The Demand for Water Will Increase Five Times By 2050

It would have to be a long-term energy source, because the costs of harvesting and utilizing hydrogen on a large scale are lofty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

 

Modern Desalination techniques.. can desalinate salt water to sweet water and generate lots of cheap electricity at the same time.

Further there are nuclear power applications for the same dual benefit.

And/or.. we can also capture and store ground water.


Look at the floods in the Mississippi River system.

 

We are looking at a very cheap way to harvest hydrogen form the ocean. The steam produced would be condensed into water and injected into the water supply near the power plants.

 

Saudi Arabia has been researching your suggestion since 1980.. with the HySolar project at KACST.

 

No they would not have the majority of the worlds population was never in any danger of starvation nor did any green program save them.

The famine in Africa was a localized problem which has happened somewhere to someone at any time throughout human history.

 

Really? Please explain how that works? When you water the lawn, where does it go then?

 

So you're ok with toxic chemicals leaching into the water table and the pollution caused by belching factories, not to mention the diseases and deaths caused?
Those are negative effects on the environment including the people who live in it. We know these things. If you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend they aren't happening I might remind you of the Exxon Valdez which is still affecting Alaska after 22 years.
This is nothing to do with 'socialism' and everything to do with caring about a fragile environment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill

Read this and tell me man isn't affecting his environment: http://www.aaidd.org/ehi/media/polluting_report.pdf

 

Remember back in the 1800s when everything ran on steam power? We are looking at a very prospective source of clean energy here.

 

It evaporates into the atmosphere as molecules of H20, forms into clouds which produce rain and the cycle continues.

 

Dude, the Exxon Valdez incident was an environmental accident, nothing more. I mean, shat happens, buddy. I mean how often does stuff like that happen? Are you gonna give Obama shat for screwing up the whole Gulf Oil Spill mess that he botched last year? That's stupid, dude.

What I'm talking about is the overall benefit of deregulating the EPA and freeing up our access to our own natural resources. You enviro-geeks get so caught up in your precious Mother Earth that you forget that She is there to provide for us, not the other way around.

 

So who is going to regulate and monitor businesses that pollute-or are you expecting them to police themselves?
Your last sentence is absurd. If you don't care for the environment how can you expect it to provide for you? Magic? Wishful thinking?

 

MUHHAHAHAHAHA!

Stupid liberals outmaneuvered again!

 

Dude, we could set off every nuke on the entire planet and kill every single person that exists, and the Earth would still be there the next day. We are the ones that are expendable, not the environment. It's called "survival", dude. You are looking at this crap backwards.

 

There are areas in Cornwall (the county next to mine) which are still polluted by the arsenic by-product from extracting tin, centuries after the last mine closed. Nothing grows; the soil is barren. And I have it backwards?
If the environment is not managed; if business is allowed to run-riot at its expense then we will suffer the consequences.

 

How about closing the border with Mexico and deporting all the illegal aliens who are adding to our need for water?

 

the only life that would be around after such an event would be the bacteria that grows on the walls of caves miles below the surface of the earth, and whatever lives in the very deepest darkest depths of the ocean.

it could take hundreds of millions of years, perhaps upwards of a billion for life to recover.

 

Asia gonna be fightin' over fresh water?...

Asia's next major conflict will be over fresh water
Wednesday 11th May, 2016 - Nothing illustrates the emergence of fresh water as a key determinant of Asia’s future better than the drought that has parched lands from South East Asia to the Indian subcontinent. It has withered vast parcels of rice paddies and affected economic activity, including electricity generation at a time when power demand has peaked.

 

Water is already a big problem. At least with obtaining clean drinking water.

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2016/01/18/6035/

Check your own local water supply sources to see what your drinking. Much of the water we drink that is obtained from rivers is recycled toilet water.

 

Same amount of water? Maybe so. But remember that the Orange Turd is ripping up regulations as fast as his little hands can do so. And some of those regulations were put in place specifically to protect the quality of our water and our food.

It will do no good to have oceans of water under our feet if it has been poisoned by chemicals used in fracking, for instance. And, it's unlikely that science will come up with a way, soon, of cleaning up water, or removing salt from ocean water, in anywhere the amounts we will soon need given the growth of world population. This is soon going to be a huge problem. And our hyper-partisan politicians can't even agree on the time of day, much less work together to solve any serious problems.

Finally, with brain-dead would-be-leaders, like the Orange Dildo, we're going to be in deep shyte, very soon. We need intelligent leadership and THAT, too, is in very short supply — in all three branches of our government.

 

That sound so simplistic as to be laughable. Ridiculous is probably a better, and more accurate, word.

 

Oh paco, paco, paco.

 

Amusing someone who uses the term 'orange dildo' demands intelligent leadership.

Trump is powerful, but not enough to affect the planets water supply. Relax, monkrules. You'll still have local, county and state regulators to protect you.

 

I think that people are a bit complacent about water and don't realise just how fragile the supply is.

 

If you replaced 'complacent' with 'ignorant' that would be a more accurate assessment. Some of the posts here prove my point.