Maude Barlow's Water Incorporated

841 Words2 Pages

Maude Barlow’s “Water Incorporated: The Commodification of the World’s Water” gives a voice to a very real but vastly unknown issue: the privatization of water. I refer to it as vastly unknown because it wasn’t until this article that I was even aware such a power struggle existed. Barlow first introduces startling statistics, meant to grab the attention of its reader. Once she has your attention, she introduces the “new generation of trade and investment agreements.” (306) This includes referencing many different acronyms such as, FTAA, NAFTA, GTAA and WWF. FTAA, NAFTA, and GTAA are the villains of this story. Simply put, the privatization of water would end in socioeconomic turmoil and dehydration worldwide.
First, let me explain what privatization and commodification of water actually refers to. Privatization is transfer of ownership from a local company to a private economic body. Water privatization gives private entities control over water and its systems. Barlow believes ownership over water is a breach of human rights.
This article does two things successfully; it raises awareness of an important problem and communicates exactly how the problem will affect the world. Barlow’s argument uses pathos and logos to push her ideals on her audience. However, while her use of appeals stimulates, it fails to finish with a final solution to solve the previously posed problem.
Admittedly, 2/3 of the world’s population living with water shortages is a scary enough statistic to send a shiver up the spine. Barlow doesn’t stop there however; she goes on to say that only 2 % of the U.S. rivers and wetlands remain untouched. What does that mean for the creatures that lived there? Covered that too, “37% of freshwater fish are at risk of ...

... middle of paper ...

...t education and the enlargement of knowledge base, but with something as serious as the privatization of water a little more finality is needed.
Barlow does well labeling who the major players are in the privatization and commodification of water systems, as well as identifying why exactly the public should not be okay with it. However, she falls flat in delivering a universally understandable argument and posing a solution to any of the problems. I would suggest the addition of a solution at the end of the article, some call-to-action that sparks a movement. Before that however; there should be an attempt to slightly alter the language used and make it more accessible to those who may not have Ph. D. in economics. This is important because the younger generations are going to be responsible for our future. How can they help if they can’t get past the first page?

Open Document