p. 243 - 247   (David's second selection, out of six) :-

... a critical point about fresh water in the twenty-first century and forevermore. We can no longer deceive ourselves that water resources are strictly the assets of some regions and not others, because water can be transformed into grain, which is a tradeable commodity in every country on Earth. It takes 1000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain, and while the weight of water may be too prohibitive to move by mechanical transport, the weight of grain is not. (Of course, grain can't be used to take baths in, or to drink. But the biggest user of water is agriculture.) Water, in other words, is not only physically but economically liquid.

A massive water shortage, then, will drive up prices of grain and everything grain is used to produce (beef, ..., milk, ... and beer, as well as cereal, pasta, and bread) in every country in the world. In poor countries, food could be afforded by the wealthy elites, but those elites could quickly become targets for millions of hungry poor. ... the scenario of an Egypt caught between the pincers of declining water supply and exploding population. ... in fact, the real-world prospect is that all countries will be drawn into this maelstrom. Leaders, unable to deliver relief, would likely be toppled, ... Millions of people would depart as refugees, spilling over borders in diasporas too large to either control or support. The influxes would further erode national borders and identities, ...

In the wealthier countries, as in China or Indonesia, the affluent could afford to pay the inflated food prices—but many of them too would find themselves becoming targets. In the United States, for half a century, the wealthy have been given a free pass by the poor, thanks to the myth of the "American Dream". That dream was given a final spurt of life by the era of entertainment-dominated consciousness, in which we saw case after case of stupendous upward mobility—poor kids with poor educations making $5-million-per-year salaries at age 21; Appalachian housewives becoming rich celebrity singers. That was supplemented by $100-million lotteries, "You have just won $1-million" sweepstakes, and other highly publicized means of convincing the poor or struggling not only that they could realize the Dream, but they might even do so overnight.* Arguably, people didn't want to bring down a regime that might soon be theirs. They liked the consumption spike and wanted to ride it into the heavens.
  {* Eric Brown of ... New American Dream notes that TV programming consistently depicts "typical" people as much more affluent than the average viewer really is—and instils unrealistic aspirations and spending habits. "Americans are fighting and losing an expensive battle not with their neighbors across the street, but with the rich and famous. Goodbye Joneses, hello Bill Gates," writes Brown.}

But when food itself becomes hard to come by, such fantasies can be quickly overridden by hunger pains—and growing resentment. (When cooking oil became scarce in Indonesia in the summer of 1998, the resentment rapidly escalated into street riots.) The United States and Europe already have embarrassingly large numbers of poor, and by the late 1990s the distinction between "developed" and "developing" countries was already blurring. ... as long as world food prices are cheap, [the US and European poor] remain relatively quiescent and invisible. ...

We have little time to solve this problem of water scarcities that begin in the Yellow River basin of China or the Nile headlands of Ethiopia, but spread quickly to the once protected enclaves of the well-to-do. Moreover, there won't be time for big mistakes, because the road to a 200-million-ton grain deficit in 2030 could easily mean passing through a deficit in the tens of millions within the next few years—enough to trigger severe disruptions in civil organization. One of the biggest conceivable mistakes would be to rely heavily on the agendas of autonomous nations, both because those agendas will often be in conflict and because as viable institutions, many of those nations are on the endangered list. In others, such as the United States, the policy agendas have become so absurdly distorted by disinformation that it would be foolish to assume they will prevail much longer. This will not be the first time everyone on Earth has had a common interest in taking co-operative action, but it may be the first time that that interest has been visible to most.

To devise a water-management strategy that won't crumble into feudal disputes between outmoded nations will require the same broad, transnational approach that's needed to stabilize the spikes*. That's because water scarcity is just one manifestation (though a particularly critical one) of the breakdown the spikes have brought. The same point can be made about inequities of wealth, resurgences of disease, the rise of killing, or the loss of human cultures and languages. In each area, the solutions are overwhelmingly of a nature that national governments can't solve alone and in some cases are only likely to make worse. In other words, do what we have to do to stabilize the spikes, and the policies needed to solve these other problems—including water management—become much clearer.
{* [The four spikes, graphed on pages 17 to 44, are:
the CARBON Dioxide spike;
the EXTINCTION spike;
the CONSUMPTION spike; and
the POPULATION spike. My third selection will be his description of what we have to do
to stabilize then bring down, these spikes, in his opinion. }

Other pages: [<< Prev]  1  2  3  4  5  6  [Next >>]

Return  to  David's main  page  Go to David's RainForest: Page

Please send any questions or comments to the site Editor

This is: http://www.oocities.org/Athens/Delphi/3142/EdAyres-GLO-2.html#top