Chile's Constitution: Water to be a Matter of National Security

A proposal by Chile's outgoing President, Michelle Bachelet would put an amendment to the Chilean Constitution saying that acces to fresh water is a matter of national security.  According to the article "CHILE: Water a Matter of National Security" by Daniela Estrada, from the Inter Press Service:  

The legal text recognises that freshwater, which is lacking in the Chilean north and abundant in the south, has become a "scarce good" and that its availability is "a matter of national security," much more than fossil fuels, which can be imported from other countries.

The proposed amendment would undo a law of 1981 (the Water Code) which effectively privatised Chile's fresh water reserves.  The government's proposal states: "with the implementation of a new Water Code, an imbalance resulted between the common good and the interests of a few individuals, an imbalance that must be corrected."  Therfor, this reform seems to be more about a conflict between public and private use of water.  Apparently, under Chilean constitution, once a good is declared a priority of national security, then the government can break contracts or expropriate private property to more effectively or equitably distribute that good. 

Talking about the economic or social impacts of such a policy are beyond the scope of this blog.  However, it leads to some interesting conceptual possibilities, if climate change alters the Chile's water supplies.  The article states: "Chile is a world leader when it comes to freshwater reserves in the form of glaciers. According to the latest inventory by the government's water agency, there are more than 3,500 glaciers, covering some 20,000 square kilometres." If those glaciers all melt (I won't venture to say a date: that has gotten some in trouble recently), then you could see the government (and military) taking charge of water supplies in order to ration them among competing groups: mining, hydro power, agriculture, sewage, and drinking water would all have claims on scarce resources.  If the government does not fairly apportion rights to water, its fairly easy to see how conflict could develop over these water rights, either against the government or between these stakeholder groups.  Just labeling water as a 'matter of national security' does not make these decisions any easier.

Ethanol Importation from Brazil

Two weeks ago, President Lula of Brazil visited the White House. What was most news-worthy from the climate-security perspective is their discussion of trading Brazilian sugar-based ethanol. It is no surprise that Lula favors an opening of the U.S. ethanol market to imports; Brazil has an established and productive ethanol industry. President Obama -- who supported ethanol during the campaign (particularly in Iowa) -- said:

"I know that the issue of Brazilian ethanol coming into the United States
has been a source of tension between the two countries. It's not going to
change overnight, but I do think that as we continue to build exchanges of
ideas, commerce, trade around the issue of biodiesel, that over time this source
of tension can get resolved."

Although this is a classic politician's dodge, he does seem to understand that our current policies are not economically, scientifically, or environmentally sustainable. Perhaps Obama can make some changes to undo the twisted problems that political interference has brought to this market.

Ethanol is one of the most fraught problems in the nexus of climate and energy security. Several years ago, when it was first starting to get ramped-up in the U.S., it was seen as one of the easiest win-wins around. Not only did you get to support 'family farmers' you also got to fight global warming and reduce the importation of foreign oil. Unfortunately, it hasn't turned out to be that simple. It turns out, that when you take land-use into account, corn-based ethanol may not actually be good for the climate. While it has been marginally beneficial in reducing dependence on foreign oil, it probably had the unforeseen problem of raising food prices.