(January 25, 2018 at 12:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: They did rely on rainfall (as we all do to greater or lesser extents), and climate change has impacted that. A historic drought is what tipped them over the edge. That's the connection between "big oil" and their water problem. Under expected conditions, they would have enough water - even under expected drought conditions. Obviously that can only go so far and at some point it doesn't make sense to file more people there...but they weren't at that point yet. They neither planned for (nor..from the story..responded well to) catastrophe.
However, would this be seen as an acceptable response if, say...Houston suddenly found themselves out of water? Get the fuck out you idiots, why did you build Houston there? Why are you compalining about environmental damage that cut off your water supply..what does that have to do with the sequestration of your source by waste or industry, or the effects of climate change?
Obviously, economic realities force us to move to places like Cape Town (or any large city, really)...but does that give people or decisions that effects those places a free pass to shift responsibility onto the residents? What are we suggesting....mass migration...????
I'm not saying that there is not a connection between climate change, consumption of fossil fuels and droughts but to take the position that big oil is the only cause is just infantile.
And mass migrations due to droughts have occurred in the past, prior to big oil.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
