Kimberly Farias.
In Maclean’s article “Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?” published September 3rd, 2009 the author, Nancy Macdonald, argues that privatization of the world’s water supply is a viable solution to water concerns. Water is needed for life, and clean, sanitary water should be available to everyone. Water is definitely an increasingly important issue as population increases creating a higher demand, and the climate changes, redistributing the resource. The author tries to derail the usual arguments against the privatization of water.
“It has long been assumed that privatizing water services is bad for the poor, bad for the environment, and leads to the inequitable distribution of water. The usual argument is that private companies will put profits ahead of people, cutting off the supply of fresh water to those who can’t afford it. However, new evidence has emerged showing that the opposite may be true.” (Macdonald 2009)
Macdonald opens with the tale of Bolivia’s failed attempt at water privatization, and the trouble that they face now with a public system. Currently in Bolivia, many people are without access to clean water, or have very limited access. While this and the countless other statistics used may be true, I read nothing positive about privatization. The article mostly beats up public water, it doesn’t say why or how privatization would work. Other than “Some say privatization could lead to more realistic pricing, less waste, and better distribution—even to the world’s poor” (Macdonald 2009). The words “some say” make the whole statement seem weak. I think if there was more about why privatization would be a good solution the article could have been more persuasive. It definitely works in her favour to articulate on all the reasons why the current public system does not work, but just stating that privatization is the way to go is not very convincing. Stories of successful water privatization would go a long way in developing a stronger argument. There are some cases from India, and Buenos Aires where privatization of water lead to better distribution, and affordability for the poor. If these were used in addition to the problems with public water, I feel the argument would have been sturdier.
She uses reliable and staggering statistics demonstrating the need for a revaluation of current water distribution systems. One sixth of the world’s population doesn’t have access to clean water, and places with plentiful water simply waste it. This is a strong argument, using seemingly reliable information, but it is not used in submission with the privatization aspect of the article as efficiently as it could be. She points out the flaws of the common state-controlled water, but she fails to mention certain aspects. Professor Gabriel Eckstein of the Texas Tech School of Law is quoted in the article saying “We have enough fresh water globally to provide every person on earth a hundred times over” (Macdonald 2009). It is simply the distribution of the water that needs to be figured out. It would take resources and energy to get clean, fresh, uncontaminated, drinkable water to everyone on the planet. Not only that but if the 1.1 billion people without clean water suddenly had access, there would be much more water to be cleaned and processed. So with greater water distribution comes, the need for more energy. Much of the developing world, where this water is needed the most, has insufficient energy sources, especially in rural areas. More than 1.5 billion people worldwide don’t have access to electricity (Centurelli 2010). Water is the issue here, but energy should be mentioned, because it is needed to process, clean, and redistribute this life sustaining resource.
In conclusion, the author of this article uses both strong and weak arguments when attempting to prove her point. She focuses on disproving what most people believe, but she does not attempt to demonstrate how privatization would be beneficial, only how public water is not. There were many statistics used to help solidify her argument, as well as quotes from experts. The article is strictly focused on water; it is a vital resource that billions don’t have access to. The article fails to address things important to the distribution and processing of water like energy. A more effective argument could have been made with the addition of positive privatization information. Also there is more than the just the issue of water. Energy and distribution needs to be taken into consideration, because without energy there would not be clean, drinkable water. This article definitely helped to further inform me on issues dealing with water, but I am not convinced that privatization is the solution.
References
Macdonald, N., Is the privatization of water the right thing to do?, Macleans, Sept. 3, 2009. http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/09/03/the-market-solution/
Centurelli, R., Energy Poverty. How to make modern energy access universal?, OECD/IEA, Sept. 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment