Drinking Rocket Fuel

Posted on Sunday, May 16 at 09:27 by harrisp
Those folks who protest at World Trade Organization meetings or who think the International Monetary Fund (IMF) minions should be turned into compost are largely right. Governments all round the planet have managed to sell their collective souls to international businesses who are almost inevitably beyond their control, or anyone else's control. And we have developed treaty after treaty giving the corporations the legal right to empty our pockets while filling their own. Control of water is rapidly becoming the latest attack upon humanity and a time is very nearly approaching when only those with sufficient cash in their pockets will be able to obtain this most important requirement of life. According to Fortune magazine, the annual profits of the water industry is about 40% of those of the petroleum industry. At this stage, those companies only control about 5% of the world's potable water. Wait 'til they get the rest of it. Fortune also noted that the World Bank and the IMF are increasingly forcing Third World countries to abandon their public water systems and contract with the giant corporations in order to be eligible for any sort of debt relief. Essentially, international business is buying up the very lifeblood of the world with the cooperation of the world's governments. Now it is surely obvious why corporations want to own all the water - it just isn't acceptable to have people out there drinking stuff where there is no built-in profit margin. And since water is such a basic human, plant, and animal need it is best to get it out of the hands of the people and into the clutches of corporations who can properly manage it and market it; who can price it as they see fit or withhold it from whomever they wish. In short, it is the world's most powerful bargaining chip. But it's more than just drinking water and we may be overlooking another major motivation behind this global onslaught - it's parked on your driveway. As we are busy watching yet another war for oil parade its ugly face across our television screens, we keep hearing these hints and promises of a clean and abundant fuel that comes right out of our taps. There seems little reason to doubt that water will provide a substantial amount of future power in the form of hydrogen energy. The science is already in place, the manufacturing and design is well under way. There are lots of test vehicles proving that this works and works well. So what's the hold-up? What's missing is the control of the fuel source. At present, we are all slaves to the oil companies and the oil producing nations (including our own). We know in our hearts the bankers control the governments who control the oil companies who control the armies of the world in a Möebius-like configuration. Our gas-guzzling Western nations can no longer function without an abundant supply of fuel and that dependence on oil led to a lot of the history of the past century and, so far, this one as well. So what happens if hydrogen power replaces oil-dependence? Well, suddenly the oil companies lose relevance, the source of fuel shifts away from desert sands and into the oceans and lakes and rivers. The sky might get cleaner because hydrogen is supposed to be significantly more environment friendly. The need for wars fought over oil would end (as if there ever really was a need); instead, we can fight over water. But without major changes in the corporate sphere, the economy tanks. Hence, the rush to buy up and privatize all the world's water. It isn't just that we need to drink it or use it in manufacturing or growing stuff or flushing our toilets, we are going to need it to power our vans and trucks and snowmobiles. Picture this, however: against all odds the nations of the world come to their senses and realize that there are some basic human needs that they need to provide to their citizens. Water would seem to me to be the second most basic after air and, so far, they haven't figured out how to tax my respiration (if they ever do, hopefully there will no difference in pricing for various qualities, like leaded or unleaded air). So government realizes that it needs water for its people to drink and, as science progresses, to allow the wheels of industry and the wheels of vehicles to keep on turning. And in a leap of clear thinking, those governments realize that it had better be them who control this stuff rather than some foreign corporation who is really indifferent about whether this government's citizens even stay alive. I have been advocating for some time, along with many far more knowledgeable and far more intelligent people, that water should be universally recognized as a basic human right. That doesn't mean it comes without cost, but it should mean that citizens determine those costs and how the resource is used; not Coca Cola or some other conglomerate. But let's be very clear here: control of water is far beyond just the issue of drinking water. As it stands right now, in many jurisdictions control of water has already passed into private hands and our basic human right is now being sold back to us. It should have been the other way around; if industry wants to use water, for whatever purpose, it should be buying it from the people. As the replacement of oil in our transportation sector moves ahead, you can expect to see the onslaught on the world's water supplies grow ever stronger. And we already know that the nation most eager to fight wars over oil has epidemic water shortages in some areas. It is of paramount importance that citizens force their governments to hold water as a public resource; in places where it has already been sold off, take it back - steal it if you have to, but do not let it remain in the clutches of corporations. This may be the most critical decision citizens will ever have to make. I guess the one positive we can consider here is that when those big ocean-going tankers spill their cargo of water, at least it shouldn't leave slicks on the surface.

Contributed By


Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon May 17, 2004 7:11 pm
    Oh, yeah this is how the right wing thinks! Privatize water, which will soon be valued like black gold, and only those who can afford it, get to drink it! Oh, and you`ll have premium water from the mountains (high octane) costing the most, then mid-grade from lakes at a middle price, then the shitty stuff, the cheapest, but it will come from places like the Sydney tar ponds. If poor people can afford that, that`s what they`ll get. Then after the Bush administration allows more pollution for his corporate buddies, AIR will be the next thing to be privatized, because we won`t be able to breathe what`s in our atmosphere! Look for ownership bids placed on polar ice caps and glaciers soon!

    ---
    Dave Ruston

  2. Mon May 17, 2004 7:57 pm
    I think you're mistaken about the fuel aspect of water privatization. Hydrogen makes a good fuel, and there's lots of it around, but it's the pure gas you need. This takes energy to make; more than you get from burning the resulting hydrogen. Also, the water you crack into hydrogen and oxygen doesn't actually need to be of drinking quality: mechanically filtered seawater works fine, though the oxygen generated won't be pure.

    This means more electrical generators: hydro-electric, wind/wave/tide, solar, nuclear, natural gas, coal, whatever. Of course, if your "clean" hydrogen fuel comes from a dirty coal-fired electrical plant, then all you're doing is moving your pollution to another location. (Although with the pollution source centralized, it is easier to deal with)

    But when it comes to potable water for crops, livestock, or people...he who controls your water supply has you by the short and curlies.

    ---
    The most dangerous political atribute is a long memory.

  3. Tue May 18, 2004 3:57 am
    Well, Paul you are one of the few who writes truth, I always enjoy your articles, just wish they weren't so painful! Truth hurts and these days, there doesn't seem to be any good news stories! This has to be one of the most stressful periods in history...

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  4. Tue May 18, 2004 8:49 am
    Beltaine, hydrogen isn't useful as a SOURCE of energy. But in any clean energy society, you need a means of transporting the energy. So for transient energy consumers, like cars, hydrogen suddenly becomes VERY useful because of it's portability. It's basically just the fuel for a very sophisticated refillable battery; the battery still needs to be charged to begin with but the portability makes it worth the investment.

    But this might not necessarily pose a HUGE risk to the water supply. Since water is temporarily turned into H2 gas to store energy, and then returned to a water state when that energy is used, the net water loss is zero. But the water in "storage" at any time is out of the natural circuit. What would be the net effects of taking all this salt water out of the ocean and turning it into fresh water? Could there possibly be enough fresh water circulated once the global population has grown to change the weather patterns? Damage the environment? Heck, maybe the additional cloud cover would reflect solar energy and actually slow global warming.

    I don't know what the effects would be, but I do know that this technology has the potential to make huge changes to the world we live in, including water prices, IMO.

    -KY

    ---
    Kory Yamashita

    "What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Oliver Wendell Holmes

  5. Tue May 18, 2004 4:40 pm
    Kory, if the cloud cover reflects sunlight, it also keeps the heat from escaping into space.

    Global warming will increase with more cloud cover.

    (Don't quote me on that !!)




    ---
    "Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
    Jim Callaghan
    Minden, Ontario
    705-286-1860
    www.misterc.ca

  6. Wed May 19, 2004 12:47 am
    Folks, I surely do not understand the science but here is a quote from an article I read just today about BMW's plans to introduce a hydrogen-powered vehicle by 2009:

    "BMW's ultimate goal is to produce hydrogen for its vehicles by electrolysis of water; by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen with electrical currents. This process produces no toxic emissions.

    Furthermore, it is possible to generate the electricity for the electrolysis using renewable resources, such as solar panels or hydroelectric power stations. Essentially, sun and water would be used to produce hydrogen. The car's engine would use oxygen from the air to burn the hydrogen, thereby producing power. The only byproduct of the process is water. That water could then be split again into oxygen and hydrogen. This is called an ecologically closed system.

    Hydrogen is the most pure form of automotive fuel ever conceived."


    I understand they will need a system of refueling stations like our present gas stations but everything I have read suggests this is doable and practical.

    Paul Harris

  7. by avatar Milton
    Wed May 19, 2004 1:35 am
    Hydroelectric is not a renewable resource (assuming you are talking about dams ) there are all sorts of problems with them. Windmills can be used to harness a renewable resource(wind). When Hydrogen is burnt the two by products are water and heat. The main problem with hydrogen is that it is that it is not as dense as natural gas( which means you need a bigger volume of hydrogen to produce a given amount of energy than you would need to produce the same amount of energy using natural gas). So, storage is a problem if you expect to have cars that will travel 500 or more kilometers between fill ups.

    Wind power is the cleanest and most efficient way to produce hydrogen. Compared to fossil fuels it is a miracle. However the problem is getting Rockefeller and Morgan and Mellon and all the rest of the robber barons to switch over. They are not going to allow it unless they control it all. The entire economic/monetary system would collapse, which would be a good thing as long as we had another system ready to go as soon as the old skin was shed

  8. Wed May 19, 2004 9:52 pm
    ummm sorry, the number of windmills needed to produce the electricity required to produce the hydrogen would cover thousands of square kilometres - very, very expensive proposition.
    If hydrogen made economic sense it would take off like a rocket (pun!) unfortunately it's just too expensive to produce at the moment, the price will come down eventually with the research and technology going on now - everyone sees the potential cash cow sitting there.

  9. Wed May 19, 2004 11:34 pm
    When you bring solar panels into the equation, remember that the energy required to produce the crystals is negative energy, because it takes more energy to create them than you get back from using them.

    I love the idea, but it is not environmentally friendly.



    ---
    "Arrogance in Politics is unacceptable"
    Jim Callaghan
    Minden, Ontario
    705-286-1860
    www.misterc.ca

  10. by avatar Milton
    Thu May 20, 2004 11:07 pm
    Umm sorry, windpower is ignored because it is relatively inexpensive, anybody can get it up and running and Dupont & Rockefeller don't own the rights to the technology. Thats why apologists for big business like Anonymous above feel they should rave about how many acres would be covered and how expensive it would be.

  11. by avatar canuck
    Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:14 am
    How true. Wind power IS the future and it may be the only viable alternative to fossil fuels. Hell, you could even build your own generator over the weekend. Just type "wind generators" or "homebrew wind turbines" into Google.

    How about Electric Vehicles? They require nearly no maintenance (no oil, filters, belts, spark plugs, or exhaust). Battery technology is constantly improving to the point where electric vehicle enthusiasts are building cars themselves with performance comparable to those of internal combustion engines. Just type something like "homemade electic cars" into Google.

  12. Tue Jun 22, 2004 3:29 am
    Canuck,

    We don't hear about these things in the media just like we don't hear about the Greens in the media. It's too homegrown.

  13. Fri Nov 11, 2005 6:31 pm
    It isn't that long ago people didn't buy bottled water. It's the norm today. Hydrogen power is being introduced today but will be the norm tomorrow.

    How is this happening? We buy bottled water because we've been told that normal sources of water is no longer safe. Labels on bottled water have advertisement indicating their water is "pure". Chemicals are added to the source in every municpality to ensure the water is safe to drink.

    What will the end result be with millions of vehicles pumping out water from their tailpipes? Where will this water go if not in the atmosphere. Assuming in some climates the moisture will not vaporise immediatly it will stay earth bound. I live in a climate where it rains all winter and others in a climate where it freezes all winter. Sunny skies are going to replaced with clouds and rain will be the norm. Water may be the newest pollutant in our atmosphere.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news