Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: Profit companies are inherently incapable of securing the right to water

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • Steve Egan, Public Works Corporate Consultant interviewed in "Watter Warriors" 2007 documentary. - "[It's easy to think we need to have] compassion for the people [of..Highland Park, Michigan], but the business responsibilities I think limit how compassionate we can actually be."
  • Maude Barlow, National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians. - "The commodification of water is ethically, environmentally and socially wrong, it ensures that decisions regarding the allocation of water centre on commercial considerations, leaving aside fundamental environmental, social and human rights’ considerations."[1]
  • Maude Barlow & Tony Clarke. "Who Owns Water?" The Nation. September 2nd, 2002 - "The commodification of water is wrong -- ethically, environmentally and socially. It insures that decisions regarding the allocation of water would center on commercial, not environmental or social justice considerations. Privatization means that the management of water resources is based on principles of scarcity and profit maximization rather than long-term sustainability. Corporations are dependent on increased consumption to generate profits and are much more likely to invest in the use of chemical technology, desalination, marketing and water trading than in conservation."

Counter-argument

External links

See also

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.