The lefty europress is back on the Wadi.
The BBC World Service's mid-day [Wednesday-24-AUG-2006 7.41GMT] "Business Daily" programme segment ran a report on an old Canadian bugaboo about selling water. This in a nation that has seen silly fits about this for 50 years, generally by people looking over their shoulders for UFOs.
Global warming = Melting glaciers = (somehow) "Only the people who can afford buying water can have it!!!" and that access to it is a “human right”.
Well, it certainly is a good thing, and it is a natural right if you can see the sky. Having it delivered to you is not necessarily a right, especially when such things have a hard to attribute responsibility tied to that right. Any good discussion of a phenomenon called 'the tragedy of the commons' is a good place to start trying to understand it. That lack of seriousness concerning individual property that leftists so love has caused denuding of range lands, the lack of care people have for nature, and among other things as an example, the felling of nearly every last tree in Iceland by people idealized in this century as living 'close to the land'.
Canada, with 0,6% of the world’s population has a fifth of this flavor of the world’s “rights”. Available to them is 40 times the world average access to fresh water, and judging by the complaint that they should dam off their rivers that flow south, want to withhold that “right” from others.
Quite... Per capita, Canadians use more fresh water than Americans, and four times as much as the average Swede. The fact that they have to spend so much to manage it's runoff and overabundance in nearly every part of Canada means it's more of a pollutant than a precious commodity.
Concern was tenderly shown by the BBC's evangelist in the field, Linda Duffin about those who don't have enough water. There was no-one there to ask her: okay, I'm with ya. We'll send some right away.
Where's the pipe? They can make Africa as wet as old blighty AND stop the complaints of the concerned, who after all, found a nice way to think that there's a good reason to believe that Canadian Provinical water companies couldn't fatten their otherwise subsidized budgets by selling this pollutant to American for cash.
“I don’t think [selling it] it’s such a good idea for the simple fact that someday we may need to buy it from somebody else some day”– said one dimwitted BBC interviewee.
Who is that nation that has a fifth of the world’s fresh water going to buy it from, and how are they going to get it to Canada? Normally, when Canadian Liberals want to avoid using a certain nation’s name, they use the term “our friends to the south.” Maybe these Libs and NDPers are thinking of someone in Mexico they hope to find a friend in.
As for global warming (not to be confused with climate change, the mortal sin of not recycling, or other "impure thoughts") being responsible - there are no de-desertified parts of the righteous Dominion. The state of water flow and wet area has not changed in centuries. This certainly doesn't square with what all the superior minds of left-land already know - that global warming officially began the day ChimpyMcHitlerBurton "Georges" W. Bush was spawned by the previous cause of all wrong in the Universe. The story would almost certainly run much differently under Pax Clintonia, especially when there's an election on.
And the BBC would stand there and take it seriously to report on in with a straight face. Why, I wonder?
Well, the way the BBC formula goes, it's always in the wrap-up. It's about those dastardly Americans with handlebar moustaches and top hats "taking" their water. Much in the way evil AmeriKKKa " takes their oil" and “takes their lumber" at least when they aren’t screaming about limiting its’ sales with tariffs. The money in the transaction, I suppose, is a mere trifle that they only take out of politeness since it only matters to Americans.
To the point, one wonders how it is that there could be a BBC that runs business programmes that are barely ever about business - and likewise a Reporting Religion programme that only covers topic non-believers think are about religion. One wonders in an environmentally aware world how it is that this is seen to be "sustainable" when the natural selection of the free-market would otherwise thin the herd of the otherwise weakest beasts of the media.