I think the market is unreliable because it's always changing according to the current needs/wants of consumers. The Panama canal situation was a rare success and it just so happened that the market was reliant on the shipping services which basically gave large corporations an incentive to contribute to resolving the canal problem. Getting those ships through the canal without troubles was the most ideal situation for shipping companies and large corporations who relied on shipping since there may be other issues for them if the canal was no longer available to use.
Trading ecosystem services on the market would only work if the problem largely affects the current market and also affects those who are able to provide resources or funding so that they would actually want to solve the issues.
I do think it's necessary to not take water for granted and getting municipalities to value natural assets such as water could be a way to proceed towards a positive future.
Perhaps to make people value water more, the price of water for things like consuming/cleaning could be set based on one's household income so that everyone can still have relatively equal access to water. It's more difficult with drinking water but maybe income could be programmed into a citizen card (BC service card) so that when people purchase water for drinking, the price would be based on the person's income. For example a bottle of water for someone could be $5 per liter if they have a low income and $50 per liter if they have a high income. We should make sure there's a limit to how much one can buy in a day to prevent hoarding. This idea would need to have many preventative components to overcome corruption and inequity. The sad reality is that this is much too difficult to implement for now and there is a possibility for illegal activities which may prevent equal access to water.
Hi Sharon, thank you for the great post! I really like the idea of using citizen cards, and I do think it would become much easier and convenient to manage people's water purchase if it really happens. However I also agree with you that it is difficult to implement in reality and sadly it's probably the reason why actions are taken much less than it should be.
Hi Sharon Park, I think the intervention idea you proposed is interesting. Would this income based water purchasing only be applied for commercial purchasing, or tap water as well? I wonder if this would provide large water companies with more or less incentive to produce water as their profit would change too. Unfortunately, you are correct in the identification of the drawbacks for this intervention. Where there is money, corruption follows.
I was shocked when we learned in class that it was a reinsurance company that saved the situation of the Panama Canal. Also, the U.S. government didn't take action despite being the main responsible party -- that shocked me too. Although I agree that water's value should be different based on one's income, it will de very difficult for some people to accept that fairness. Great job!
Hi Sharon! Really interesting take on your proposed situation - I do wonder how we can work to convince the government to do so as I imagine those who pass those policies tend to be of higher income and probably would not like to have to pay more for their own water; likewise with the water corporations. I do however think its an amazing idea and also wonder if this could be extended to other basic necessities in the near future too if it is successful!
I really like the idea of having different prices of water based on income, as it will allow everyone to have equal access to water. Also, having a daily limit will allow people to think more about how they will use the water and will also be more of an incentive for them to reuse and recycle the water they have.
I think a hard limit on daily water consumption is a really interesting idea. It'd definitely prevent hoarding if enforced properly, like you said, but I think the notion of it alone could also instill a sense of urgency about reducing water consumption that we really need.
I really like your ideas for their specificity, and I definitely think that linking the BC Services card would be an interesting and efficient approach on the topic of valuing water more
I also believe that pricing water and making it more valuable is an essential part of conserving water, but that is tricky for governments as it can interfear with human rights for unprivileged communities.
I agree. I don't think markets can adequately address situations regarding water. Charging for water is a good idea too!
You make an important point that the market is changing all the time. If people keep wanting to buy into fast fashion and always want the new trends, then companies that provide goods in this category will have a harder time making water efficient production lines. Of course we could hope that companies would be more efficient by themselves, but money is money. We must all do a part of we want to value water. Not only must we make changes in our own lives that pertains to direct water usage, but we must change peoples consumer habits so that companies are forced to do the same.
i think having consumption be linked to a citizen card is a good idea and would piggyback onto an exisiting government regulating body. It would just need to be organized and link the agencies.