M-4 envi 101

docx

School

Schoolcraft College *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

212

Subject

Geography

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by PrivateRiverJaguar14

+There are certain costs associated with the distribution of water---especially in larger urbanized cities. Who should bear these costs? Should water be sold? Briefly Why or Why Not? +If water is a "human right", how do we ensure that there is water for all? +The bottled water industry currently contributes to an increased burden on municipal landfills. Should the bottling companies be subject to a "green" tax? Would that solve the problem that only 20% of plastic bottles are recycled? I think that the bottling companies should be subject to a green tax. By implementing a green tax, corporations will participate in “greener” behavior and more sustainable practices by avoiding more costly alternatives. +Industries regularly pollute natural water sources. How would "cap and trade" help reduce pollution from industrial wastes? "Cap and trade" is market-based system to manage environmental pollutants where a total limit (cap) is placed on all emissions in a jurisdiction. This can help reduce pollution from industrial wastes. Corporations or firms who are able to reduce pollution from industrial wastes more cheaply (because of available technology, know-how, or experience) can do so for other corporations who are less able, and then be paid for the trouble. This will lead to the most efficient overall system to maintain and reduce pollution levels from industrial wastes. +Looking beyond human needs for water, HOW does a market-based environmental approach protect complex ecosystems? How does a plant or animal "buy" the water it needs for survival? + From "Who Owns Water?" : what is the difference between a human "need" and a human "right"? A human need refers to the basic requirement for water that is essential for survival and well- being. On the other hand, a human right goes beyond that. It implies that an individual must be ensured clean and safe drinking water by the government. As it was mentioned in the text, a human right can't be sold. A human need can be supplied many ways, especially for those with money. + From "Who Owns Water?": Name the two largest of the ten major corporate companies who deliver freshwater for profit. At the time of the article, how many customers and countries do these two companies serve?

The two biggest major corporate companies who deliver freshwater for profit are Vivendi Universal and Suez (both from France). They serve to 200 million customers in 150 countries. +From "Who Owns Water?": What are the implications of labeling water as a "good", or an "investment", or a "service" in international treaties? By having water labeled as "good" or an "investment" or a "service", corporations are trying to commercialize water. This implies that water can be seen as an actual investment that can be bought, sold and traded just like any other type of commodity. +From "Who Owns Water?": Why isn't desalination a solution to the freshwater crisis? Desalination is not a solution to the freshwater crisis because it is prohibitively expensive and energy intensive. Fossil fuels that are contributing to global warming are used in this process. Moreover, a lethal byproduct of saline brine that is a major cause of marine pollution is produced. + From "Toxic Waters": How many Detroit residents had their water shut off in 2005? What would you do if this happened to you? In 2005, more than 40,000 Detroit residents had their water shut off. If that happened to me, I would gather to protest against the water shut off. I would demand an immediate explanation from the particular institution. Having access to drinkable water is a human right that should not be violated by any institution. + From "Toxic Waters": One of the people giving testimony about having his water shut off was a tenant. Landlords in multi-unit buildings usually do not have tenants pay their water bills directly to the water supplier. This is because 1. the water company doesn't want to install that many meters, and 2. unlike other utilities, unpaid water bills are a lien upon the title to the property (i.e. the property may be sold at public auction to pay the water company for unpaid bills). Do you think there should be a way to ensure that tenants don't lose their water due to the Landlord's irresponsibility? Should this be in the form of legislation or as an amendment to the Michigan constitution? Which would be easier to accomplish? Who would lobby against it? I think that having the water shut off to a tenant is right. There should be a way to ensure that tenants don't lose their water just because the landlord is reckless. It is a basic living condition. This issue can be addressed through legislation or amendment to the Michigan constitution. The easier to accomplish will be a legislation since a legislation is typically easier to pass than a constitutional amendment that requires more complex legal procedures. Landlords and property owners might argue that these regulations might have unforeseen

consequences. They might claim that the legislation could lead to increased costs and administrative responsibilities.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version