countries build more distiliation plants and use that water for the uninhabital places on this earth like the deserts.?
and also use the water for where water is scairce.
2007-01-30 19:58:45 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Environment
A clever idea, but not the right thing to actually do. Here are a few reasons.
It's not possible to build enough plants to distill enough seawater to make a measurable difference in sea level. Global warming is accumulating over many years, and is way more powerful than we are.
You have to build pipes to where you need the water. Global warming will change weather patterns so that we won't know where we need the water.
The bottom line is that we should spend money to reduce the causes of global warming (greenhouse gases) instead. That's more effective than trying to fix the the results of global warming (coastal flooding, damaged agriculture).
2007-01-30 23:43:06 · answer #1 · answered by Bob 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good idea - couple of draw backs though:
1) Distillation of fresh water from sea water takes a long time and is not entirely cost-effective (although there are some technological advances aimed at changing this)
2) Large scale alteration of entire biomes, such as arid areas and deserts, would take a huge amount of time with no garuntee that it will work. Additionally, it would take more than just water to alter a desert in to grassland - you would need sustained and long-term vegetative growth to change the nature of the soil.
2007-01-31 04:15:17 · answer #2 · answered by djessellis 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunately it all comes down to cost - it's cheaper not too.
Although in places such as Dubai they do, but then again, all their money is based on oil, so it's a bit of a catch 22.
Interestingly (well, I think it is anyway) i read this http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0423 recently which expalins that the predicted problems with global warming, rising sevel levels, climactic change etc are unrealistic as for it to have the massive consequences that have been predicted is based on there being the current fossil fuel usage - clearly we are going to run out of fossl fuels in the very near future (alot earlier than initially predicted) which means that the damage will not be as significant as predicted.
Of course, this will lead to bigger problems - but that is another issue.....................
2007-01-31 04:06:21 · answer #3 · answered by Carl N 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
firstly I think you cant produce drinkable water from sea.your idea is good but even if we could produce the water needed the cost of getting the water from West to Cental Africa is too high.then water would worth as much as oil.the tubes that need to be built and the cost of pumps,energy needed for that task would never convince anyone to fund a plan like that
2007-01-31 07:57:05 · answer #4 · answered by james01gr 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well that means costing money. and cos there all greedy people then they would rather die than help us. Good idea tho. but what about the animals which live in deserts and the plants. they would all die out. so mabey just in areas where it wouldent destroy spcies. then yeh nice idea :)
2007-01-31 05:56:19 · answer #5 · answered by Time is nigh 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I believe you have to spend a lot of energy to filter drinkable water from the sea. Otherwise, every country would be doing it by now.
2007-01-31 04:07:04 · answer #6 · answered by jaggie_c 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
That's a really good question. Worth a star!
2007-01-31 04:06:38 · answer #7 · answered by I know nothing! 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Carl n got there before me... he is correct.. but can i have ten points so i can buy some fluff?
2007-01-31 04:08:07 · answer #8 · answered by 2 good 2 miss 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's all down to money(to expensive)
2007-01-31 04:07:20 · answer #9 · answered by bty937915 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good idea.
2007-01-31 04:02:15 · answer #10 · answered by Ritch 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋