Australia Is A Dry Country

Australia is the planet’s driest inhabited continent. The country is recovering from its worst drought ever - - a drought that lasted over a decade and to many was deepened by climate change. Like many countries, including the United States and China, the Aussies look to the sea as a source of drinking water. In one of the country’s biggest infrastructure projects in its history, Australia’s five largest cities are spending $13.2 billion on desalination plants capable of sucking millions of gallons of water every day, removing the salt and yielding potable water. Completion is projected for 2012, when at this time Australia’s major cities will draw up to 30 percent of the water from the sea. Many citizens and experts feel this is the cost of adapting to climate change. Others have a different opinion.

The New York Times covered this story on July 11, 2010 in an article by Norimitsu Onishi, entitled Arid Australia Sips Seawater, But the Drink May Be Costly. The story demonstrated the complexity when issues such as water shortages, climate change, energy consumption, technology, and immigration all collide together. Onishi writes the following:

“Big waste of money,” said Helen Meyer, 65, a retired midwife in Tugun, the town where the northeastern state of Queensland opened a $1 billion desalination plant last year. “It cost a lot of money to build, and it uses a lot of power. Australia is a dry country. I think we just have enough water for 22 million people [the country’s population is projected to rise to 36 million in 2050, from 22 million now]. What are we going to do when we’re up to 36 million?”

The observation and statement by Ms. Meyer points out several fundamental issues in the context of the sustainability debate. The most important issue is a basic definition and scope of what sustainability can, should, and could become. Ms. Meyer points out a direction for sustainability that is “doing less with less.” For water supply and demand to be in a sustainable balance, some consideration of the limits of population grow must be considered. Population growth is this particular context runs directly into the thorny politics and culture of an immigration-friendly government. The “doing less with less” crowd has a desire to see sustainability in the context of fixed and absolute barriers that technology nor public policy cannot or should not breach.

The second group in the sustainability debate embraces technology with “doing more with more.” In this case, more water comes from new sources as a function of more technology. But Australia, like many other places, runs into systems problems with “more with more" attitudes. Fixing one system leads to problems in another system. Desalination is power hungry - - 50% of the total cost is associated with electricity consumption. Power in Australia comes from coal - - solving our water problems may in fact produce a whole new set of unknown problems associated with climate change. The third group is the middle ground and maybe the hardest to implement. It is “doing more with less” - - it is creating additional water capacity without the need for either expensive new water technologies or drastic limits to growth. The middle ground utilizes conservation and increased efficiencies to increase the limits of water resources and supply - - it is a blend of public policy; focused marketing and messaging; and advanced technology. It is also about changes to our culture and life styles - - this makes the third group the most difficult to implement, yet potentially the most successful in the long term.