New advisory report pushes disastrous privatization schemes

Link to the article

This week, President Biden’s National Infrastructure Advisory Council issued a report recommending the privatization of the nation’s water systems.

The chair of the advisory council is the CEO of Global Infrastructure Partners, an infrastructure investment bank with an estimated $100 billion in assets under management that targets energy, transportation, digital and water infrastructure.

The report recommends, among other things, that the federal government “[r]emove barriers to privatization, concessions, and other nontraditional models of funding community water systems,” and open up all federal grant programs to support privatized utilities.

Food & Water Watch Public Water for All Campaign Director Mary Grant issued the following response:

Water privatization is a terrible idea. President Biden should have never appointed an investment banker to chair an advisory council for the nation’s infrastructure. Wall Street wants to take control of the nation’s public water systems to wring profits from communities that are already struggling with unaffordable water bills and toxic water.

Privatization would deepen the nation’s water crises, leading to higher water bills and less accountable and transparent services. Privately owned water systems charge 59 percent more than local government systems, and private ownership is the single largest factor associated with higher water bills — more than aging infrastructure or drought.

Instead of relying on Wall Street advisers, President Biden should support policies that will truly help communities by asking Congress to pass the Water Affordability, Transparency, Equity and Reliability (WATER) Act (HR 1729, S 938). After decades of federal austerity for water, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a step forward, but it provided only about seven percent of the identified needs of our water systems. The WATER Act would fully restore the federal commitment to safe water by providing a permanent source of federal funding at the level that our water and wastewater systems need to ensure safe, clean and affordable public water for all.

Link to Food & Water Watch

Certain resources/commodities/services like water, food, electricity and health should remain in public domain. I don't understand the askance that is associated with this view.

Once these fall to the profiteering domain, we will be sucked dry and forced to accept abnormal standards as normal to gain access to these which in first place should be in public domain protected in public interest by public representatives.

These resources will be and are used by IMF and sister organisations that are usually called "banks" as leverage to get their debts serviced or sold as AAA+ securities.

They tried that with real estate but that burst since a physical house doesn't just disappear which leads to emergence of derelict patches within the estates. This would certainly destroy the demand and the dead estate would translate into toxic securities by just being there and not disappearing. Similarly things that are too volatile will also not be accepted as essential by the public as was the case with electronics/net. So that's not worth it.

But what if the resource or commodity is essential, which means it has sustained demand, as well as it is volatile enough which means it vanishes after its monetary utility. Now that's "gold". Theoretically its value will not only be retained but it may even increase with no downside. Perpetual profitability.

https://themarkup.org/hello-world/2023/07/08/ai-environmental-equity-its-not-easy-being-green

A few months ago, I spoke with Shaolei Ren, as associate professor of computer science at University of California, Riverside, and his team about their research into the secret water footprint of AI. Recently, Ren and his team studied how AI’s environmental costs are often disproportionately higher in some regions than others, so I spoke with him again to dig into those findings.

His team, which includes UC Riverside Ph.D. candidates Pengfei Li and Jianyi Yang, and Adam Wierman, a professor in the Department of Computing and Mathematical Sciences (CMS) at the California Institute of Technology, looked into a path toward more equitable AI through what they call “geographical load balancing.” Specifically, this approach attempts to “explicitly address AI’s environmental impacts on the most disadvantaged regions.”

Ren and I talked about why it’s not easy being green and what tangible steps cloud service providers and app developers could take to reduce their environmental footprint.

I’m building a new home and we have hard water around here. I want to save our brand new plumbing and fixtures from being loaded up with deposits from day one. I’ve never used a water softener before. What’s the best route to go?