Desalination Not The Solution/WWF

[RestoreGore]

Desalination Not The Solution

Desalination 'not the solution'

Untapped resource: oceans contain 97% of the planet's water

Turning salt water into drinking water is not a solution to tackle global water scarcity, the WWF has said.

A report by the environmental group said a growth in the energy intensive technology would increase emissions and damage coastal and river habitats.

More attention should instead be paid to conserving supplies, it suggested.

The study was published as Australia announced plans to build one of the world's biggest desalination plants to supply drinking water to Melbourne.

"Desalinating the sea is an expensive, energy intensive and greenhouse gas emitting way to get water," said Jamie Pittock, director of WWF's global freshwater programme.

"It may have a place in the world's future freshwater supplies but regions still have cheaper, better and complementary ways to supply water that are less risky to the environment."

The report called for greater emphasis on managing existing supplies before the go-ahead was given to major water projects.

It added that new desalination plants, which were primarily located in coastal areas, should also be subject to tighter impact assessments to minimise damage to the marine environment.

Advances in technology meant that it was also possible to develop alternative "manufactured water" systems, such as treating waste water, the authors wrote.

end of excerpt.

As I have written here before, I too believe that desalination (reverse osmosis process) is an expensive GHG emitting procedure that is simply a bandaid on a crisis that will not be solved by looking to methods that actually exacerbate the problem of emitting GHGs, particularly the Co2 that causes drought, wildfires, and water shortages.

In many cases it is only through the wasteful practices of humans that water becomes scarce. Seventy percent of the water that is wasted in this world is lost through wasteful irrigation practices. Why then is it easier for man to expend countless hours and dollars in building these huge desalination plants that do nothing to replace the water lost and threaten the habitat of other marine animals, instead of simply looking to their moral compasses and conserving what we have?

Is it because we simply do not wish to admit that we are the cause of this crisis?



However, that is not to say that I am against desalination as a process when it is absolutely necessary to provide water to people, as in the case of the Middle East where water scarcity makes it necessary to emply such methods. I personally prefer geothermal desalination as the best method to protect marine life and cut down on carbon emissions.

This report from the Pacific Institute dated last year is a totally comprehensive and expert analysis of desalination globally and in the United States with both pros and cons explained in detail. There is no doubt that as we head further into the 21st Century in a world where water will be in greater demand desalination can be a part of a water management plan if absolutely needed (especially regarding using it in agriculture to conserve fresh water for human use,) but certainly not as the solution to this crisis and at the expense of other species and our environment especially regarding the clean up process. Only moral courage to conserve and to devise ways to use irrigation water more effectively and funds more effectively to shore up substandard water systems can we find the balance necessary to preserve all life.

[glowing]

1. I'm not so sure... I think that it should be persued... If we can put

man in space and all of the other wonders of technology, I think that it can be done.. it needs to be thought about, processed and better funded. I think its a cop out to say that it can't be done.. sounds like the same thing we hear when the experts say renewable energy isn't cost efficient... well yes, they would lose a lot of money if every home and condo and every apt building installed solar panels... It would drive down the demand of coal fired plants. I think to write it off is falicy and it seems like the people bottling water and controling the natural springs of the world would have to substantially lower their prices when changing ocean water to drinking water.

The world is not flat, unless the gov't and money behind the science says its so.

[RestoreGore]

2. I didn't say it can't be done

I stated that it should not be used as a bandaid to abdicate from our moral responsibility to conserve what we have now. This shouldn't be of the logic that we can simply suck the oceans dry now just because we don't want to change how and what we do. Of course in a region of the world like the Middle East that experiences water scarcity simply based on their geography it is a viable and necessary method. However, in areas where conservation still stands a chance of working it seems wasteful to devote so many resources to something that actually exacerbates GHG emissions and threatens other species if people simply need to start taking responsibility for their actions.

[glowing]

3. Of course not. We should protect our natural freshwater resources,

but there are places in the world that could do with some potable water. Not every person on this planet has access. And its not always easy to clean up what we've messed up. It takes a while.

[RestoreGore]

4. yes, and in terms of population and climate change we don't have a while