Personal tools

Argument: Water is a national security resource that states must be able to own and protect

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 22:27, 8 January 2008; Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • "National Plan for Water Security" (2007). Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. - "The drought which now grips large parts of Australia is the most severe since records began. It has taken a drastic toll on the lives and livelihoods of many Australians. The current trajectory of water use and management in Australia is not sustainable...The National Plan for Water Security is a $10 billion package designed to ensure rural water use is placed on a sustainable footing over the next decade. It will significantly improve water management across the nation with a special focus on the Murray-Darling Basin, where the bulk of Australia's agricultural water use takes place."
The National Plan for Water Security in Australia would not be possible if Australia's water resources were not owned by the national government. Questions of the allocation and management of water resources would not be afforded to the Australian national government alone, but would rather be part of a larger international decision-making process. The problem is that the international community might know nothing about the specific circumstances of Australia's water shortages and the required management solution. The solution to Australia's water problems, therefore, would likely be compromised.

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits