If water is considered the world’s most important resource, then the Great Lakes region stands as both a sanctuary and a battleground for what comes next in our fight against climate change. With climate related disasters plaguing communities across the United States, it is no surprise that public officials, economic developers, and entrepreneurs are turning their eyes toward the Great Lakes as both a climate haven and a future economic growth engine. Underneath the surface of the region’s dubbed “blue economy” lies a critical question: who does this new economic growth benefit?
A recent article from Circle of Blue paints an optimistic portrait of the region’s future, where clean water attracts industries, fuels innovation, and even revitalizes shorelines across the region. It highlights new tech startups, redeveloped areas, water research stations, and even a proposed $3 billion data center near Benton Harbor, a Michigan city recently plagued with lead issues. Unfortunately, these industrial-level facilities also risk ecological strain, governance failure, and risks of further exclusion. If a cleaner and greener industrial revival emerges in the Great Lakes region, we should also be asking the hard questions: who is profiting, who is being displaced, how will equitable and environmentally sound results be ensured?
Despite its name, a blue economy doesn’t guarantee sustainability any more than it is likely to prioritize equity. The uncomfortable truth is that water has always been exploited in the name of growth. The same lakes and rivers that now promise a green economic future once ran thick with factory waste and chemical runoff from private actors exploiting them for all their worth. The region’s history is steeped in environmental harm, and while today’s profiteers may be utilizing the language of sustainability, the economic logic behind the blue economy remains familiar – to extract value from water, but the environmental logic is yet to be laid out.
For example, right next to Benton Harbor, Michigan, there are plans underway for a $3 billion data center, which will draw on enormous volumes of water from the city for cooling. While proponents often point to the expected tech sector growth that can fuel both tax revenue and employment for the city’s residents, environmental and community groups have raised concerns about the data center’s potential strain on local water systems and whether the water will be returned in a different condition. Additionally, the potential for pollution and exclusion of the city’s residents from water related decision-making processes, have led to further debate. As Benton Harbor recovers from a lead-contamination water crisis, it is hard to ignore the irony as the city is being courted by big tech to utilize its water resources.
To work toward a more equitable and sustainable blue economy, hard questions need to be asked along the way, even if seemingly inconvenient. While there are certainly developments to celebrate, such as the rise of research hubs, state funding for water technology development, and continued university collaborations, it remains to be seen who benefits from these innovations and if they’ll be broadly shared. Additionally, regional momentum cannot be discussed without questioning the parallel de-regulatory and political opposition that could derail it. For example, the article notes that environmental protection is being reframed by many federal agencies as a matter of economic growth. Although this may be a savvy communications strategy, it can also be a red flag. When the health of our ecosystem is deprioritized for potential financial gains, environmental safeguards often become optional. This is especially the case when powerful industries are involved.
Additionally, the current administration’s tendency to slash research funding, freeze federal grants, and weaken the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compounds the risks of developing a blue economy. If the blue economy is going to live up to its promises, then economic development cannot be divorced from democratic participation. Community groups and the region’s stakeholders need a seat at the table. The idea of a blue economy is not inherently flawed. Indeed it makes sense to plan for a future where water is more valuable than ever. However, this future must be shaped by more than just market logic. It must be shaped by the needs of communities that have long been excluded from investment, endured environmental harm, and have long demanded a more just relationship to their water supply.
Our Great Lakes hold an extraordinary one-time gift. The question is whether we will protect that gift or sell it to the highest bidder.
