[julienb_sea]

This isn't technically accurate, we have access to abundant long term (multi-century) reserves of natural gas which can be used to provide power needed for desalinization. Nuclear is in no way a "blocker". Certainly, cost is a substantial barrier especially in less wealthy nations.

[thewarrior]

Carbon emissions

[julienb_sea]

If the choice is reducing emissions or saving lives from dehydration, I wonder which is the appropriate course of action.

[pmontra]

Probably something else.

Gas burns and makes CO2 which increases temperature which increases the likelihood of more dehydration events in future. This is the wrong choice. Actually the long term right choice is not to burn gas anymore.

Letting people die is obviously the wrong choice too.

When all choices are wrong we must find another choice that can be right. Somebody wrote solar energy, somebody wrote nuclear energy, somebody argued that both are wrong. I don't suggest a solution but I point out that limiting ourselves to binary choices is the wrong way to think.

[azernik]

Problem is, carbon emissions make the dehydration worse by heating up the planet. It's counterproductive.

[thewarrior]

Which could completely destroy modern civilization over time. Once certain tipping points are crossed most of the earth could become uninhabitable for large parts of the year.