We need a new economics of water as a common good

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00800-z

by rntn • 3 years ago

219 199 3 years ago

nature.com

anotheraccount9• 3 years ago

Next century: " We need a new economics of air as a common good".

jlhawn• 3 years ago

Georgism?

PaulDavisThe1st• 3 years ago

Yet public ownership undervalues water, in that one person’s access does not limit another’s, even though water is a finite resource. This promotes excessive, unsustainable and inequitable use. And it discourages private investment. In 2015, private-sector investment in water globally accounted for less than 5% of the total funds allocated to telecommunications, energy, transport and other basic services

(emphasis mine)

And that is supposed to be a problem ?

gryn2• 3 years ago

no. basically they're shilling for nestle water scandal type of operations.

edit: to those who down-voted me,

can you provide a reason why having more private profit driven investments on water is a good thing that we should aim for?

yes companies should not be allowed to hog a social good, and using an economics-style revalorisation will lead to the same dubious shenanigans done with carbon emission offsetting where companies will do some creative accounting to hide their value extraction.

bradleyjg• 3 years ago

I didn’t downvote you.

The choice is often between private investment and no investment at all. It’s all well and good to say the world shouldn’t work that way but meanwhile people need water infrastructure while you are going about changing the world.

CatWChainsaw4• 3 years ago

Er, chilling, or shilling?

rdevsrex• 3 years ago

Exactly, I would prefer it if we decommodified water use with and regulate use base on sustainability needs. It would have prevented all these water companies like Nestle from stealing the water from various regions.

wyager• 3 years ago

Where is nestle "stealing the water from various regions"? I'm sure they've been involved in water rights disputes, as has any large water consumer, but I'm skeptical that "stealing" is the most objective description or that they're even a large consumer compared to ag.

ip262• 3 years ago

Private-sector investment would include such things as water treatment plants, desalination plants, and evaporation control…

schiffern• 3 years ago

Let's not forget the often-overlooked strategies of infiltration (recharging aquifers vs the typical drainage/hardscape paradigm) and the restoration and preservation of wetlands (which buffer and purify water).

michaelscott• 3 years ago

...for those that own it, certainly. What about everyone else?

jmcgeeney• 3 years ago

No no you don't understand, people won't drink water without a profit motive. We should do oxygen next.

foota• 3 years ago

The suggestion is that water is very underpriced, meaning corporations have no incentive to try and retain more or reduce their usage (not that this isn't in large part due to corporate or farm interests lobbying).

If water were gold, no one would let it run into the ocean.

skybrian2• 3 years ago

Yes, very true, but I think instead of "corporations" it would be better to think about three kinds of water users: agriculture, residential, and industrial.

In the American West, water is underpriced for farming (80% of usage) due to senior water rights.

Not sure about industry in general, but some users like semiconductor fabs do recycle water. It looks like they're going to recycle more. [1] Cities are starting to recycle too. These are water users who can pay for relatively expensive water. San Diego is doing more than most cities here.

[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/fabs-cut-back-water-use

kwere• 3 years ago

corporations and people, US obsession with gigantic green lawns everywhere is an example

refurb5• 3 years ago

I think you missed the point.

It's overly wordly but it's basically saying "water is so cheap that the private market as no incentive to invest it in to improve the efficiency of its use"

Same argument people make about fossil fuels - it's so cheap (often due to subsidies) that the private sector doesn't invest in alternative)

ClumsyPilot5• 3 years ago

where is the evidence that private investment is capable of solving the upcoming water crises?

What happens in 50 years, when aquifiers under middle east and much of the midsest USA runs out?

There is no private investment that can save them.

nonethewiser• 3 years ago

Why should the tax payers have to fund water investments instead of rich corporations?

dgb23• 3 years ago

Ownership

bioemerl• 3 years ago

Underinvestment in water is a really big deal, we need that stuff to live.

I don't think privatization is the way to do it though.

JamesBarney• 3 years ago

Private investment is the cause of having many things we value in abundance like food.

1270018080• 3 years ago

Doesn't that go against the entire ethos of the YC community? Is this post going to stay up?

nomilk• 3 years ago

For anyone interested in water and economics, this Econtalk episode is unexpectedly fascinating.

https://www.econtalk.org/david-zetland-on-water/

What blew my mind was how different water economics is from place to place. Availability of water (and the intersection of that with other unexpected factors, like crime) have a huge impact on day to day living. I was surprised by some of the vicious cycles (for example, water 'brown outs' - providing water for limited hours of the day - actually drives up consumption, since people get more than they need and store it for later use, often at great expense). Somewhat analogous to other 'runs' we see, e.g. banking.

It's one of my favourite Econtalk episodes. Highly recommend.

refurb5• 3 years ago

Econtalk is a podcast i keep coming back to. Russ Roberts does a great job bringing on a varied group of people. And his interview style is pretty refreshing. He asks questions like a novice would with “Wait, why is it like that?”.

He had a pro-market view but lets his guests state their views before politely saying “i disagree for this reason”, then moving on.

The 16+ years of archives are great to go back and listen to especially the interviews about the financial crisis of 2008. He talks to some heavy hitters in the finance industry and it’s fascinating to hear their different views.

akiselev2• 3 years ago

My favorite extreme example of the ways in which water defines society is the Himba people [1] in northern Namibia. They live in one of the driest deserts in the world and water is so scarce that bathing with water is a social faux pas. Instead of bathing they cover their skin with otjize paste made of animal fat and red ochre which acts as a cleanser, protects them from the heat, and repels insects. When they hunt the men gather the liquid they need for the day by digging up tubers similar to cassava that contain a lot of fiber and moisture, while the women herd their livestock around watering holes until the dry season where they make a b-line for areas with high ground water to dig small wells.

Among other adaptations, they hunt not by driving their pray to exhaustion or by using heavy weapons like spears, but by digging up beetle larva infected by parasitic Lebistina larva which produces a very concentrated toxin that they use with very thin bows and arrows to bring down pray (which they have to chase down anyway).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himba_people

8n4vidtmkvmk2• 3 years ago

The toxin doesn't taint the meat?

Mezzie4• 3 years ago

One interesting experience I had was going to the Middle East. It was the first time I'd ever dealt with water restrictions or even considered my water consumption, which didn't just baffle the Jordanians but also a lot of the other Americans.

I'm from Michigan. Fresh water is so accessible that even restricting its use for environmental purposes just isn't a thing. If we ever run out, the world is already on fire.

hackernewds2• 3 years ago

Entire societies are only 6 continuous hours of complete water denial away from collapse.

phkahler2• 3 years ago

This is just a way to socialize water, take it from those who have it and give to those who dont.

unity10012• 3 years ago

Yeah, just like how keeping a military funded by taxes and governed by democratically made laws is taking the military power away from those who have it and giving it to those who dont...

bitwize3• 3 years ago

Socialize all the things. Abolish private property.

crooked-v• 3 years ago

Eat the... moist?

latency-guy24• 3 years ago

Lets start with your personal belongings. I promise we'll get to the rest of everyone else eventually.

pcblues• 3 years ago

Sort of like air and food. Government-funded provision of necessities for health via taxes and protection via regulation should not be damned by calling it names.

unity10012• 3 years ago

If they could privatize air, you can bet that they would have done it a long time ago. Its still public because they havent found a monetization mechanic yet.

ClumsyPilot5• 3 years ago

do you notice how their grubby hands want to claim ownership of thongs they did not create?

guerrilla• 3 years ago

It's not public, it's regulated commons.[1]

1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/property/

gruez8• 3 years ago

Sort of like air and food.

What are you trying to say? I'm not sure where you live but in most countries food is made and distributed privately, in stark contrast to how air is distributed.

eru10• 3 years ago

And the government isn't typically involved in air distribution.

mjfl4• 3 years ago

this article is basically written under the assumption that water is going to become more scarce, while they even admit that global warming would increase global precipitation making water less scarce overall. They claim that some areas will experience more extreme droughts but I'm not sure that's how that works. They talk about the need for international regulatory bodies to manage international water disputes - but what will be the teeth of such international bodies? Invasion by the US or UN? I'm deeply skeptical of people who think like this. Please stay powerless.

CatWChainsaw4• 3 years ago

The total amount of water on the planet stays constant because of that nifty water cycle. The amount of potable water is going to become more scarce as population increases and water transportation/sanitation infrastructure fails.

mjfl4• 3 years ago

precipitation naturally desalinates water, a normally very expensive process. isn't that a crucial detail?

Global warming means more global freshwater.

ClumsyPilot5• 3 years ago

They claim that some areas will experience more extreme droughts but I'm not sure that's how that works.

madagascar had a droight this year, which caused crop failures and mass hunger.

France had record low yields due to droughts

snowpack and ice is gone, meanong water that falls does not stay untill summer. Glaciers dwarf the largest reservoirs.

People like you fail to understand that for every dollar that fossil fuel companies made in profit, we will have to spend 4 dollars fixing the problems they caused.

mjfl4• 3 years ago

I don't know why you are listing examples of droughts, unless you interpreted my statement that global increased precipitation would seem to imply less severe droughts globally, as a statement that droughts will no longer exist. This would be an example of poor reading comprehension or poor inferential logic.

IG_Semmelweiss• 3 years ago

>>Yet public ownership undervalues water, in that one person’s access does not limit another

Chile's private water rights management does not undervalue water. In fact they value it so much that a new class of professional developed : water real estate brokers.

Private leasing of public lands to the highest bidder is an interesting use case that does not get much attention

eru10• 3 years ago

For Chile's private water rights management to work, one person's access has to limit another person's access.

andsoitis8• 3 years ago

speaking as an über capitalist, clean water is a human right that every single human on earth must have access to.

there is no question about it, just about how to accomplish.

gruez8• 3 years ago

In other words, "suffering is bad and we should prevent it, but we don't know how"? What a brave and profound statement to make! /s

andsoitis8• 3 years ago

In other words, "suffering is bad and we should prevent it, but we don't know how"? What a brave and profound statement to make! /s

That's not what I'm saying at all. What I am saying is that there probably isn't one solution that would work on every part of the planet and further more that in practical terms there isn't a single "we" on the hook to solve.

There are probably many different strategies, from restricting private companies from extracting water at low cost and making huge profits, to building water infrastructure in places where there are none, to desalination, to eradicating cholera, etc. etc.

But what I do believe is that ability to pay for water should not be a limiting factor to having access to clean water because it is a basic ingredient of life and so nobody should profit off of access.

friend_and_foe• 3 years ago

Access to water is a right, cleaning it and making it ready to drink is a responsibility you have to yourself. Nature makes it available, men don't have the right to preclude others, but what men make available men have the right to. To prevent others from doing so is a different story.

Nifty39292• 3 years ago

It is easy to declare rights, much harder to provide for them. Who should actually do the real work of providing for this human right that you have decided on? And what should they do this instead of?

tjbiddle• 3 years ago

I understand this is talking about water as a commodity, but I'd like to share another side of it.

Just finished a week motorbiking in Laos. It's currently incredibly hot and dry. They are at the end of dry season, but having lived in many climates with hot/dry - it still caught me off guard.

Many of the farms were bone dry - dust everywhere. Doesn't help that the regularly do 'slash & burn agriculture' where they're burning the forest, clearing it, planting their crops, and repeating after they exhaust the soil. We were constantly coming across areas on fire.

But no - that's not the issue. The government is corrupt there and is constantly selling the rights to build dams. There's no environmental survey before doing so - they're just cropping these things up all over the place; even where the return is very minimal. If there's a profit opportunity - it's there.

This is of course causing downstream rivers to run low, preventing water access to farms and villages that rely on it.

And the kicker: Laos doesn't even get the electricity generated - 90% of it is exported to neighboring countries like Thailand.

Just incredible to see.

lenova• 3 years ago

Hi there, I would love to hear more about your trip. I lived in Laos for a few months a decade ago, just outside of Vang Vieng. I think of the country often, and can only imagine just how much it has changed.

esturk2• 3 years ago

Have you considered that Laos is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location? For one, it's the most heavily bombed nation in the world per capita (done by America during the Vietnam War)? [1]

It isn't easy to develop a country that is so severely set back by war. Especially without outside help and/or investment.

Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexploded_ordnance#Laos

fnordpiglet3• 3 years ago

That’s one of their problems. But if you’ve visited the real problems are very apparent, and they start with their form of highly corrupt communism and hostility to the outside world. It’s not getting the attention from the west because the government is highly insular. Being the most efficient route to China and between Vietnam and Thailand makes it very strategically important, and China is probably more responsible for the state of Laos than anywhere else. It’s very much in their interest the west has no toe hold there, and that it stay effectively a vassal state dependent on their patronage.

WalterBright7• 3 years ago

Japan and Germany were both bombed flat in WW2. Their recovery was based on turning to free markets.

jahewson• 3 years ago

Every place is the way it is because of its past history and geographical location.

rayiner3• 3 years ago

Laos also isn't getting the same attention as its neighbors like Thailand and Vietnam by the West almost as if it holds no strategic value to the West.

This is a really offensive mindset. As if developing countries can only progress by getting "attention ... from the west." Thailand and Vietnam haven't been getting "attention ... from the west" because of their "strategic value" or any special humanitarian concerns. It's because those countries have been building up their financial systems and industry. And countries in this region are progressing by aligning with Russia and China often in opposition to what Western countries would want.

readonthegoapp• 3 years ago

in fairness to Laos, the US is the worst global warmer on the planet, thus probably the worst contributor to harmful global warming-enhanced water events.

we also crushed Laos 50 years ago in a way that was before unknown to mankind:

  Operation Barrel Roll was a covert U.S. Air Force 2nd Air Division and U.S. Navy Task Force 77, interdiction and close air support campaign conducted in the Kingdom of Laos between 14 December 1964 and 29 March 1973 concurrent with the Vietnam War. The operation resulted in 260 million bombs being dropped on Laos, making Laos "the most heavily bombed nation in history".[1]

and:

  In Laos, the legacy of U.S. bombs continues to wreak havoc. Since 1964, more than 50,000 Lao have been killed or injured by U.S. bombs, 98 percent of them civilians. An estimated 30 percent of the bombs dropped on Laos failed to explode upon impact, and in the years since the bombing ended, 20,000 people have been killed or maimed by the estimated 80 million bombs left behind.

  In 2016, President Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos. He pledged an additional $90 million in aid to remove unexploded ordnance on top of the $100 million that had been spent previously. The work of cleaning out unexploded bombs from the soil continues.

j16sdiz• 3 years ago

For a bit of context, Laos had been complaining China doing the same in the upstream.

Basically every nation in that area is acting in the most selfish way possible and distrusting each other.

andromeduck• 3 years ago

Wdym?! That's precisely why they're daming up - to create a buffer for water security. If they didn't then they'd be at risk of shortage if China were to dump and then let it refill.

screwturner68• 3 years ago

Am I supposed to feel bad for people who moved to the desert and have no water or worse subsidize a farmer to grow high water usage crops like alfalfa so they don't lose their antiquated water rights? Honestly, two of the fastest growing areas in the US is Las Vegas and Phoenix neither of which have their own water to me this is probably one of the dumbest moves I've ever seen. Are we as a country/society supposed to fix this or do we just say, wow that was a dumb fucking move I suggest you check out Des Moines?

XorNot• 3 years ago

Las Vegas is actually very efficient. The city's water infrastructure is well built, and sustainable.

More over... It's simply not the problem either - cities never are.

Cities need water for individuals - ablutions and drinking, some light industry. The amount they use pales in comparison to what farmers and livestock will go through, and the volume and type of effluent produced, as well as contamination risk.

humaniania• 3 years ago

All of the food consumed in Vegas has to get shipped in. That is not efficiency. In what universe are golf courses in the desert efficient?

DoreenMichele• 3 years ago

If you are interested in better understanding water issues, I highly recommend the books Salt Dreams, which is about the Colorado River, Salton Sea and water history in Southern California, and Water for a thirsty land, which is the history of water development in Fresno County, California where a lot of water rights issues were hashed out historically in court and a lot of equipment was invented and patented, etc.

Fresno has a very interesting water history and has done a good job of learning to recharge its aquifer, among other things. It probably has better water security than most of California and anyone interested in improving water security for their region would do well to learn a little something about Fresno.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27566605

jillesvangurp• 3 years ago

It's not so much that there's a water shortage in a lot of places but merely that the natural sources of drinking water that people use are drying up forcing them to switch to more expensive sources of water.

My home country the Netherlands actually has a water shortage. But much of it is below sea-level and we pump a lot of non salty water into the sea (at great expense) to keep the land dry. So, this is a notion that needs a little explaining.

How come there is a shortage in a country like that? Very simple: farmers don't like it when their fields are a swamp, so ground water levels are kept very low. This is done by draining, pumping, etc. Most of that water ends up in the sea. This in turn is governed by local policy on which farmers have a lot of influence. Additionally, they use groundwater for irrigating the land. Because dry land doesn't produce a lot of crops.

So, ground water levels are at a historic low in a lot of places. To the point where nature is struggling and water companies that also rely on ground water for supplying drinking water have to remind people to limit their water usage. In a country that is basically a swamp below sea level.

The solution to all this: change policies and stop using ground water at an unsustainable rate. There's plenty of other water. But using that is more expensive. Ground water tends to be very clean as it has been filtered through sediment layers. Surface water from rivers, lakes, etc. needs more treatment. Collecting rain water seems very uncommon. But there is plenty of that as well. Most of it is pumped and drained straight to the sea.

There is an abundance of water. So much that it is actually a problem. If my country stops pumping and draining water out to sea, it won't take long for a lot of it to be reclaimed by it. And in a pinch, we can actually take ocean water and desalinate it. This would of course be ridiculous in the Netherlands considering that two of the largest rivers in Europe flow through it to the North Sea and given that it rains a lot here (less than it used to, but still).

Other places in the world have a lot less water. But this planet is far from running out of water. Most of it is still covered by water and we have plenty of ways to produce drinking water from that. All we need to do is transport it around to where it is needed. In some places, desalination is cheaper than doing that.

skybrian2• 3 years ago

I know nothing about it, but it sounds sort of like it would be good for the groundwater level to be low, but fresh water to be stored somewhere else rather than pumped into the sea? Like a reservoir?

Nifty39292• 3 years ago

Nestle uses appx zero water. 58M gallons, according to this article, which is equivalent to about 181 acre feet.

Agriculture measures their water in Millions of acre feet! (MAF) They use dozens of MAF per year.

Nestles use is not so much as a rounding error. And the water they bottle is used for it’s highest imaginable purpose - drinking.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/27/california-n...

turndown3• 3 years ago

Good thing one of those is required for civilization, ye, life itself to function, and the other is wrapping water in a plastic container. Certainly agriculture must use water more efficiently, but let’s not compare apples to oranges.

hackernewds2• 3 years ago

Yes, let's not compare drinking water directly per droplet needed. To wasting billions of gallons of water to grow some almonds in dry California for economic reasons

mannyv• 3 years ago

Agriculture uses about 80-85% of California's water, yet when there's a drought environmentalists point at lawns and swimming pools as the culprit.

In fact, ag water in the US is super low compared to residential rates, which is why CA grows almonds and lettuce.

Farms may be required, but their inefficiency and waste are not necessary at all. Very few industries become more efficient without cost pressures.

Is bottled water wasteful? Compared to what? Do you dislike it because it's commercial? Farms aren't commercial? is your belief in something's utility to society is how we should judge human activity?

nayuki• 3 years ago

In metric units: 58 million gallons = 0.22 gigalitres. 1 million acre-feet = 1233 gigalitres.

We're looking at about 4 orders of magnitude difference between Nestle's extraction and agriculture.

scrozart• 3 years ago

An absurd comparison. Agriculture is an essential facet of civilization, and that water directly produces food.

specialist• 3 years ago

1- Nature article is about need for innovation in governance, not a slapfight about water rights.

2a- wrt Nestlé vs almonds, two wrongs don't make a right.

2b- One effort to fight one injustice does not in any way reflect any position whatsoever on other injustices. Perhaps the Nestlé fraças is an opening salvo in a larger war; low hanging fruit to establish precedence for future battles.

3- California Water Resource Board addressed a sternly worded memo to Nestlé, asking them to please stop using 25x more water than they're entitled to. I'm certain that if almond growers did the same they'd also receive a sternly worded memo.

4- A keen observer may wonder if hurtful memos are sufficient for curtailing abuses. Perhaps bigger sticks are required. For some bluesky thinking on that topic, please read the Nature article referenced in point no 1.

acd• 3 years ago

We need to pay for all common reources such as fish, groundwater, polluting air quality. However banks and investment companies should not be allowed to invest otherwise the market will become skewed.

Earths resources are not endless. We share earth with future generations. Thus we should try and live in harmony with eco systems.

Bloating• 3 years ago

Taxes! We need more taxes! But, tax that other guy

EngManagerIsMe4• 3 years ago

Tax me, tbh. I make $700k a year. If my taxes go towards resource conservation and regulating the commons towards sustainability, I'm all for paying more in taxes.

So yeah, tax the other guy who is like me and tax me.

(And before you respond with, "Well, you can voluntarily pay more in taxes" you should know that I've put aside hundreds of thousands a year towards environmental conservation, and two, I believe that even if I donated 100% of my own income it wouldn't be enough. I believe in taxes as a mechanism, and I believe that taxes on income at or above what I make are eminently reasonable.)

We need a new economics of water as a common good

Related Stories