Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Coastal Megacity Karachi Is Running Out of Water (earther.com) 286

The Pakistani megacity of Karachi, home to more than 20 million people, is among the most water-stressed cities in the world, only able to meet half of its daily water demand. From a report: Karachi requires 1,100 million of gallons per day (mgd), but only receives 550 mgd, according to the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB). Karachi's water is sourced from the Indus River via Keenjhar Lake, which sits more than 90 miles away from the city. The water shortage in Karachi is linked to myriad factors including climate change, mismanagement of water resources, and corruption. Most of all, however, a rising population increasing at a rate of 4.5 percent a year creates a strain on the finite water supply. Pakistan ranks in the top ten of countries worst affected by climate change, and water shortages are likely to deepen in both intensity and frequency in the coming decade.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Coastal Megacity Karachi Is Running Out of Water

Comments Filter:
  • I'm running out of beer and the Grocery Outlet is closed and I'm too buzzed to drive. And I'm supposed to be upset because Karachi's running out of water just because there are 20 million people there? You SJWs really suck, you know that? Who's going to stand up for me, huh? Nobody, that's who. Wait, I think I just heard my neighbor come home. I bet he's got some beer. Never mind.

    Happy Memorial Day everybody!

    • by nnet ( 20306 )
      Knowing it was a holiday weekend, how could you permit yourself to even potentially run out of beer?
      • Knowing it was a holiday weekend, how could you permit yourself to even potentially run out of beer?

        it's a long story, but a thirsty friend dropped by unannounced earlier to watch the Eastern Conference Finals and the next thing you know my strategic reserves were running low. But I'm one of those loaves and fishes kind of Episcopalians who will give you the shirt of his back and the beer out his fridge, so I unselfishly and without regard for my own well-being shared what I had. Because I'm like that.

  • by Venona2018 ( 5425598 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @01:15AM (#56686744)
    Pakistan has gone from 40 million people in 1955 to 200 million in 2018. That is a 5 times increase in less than 65 years. Is there anyone who thinks that is sustainable? http://www.worldometers.info/w... [worldometers.info]
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 )
      So you're saying the solution is more H1B visas?
    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @06:01AM (#56687466)

      Harsh as it sounds, that is exactly the core problem: If you bred like crazy in a resource-starved situation, you will eventually run into mass die-off that normalizes your population numbers to something far lower. Of course, this also comes with a civilization collapse when it happens to a human population. In theory, a human population can avoid this catastrophe by restricting its own breeding to what is sustainable, but apparently this one here cannot.

      Or in other words, they are going towards a horrible catastrophe, all of their own making.

      • The population growth of a city (4.5% in this case) is completely unrelated to the population growth of the country. Cities grow because people move there.
        Parkistans population growth is 2% ... which is quite ok.

    • That is a 5 times increase in less than 65 years. Is there anyone who thinks that is sustainable?

      You mean another five-fold growth over the next 65 years? Funny thing about exponential curves: another 45 years of Moore's law would require re-inventing the atom.

      Exponential growth is not sustainable. That's what "exponential" actually means. There's two kinds of inflation in this world: comic inflation, and cosmic inflation. Only cosmic inflation never runs out of elbow room. News for Nerds, now in high middl

      • Pakistan no longer has "exponential" growth. It has 2.62 kids per mother [cia.gov], in a country where the replacement rate is probably about 2.4. That's barely above replacement fertility.

        "Before the BC epoch, clerics everywhere did a tidy little business in tiny tombstones." - that was due to lack of antibiotics and clean water, not lack of birth control.

  • Obvious solution: Raise the price of water.

    Higher prices will incentivize consumers to conserve, producers to produce, and distributers to fix the leaks in their pipes.

    • by Bearhouse ( 1034238 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @04:56AM (#56687366)

      Ah, sadly not. People either pay nothing for water (they steal it) or they already pay a fortune to the "tanker mafia".

      http://www.circleofblue.org/20... [circleofblue.org]

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        In other words, the situation is completely screwed up and getting worse. Well, looks like we will get to watch a historic event live here.

      • It must either be really easy to steal or all those people moving in must have plenty of money. The article mentions 4.5% population increase. If water was not affordable (or easy to steel for free) then there would be no incentives for new people to move in, and there should be people looking for a way out.

    • The silly argument again.
      How high do you want to rise the prices?
      How are you dealing with the riots?

      The only way is rationing. And then education. And in the end price changes.

      • Rationing will deal with current shortages.
        And its the only way to deal with the long term psychological problems that causes shortages: Because otherwise you could end up with a social class that will ignore the shortages because they can pay for the embargoed mafiapriced water. In some cases it can be the entire of society.

        But only policy changes to infrastructure, and what happens around the waterways will impact future shortages.
        Desalination, what is happening around the rivers that supply the water, gr

  • by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @01:29AM (#56686794)

    In the end, they can leave or deal with water scarcity. It sounds like things aren't bad enough for people to leave and improvements are impossible, so deal with it they will.

    • Or build desalinization plants. There is no shortage of water, it's a problem of infrastructure.
      • Or build desalinization plants.

        Patching leaky pipes is WAY more cost effective than building energy-hungry desalination plants.

        • Or build desalinization plants.

          Patching leaky pipes is WAY more cost effective than building energy-hungry desalination plants.

          In all likelihood if their population is growing at 4.5% every year; they need to do both!

        • by swb ( 14022 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @12:12PM (#56688642)

          They've been relining the water mains here to limit leaks and pipe failures. It's been going on across the city for several years now, and this is a really well managed, self-funded (ie, water fees pay for the water system) water system that's mostly newer than 120 years (good chunks maybe less than 75 years old), run by a more or less functional city government.

          Can you imagine what Karachi's water plant is like? I'll bet just creating documentation as to where the pipes are would be a decade-long odyssey and it probably wouldn't uncover miles of unauthorized extensions and tapping into the system.

          Fixing the leaks is a good idea, but I'd bet in Karachi building a desal plant is probably actually more cost effective compared to detangling the mess they have.

          • How much do you have to lose?

            Doesn't sound like you have much of a clue. The worse the pipes, the _lower_ the cost will be for initial improvements. Granting, the finding the later, smaller leaks will suck.

      • Or build desalinization plants.

        I've occasionally wondered, what do they do with all the salt they recover? Sodium bullets and chlorine gas?

        • by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @02:47AM (#56687012) Journal
          It goes back into the ocean, and is (rather quickly) diluted so that there is no observable difference. Near the output 'vent' there is higher salt content in the water, which can affect the environment right around the output area, but that can be mitigated through various techniques.
          • by green1 ( 322787 )

            Of course in other parts of the world they do the opposite, and extract the salt and throw the fresh water back into the ocean. Salt is still a valuable commodity as well.

            What seems far less common is a plant that does both desalination, and salt production, which you would think would be a natural fit.

    • In the end, they can leave or deal with water scarcity. It sounds like things aren't bad enough for people to leave and improvements are impossible, so deal with it they will.

      I know. Life can be tough in the country. I suggest they all move to a big city where they have these luxuries ... WCPGW

    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      The only real chance they have is to stop population growth. But it looks like they are incapable of even thinking that.

  • Climate Change? (Score:4, Informative)

    by DatbeDank ( 4580343 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @01:32AM (#56686812)

    Pretty sure the order of causes are corruption and water mismanagement followed by climate change being the crack that drained their fresh water supply.

    • Re:Climate Change? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gravewax ( 4772409 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @03:38AM (#56687126)
      corruption, water mismanagement AND a massive population explosion over the last half century. climate change on top of all that I doubt has even a measurable effect by comparison.
    • A far better story: (Score:5, Informative)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @04:53AM (#56687356) Homepage
      A far better story: Parched for a price: Karachi's water crisis [aljazeera.com]

      Quotes:

      Perween Rehman: "It is not the poor who steal the water. It is stolen by a group of people who have the full support of the government agencies, the local councillors, mayors and the police; all are involved."

      "Shortly before her murder, Rehman spoke to a documentary crew, who were making a film about her work."

      More:

      "The scale of the theft is staggering. ... stealing water in Karachi is an industry worth more than half a billion dollars." (each year)

      "Ali Asghar, 75, says he still has to pay bills to the utility company for water that never comes in the pipes."

      Another problem:
      Family size.

      "... Farzana Bibi, 40, ... manages a household of 5 people on an income of roughly $190 a month.

      "... his entire household of 17 people is dependent on water bought from tankers."

      Al Jazeera is generally a good place for such news. However, this story has no date. It was apparently written in 2017.

      So, the parent comment is exactly correct.
  • by sickre ( 917795 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @05:04AM (#56687372)
    Cut off all emigration from Pakistan and let them deal with their own problems. Overpopulation has its consequences. China knew it and implemented the One Child Policy to great success. Europe (and colonies) and East Asia have dealt with their population problems and now have stable or declining rates. If South/West Asia, the Mid East and Africa can't figure it out themselves, we're not going to bail them out by taking millions of their excess people.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @06:12AM (#56687488)

      Harsh as it sounds, getting population growth under control and eventually down to zero is a critical step for survival of a nation today. Looks like Pakistan will be one of those that do not make it. Even if they can fix the water issue this time, if they continue to grow like crazy, the problem will just return far worse in the near future until it cannot be fixed anymore.

      • by nyet ( 19118 )

        Capitalist economies require exponential growth to be sustainable. No economics types seem to want to compare this to the effect of exponential growth on biosystems.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          Yeah, funny that. Sure, the growth rates seem low, like 2% or 5% or so, but exponential is exponential and reliably kills a biological population in the end.

    • 2018 folks, the year casual fascism was no longer met with instant derision.

      [ Note: Not the emigration bit, that's something for each country to legitimately decide for themselves who and how many people immigrate. I was referring to the praise for a clearly fascist intrusion on a core element of personal freedom by an obviously fascist government. A "great success"! ]

    • If South/West Asia, the Mid East and Africa can't figure it out themselves, we're not going to bail them out by taking millions of their excess people.

      Except that we literally are. And anyone who objects "is" a fascist, racist, etc. ...

    • Pakistan's population is also stabilizing. The fertility rate is currently 2.62 [cia.gov] and replacement is probably about 2.4.

      In fact, the only places with exploding fertility these days are sub-Saharan Africa, and a handful of other countries like Afghanistan and Yemen. You should check the fertility statistics, a lot has changed since 20 years ago.

  • The number of children per woman in Pakistan has decreased rapidly in the last decades to now around 3 children per woman (2.3 is required for population to just be static in the long run). The only reason the population still grows is many children growing up and having (on average 2-3) kids of their own. There is no statistic link between religion and population growth.

    See here: https://www.google.com/publicd... [google.com]

    Or if you do only trust the US, check the CIA:

    https://www.cia.gov/library/pu... [cia.gov]

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Wrong interpretation! World population growth is heavily influenced by the growth of Muslim population. One should rather compare the rate of population growth of Muslims vs that of non-Muslims.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I was skeptical, but the Pew center corroborates [pewforum.org] your claim for the period from 2010-2015.

      • by Megane ( 129182 )
        Correlation is not causation. It's actually a third-world thing more than a religious thing. With certain exceptions (like Mormons), the western world has had low or negative population growth because of societal change, not religion. Until children stop becoming an asset and start becoming a hindrance to lifestyle, humans will reproduce more. On the other hand, there might be some indirect causation in that Muslims tend to live in the third world and hold back progress, keeping them in charge of third-worl
        • by nyet ( 19118 )

          Religions arise from third world conditions and terribad education. It reflects the requirements to keep third world economics running - unbridled population expansion (a happy side effect being the self perpetuation of the religion that esposes it), and continued large scale ignorance.

      • Muslim, Catholic, Mormon, Hindu, judiasm, evangelism, etc ALL encourage large families.
        • Hinduism and Buddhism both have multiple interpretations - but largely both do not prohibit contraception. Large families are not encouraged directly by religious texts, or "experts" - seers, Gurus, monks.

          If religious types in India and Nepal are starting to encourage large families for Hindus - it is largely due to their Muslim phobia. To avoid having a larger proportion of Muslims, and hence Muslim voters, Hindus are urged to have larger families. They say so explicitly, very nearly always when encouragin

      • Actually, the highest birthrates nowadays are in sub-Saharan countries, which are mostly Christian not Muslim. In most Muslim countries, birthrates are relatively low. In 2 of the 3 largest Muslim countries (Indonesia and Bangladesh), they are already below replacement.

    • Wouldn’t that be 2 children per women for stable population? I have never understood the 2.3 or any number higher than 2 except to account for more males being norn.

      Even if you don’t count female children as “women”, that would imply a huge childhood mortality rate if 11% of children do not make it to adulthood (breeding age).

      In fact, I would think the number would actaully be less than 2 since not all females in any given population have finished having children.

      • by green1 ( 322787 )

        The number of children per woman is more properly the number of children per woman of child-bearing age. Therefore a number higher than 2 is to account for children who do not reach the age to have more children.

        If you were to define it instead as children per female born, then yes, 2 would be the magic number (plus or minus the number required to adjust for different birth rates between the genders)

        Additional adjustments may be needed to account for immigration/emigration if you are talking stable populati

      • Actually, due to lifetime being extended, the global average would be 2.1 for stable population ( early deaths, sterility, genetic issues, etc require the .1 ). Something like 30-50 years ago, it was 2.3 for stability.
  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • they had a water shortage too, all these coastal cities have no excuse sitting next to HUGE bodies of water, they need to build desalination plants and turn sea water in to potable drinking water
    • by green1 ( 322787 )

      And they all have one thing in common. Political sources of the problem.

      Any time you have a massive increase in population, and no increase in water source, you're going to have a shortage. This is simple economics, not climate science.

    • We need to be doing more of that in America. We are going to see shortages sooner, rather than later.
  • Some will just have to pay more for it.

  • by Joe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) on Monday May 28, 2018 @09:58AM (#56688068)

    They need to use Desalination

    • As far as I know, desalination have never been a viable option. It is too slow and use too much energy compared to the result output.

      "The energy requirements are so high that the cost for a lot of countries is too much.That’s why it’s mainly used in regions lacking freshwater, ships, and military vessels.

      There are environmental concerns too. Desalination plants take in salt water straight from the ocean and can kill or harm fish and other small ocean life as water travels from the source to the

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Working...