Response to Prompt 1 Peace

I disagree with Ausubel more. If everyone could get the necessary items to survive there would be much more peace in the world. People wouldn’t have to worry and do unthinkable things to save their young. It is well-known how willing mothers are to take drastic measures when their children are endangered. The war in the Middle East is at least partially about the oil supply located in that region. Tribes in Africa often go to war over areas of water. Even if there was a surplus of necessities, however, I still think there would be wars. It seems to me as if it’s human nature to fight. War causes environmental stress as well. If the United States’ didn’t spend a large sum of their money on their military, it could be spent on research and improvement of green energy.

I think compromise and forgiveness are more useful tools because interconnectedness is a stretch. Many people would have a hard time feeling connected and the peace may be easily lost if the war ended due to this. In a sense, it reminds me of Buddha’s teachings. Considering it took Siddhartha nearly a lifetime to find inner peace, a war could last the lifetime it takes the leaders to find inner peace. This is especially significant because Siddhartha was actually looking for peace while these war leaders are shielding themselves from any such ideas. Compromise is a much simpler term for the warring nations to consider.

I doubt that stubborn men are willing to put aside century’s worth of feuds but it’s worth trying. The common goal is significant enough to make an impact on their feud. The environment is important for their future generations. I think the Iroquois Peacemaker would absolutely promote peace parks. The Iroquois Peacemaker would appreciate the back to nature area and peace. Considering the current wars, I think peace is extremely vital asset to saving the environment. Once the news can stop broadcasting about wars, they can promote the green movement and the new ideas coming about. Compromise will move us forward much faster than a standoff will. An active discussion would allow for an equal allocation and better conservation of oil, water, and land.

http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au12z6UK0tk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/07/everything-chuck-hagel-needs-to-know-about-the-defense-budget-in-charts/

Response to Prompt 3- Socialism and Capitalism

Social, environmental, and economic goals are so intertwined that no one is more important or attainable without a focus on the other two. This balance should be the goal standard by which all policies and legislation should strive to achieve. I believe that this goal is best achieved by strictly regulating environmental standards and social justice while allowing the free market competition which strives for efficiency. All three of these aims would have different final interpretations if taken individually than the result when all three are combined. A world based fully on environmental principles would be so biocentric to the point of being socially unjust and economically inefficient, just as a world based fully on social justice would be environmentally unsound and poorly functioning economically. As we already know, a world based completely on maximizing monetary efficiency, like the one we currently live in, is bad for the environment and unfairly secludes certain people due to their socioeconomic status.

In an ideal world I think that the federal and state governments should work at a strictly regulatory level, based on ethical principles. The government should work to ensure that free market companies fully uphold the stringent environmental standards necessary to ensure the sustainability of our limited resources. These standards in combination with practices that support the distribution of wealth within our society would work toward all three goals of environmental, social, and economic health. Like we saw in the talk by Hans Rosling, even wealth distribution is critical to the overall happiness and wellbeing of societies, including our global society. Regulating for strict environmental goals as well as maintaining effective social programs like healthcare and food support while allowing the free market to work for efficiency would balance all of the facets of a sustainable society. With the government serving strictly as an ethical regulatory agency and allowing traditional “capitalistic” business to operate within socially and environmentally healthy constraints I believe that all of these goals can be achieved without any of them becoming the top priority.

Last Blog: Acknowledgement and Remorse

Widespread acknowledgement of the way that human actions have influenced the natural environment is necessary in order for the way that we treat the environment to change, in my opinion. The acknowledgement of our actions will generate a sense of remorse among a majority of our population; however, there will still be individuals that choose to view the earth as a source for human consumption and exploitation. We live in a culture that has fewer small-scale, localized organizations and corporations than large-scale ones, which monopolize and control a majority of the resources and factors that contribute to our way of life. A majority of the individuals associated with these types of large-scale behaviors are often more concerned with making an economic profit than protecting the health of the environment, thereby, inhibiting the acceleration of the environmental movement. If these types of organizations were broken down into small-scale ones that were more localized and affluent within their communities, I believe the movement would gain more momentum.

The dismantling of the large-scale sector will allow for the movement to gain momentum through an increase in supporters whom now understand the true consequences of their actions on the environment due to an increase in public knowledge and discussion. In order to protect our species from extinction, it is important to increase the sustainability of our actions. In reality, our ways of life will never resort to anything that is less than what they currently are. However, through small changes in our everyday life, as a group, we can make a large change. For example; if everyone walked, biked, or road the bus to work once a week, the amount of carbon emissions prevented from entering the atmosphere would be enormous as a whole. The sharing and exchange of resources causes the amount of waste to decrease, as well as the pollution that is produced through the manufacturing of new resources. Local gardens in agriculturally productive regions are easily maintained with a little basic knowledge and experience, especially, if it is shared amongst a few families that all contribute to it. This not only decreases the amount of food purchased through an outside source, but also increases the nutrient levels of the soil. Overall, one of the most important factors that will contribute to the survival of our species is the uniting of localized individuals into groups that will protect and assist one another. These small-scale localized population groups, however, must also communicate on a large scale with other global nations in order to save the planet. Along with future generations learning from our mistakes and continuing to search for more sustainable ways of life.

 

Final week: Prompt 2 Climate Change

I would largely agree that the climate issue is a political issue, as well as an economic issue. Not only does our current political system fail to take the issue seriously but the political system is deeply involved with the economic sector of society. As a result we have two large and powerful systems that would rather ignore environmental issues than fix them. The government is supposed to look after the best interests of the people and the government has persuaded us that the economic success of large companies is whats best for us. Increasing investment in new technologies and science can greatly reduce our impact and education may help change the social mindset but unless there is a fundamental change in the way the environment is perceived then it will always be subject to the power our government has given the economy. This is part of the reason that global initiatives fail. Instead of taking responsibility we are willing to continue harmful practices so other countries do not get an advantage. I think part of the solution is to make new technologies and environmentalism economically beneficial. Personally I believe its too difficult to suddenly uproot our current love affair with our established systems so the best route would be to show how the environment and sustainable practices can improve the economy when used responsibly and can hurt the economy when used incorrectly. And there does seem to be some promise that new persuasive techniques like this are in the works, using the economy to explain why change is needed. Hopefully as education increases on the issue we can change our political system works, possibly decentralize it or simply reorganize the power and decision making structures. As for the dichotomy between government and technology I would argue that no such separation exists, the government dose not fail to take into account technology it just rather promote old rather than new technologies because those in political power are the same people in charge of the old systems. In regards to if this needs to change the answer is most definitely.

Last round, response to climate change

While it may be obvious to most that humans are responsible for widespread
environmental degradation, some still deny this. I think the first and most
important step in stopping environmental degradation and climate change is
admitting our wrong doings. If the major polluters and habitat destroyers
continue to do what they do in the name of progress and growth then our
environmental issues will only compound until people are forced to realize that
when we hurt the environment, we are also inflicting harm on ourselves. I do
not think it is as important, necessarily that people feel guilty about their
wrongdoings so much as they change their behaviours.  I would have to agree the best way to do this is transitioning to a society that is smaller scaled in structure, and that
promotes diversity and sustainability. I think it would be feasible for our
federal government to allow for smaller municipalities (counties, cities, etc)
to make their own decisions on land and resource use/management in order to
foster sustainability. Who better to make the decisions about land and resource
use than the local people living around them that have knowledge of the areas?
I think life outside of big businesses and big government that we have become
accustomed too is more than feasible, but until they are broken down, reform
must be utilized to work within the confines of the system and evoke positive
change. If environmental legislation doesn’t begin curbing climate change soon,
it may be too late.

Last Round, Prompt 2: Climate Change

I agree with Ausubel that failures to mitigate climate change are largely due to crises of government. So far, the U.S. has not been setting the best example as a leading world power buy not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Even though we have the science and technology available to make renewable energy affordable, the politics involved are preventing it from being accessible and implementable on a large scale. Renewable energy options, such as wind turbines and solar panels are only concentrated in certain areas and regions because we do not view them as economically feasible even though they are more sustainable in the long-term. We are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels that we see as cheaper, even though the price does not accurately reflect the cost to society.

Ausubel says, “Cleaning up politics will clean up the environment.” This quote reminded me of the “Homo Ecologicus” reading from earlier in the semester, which criticized existing liberal democratic institutions in failing to handle environmental problems due factors such as short election timespans, opposing special interests, and partisanship. However, Ausubel gave the example of California as an “energy success story,” which can be used as a source for optimism when talking about the failures of governing institutions: 

As the world’s eighth largest economy, the Golden State instituted a    succession of policy innovations such that it now emits about half as much carbon per dollar of economic activity as the rest of the country. It’s first among the states in promoting energy efficiency. The result has been savings of $ 56 billion for customers, while obviating the need for twenty-four new   large-scale power plants. The gains are so impressive that its rules have been adopted by other states and into federal standards.

Therefore, I think it is possible for resolutions for climate change to fit into a dichotomy between government and technology. Maybe California is proof that ecological modernization is achievable and hopefully it can help change the rest of the country’s mindset and then convince the rest of the world that economic growth without environmental degradation can occur. 

Response to Blog Prompt Water Scarcity

There are water issues all across the world that are getting worse each and every day. If there isn’t a solution to the lack of drinking water, then the world is in danger of surviving. In my opinion, I think part of the answer lies in technology. We can perfect desalinization plants to be more efficient and less costly so we can turn the ocean’s water into usable water for countries throughout the world. This process can be costly though, which is why it isn’t a great option. I think education will also play a role. People throughout the world need to be educated on how scarce of a resource water truly is. Rachel Carson wrote a book about the springs drying up in Florida. People aren’t aware that this is happening. I think once people become more aware and knowledgeable about the situation we are facing, they will stop taking water for granted. 

I think the approach for tackling water scarcity is different for underdeveloped countries verses developed countries because the problem with water is different in each. The issue with water in underdeveloped countries is that there isn’t enough clean water for them to use, where as in developed countries there’s more clean water available, however, people take advantage of this and often waste water causing there to be shortages. If policy, such as the Clean Water Act, was used in developing countries to make a standard for the water people drink I feel it will only be beneficial for the country and the world. 

Last Prompt Round 9? Acknowledging Our Past to Change the Future

 

In every addiction support group they say that until you acknowledge your addiction, realize who you have harmed and ask their forgiveness, there is little hope for lasting change. I think this holds true for the environment as well. People have an addiction, the addiction for more: more power, more possessions. To heal this widespread addiction of damaging our earth by our desire for more, widespread acknowledgement and repentance is also needed to facilitate a lasting change.

 

I believe the key to our survival does lie in a small-scale community and governance structure. The more localized you are, the more you are able to solve and prevent problems in your area. One large government is good for things such as taxes and controlling major resources and roadways. But to really build good policy everywhere, local government and community could do that significantly better. People who live in an area know the land better and can create policy and community to become more resilient and mobilized for the coming natural disasters. We are part of the natural world. We have the same ability to adapt as a community and as a species. However, if we don’t acknowledge the damage done and the fact that we need to change our ways significantly, earth and our species could be in a lot of trouble.

Response to Social Ecology B

Bookchin’s comprehensive approach to environmental problems echoes the weak anthropocentrism ethic proposed by John Huckle in his essay “Sustainable Development.”  It is only appropriate to approach an interdisciplinary and comprehensive problem like environmental exploitation with integrated solutions that incorporate dimensions of society, economics, and science.  Many approaches to environmental exploitation and subsequent consequences of it only treat symptoms of the problem rather than addressing the root cause.  For example, soil toxicity problems are treated by removing top layers of soil and disposing of them at a landfill as hazardous waste.  Clearly, this approach to remedying soil quality does not prevent further soil pollution or address any issues of quality control regulation or environmental injustice likely associated with this problem.  If Bookchin’s social ecology was applied in a soil toxicity case study, it would serve as a preventative measure against pollution in the first place.  Additionally, such an approach would naturally and elegantly integrate the precautionary principle. 

I feel that a comprehensive approach to environmental issues comparable to social ecology or weak anthropocentrism would so successfully focus on treating exploitative activity that arguments from climate change deniers would hold no water.  That is, if the exploitation of environmental resources can be addressed (which can be agreed upon by a reasonable majority as a phenomena that occurs and does not require elaborate model-based scientific data to prove), activities that contribute to climate change would be reduced by default.

A drawback to implementing social ecology is the breadth and scope of changes in contemporary social values, policy, and regulatory enforcement that would have to take place.  Such a social paradigm shift would occur in no less than a decade.  While this may seem grim, the 1973 Oil Embargo catalyzed an environmentally conscious movement in the United States that spurred alternative energy research, increased the enforcement and strength of environmental legislation, and made environmental conservation a hot button voting issue. 

John Huckle states, “We should balance our rights to self-determination and development, with responsibilities towards the rest of the human and biotic community” (emphasis mine).  I disagree that this statement should merely be a prescription of human behavior, but must become a description of contemporary behavior within the next decade if we are to avoid positive feedback loops that would send climate/ecological cycles into a tailspin. 

Last Blogs! Prompt 2: Climate Change

I do not believe that failure to mitigate climate change is a result of limitations in science and technology; as a plethora of scientific evidence indicates, climate change is having monumental effects and is primarily the cause of human activity. I agree with Ausubel that “on a technological plane,” (159) we can reduce CO2 emissions and thus help mitigate climate change. With California as an exception, the problem largely relates to policymakers’ and governments’ resentment about straying away from “business as usual.” I agree with the “redesign of our civilization” that Ausubel prescribes, and that this requires decentralization and more efficient, localized systems of governance. I also think that more education regarding the issue of climate change is necessary; if constituencies are more aware of the problem and potential catastrophic effects of climate change, they are more likely to work to get governments to adopt policies designed to mitigate it.

I do not think that a climate change mitigation scheme will easily fit into government policy as it has been operating, but that is why a systemic redesign is necessary. Environmental concerns like climate change are not necessarily conducive to the primary government aims of growth, economic development, technological innovation, and increasing globalization. Thus, I think it is going to take a massive reconsideration of priorities in order for climate change to make it onto the policy agenda in a way that will help mitigate the crises associated with it. As Ausubel mentions, education and decentralization are critical components of such an endeavor.

Response to Prompt 2:

There are some things that are just clearly out of our control. We cannot control the weather. We cannot control other people. To an extent, we are able to predict and manipulate these things, but never with complete certainty. Without a doubt, this was the aim of the Kyoto Protocol, Montreal Protocol, and the Copenhagen summit of 2009.

Ausubel claims that the reason climate change still exists in its current extent is because of the “biggest political failure in the history of civilization.” While it may be a bit of a stretch to call today’s political environment the worst in the history of civilization, I think I can see where he’s coming from. After several intentional meetings between world governments and organizations to curb necessary industrial processes which contribute to the “carbon footprint,” not much progress has been made. The error in Ausubel’s thinking is that just because little progress has been made, the blame should not be placed on the temporarily elected appointed “decision makers.” It is not out of the corruptness of their hearts that presidents, secretary generals, prime ministers, et cetera refuse to shut down factories, rather it is because such a decision would be unwise. Both the short and long term effects of such actions cannot be justified against the ever-changing scientific evidence and discoveries regarding climate change. As science and technology are able to place more of the pieces of the puzzle together, we will be able to make more concise decisions. Also, it is not that we are being held back by current scientific limitations, rather we are being pushed forward by them – we are just not as far along as we wished we could be.

Response to Prompt 1: Peace

Competition between nations drives this century. Every country is constantly trying to create the most advanced technology before another country creates it. The environmental degradation that results due to these developments is not a priority for most countries. Violence and industrial warfare are results of this competition. For this reason, I agree with Ausbel’s belief that industrial warfare leads to environmental degradation. Nevertheless, environmental stresses will lead to water wars and agricultural wars in the future.

Recognizing the interconnectedness of all beings and complex processes is essential to developing an environmental ethic as well as creating peace in our world. We must understand that we need animals and microorganisms to survive, the same way that developing countries need to export to other countries to keep their economic standing. By recognizing our relationship with nature as well as our connection to all other humans, feelings of compromise and forgiveness will develop on their own. Therefore, I believe that the role of interconnectedness in our world is the most effective tool to create peace and harmony.

Humans have the tendency to be selfish. Having different goals, therefore, does not encourage them to work together and create peace. I do believe peace plays a significant role in saving our environment because it creates unity between everyone, which will in turn allow us to work towards a common goal. By recognizing that we are all interconnected, like the Iroquois Peacemaker stated, feelings of empathy as well as a desire to help others develop. This will allow us to work together to save our environment and all things dependent on it.

Response to Prompt 2

By and large I feel that our failures to mitigate climate change reside in our government and in the ways that politics over the past 60 years have favored slow and limited steps towards action. While technology plays a crucial role in offering the means of powering our society in a sustainable and healthy way, so much of its progress is often dependent on the whims and decisions of the government. In the example of the light-water nuclear reactor, failure to improve upon the design and switch to a liquid fuel reactor, a technology which would have generated waste 10,000 times less toxic than plutonium, was due to the Nixon administration who wanted instead the plutonium for nuclear weapons during the cold war.
In the light of technology produced through academia, politics often can play a large role as well. Often, new and progressive technologies arise from the minds and laboratories of institutions and universities, which are at least partly funded by government programs and grants. When the political tides turn to defund such national programs to “reduce government spending” or reallocate the money to defense budgets and subsidies, the government indirectly stifles the progress of technologies that could lead to the next great revolution in sustainability.

Point being, our climate issues have not only arisen out of our government decisions, but in a large way the technology we frequently hold up to be our environmental save all is largely directed by our political climate. Overall, it appears to me that the failure of our mitigation action resides in our political system and the ways in which it often upholds priority to a thriving economy. With an option of delay that favors short term gains that can be used to win the next term’s election, the necessary decisions that must be made to address our climate dilemma are too often cast aside as fanciful and hopeful rhetoric. That ‘one-day’ technology too often is our scapegoat. The fact that our government has acted very little to make simple and much needed efficiency changes, which are now in existence and could reduce our energy consumption by 50%, is enough of a red flag to indicate that the government is failing to take even the most moderate of actions. 

Response to Climate Change

I absolutely agree with Ausubel that the failure of the world to mitigate climate change is due to a crisis of government and political action, rather than a limitation of science and technology. Though there is plenty of room for advances in renewable energy that would help make dealing with climate change easier, the technology that exist today is more than adequate to reduce our use of fossil fuels by a large amount, and eventually completely. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report detailing the ability of renewable energy sources to meet our energy demands. According to the report, from a technological standpoint, renewable energy can more than meet our energy demands, and by the year 2050, nearly 80 percent of our energy needs can be met with existing technologies alone. So what is the problem? Why all the doom and gloom in discussions about climate change is the solution is already available to us? The problem is that the transition will not be easy. In fact it will be extremely hard and expensive. Switching away from fossil fuel use is a painful process, and it is one that doesn’t seem to have the political support to get done. Supporting renewables would require the government to spend enormous amounts of money, as well as ignore the lobbyists of the already established energy industry, who will surely resist this change with all of their power. Ultimately I believe it will come down to the public, led by a few political members who understand the situation, to demand drastic change in our energy industry.

Prompt 2: Climate Change

I definitely agree that failures to mitigate climate change are due to crises of government. We have proven that we have technology to at least greatly limit our carbon emissions (hybrid vehicles, limestone scrubbers, solar energy, etc.), but the government has not placed strict enough limitations on these emissions. Until limitations are in place, companies will continue to cut corners and destroy the environment. The result is our clean technology practically going to waste. As stated in the prompt, President Bush was more concerned about the economy than the future of the environment. This mindset, especially in powerful political figures, must change if there is any hope for significant environmental regulation.

I do not think these resolutions will easily fit into a dichotomy between government and technology. Again, strict regulation would greatly interfere with the economy. While greener products could be sold at a similar rate to products now to prevent an economic collapse, to truly make progress we must stop this need for growth that capitalism is founded upon. Unless this happens, it does not matter how many green products are on the shelf to be consumed. There is not an infinite supply of anything, so infinite growth is clearly out of the question. Stopping this growth would require government to put more interests into the environment than into the economy, which I cannot see happening anytime soon.

Final Round, Prompt 2: Climate Change

The crisis of climate change is most certainly due to the failure of government, at least in part. However, as with many issues, the answer is not that either government or technology is to blame. Rather, both have played a significant role in the development of global climate change. Without advancements in technology during the industrial revolution and throughout the twentieth century, human-induced climate change most likely does not happen. At the very least, it does not happen to the extent that it currently is, considering that non-industrial factors (such as raising cows and other forms of agriculture) also contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at noteworthy levels. Even in the face of technology that allows humans to affect their environment like never before, it is possible that disastrous global climate change is still avoided if governments across the globe responded appropriately. As noted in the prompt, governments have consistently failed on an international level to create policy likely to stop or even mitigate climate change. Ausubel also notes in “Six Degrees of Climate Separation” that international summits rarely lead to international solutions, and when the representatives from these national governments are capable of coming to an agreement, the result is a policy that does not go far enough to create a significant impact. In the end, both technology and governments have failed us and contributed to the global threat of climate change.

Like the sources of the problem, the solutions are also found in both government and technology. Ausubel notes that improvements in energy efficiency and green energy technology points to a promising future with clean energy options. Governments have the inherent capacity to deal with a large-scale, collective action problem such as climate change. While both government and technology have lead us down this dangerous road, realigning each can lead to tremendously beneficial results and workable solutions for the problem of climate change.

Serena Scott Blog #5

Response to prompt 3: Social and population

 

As the human population grows space becomes scarce. Not every society gets to live like Americans, sprawled out with huge houses and yards. Our way of life in the USA is in fact rare. In countries like Japan or China a majority of citizens live in close quarters often living in apartments or condos. I believe that the first step for social sustainability is social benefits such as social security, universal healthcare and universal childcare like that of European countries. I believe a well maintained balanced budget is necessary but unrealistic. I believe that another way for social sustainability is well paying government jobs, availability to education and affordable colleges. In order to have social sustainability citizens must be happy, with this being said it is important to have public parks, well-maintained conservation land and protected natural land. I also believe that basic fundamental things such as how to do taxes, how to pay bills, how to build credit and how to properly invest should be taught in high school. I believe all these will make more well-rounded, better-educated and happier citizens.

Response to Prompt 1: Peace

At first I was curious at the notion that warfare leads to environmental degradation but the longer I thought about it the more it began to make sense.  Nearly everything our country does is because other countries are doing it, or might be trying to do it and we want to be first and we want to be the best.  I think this emphasis on consumerism, technology, military, defense, etc, to always be the best causes a competitive foundation underneath any relationship.  Thus, I find that I have to agree most with the idea that warfare leads to environmental degradation.  I found “Remembering the Future” interesting because I wouldn’t have thought forgiveness and compromise would be used to create peace.  I believe that it is indeed the recognition of interconnectedness that leads to the greatest peace and further, the greatest awareness of said peace.  While I would have liked to see Ausubel go more in depth on the topic I still think he addresses it fairly accurately.  Moreover, I agree with Saleem Ali that peace and conservation go hand-in-hand.  I think that designing a common goal can most definitely act as a tool to ultimately promote peace.  Peace plays a significant role in saving the environment; but I would suggest an integration of all the methods.  Any one method would be far too extreme but a combination of all would advance cooperation, peace, and betterment of the environment.

Diana Gu: Topic 2

I partially agree with Ausubel that crises of government are partly to blame for failures to mitigate climate change and is definitely more to blame than failures of science and technology. I would even argue that reliance on science and technology to ‘fix’ climate change would be a mere band aid on an overall deeply embedded cultural and moral issue that is worsened by broken, weak, or misguided governments that fail to prioritize the environment and thus climate change in their policies and international dialogues. The example of the light-water nuclear reactors is one of many examples of how our reliance and blind following of the newest and readily available methods and approaches to obtaining what we envision as progressive resources or ways of living has distracted us from the most fundamental answer or rather moral question we must ask ourselves and pursue—how do we live better? Instead of “how can we have more?” Failures of our government to realize long-term measures to protect the environment and our climate emphasizes our deepest weaknesses as a society. The average student lives in a country where environmental education is not required by the state/government. Basic understanding of ecology and thermodynamics is rarely reached—no wonder our governments cannot find the motivation to address these problems when our education system is bereft of environmental value and attempts to create workers and money-makers instead of global, empathetic, and informed citizens. Thus, I would disagree that resolutions for climate would not ‘fit’ into a dichotomy of government and technology but rather is a problem between culture and education. 

Water Crisis.

You raise several important questions at the end of your prompt, and I feel that the answer we have for these questions will define what kind of future will we have. You ask how can be fight water scarcity, and what steps should we take, asking if we should use technology, law, and the difference between developed and developing nations. I feel that dividing the possible solutions is a short sighted mistake, we must address the water crisis from all angles, and with all tools at our disposal. 

But before we go out into the world trying to solve the water crisis we must take a hard look at our country. In a large scale, the existence of a city like Las Vegas, for example, is an inexcusable situation. In a smaller scale, it is unacceptable that he largest crop in the United States is grass. Yes, grass! More than corn, wheat and fruit trees combined!

We have a long ways to go with the water crisis we are in, and we better hurry up. Because once we run out, it is not going to be a pretty sight.