The Economist has fascinating recurring debates and the latest one is really really interesting: should water be priced according to its real market value to give people a sense of what it means to ‘produce’ clean water and discourage waste?
Very controversial subject, I agree. There’s a log of reasons why we shouldn’t do it – from the ethical to economcal ones -, but we cannot deny the fact that current practice has encouraged tremendous amount of squandering.
My opinion is that, while the proposition has merit in respect with domestic owners, the crux of the problem are industrial polluters, since they can circumvent it simply by using and abusing water from natural sources, without paying the necessary green premium.
I cannot agree with pricing water for a simple reason. It is the essence of life, the one resource that we need above all – bar oxygen. I’m not saying this as an ethical thing, but as a real issue. Give ownership and exploitation rights to corporate conglomerates, put a price on it, and the painful gap in clean water access will deepen even further. Corporations are, no matter how ‘charitable’ the people leading them, sociopathic constructs (not my contention, I’ve seen research about this and promise I’ll post a link soon) and those not having the money will not have the access. That’s how it works – period.
Anyways, that’s my opinion. You should state yours and the Economist gives you a grand way to do it and learn more about the issue, since they have expert comments on it too.
