Thirsty Planet
Access to water is becoming increasingly tight in many parts of the world. This article from Wired looks at three thirsty regions and what they are doing to counteract the shortage.
"Aquifers under Beijing, Delhi, Bangkok, and dozens of other rapidly growing urban areas are drying up. The rivers Ganges, Jordan, Nile, and Yangtze — all dwindle to a trickle for much of the year. In the former Soviet Union, the Aral Sea has shrunk to a quarter of its former size, leaving behind a salt-crusted waste."
"Water has been a serious issue in the developing world for so long that dire reports of shortages in Cairo or Karachi barely register. But the scarcity of freshwater is no longer a problem restricted to poor countries. Shortages are reaching crisis proportions in even the most highly developed regions, and they're quickly becoming commonplace in our own backyard, from the bleached-white bathtub ring around the Southwest's half-empty Lake Mead to the parched state of Georgia, where the governor prays for rain. Crops are collapsing, groundwater is disappearing, rivers are failing to reach the sea. Call it peak water, the point at which the renewable supply is forever outstripped by unquenchable demand."
"Even economically advanced regions face unavoidable pressures — on their industrial output, the quality of life in their cities, their food supply. Wired visited three such areas: the American Southwest, southeastern England, and southeastern Australia. The difficulties these places face today are harbingers of the dawning era of peak water, and their struggles to find solutions offer a glimpse of the challenge ahead."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- How Water Affects Renewable Energy - Oct 01, 2009
- Drought Policy and Flooding Streets in LA - Sep 29, 2009
- Watching Where the Water Goes - Sep 15, 2009
- Heart of California's Agriculture on Life-Support - Sep 03, 2009
- Three Year Deadline to Find New Water for Georgia - Jul 24, 2009
Contribute
- Alternative Vehicles Evolve, Infrastructure Still Lags
- On Remaking Shrinking Cities
- The Fall of Victorville
- Brain Gain in Eastern Germany
- Walkscore to Get Bus Points
- Finding A Sustainabe Path for Jakarta
- Isn't This How We Got Into This Mess in the First Place?
- Simulating Mount Rushmore
- Talking 'Bout a RailVolution
- The Solution for Homelessness? Homes.
Gain the practical knowledge needed to create TODs in your community with our affordable, self-paced, online course.
Learn more »
D.C. Area Professional Development Courses Offered in Economic Growth and Environmental Sustainability– Last Chance to Register!
Planning Academy at Virginia Tech, VT National Capital Region campus in Alexandria, VA
Nov 05, 2009
Step Up Your Site Analysis with Planetizen's Advanced Google Earth Webinar
Planetizen
Nov 04, 2009
Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas: A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come
Routledge
Nov 04, 2009
www.flickr.com
|
All Problems Boil Down to Overpopulation
Water shortages? Oil crisis? Food supply woes? Traffic congestion? Nonsense! It all boils down to one thing: overpopulation. Very simply, there are too many people on this planet. There is not a water, food, or oil shortage going on - there is an overwhelming demand on the existing supplies, and this feels like a shortage. Wars are being fought for oil. Next, war for water? I can see it happening in 20 years, or less.
Boiling down Population: Pop + Consumption + Tech
I = P x A x T
I=PAT
Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology
One can have a high population and have a low footprint. EO Wilson said, in response to a question about what is a sustainable human population on this planet (roughly): "If they consume at Japanese or American levels, about 500 million".
Best,
D
Pop, Consumption, Tech
The classic formula, first developed by John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, is:
Impact = Population X Consumption per person X impact per unit of consumption.
I = P x C/P x I/C
It boils down to the same thing you said, Dano, and it is a mathematical identity.
Charles Siegel
Population Plus Consumption
It is easy for Americans to deny their over-consumption by blaming everything on over-population.
If there were one-quarter as many people in the world, and each one of them consumed as much energy as the average American does, the world would be in worse shape than it is now.
How can you possibly claim that there is traffic congestion in American suburbs because there are too many people in the world? It is because they built suburbs where everyone has to drive every time they leave home, and it is impossible to build enough roads to keep up.
Charles Siegel
The blessings of poverty
"It is easy for Americans to deny their over-consumption by blaming everything on over-population."
The ability of Americans to consume comes from the money that is made from producing 25% of the world's goods and services; therefore, using 25% of the world's natural resources isn't outrageous. Americans do waste but that happens as part of production. Conservation measures can be taken but I had a professor tell me in grad school that conservation has been tried in the past and Americans don't practice it.
There are some folks in the developing world who use few natural resources but also contribute very little to the economy. In fact, there are people and governments living on handouts from foreign aid, private donors and remittances from foreign workers. It's not that poor folks in the developing world have halos on their heads. They simply have little impact because local conditions have kept them at a subsistance level for centuries in some cases. Once they have money in their pockets, they change.
"If there were one-quarter as many people in the world, and each one of them consumed as much energy as the average American does, the world would be in worse shape than it is now."
It been said that human wants are insatiable. If you have a million dollars, you want two. India and China, for example, were slow to embrace the free market but after being in both countries, I can assure you both countries are going to continue to soak up a lot of commodities because they have pent up demand and their young are ambitious. The middle class is smaller as percentage of popluation but they are budding big consumers. They probably won't consume as much energy because prices will climb as a bidding war develops on existing resources. It will spur alternate energy sources as well.
My guess is Americans will reduce their energy consumption if prices go high enough. Most Americans under 40 have never seen long lines at gas stations and have never had to make hard economic choices beyond deciding which big screen TV or SUV to buy. These folks will believe anyone or anything that promises them prosperity with little sacrifice. Ironically, that applied to Bush supporters a few years ago and now appeals to Obama supporters "any hope and any change".
The Blessings Of Sufficiency
Obviously, Americans use more resources because they produce and consume more products. But you ignore the key point: the world cannot sustain this level of consumption for evereyone - much less the level that we would have with continued growth in the United States - because it does not have enough resources or enough capacity to absorb pollution.
I think the world can support everyone at a comfortable, middle-class standard of living, similar to what America had in the 1960s, but cannot support much more than that. Eg, China and India are both growing at a rate that will increase their per capita GDP by more than one-thousand fold in this century, and the world cannot support that rate for many centuries - or even for this century. Keep it up, and there will be an ecological and resource crash.
You write: "[India and China] probably won't consume as much energy because prices will climb as a bidding war develops on existing resources. It will spur alternate energy sources as well."
Don't you know that China's main source of energy is coal? It is only international pressure to slow global warming that might shift them to alternatives - and it might not shift them soon enough. Without political limits, higher energy prices will not only spur alternative sources but will also spur more use of coal, tar sands, and other fossil fuels that emit twice as much co2 as oil.
I think we in the United States felt about as prosperous in the 1960s as we feel now, even though our per capita GDP was only half as much then as it is now. Since then, economic growth has created as many problems as benefits, and has not increased our net well-being. And now we are reaching the point where growth has begun to reduce our net well-being. (For an economic analysis of why this is happening, see http://www.preservenet.com/endgrowth/EndGrowth.html#Appendix)
I hope that the world will realize this some time in the coming century and plan to have growth level off when nations reach the 1960s level of economic sufficiency. This level is certainly far from poverty: at the time, the United States called itself "the affluent society." And it could lead to a sustainable future.
But your ideology that growth should continue endlessly will lead to ecological disaster.
Charles Siegel
Reality vs. theory
"Don't you know that China's main source of energy is coal?"
I'm well aware of the use of coal in China after seeing coal barges on the Yangtze, the haze over the cities and washing soot off my body for two years in Taiwan. I'm not sure how you intend to pressure China with your line of arguments given local conditions there. Are you aware there are millions of Chinese away from the east coast cities that want to have more of the consumer goodies China makes for the world? The Chinese government could care less about the environment but it does care about pushing economic development while restraining political power for everyone except high party officials. If they could shoot hundreds of students in Beijing, kill millions in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and supply weapons to kill off another million Sudanese in Dafur now for its oil, you can direct them to all the web links you choose but I doubt they will listen. Telling them to curtail consumerism would be seen as Western imperialism attempting to hold China back from its historical role as the Middle Kingdom between heaven and lesser civilizations (including the U.S.).
"I think we in the United States felt about as prosperous in the 1960s as we feel now, even though our per capita GDP was only half as much then as it is now. Since then, economic growth has created as many problems as benefits, and has not increased our net well-being. And now we are reaching the point where growth has begun to reduce our net well-being."
If you think the level of consumerist sufficiency reached its optimum (but not its apex) in the 1960s that's "groovy" but it seems an arbitrary benchmark for the most part. There were plenty of folks even back then who thought that the level of consumerism and population growth would lead to disaster so I wouldn't idealize it. It sounds more like the "good old days" syndrome. It would be a hard sell to the younger generation used to all the "toys" they grew up with: bottled water, gourmet coffee, SUVs, big screen TVs, buying a new computer or new gadget. . . Even when they and their elders are in debt, they can't stop. People buy into what they perceive as progress and an index based on macroeconomics won't stop the everyday microeconomic buying habits of consumers. Remember that although the crime index fell for about a dozen years in this country, most Americans in polls believe crime was increasing due to the news coverage. Denying consumer choice is perhaps the last taboo in America. Think how much we send trying to stop those who choose illegal drugs which really don't make users happy in the long-term. In short, your premise of changing consumerism for the environment leaves out human nature in the equation.
I'm in agreement with much of your webpage because I'm a cheapskate who has little use for wasting what little I earn on things I don't want or need but I'm the exception. I wish the Federal government would think long-term instead of what gets votes until the next election cycle.
"I hope that the world will realize this some time in the coming century and plan to have growth level off when nations reach the 1960s level of economic sufficiency."
You mean if everyone on the planet lived with the same standard of living as Americans did in the 60s, that would be sustainable? Of course that assumes the developing world suddenly becomes altruistic for the rest of the world or holds back on consumer goods which would doom emerging economies dependent on trade. Unless they produce "green" goods with "green" power, the developing world has nothing to offer besides perhaps tourism (the green variety of course).
"But your ideology that growth should continue endlessly will lead to ecological disaster."
Planners sees the world how it should be to make in more livable but they have to live in a world with competing interests among 200 nations which have rarely agreed on anything. The global threat would have to be immediate and negatively affect the major powers so severely that they would act in concert. The non-answer on thorny issues is to do what we always do, leave it to the next generation to deal with.
Reality - Not Just Theory
The Netherlands has policies that allow workers to choose part-time work and that protect part-time workers against discrimination. As a result, part-time work has become very common there, and the average Dutch worker works about three-quarters as many hours per year as the average American worker.
That is reality, not just theory.
Most American workers have no choice of work hours. If we had policies like the Netherlands, many people would cut their hours and their consumption somewhat, reducing our environmental impact. I think this is one necessary part of our response to global warming, and I would expect, Freeyoke, judging from statements that you have made previously, that you would be in favor of giving people this economic choice.
People may or may not have infinite wants, as you claim, but it is certain that one thing people want is more free time. Americans now are so time starved that I think some would be willing to trade some of their income for more time. In fact, one survey has found that half of all American full-time workers would prefer to work 4 days a week at 80% of their current salary.
Likewise, as developing nations become more affluent, I expect people there will want more free time in addition to more products. That is what Americans wanted as this country developed: the average American work week went down from 70 hours in 1840 to 40 hours in 1940.
I don't expect that people will cut back to the 1960s level of consumption. But I think it is important for everyone to realize that slower growth or no growth doesn't mean a retreat to poverty. It could mean that growth levels off when people are economically comfortable, as most people were in the "affluent society" of 1960s America.
That is they point you missed when you titled your earlier post "the blessings of poverty" - implying that there is no alternative to hypergrowth except poverty.
Incidentally, there is some evidence that Americans were better of in the 1960s than they are today, though per capita GDP was only half what it is today. The organization named Redefining Progress has done very extensive studies of this, and they have found that Americans' well-being kept increasing through the 1960s, but since the 1970s, well-being has declined, though per capita GDP has kept increasing.
I expect that well-being will decline more dramatically as more symptoms of global warming appear. That decline in well-being will also be reality, not just theory.
Once people see that growth beyond a comfortable middle-class income is making us worse off rather than better off, they might just do something about it.
Charles Siegel
The Blessings of Dollar Hegemony
"The ability of Americans to consume comes from the money that is made from producing 25% of the world's goods and services; therefore, using 25% of the world's natural resources isn't outrageous. "
No, the ability of Americans to consume at such excessive levels came from dollar hegemony which has been in place since the establisment of the dollar as the world's premier reserve currency at the end of World War II.
This status, more than anything else, has allowed us to run immense trade deficits that would be unsustainable for any other industrial power. Essentially they take overvalued paper in exchange for undervalued goods and commoditites. They then lend us our dollars back at low interest rates so that we can keep buying and the cycle continues.
Well at least it did until recently. Now that the American consumer is hocked up to his teeth in debt after years of negative savings rates it looks like the jig is up.
Consumerist Economics
You're right.
Today's Americans not only consume more than the planet can sustain, leaving our children a less livable world.
They also consume more than they produce, leaving our children huge debts.
Charles Siegel