It's Called a Desert for a Reason
I came across this article in the Detroit Free Press today. Needless to say, I have no plans to vote for Bill Richardson for president in 2008. You basically write off any votes from the states that touch the Great Lakes when you say that we should have a national water policy that ships water from our Great Lakes to the Southwest.
I have the solution to the water starved Southwestern states. If they want to develop desert terrain, expect to have less water to use. Don't try to have a lawn. Don't open golf courses. If you can't live that way, move away. Other states shouldn't have to drain their resources and destroy their environment to support states that are overpopulated and cannot sustain their own natural resources.
If these people need more water to sustain their lives, they should try conservation or moving to a different part of the country with the resources to meet their needs. There is a huge need in Michigan for new businesses and jobs to lower Michigan's huge unemployment rate. Maybe some of the companies located in these areas can move to Michigan and have access to the wonderful resources of the Great Lakes state. Yes, that is a cold hearted stance, especially given that my grandfather lives in Arizona. However, I can be a 'compassionate conservative' from time to time.
Sadly, these debates happen once every couple years. Thankfully, states touching the Great Lakes (and Canada) have enough clout that I don't expect the U.S. to every try to implement a water policy to drain the Great Lakes to support our overpopulated deserts.
What scares me most about this whole thing is that these comments came from a Democratic presidential candidate. Richardson view is probably a result of his time as New Mexico's governor. They could lose the upper Midwest states and the entire election with that issue. At least no one else in the party has publicly supported Richardson's position.
I have the solution to the water starved Southwestern states. If they want to develop desert terrain, expect to have less water to use. Don't try to have a lawn. Don't open golf courses. If you can't live that way, move away. Other states shouldn't have to drain their resources and destroy their environment to support states that are overpopulated and cannot sustain their own natural resources.
If these people need more water to sustain their lives, they should try conservation or moving to a different part of the country with the resources to meet their needs. There is a huge need in Michigan for new businesses and jobs to lower Michigan's huge unemployment rate. Maybe some of the companies located in these areas can move to Michigan and have access to the wonderful resources of the Great Lakes state. Yes, that is a cold hearted stance, especially given that my grandfather lives in Arizona. However, I can be a 'compassionate conservative' from time to time.
Sadly, these debates happen once every couple years. Thankfully, states touching the Great Lakes (and Canada) have enough clout that I don't expect the U.S. to every try to implement a water policy to drain the Great Lakes to support our overpopulated deserts.
What scares me most about this whole thing is that these comments came from a Democratic presidential candidate. Richardson view is probably a result of his time as New Mexico's governor. They could lose the upper Midwest states and the entire election with that issue. At least no one else in the party has publicly supported Richardson's position.
posted by GaryGinew at 7:33 PM
4 Comments:
i'm curious about your thoughts regarding other areas of the country that are prone to issues of nature. For instance, do you think building in and around New Orleans is stupid? I mean, they're pretty much totally below sea level, and with that area being hurricane riddled, doesn't it seem pretty stupid to build there? should we just abandon NOLA and the surrounding areas and forget about giving aid to rebuild?
and for that matter, what about areas that are prone to wildfires or earthquakes? I mean, I'm just WAITING for the day when California falls into the ocean so I can laugh at the suckers that live there.
don't get me wrong... I totally agree with your stance. It just irks me when people take this stance when their own resources are being jeopardized, but could care less about others being irresponsible when it doesn't involve tapping into their own resources. so genuinely, I do wonder what your stance is...
I see your point, but I don't think that comparing living in a desert where water is scarce is the same is living below sea level in a hurricane zone or living in an area prone to earthquakes. In the two examples you provided, the people have the resources needed to sustain a large population (water, fertile land to grow food, etc).
However, these people should expect to pay a much higher price to protect their assets (i.e., homes) from natural disasters that are common in those areas. The insurance marketplace addresses that risk fairly, and there are even subsidies from the federal government to help people in these areas afford the high cost of insurance.
i have to agree with you--there wouldn't be such a problem if people practiced water conservation and xeriscaped their lawns. we should not deplete more natural resources just so my parent's lawn can look the same lush green as a lawn in the northeast! this coming from a new mexican and republican!
*sigh*
where do you think those subsidies from the government are coming from? taxpayers around the country, that's who.
I don't see how you can make such an issue of this when it relates to natural resources but not when it relates to fiscal resources. if the middle class or poor who live in those areas can't afford to insure themselves, they have no business living there, in my opinion. it seems like an issue of personal responsibility... not something that people should rely on the government for.
but maybe that's why i'm a libertarian.
Post a Comment
<< Home