Essay Writing free essay sample

Besides, due to the growing affluence of people around the world through urbanization, there is an increasing demand for the amount of water for both industrial and domestic uses. Hence, two types of strategies are implemented in an attempt to resolve the problem. Strategies targeting the management of demand (demand strategies) include increasing the price of water and the water conservation policies which tries to raise awareness on water issues and encourage responsible behaviour from people. Strategies to increase supply of water (supply strategies) are the increase of catchment areas like the number of reservoirs, international agreements between countries and the use of technology, such as water reclamation and desalination. It has been a hot question on whether the demand strategies are more effective than the supply strategies in overcoming this crisis. In this essay, I would be evaluating the demand and supply strategies based on their affordability, environmental impact and efficiency to judge its effectiveness. In my opinion, I do agree that the demand strategies are more effective than the supply strategies as it has the ability to solve the root cause of the situation and prevent the occurrence of such problems in the future. Since the amount of water available on Earth ultimately does not change, there is always a limit to the water supply available to the world and hence increasing demand causing a larger water footprint is the underlying cause for the water challenge humans face. Firstly, the strategies reducing the demand of water is more effective than the ones focussing on increasing the supply of water in overcoming the challenge of inadequate water based on their costs as the demand strategies are more affordable than the supply strategies. Some strategies managing the demand of water includes the increase in price of water, which aims to discourage people to use water unnecessarily, and water conservation policies, which plan to increase awareness on the importance of water. Through encouraging people to cut down the use of ater, these demand strategies can help people to save money by decreasing the amount of tax they have to pay. For example, in Singapore, the Public Utilities Board (PUB) encourages households and non-domestic sectors to cut down the use of water through posters and activities such as the â€Å"10% Challenge†, which is targeted at the non-domestic sectors to save 10% of their monthly water consumption. In 2006, the cost of each cubic metre of water is 117 cents if the total use of water is one to 40 cubic metres. The price will increase to 140 cents if the use of water has surpassed 40 cubic metres. If an average family living in a condominium, with an average usage of 18 cubic metres of water per month, was given this water saving kit, they can save 5% of their utility bills, which approximately S$2. As families in Singapore follow the PUB’s instructions to upgrade their electrical appliances to better water efficiency levels and try their best to save water through their daily activities, they will be able to save more, indicating that the water campaigns are highly affordable as citizens would not need to pay any amount and can even save money from them. Besides helping industries and households to save money off their water bills, with the cooperation from the citizens, water conservation policies can also delay the need to use money to develop and upgrade facilities to increase water supply. Therefore, in terms of cost, the demand strategies are more effectual, as they can help the citizens save money and delay the need to use large amounts of money to build more plants to increase supply of water. The supply strategies, in contrast, require much money. An example would be the use of technology. The construction of desalination and water reclamation plants are extremely expensive. A desalination plant near Pelican Way in San Rafael costs $115 million to build. Besides, the price of desalinated water costs $2023 to $2996 per acre-foot which is more than twice more expensive than the current $1000 per acre-foot of water. Additionally, there will also be heavy costs on the daily operational needs of the plants due to the dearly costs of the large amounts of energy required in the process of generating greater supplies of water through technology. This shows as huge amounts of money needed to build and subsequently run the plants which is part of the supply-side strategies to increase supply, supply-side strategies are largely not affordable. Therefore, in comparison, the supply strategies are a less effective choice in terms of cost as they require large amounts of money to build and operate, while the demand strategies can help citizens save money off the water bills and even delay the needs to build the facilities to increase the supply of water, which requires large amounts of money. Secondly, the demand strategies are also more effective than the supply strategies as it does not lead to long-lasting harms to the environment, unlike the latter. The effects of the two types of strategies on our Mother Earth are essential. It is important not to worsen the global warming situation due to industrial needs. We also should not harm the environment by decreasing the amount of natural resources to gain our own purposes. The supply strategies are less effective as it will cause long term harms to the earth which are irreversible. Our actions now will ultimately cause damage to our own habitat and ourselves. The processes of the production of water through the use of technology would require large amounts of energy and electricity. In order to produce these huge amounts of energy required, many a times fossil fuels are burned to generate energy and electricity. Fossil fuels are a non-renewable source of energy and burning of fossil fuels will also result in high emissions of harmful gases such as carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides. These harmful gases contribute to air pollution of the earth. The emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide worsen global warming. Sydney Water have projected that a desalination plant that produces up to 500 Mega litres (ML) of water per day would produce between 480000 tonnes and 950000 tonnes of greenhouse gases due to the gas power station used to generate energy for the desalination plant. If we were to build more desalination and water reclamation plants in places with inadequate water, there will subsequently be an increasing need for energy to operate will worsen air pollution and enhance the greenhouse effect on Earth, which may lead to climate change and global warming. The production of more energy and electricity would therefore emit more harmful gases which causes harm to the environment. On the other hand, demand strategies would not bring any negative impacts towards the environment. It does not require industrial responses, therefore there would not be environmental issues, such as the production of energy, involved. This ensures that no harmful chemicals will be given off to the earth in order to manage the demand of water in Singapore. Additionally, through encouraging people living in Singapore to cut down their demand for water, we are also indirectly saving more water for the earth. This is because only 3% of the world’s water is freshwater available for drinking. As we cut down the demand for water in Singapore, more of this 3% of water can be left for our future generations. Therefore, the demand strategies are more effective and environmentally friendly as issues like energy are not associated to cut down demand while supply strategies are harmful to the environment due to the large amounts of energy and electricity required by technology to increase supply. This results in the supply strategies being less effective as causing harm to the Earth will result in our own habitat to be slowly destroyed with our own hands due to our demands for resources which is completely unsustainable for our future generations. However, the supply strategies are more effective than the demand strategies in terms of efficiency. The efficiency of a strategy refers to the speed taken for the strategies to take effect to overcome the water challenge to provide clean and potable water for domestic and household purposes. It would be best if the strategies can result in a desired solution in resolving the water challenge in the world as fast as possible due to the quick depleting supply of water in the world because of our increasing water footprint and effects of water pollution. The supply strategies are more efficient as they are able to take immediate effect to increase the amount of water available to meet the requirement of the domestic and household use, hence resolving problems at a quicker speed. For instance, in Singapore, in 2007, with the opening of the fourth NEWater plant factory at Ulu Pandan, 25% of the country’s water demand can be supplied with NEWater, a method of recycling water. With the opening of the NEWater factory in Changi in 2011, 30% of Singapore’s water demand can be supplied by NEWater right away. This effect is taken without delay to make sure more water is available for country to overcome the water challenges. This example clearly displays how supply-side strategies such as the use of technology to increase supply of water can take place at a rather fast speed in comparison to demand-side strategies. This puts supply side strategies at an advantage in terms of its speed to resolve the water challenge. In contrast to this fast impact, the demand strategies take a much longer time to take effect. As a demand strategy, the conservation campaigns organised aim to educate people on the importance of saving water since young. These policies build a positive attitudes and behaviours in the people of the world to understand the importance of water and not waste it unnecessarily. The education on water conservation provided focuses primarily on long term effects as the demand for water in Singapore will not decrease greatly simply due to one campaign in a few months’ time. As efforts are accumulated through a period of time, the demand for water will drop. This shows that demand strategies tend to only take effect over a longer period of time than supply strategies which can increase the amount of water available to a certain country in a comparatively much shorter time within several years. Therefore, this implies that supply-side strategies are more effective as it can have an immediate effect and is an efficient choice as compared to demand strategies. Especially when the shortage of water due to the increasing water footprint is such a burning issue in the world, it would be better for the strategy to have a desired outcome faster so that less people from some places around the world would not need to face the major problem of inadequate access to safe water. All in all, the demand strategies are more effective than the supply strategies as it can reduce the imperative to increase supply over a long term basis, while the supply strategies are unable to. Besides, the demand strategies do not have any major impacts on our environment but the supply strategies contributes to global warming, through the building of plants to generate water using electricity. The supply strategies thus cannot be applied successfully at a global basis due to its long-lasting harms to our habitat, the Earth. The demand strategies can also benefit our country economically as it can save the country’s need to spend the citizens’ taxes on improving the water facilities. Although supply strategies are more efficient and can deliver a desired outcome of having more water at a faster rate, it is less effective since the water supply of the world will stay the same and can only be controlled by the water cycle. We are unable to retrieve as much supply of water as we would like to through technology from the supply-side strategies, but with the strategies managing demand, we can make sure we would not require such a large amount of water. The increasing demand of water is the underlying cause of the water challenge we face as there are limits to the supply of water everywhere in the world and also to the number of sites to build catchment areas and water plants. Therefore, I agree that the demand strategies are more effective than the supply strategies as eventually it can resolve the underlying cause for our water issue – the increasing demand.