miles further and find nothing but arid desert. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 12:23 AM (#2377108) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: M.Ted PDQ thinks the problem is too many Hispanics, but he lacks the courage to come out and say it, so he refers you to population growth statistics--Riginslinger, do you agree with him on this point? |
|
30 Jun 08 - 12:39 AM (#2377110) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: katlaughing yeah, back this up with a source, pdq: Remember that native-born US citizens reached "zero population growth" in 1972! SOUnds like something a racist would make up. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 12:48 AM (#2377111) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger I think human migration is a huge problem world wide, and I don't see any way North America can escape from that. I wouldn't think it was nearly the problem it is, if the numbers of people in the places where the migration is coming from was going down, but it isn't, not anywhere that I know of. So it's just a matter of people moving from places that are over populated to places that are not quite yet overpopulated, and soon will be. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 06:29 AM (#2377208) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq When someone is too lazy to do research themselves, and too ignorant to know anything about the subject, they say "support your source". The burden is on them. As far as racism, anyone who diverges from the Liberal orthodoxy is automatically called a racist. That make life easy. No reason for such people to examine their own beliefs, just attack the messenger of facts that make they uncomfortable. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 07:57 AM (#2377244) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger That's very true, pdq. The first thing they do when they can't come up with a rational argument is to call the other person "racist." That worked for a very long time, but now folks are beginning to ignore it. There's nothing else the defendant can do. That's going on in Rhode Island right now. This political activist was linked to FAIR, which is a very up-front, above board organization, and the Southern Poverty Law Center came into the area and labeled FAIR as a racist organization, and used that to smear the individual. But if they are looking for a source as to the attitudes of some Mexican immigrants, they don't have to look far. It's right here. http://www.aztlan.net/ |
|
30 Jun 08 - 09:00 AM (#2377288) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Big Mick So you contend that, ".........native-born US citizens reached "zero population growth....."? For decent discussion between people of intellect to occur, definitions must be understood. I need to know who is considered to be native-born in your assertion? And I need to know the source of the quote. At this point it is a gratuitous assertion, so I can just as gratuitously deny that it is factual. As to you being a racist, I don't know you. I do know your words, though. They, by implication and asserted "facts", appear to me to put undue blame on folks that are not like you. By the way, folks, from the area known now as Mexico, have been traversing back and forth while your folks were still in their country of origin. You know, before our people came and usurped the land and relegated the "native born" peoples to sub human status. Mick |
|
30 Jun 08 - 10:15 AM (#2377339) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq I was a member of a group called Zero Population Growth (ZPG) for many years. Their goal was for the US to have a stabile population, which would allow education, as well as food, water and transportation, to be the best it could be. It had many members, like myself, who were conservationists. We are compltely disheartened at what has happened to the absolutely unique ecological areas of southern California, southern Arizonia and the Lower Rio Grande Valley (tip of southern Texas). The fact about zero population growth being reached came from ZPG. In France right now, you can be convicted of a "hate crime" by pointing out that the rioters in Paris who are torching cars on a daily basis, are Muslim, mostly Black. The rioters don't seem to be in danger of being arrested, just the people who point out their ethnic background. Yes, the rioting, looting and car burning is still going on today, at least three years after it started. Perhaps the US will have the same PC crowd take over and make it a hate crime to say who committed a drive-by shooting? |
|
30 Jun 08 - 10:38 AM (#2377361) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Donuel Its about a good idea as the 7 Gorges dam which is pretty damn bad. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM (#2377399) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Big Mick But I am still looking for the definition I asked about, as well as the source of the quote. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 12:11 PM (#2377459) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: M.Ted I will point out that the overdevelopment of the "unique" environmental areas of the Southwest that PDQ is so sad about was not done by Hispanics/Latinos, who, incidentally, are often "Native Born" since most all of the Southwest, including Texas and the entire state of Calfornia, was once Mexico. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 01:17 PM (#2377525) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: katlaughing Me, too, Mick. M.Ted, good point. My American friend of Mexican descent has traced her ancestors in what is now the American southwest, including Colorado, as far back as the 1500s. I sport a license plate which brags about my heritage in Colorado going back a mere 100 years. So, which is the "native born" of longest claim?:-) And, of course, that doesn't even begin to account for the real native born, that is the "Native Americans." |
|
30 Jun 08 - 01:22 PM (#2377535) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Amos While a number of European countries have reached birth rates low enough to be lower than replacement, the United States has in fact not done so. It is right around the replacement rate; adding in immigration, and we have a still-expanding population base. My source for this analysis is a recent work called Common Wealth: Economics for a Crowded Planet by Jeffrey D. Sachs http://www.amazon.com/Common-Wealth-Economics-Crowded-Planet/dp/1594201277. Recommended reading. A |
|
30 Jun 08 - 03:58 PM (#2377678) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Amos I have to file a correction here--although I am reading the book I mentioned, this analysis is from the New York Times Magazine article by Ruissel Shorto, called "No Babies?". It examines the falling birth level in Western countries in detail. A |
|
30 Jun 08 - 04:25 PM (#2377702) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger The article seems to leave the reader with the feeling that the Western world needs to have more babies in self defense, though most of us who see world population growth as a major disaster would have problem with that. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 04:40 PM (#2377723) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Amos IT depends on how you see those people deploying, Rig, and with what technologies. The only time there are too many people is when there are too few good ideas about how they could survive well. We're far shorter of good ideas than we are of people, and far more crowded with bad ones than we are overcrowded with humans. A |
|
30 Jun 08 - 04:56 PM (#2377742) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: heric Nicely said. It always feels as if what we know has become far too crowded, but when you examine the population densities of still beautiful areas, especially in Asia, you realize that you have to expand your mind to brace for what is yet to come. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 05:02 PM (#2377751) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq In reality, no race, religion or political group needs to have fewer kids to reach a zero population growth. They just need to be responsible and wait until they are older to have those kids. If you look at the equasion for birthrate and population growth, the length of time between a person's birth and the age that person starts to have children is the most important single multiplier. Besides, children born to 28 year olds are more likely to be happy, well-adjusted and properly cared-for. Everbody wins as does the environment. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 05:09 PM (#2377756) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: pdq I intended that to say "Besides, children born to 28 year olds are more likely to be happy, well-adjusted and properly cared-for than those born 16 year olds". |
|
30 Jun 08 - 06:55 PM (#2377824) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger I still think we'd be better off with fewer people, or at least no additional people, no matter what the technologies would allow us to do. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 07:10 PM (#2377831) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Big Mick But I am still waiting for a source for your cite, and how you define "native-born US citizen". The fact that you choose to ignore these requests seems to indicate you don't have an answer, or you realize that to answer the question would put a label on you. Your silence speaks louder than any answer you could give. I would prefer that wasn't the case. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 07:16 PM (#2377833) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger Big Mick - To whom are you addressing your question? |
|
30 Jun 08 - 08:26 PM (#2377880) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Sandy Mc Lean It is not waterlevel neutral to only remove water replenished by rain and snow. The whole Great Lakes Basin is drained to the sea by the St.Lawerence River by this amount. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 08:34 PM (#2377883) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Big Mick Thanks, Sandy. That just makes the issue even more profound. All the best, Mick |
|
30 Jun 08 - 08:50 PM (#2377891) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Sandy Mc Lean Same to you Mick! Another consideration (and there are many) is that any water removed upstream of the Niagara would directly reduce the flow over the escarpment. Most of the flow is already diverted away from the Falls to generate power for New York and Ontario. Only enough water is allowed to free fall to keep the tourists happy. That would mean reduced hydro power that would have to be replaced by some other means. |
|
30 Jun 08 - 09:07 PM (#2377902) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: The Fooles Troupe I'm always bemused by the US misuse of the political word 'Liberal' to equate with 'Pinko-commo-etc'... |
|
30 Jun 08 - 11:25 PM (#2377936) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Riginslinger Yeah, me too! |
|
11 Jul 08 - 07:58 PM (#2387041) Subject: RE: BS: Great Lakes water diversion-Waddya think? From: Joe Offer Lake Michigan looked pretty good when I drove around it last year. In fact, the water looked much cleaner than I remember from the 1960's. I've heard of recent years when the water has been very low, and it sounds like the Lakes look like cesspools then. I hate the thought of seeing Great Lakes water diverted, but I suppose there are ways to use some water without causing serious ecological damage. The Lakes certainly are lovely. I've driven around Erie, Huron, and Michigan. Some day, I'll drive around Lake Ontario and Lake Superior. Driving around one of the Great Lakes is one of the most wonderful vacations I can think of. That, and Versailles. Two weeks ago, I was in Paris. Now I'm smothered in smoke in Northern California. But that's off-topic. Go visit the Great Lakes. Check out their lighthouses - I think Michigan has more than Maine. -Joe- |