Debunking Another Environmentalist Myth to Make the World a Better Place

When I was younger, there was this stupid environmental narrative about preserving water, by the environmentalists, that truly only stopped because of the Man Made Climate Change hysteria took over. But I suspect that this water narrative will come back the nanosecond people have had enough of the climate change bullshit.

As always, I’m on the side of science and debunking horseshit narratives by radicals promotes rationality in this world, so here we go:

The narrative of the environmentalists was that people in the West used 40+ litter of water daily while the people in the 3rd world (usually Africans) struggled to obtain any water at all and often that water was polluted.

These environmentalists would give the title of ‘’porteur d’eau’’ (which means ‘’water carrier’’) to some virtue signaling artist that would be the spokes person for the movement. The media and different industries would support this movement. They would create silly products that would limit the amount of water we use, such as environmental toilets and shower-heads. Of course, no politicians would oppose these airheads, because this would be political suicide.

Because the internet was in its infancy there wasn’t a lot of opposing voices to this narrative. These environmentalists imposed their stupid policies on us and ran unopposed for decades. This shows what the climate change lunatics will become if we don’t push back against them.

When you look at the water in the 3rd world narrative, it makes no sense:

Water is carried from the ocean in the land by rain clouds and the water flows from the land to the ocean through rivers. The water that you do not use will not increase the amount in the third world. The only water the 3rd world is getting is from their rain clouds. So this narrative was clearly based on emotions and not facts.

The environmentalists argued that treating the water consumed energy, so we are producing more pollution by consuming more water. This argument is easily debunked. When you are using hydroelectricity, solar electricity, wind power or nuclear power energy is produced whether you use it or not.

I’m from Quebec so I will make the case for Hydroelectricity because 3 generations of my family have worked for Hydro-Quebec (the cool dude in the middle is my dad =D).

The way a hydroelectric works is that the rain water inland is stored in a reservoir. This is a source of potential energy because the reservoir is higher than the water level of the ocean. Once the water is released in the turbines in becomes a source of kinetic energy. The turbine is a huge dynamo that transforms this kinetic energy into electricity. If less water is used to produce energy, water needs to be released from the reservoir to limit the weight on the dam. Whether the water is used to produce energy or not, it is going in the same direction: downstream to the ocean.

The reservoir itself is an ecosystem.

So the energy narrative is absolute horseshit.

The water that is release back in the river after human consumption is treated. So it is not harmful to the environment. In the past, some industries used to release contaminated water in the river but these companies faced severe repercussions and now they are kept in check; which is the only good thing the environmentalists have done on this issue. Good on them.

However, these environmentalists will bring up the plastic in the oceans as an argument to reduce human consumption. But this is nonsensical because people using water in their daily lives has no impact on the plastic in the oceans. No plastic makes in out of the treatment plants.

Instead, the environmentalists should attack the problem at its source, which is communist China and India. They are the 2 nations that dump plastic in the oceans. But since the environmentalists are communists, they won’t attack one of their own, which makes them a bunch of hypocrites.

The last argument that I will address is the narrative that water consumption will dry out the lands and kill the forest and wildlife. This narrative is absurd. We already established that water goes downstream no matter what and that rain will replace this water. Human activity has no influence on this system unless they cut down the forests that are responsible of keeping the humidity inland. But the environmentalists were attacking human consumption of water and not deforestation, so they are full of shit.

Like I said, this stupid narrative will come back in the future and I hope people will have reason on their side to stop this narrative in its tracks before we have to deal with decades of bullshit.

Gato Villano