© the other press e¢ Opinions December 10, 2003 = a So Much David Suzuki In Canada, it’s hard not to take water for grant- ed. You turn on the tap and—voila—there it is! We are indeed spoiled. But a huge number of the world’s population doesn't have that luxury, and improving the situation as our global population continues to expand will require a new approach. On a planet where 71 percent of the surface is covered with water, it can be hard to imagine that more than one billion people do not have access to safe drinking water, while another 2.4 billion don’t have ade- quate sanitary services. These harsh conditions may seem medieval, but they are a reality of life in much of the developing world. Together, these problems account for up to five million deaths every year. To begin addressing the problem, the United Nations declared 2003 to be “International Year of Freshwater” and pledged to cut in half, by 2015, the number of people without clean water or adequate sanitation. Unfortunately, there is little indica- tion that improving access to clean water is a priority among wealthier nations. According to an analysis by the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security published recently in the journal Science, aid from wealthy nations for clean water and sanita- tion projects in the developing world is drying up, not improving. In fact, its declined from $3.4 billion per year in 1996, to $3 billion per year David Suzuki Foundation in 2001. To make matters worse, the people suffering most from lack of clean water and sanitation are receiving the least amount of aid. Countries where only 60 percent of the population has access to clean water receive just 12 percent of international funding. Researchers say that unless greater efforts are made, the cumulative death toll by 2020 from inadequate access to clean water and sanitation is expected to be between 52 and 118 million people—mostly chil- dren. Developed countries have tended to solve their water problems through massive infrastructure proj- ects like dams and canals. These projects delivered huge volumes of water, but at a high cost. Large dams and reservoirs have displaced tens of millions of people in the last century and done irreparable damage to freshwater ecosystems. Dams and irrigation schemes now remove so much water from some rivers that they can dry up before reaching the sea. The Colorado River, for exam- ple, now rarely flows all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Focusing on large infrastructure projects to provide even more fresh- water for the earth’s growing popula- tion would cost an estimated $180 billion per year by 2025—a stagger- ing sum. The environmental and social costs of such projects would also be extremely high. Fortunately, there are less damaging and less expensive ways to provide clean water to the developing world. Rather than just providing massive amounts of water, researchers instead suggest a “soft path” that will cause fewer environmental and_ social problems while still providing the world with adequate fresh water. This path focuses on being as effec- tive as possible with a minimum amount of water using techniques such as rainwater harvesting, inte- grated land-use plans, precision- application irrigation, and pricing tools to ensure water is not wasted. Not long ago, the use of vast amounts of water and energy was equated with having a high quality of life. Fortunately, weve become much more efficient at using water and that connection is no longer true. The United States, for example, now uses less total freshwater than it did two decades ago. Developed nations need to contin- ue to become more efficient, for our freshwater resources in many areas are stretched to their limits. In the developing world, following a soft path approach could reduce the costs of delivering freshwater by as much as 90 percent—bringing clean water and adequate sanitation within the reach of millions more people. But that will only happen if there’s enough political will to ensure ade- quate aid reaches the hands of those who can use it most effectively. Take the Nature Challenge and learn more at . for the Afterglow silt Oriana Evans OP Contributor As a teenager, I would sneak Kraft Dinner into my parents’ house and prepare it while they were at work. Food occupied the fridge, but I needed to witness the phenomenon of boiling water and a blue box transforming into lunch. In KD, Kraft Foods packaged my ideal—that quick, easy, and inexpensive could be good. A pot of orange pasta attracted incredulous looks from my parents—me, it inspired. Forget about all the hard work my parents endured to get ahead—life was going to be easy. Boil some water and anything was possible. Success, money, and love would need little investment of time and effort. Get a pre-pack- aged life of your choice by following the direc- tions. Want to be a lawyer? Stick with school for five years and presto: you are a successful lawyer packing a wallet that makes you limp. Misled by cheesy marketing, quick, cheap, and easy, no longer means good to me. Easy money usually means illegal, success requires an enor- mous investment of effort and time, and no sat- isfying relationship is built quickly. KD offers no promise—only a bland taste that leaves me wanting. Ae ®