A Quarter of Humanity Faces Looming Water Crises (nytimes.com) 271
Countries that are home to one-fourth of Earth's population face an increasingly urgent risk: The prospect of running out of water. From a report: From India to Iran to Botswana, 17 countries around the world are currently under extremely high water stress, meaning they are using almost all the water they have, according to new World Resources Institute data published Tuesday. Many are arid countries to begin with; some are squandering what water they have. Several are relying too heavily on groundwater, which instead they should be replenishing and saving for times of drought. In those countries are several big, thirsty cities that have faced acute shortages recently, including Sao Paulo, Brazil; Chennai, India; and Cape Town, which in 2018 narrowly beat what it called Day Zero -- the day when all its dams would be dry.
Climate change heightens the risk. As rainfall becomes more erratic, the water supply becomes less reliable. At the same time, as the days grow hotter, more water evaporates from reservoirs just as demand for water increases. Water-stressed places are sometimes cursed by two extremes. Sao Paulo was ravaged by floods a year after its taps nearly ran dry. Chennai suffered fatal floods four years ago, and now its reservoirs are almost empty
Climate change heightens the risk. As rainfall becomes more erratic, the water supply becomes less reliable. At the same time, as the days grow hotter, more water evaporates from reservoirs just as demand for water increases. Water-stressed places are sometimes cursed by two extremes. Sao Paulo was ravaged by floods a year after its taps nearly ran dry. Chennai suffered fatal floods four years ago, and now its reservoirs are almost empty
Water Desalination! (Score:2)
Water Desalination!
And we can bypass the EAP is some cases.
Who's gonna pay for it? (Score:2)
If we were talking twinkies we could count on market forces to drive down the value of the resource (I can live without twinkies). But we're talking water. People die very quickly without water. And food doesn't grow....
This is also why Americans pay $300+ for a bottle of insulin that's $30 in Mexico a
Re: (Score:2)
and that investor trys to rip off an small town sheriff on some like water what will happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Small town sheriff will pay the bill, or he'll be shit-canned because you don't fuck with money. Protecting private property of the rich is that small town sheriff's only real job, if he fails at that, why, he ain't sheriff no more. And likely, permanently fucked in life as an abject lesson in "Don't fuck with money."
You are so precious, thinking small town sheriffs have power over the rich. You probably imagine that sheriff going all "Boyah, I'll learn you to steal awr water!" and whipping out his long gun
Re: (Score:2)
This is also why Americans pay $300+ for a bottle of insulin that's $30 in Mexico and Canada... ... aka payed by the insurance with is funded by _all_ or by taxes.
And free in the rest of the world
Re: (Score:2)
How do you desalinate water e.g. in Switzerland? Or in Siberia? Or in Mongolia or in Central Africa?
Too many people! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They already do that, and they call it "war"
Re: (Score:2)
They already do that, and they call it "war"
They are us (everyone). I think we're doing a fantastic job of self-regulating the population. We regulate our population with:
Religion
Disease
Drugs
War
If the government was in charge of population, we'd be taxed for it, and there'd be some major changes in the way we live. There'd be a baby tax, tax on all baby-related items, like diapers, car-seats, strollers, cribs, etc... We'd have to have a license to reproduce. There'd be laws established regarding health (things like tobacco and alcohol would be
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly it's more likely that population control will enact itself as war.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not, not enough houses, not enough jobs, not enough oil, etc, etc. The problem IS too many people, politicians need to wake up to the cause and make a concerted effort to slow population growth. And no not through draconian measures, but through education, tax incentives and free birth control for everybody.
China tried this, and it's coming back to bite them. Japan has unintentionally gone to negative growth, and India, with the cultural preference for boys, will be in the same boat as China without doing something. (According to an al-Jazeera report, in one Indian state over a 3 month period 132 of 500 villages had no female births. In those 132 villages 200 births were reported, with 947 total for the 500 villages. The total gender breakdown for those 500 villages was 479 female, 468 male.) When birth r
Re: (Score:2)
The claim that it came back to bite China doesn't stand up, if we look at the job market and resource usage there. The only problem was that 22 million men can't find wives. So, women get to be picky - a start at countering male privilege.
China still has too many people for the long term.
Same in the west where, as education rose, so did women's ability to not "need a man" to compete, to adopt children, or raise a family. It's not a coincidence that opponents of women marrying each other came from patri
Re: (Score:2)
China tried this, and it's coming back to bite them.
Do you have a source for this? China's economy has boomed over the last 40-50 years. Their quality of life and GDP per capita has gone up pretty consistently since they introduced the one-child policy. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Hae?
What has the topic to do with economy?
In the age range of 25 - 35 China has 2 times as many men as woman. How do you find one to marry? The solution is immigration of females from poor countries to China. Partly volunteering, partly kidnaped slaves.
Do you have actually any clue what is going on in the world?
This immigrations only shift the problem ... countries like Myanmar where "immigrating" women come from, start getting similar unbalances.
Re: Too many people! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Birth rate is not the problem as many countries have too low a birth rate to sustain a static population. In other words, the birth rate is below about 2.1 children per woman which is needed to keep the population static eg. replenishment rate. The world birth rate per woman has been declining over the past few decades.
The problem is that the death rate rapidly decreased when the birth rate exceeded the replenishment rate. Currently, the world death rate is half that of the world birth rate. Which means the
Re: (Score:2)
REF: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not applying free-market principles! (Score:2)
Of course there are water shortages: there would be a shortage of every resource, if prices did not reflect how scarce each resource is.
The solution couldn't be simpler: jack up the price until water consumption drops to a sustainable level.
This is not necessarily a killer to the populace's overall standard of living. All that revenue generated from delivering water can go toward lowering or eliminating sales taxes, income taxes, VATs, etc.
But if it causes some people to pack up and move to an area where
Re: (Score:2)
Or worse do what China did? :P
Re: Too many people! (Score:2)
Why are you against black people?
Before any trigger happy mod shows, inform yourself and write 100 times "overpopulation is not a problem" and "Africa has the right to develop itself just like everyone else did"
Hint: 1114 will become 1145 and then we are the population plateau.
See that 1 that becomes 4? That's black people.
If you encounter progressive that talks about population control, hit him. He is a racist.
Re: (Score:2)
Water desalination is a perfect application for solar energy.
Provided that you get enough sun and you're not too far from the sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, back to an engineering problem, since you can pipe water quite long distances [google.com] now.
I looked up the calculations for the TAP, and it seems that there's very little water planned for irrigation. According to their table in the tapsummary.pdf, growing maize using 400,000 cubic meters of water/day yields a total of 98 million kg of crop. For a population of 28 million, that's 3.5 kg per person, or about 13000 kcal, which would take 5 months to grow, but only provides 1 week worth of calories.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let us see just how stupid that is. The USA currently produces 7% of the uranium it's currently operating nuclear plants use. The other 93% is imported.
Want more? You're going to pay a LOT more, since a lot of the uranium is in countries that the USA has shown it is quite willing to fuck over.
And those countries that might be considered more or less friendly (the USA has no real friends any more, not after Trump ) would rather keep it in the ground (nuclear non-proliferation) or keep it for their own
Re: (Score:2)
doesn't matter where the uranium is produced.
last I checked Kazahkstan, Australia and Canada mine over half the uranium in the world and they don't mind selling to the USA. They are trade partners and allies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the engineering is trivial. The problem is strictly business...
And business is going to be altruistic with a limited resource. Don't think so. If they could sell air they would (see Total Recall - it's fictional but the idea of cartels and monopolies ruthlessly exploiting people for maximizing their profit irrespective of human suffering is accurate ).
Re: (Score:2)
(..) but it's more a matter of huge industrial wastes than individual's consumptions.
Of course behaviour of individual consumers has 'nothing' to do with it. If I want to carry some water, I can take a re-usable bottle and fill it with tap water (which is of excellent quality in most industrialised countries). Or I can buy a single use bottle filled with mineral water that's trucked in from 500 km away. And toss the empty bottle (which could have been used dozens of hundreds of times) in the roadside. At best the plastic is gathered & burned to produce energy.
The latter choice is a)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone, somewhere did not attempt a proof does not mean it is true, yet your statement seems to assert it to be so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no proof our planet can sustain the current population forever.
There's no proof it can't, either. We're not using the most sustainable practices available to us, and we waste a huge amount of food.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course there is proof. Look at the ridiculous land use for agriculture.
50% of the world's rainforest has been cut down for urban expansion, supply cheap lumber for our easy-to-assemble furniture, and supply fresh bananas, pineapple, avocados, supply tea, coffee, and sugar to humanity worldwide, ensure every grocery store has watermelons in January, supply palm oil which is found in everything nowadays from shampoo to crackers, and many other mono culture cash crops like soy beans. Oh and raising cattle
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trees don't care if the water is drinkable. If there is piss and shit in it, so much the better so far as they are concerned. There is no shortage of fresh water, the water is only inconveniently distributed, and/or hard to clean. So we grow the trees wherever it is convenient.
It's almost certainly too late anyway, so the fact that dumb arguments about water are being used as excuses for inaction is fairly irrelevant to the outcome, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no proof our planet can sustain the current population forever. ... etc. p.p.
There is no prove for the opposite either.
40% - 50% of all food is thrown away. Fishing could be done sustainable
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You act like a collapsing US economy would leave Mexico unaffected. If USA collapses, economies that rely on USA [wikipedia.org] will go straight to the toilet.
It's not like it hasn't happened a couple of times in the last century. And let's not forget that the Great Recession was caused by the USA, and the effects include the embedding of privatizing profit and socializing risk into the core of the USA economy.
All this requires a population increasingly in a position of precarious employment. 25% of workers are part of the precariate.
There is every reason to believe it will happen again.
Re: (Score:3)
If all the illegals and undocumented people left the USA tomorrow the economy would collapse
I'm going to say "probably not." The nature of being undocumented in the country by nature means we can't really know the real numbers, but current estimates have them at 20 million. That may sound like a lot but when compared to the total population of the US of 320 million its a small number.
I'm not going to say that we wouldn't notice it. It would cause problems but I doubt that it would cause the economy to collapse.
Re: Too many people! (Score:2)
I doubt it would cause much in the way of problems either. Would just mean the unemployment rate would basically drop to zero, and maybe you'd see more teenagers with part time jobs. Maybe the price of produce would go up a bit since even students working part-time would probably demand higher wages than the current illegal pool, but other than that what actual negative impact on the economy do you imagine it might have?
Re: (Score:2)
Plan B; An infinity gauntlet.
More like the B ark.
Re: (Score:2)
You win the internet today
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In what way is this known to be "unsustainable" farm practice?
Re:Too many people! (Score:5, Insightful)
educate complete idiots like you better.
Why do you constantly feel the need to degrade anyone who doesn't agree with you? I see a pattern here. It has been observed that when some one, comes into a room where they are surrounded with people who are vastly more intelligent they feel inferior. Feeling inferior they think they can get their way by bulling the other people.
I see these patterns in you here. You are surrounded by a group of people who post more intelligent posts than you do. Then you feel threatened so you attempt to verbally bully them to silence them. You degrade people because you feel inferior to them.
I'm sure you will lash out in some manner at me. Go ahead. People like you need a outlet.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty simple.
It not is opinion.
It is his lack of knowledge.
Stuff that is common sense, and everyone but him knows stuff like that since 30 years.
Re: (Score:3)
We are not talking about the OP or his behavior. We are talking about your response and your general behavior on this board towards it members. Looking at the OP it is on topic and seems to be reasonable enough. Since it's +5, Insightful we can safely assume that more people agree with me than you about it
There is nothing in his post that warranted the way you responded to him. Just like there has been nothing in any of the posts that you respond to in like manner. It was and still is a perfectly re
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's +5, Insightful we can safely assume that more people agree with me than you about it
The guy modding him are idiots to.
I freely and happily point out who is an idiot.
So, again, why you constantly feel the need to degrade anyone who who doesn't agree with you?
Be cause it is not about agreement or disagreement, it is about stupidity. And more importantly willful ignorance.
I'm still sticking to the theory that you are threatened by being in a forum with people that are more intelligent than you. Unli
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's +5, Insightful we can safely assume that more people agree with me than you about it The guy modding him are idiots to.
I'm going just stop being subtle here. No it wasn't, no he isn't, and no they are not. There, now that is cleared up; we are not going to discuss it again.
This discussing was and is about you and the way you act. Since there is no point in continuing it here, as you are to thick to understand that. We will continue it later on down the road I imagine.
Re: (Score:3)
As I've said in my last post. This isn't about the quality or the content of the OP. It is about angel behavior on the board and his demeaning of every one that doesn't agree with him/her.
Re: (Score:2)
Well said.
There is a birth rate war between Muslims, Catholics and Atheists. Muslims have the highest birth rate which means their communities in countries will increase at the expense of pushing out indigenous communities.
For Islam to be dominate in the world, only time is needed to allow others to die off. Intervention will be needed to prevent other cultures from being wiped out.
The Pope is never going to endorse birth control measures because it will reduce the Catholic birth rate so putting at risk the
Dirt = our water filter. (Score:4, Insightful)
For human history, and well before humans, we adapted to subsisting on water tha (though packed with bacteria and such) was relatively free of mineral poisons by being filtered by the earth taking in rain, and flowing into various waterways.
That still works perfectly fine - except for the 'tragedy of the commons.'
Which isn't even remotely close to the first time - polluting upstream from a place has been a classic cause of disruption of community resources.
But the balance of power has usually been with community agreements and governments in the past.
Now, however, we've put together very business-friendly courts, and have large industry farming conglomerates that decide to use overwhelming amounts of fresh water for increases in crop yield in impoverished areas... and there's no place in that decision making for the community interests.
It's not like we don't have far more than enough fresh water production over time - but like with starvation, it's a matter of civil access to those resources that will kill large amounts of people.
As civilizations, we're kind of falling asleep, dreaming stock market dreams as the infrastructure falls apart, and the base of the resources that make that market mean anything degrades.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
it's a matter of civil access to those resources
Depends on what you mean by 'civil access'. Public access to community reservoirs, rivers and lakes? Fine. But 'civil access' is increasingly interpreted to be a pipeline from a built and maintained for profit water supply system. Forget the artifice of public water utilities. The big money is in the firms that they will have to hire to build the dams, pumping stations and distribution pipelines needed to spin the revenue meters at each consumers house.
Sadly, there is no alternative for city dwellers. You
Balance (Score:2)
Here in the USA, we have plenty - but.. (Score:2)
Yes, we're lucky to not have to face the issues looming in the Asian subcontinent (glaciers melting away), but we have our own water issues.
Fracking threatens underground water supplies. Fracking "cocktails" with secret compounds used by oil companies threaten our aquifers. And here in the desert southwest of the US, that underground water is critical.
Regardless of political party, we HAVE to remember to keep corporations in check when it comes to the environment. When we don't, you get Superfund sites [nih.gov]. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, we don't have plenty.
For example, the aquifer [wikipedia.org] that provides the water for a ton of Midwestern farms is rapidly draining. And that's true of a whole lot of aquifers that we currently rely on for water.
We're in just as much trouble, it's just our trouble is a bit further in the future.
Atmospheric water generator (Score:2)
Quit it or we'll all die (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is more effective to kill off the older generations of the population than to restrict the birth rate because you will hit a demographic inversion where there are more old people than children.
Demographic inversion has already occurred in Japan.
The disadvantage of birth control below the replenishment rate of about 2.1 children per woman is that the median age of the population increases. This means the available work force starts to reduce over time as more people retire versus people starting work.
Mass
Fake news (Score:2)
Water is about the most plentiful thing on earth. It literally falls from the sky. Nobody is running out of water. What they are running out of are resources to treat and transport water. If you canâ(TM)t recognize the real problem you can never fix it. It has nothing to do with water and everything to do with money.
Re: (Score:2)
And San Francisco doesn't. At least the Indians are trying to clean up.
Now, take all your xenophobic nonsense and shove it up your . . .
Re: (Score:2)
It's not xenophobia. Indians literally shit in the streets. Even if it was xenophobic, doesn't change the fact that they shit in the streets by the millions.
So do Americans. Or did the big one finally hit and dump San Francisco into the pacific?
Re: (Score:2)
The latest fear headlines
Coca-Cola fears that climate change will cause water shortages
Why fresh water shortages will cause the next great global crisis
Try this for a change
Capture those anxiety-inducing thoughts
Be aware, but don’t fixate
Practice mindfulness and meditation
Develop personal mantras and affirmations
Employ logic
Take control of what you can, accept the things you can’t
Recognize that some fear is healthy
https://www.rewire.org/living/... [rewire.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's zero cause to exaggerate ordinary problems.
Shortage of water infrastructure, build more water infrastructure. No exaggeration or drama needed.
A false dichotomy is like a leaky screwdriver (Score:2)
When there is an actual, imminent threat fear is a proper response so long as it doesn't become hysteria. If you've got skin cancer you go see a doctor and get it treated. Do it early and it's no big deal. Wait and you die.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Southwest is going to either have to start building massive infrastructure
Not really. Although that's what the companies who are line line to get the construction contacts would like you to believe. There's plenty of water in the Owens Valley and Mono Lake regions of California. They just need to plug up that huge leak heading to the west.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, silly us, it sounds like a few places in California will be able to supply the entire American Southwest. What were we thinking? Have you told Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, west Texas about this? They'd love to know you have their water supply solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting water to people is an ordinary engineering problem. Places with no infrastructure are "uninhabitable" and then you build infrastructure and they become habitable.
It only becomes a crisis when governments fail in their most basic duties. It's a localized crisis for people with bad local government. If you have good local government, you don't have a water crisis, you have a water project.
Re: (Score:2)
I have zero sympathy for bureaucrats in cities that fail to plan for their own growth and fail to build infrastructure to accommodate it. They have one fucking job and that's it.
Spending large amounts of money on infrastructure that still appears to be working is not a good way to get re-elected.
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading an article recently about the demise of step wells [wikipedia.org] in India. The land being needed to accommodate urban population growth. Or the wells just allowed to fall into disrepair. So yeah. Poor planning on the part of local governments.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in India's case, there are satellite images showing how the Himalayan glaciers have retreated. When they go bye-bye, India's water resources go bye-bye except for some destructive monsoons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"As rainfall becomes more erratic" (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you know what "erratic" means ?
Re: (Score:2)
So, you don't know what "erratic" means either.
Hint: It doesn't mean "less".
Re: (Score:2)
So collect and store the goddamn water then, maybe, rather than crying about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's not happening. We're returning to normal. Just like the hurricane season 2 years ago that the media ranted and raved about as being extreme and proof of global warming. No, it was a return to what was historically normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not natural selection - it's chance. Has nothing to do with the superiority of somebody's genes and everything to do with where they were born.
You don't get to pick your parents, your genes, or the environment you were raised in. The people who are threatened by global heating and drought are coming to a neighbourhood near you, because nowhere is immune to the effects in the medium term.
Nobody can live without food, water, And increasingly without shelter from the heat. We will probably fail to ta
Re:Blah blah blah (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not natural selection - it's chance.
No it isn't. Water shortages are ALL caused by bad policy.
In India, farmers receive free electricity. So they leave their pumps running 24/7, depleting aquifers and squandering the "free" water.
In America, the state with the biggest water shortage is California. The state with the most idiotic subsidies, paying people to waste water, is ... California.
No where in the world are there water shortages where water is bought and sold as an unsubsidized market commodity.
You don't get to pick your parents, your genes, or the environment you were raised in.
But in many places you do get to pick your government. Indian farmers vote for free electricity. American farmers vote for cheap water for unsustainable agriculture.
Re: (Score:2)
In India, farmers receive free electricity. So they leave their pumps running 24/7, depleting aquifers and squandering the "free" water.
You seem to be an idiot.
Yes, some people get electricity for free. Why? Because they only use 500kWh per month.
There is no farmer who can run his pumps 24/7 on free electricity. Wow, that was so easy again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the victim-blaming.
People get the government they deserve. It's not victim blaming blaming a country for the idiocy on election night. Sure it's a tragedy of democracy when only the minority have sense, but we're talking in generalities here and not pointing to specific people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have a water problem. 2/3rds of this planet is covered in water, and it constantly falls from the sky. What we have is a water STORAGE problem.
Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, we have a fresh water problem. Trouble is there is plenty of storage in these places, but it ends up being empty due to increasing use, lack of rain, lowering groundwater, and disappearing glaciers.
Re: (Score:2)
First, I'll note that the moderaters on /. are getting worse.
Then, I'll note that it is good to be pedantic when identifying a problem, because the best answers are generally found only after the most pedantic reviews of the problem.
Finally, I'll note that you are correct, the issue is FRESH water.
I disagree that there is "plenty of storage in these places". As evidence, I'll refer you the submission title. "A Quarter of Humanity Faces Looming Water Crises'. Desalination is one possible solution. Refore
Re: (Score:3)
First, I'll note that the moderaters on /. are getting worse.
The moderation system is completely broken and the current overlord ether can't or won't fix it. Metamoderation is a joke, it solves nothing. I've started flagging moderation abuse on posts that are obviously moderated out of malice. Like someone modding your post as a Troll. I doubt it will do anything but I urge other people to do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny, there is now a keg for brew on Macs to install lynx. /. really looks funny with lynx ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cities, and city dwellers, are more efficient. If all the people currently in cities spread out, it would be an environmental catastrophe.
Re: (Score:3)
It's time to start mass sterilization programs in places like india and the US.
Why in the US? Our population is at 320 million and we have plenty of resources to feed and provide water for far more than that. Plus in the last 20 years the US population growth has been on the down side.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog... [brookings.edu]
Re: (Score:3)
What the US makes in consumption it more than makes up in GNP. Almost twice as much as China.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a tiny drop in the bucket compared to industrial and agricultural wastes. Insignificant fraction of 1/10th of 1%. But at least you're thinking in the right direction. By comparison a single golf course = 100,000-250,000 household toilets.
Further in the right direction, we could start shitting on all the golf courses.
Re: (Score:2)
We need to kill about 200,000 people a day just to keep the population constant.
The problem is that the death rate is too low rather than the birth rate being too high. The world birth rate (children per woman) has been declining for decades.
By allowing precious humans to live longer caused a population explosion over a time frame of about 150 years. Going from 1 billion to 7 billion people.