PI just issued two new reports demonstrating how their method fails.
Their first is an assessment of California's water footprint, a report whose title implies that "California" is some person walking around on water. The authors claim that the calculations of where water is used (agriculture, no surprise) will help promote sustainable policies, but we don't need to know anything about footprints -- or efficiency, another PI fetish -- if we want sustainable water management. Just set a limit on use (i.e., set aside environmental flows) and ration water with prices and/or markets. That's what I said here (mp3 PDF) -- and what I say all the time.
The second is a study of the potential for "green jobs," in which PI says:
An investment of $1 million in alternative water supply projects yields 10-15 jobs; in stormwater management, 5-20 jobs; in urban conservation and efficiency, 12-22 jobs; in agricultural efficiency and quality, 14.6 jobs; in restoration and remediation, 10-72 jobsNow, I'm going to ignore non-skilled jobs that cost $50-$100k each as well as the ludicrous range of estimates and concentrate on two obvious flaws in this report. First, it ignores the fact that jobs are a COST. We should be concentrating on destroying, not making jobs, since fewer workers per project implies higher productivity and living standards. We want people to work, of course, but where their salary creates value. Second, the opportunity cost of these "green investments" [sic] is not just the $1 million that comes out of taxpayer pockets but the other places that could use $1 million. Green jobs sound nice, but they are often worthless. marketing. bullshit.
Bottom Line: PI needs to look outside of their engineered system, to include (1) the causes of problems and (2) other factors that are affected by or involved in their solutions -- above all, the potential for people to game their "calculated" solutions. Don't make their mistake!