World must learn to share water to avoid war - FAO

[Dover]

Source: Reuters

World must learn to share water to avoid war - FAO
Thu 22 Mar 2007 10:49 AM ET
By Robin Pomeroy

ROME, March 22 (Reuters) - Countries must learn to share water fairly if they are to avoid warring over the vital resource as population growth and climate change make it ever more scarce, the head of the UN farming agency said on Thursday.

Farming consumes 70 percent of the fresh water taken from the world's lakes, rivers and aquifers and demand from farms is set to increase by 14 percent in the next 30 years, said Jacques Diouf, head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

"Water conflicts can arise in water stressed areas among local communities and between countries," he told a conference marking World Water Day.

"The lack of adequate institutional and legal instruments for water sharing exacerbates already difficult conditions. In the absence of clear and well-established rules, chaos tends to dominate and power plays an excessive role," he said...cont'd




Read more: http://article.wn.com/view/2007/03/22/Morgan_Stanley_wins_reversal_of_158B_verdict/

[fooj]

1. Too late for that.

The "Bushies" land in Paraguay is one of the world's largest natural resources for water.

[Jax]

2. "World Water Day"

Link: http://www.worldwaterday.net/?utm_source=wwdupdate&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ticket&utm_campaign=wwdupdate322

[no_hypocrisy]

3. That's one of the primary reasons why there is the current conflict

with Israel claiming land also claimed by the Palestinians: water rights.

[Delphinus]

4. Some (that I know) have been saying this for over a year.

It was mentioned just the other night that Lake Chad, over by Darfur, was one of the reasons for the genocide.

[dysfunctional press]

5. go find your own great lakes...

the ones over here belong to US.

and by US- i mean the seven states and the one province that borders them.

the rest of you can go find your own source of fresh water...at least til i'm gone.

[Rowdy Church]

6. Earth's Surface is 70% Water

I'll never understand why the obvious has to be pointed out.

The one natural resource that is abundant and plentiful on the planet Earth is water.

If we put our best minds to work on creating earth-friendly techniques of harnessing and harvesting the water that exists on planet earth - there would never be the need for anyone or any creature to die from thirst or for drought to cause the failure of crops.

If we can create pipelines that run the length of continents to move oil and natural gas ... what's so hard to grasp about creating desalination plants that harvest water from the worlds oceans and distributing it to where its needed.

Yes it would take some thought and effort to come up with a process to desalinate sea water that is earth-friendly and does not require massive amounts of fossil fuels being expended to produce. We would also have to put thought into making the systems safe for sea life.

BUT, since our very lives depend upon fresh sources of drinking water - doesn't it make sense to get ahead of the curve and rather than waiting until sources of fresh drinking water begin drying up and driving the nation's of the world to the brink of war - death and destruction needlessly - we put our best minds and commit resources to something that is inevitable and certainly worthy of vast resources for the betterment of humankind?

Com'on - if we can put a man on the moon - surely we could create a desalination and distribution process that is ec0-friendly and would stave off a world crisis for all of humankind. Right?

[qwlauren35]

8. Very true, but...

I was in an aquarium the other day, and apparently the percentage of water that is drinkable is dropping steadily.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/566809.stm

And that water is steadily becoming saltier.

I think it is not enough to make water available as a resource, but more energy is going to have to be put into getting it clean enough to be useful.

Uh oh... energy... damn. We already have an energy problem, don't we.

Maybe we would have to figure out how to use water energy to purify water.

Whatever happened to water wheels and windmills, anyway???

[Rowdy Church]

12. Hence Putting Our Science to Work on the Problem

We have the technology today for large scale desalination.

The major drawback is that it takes a tremendous amount of energy.

But that's why I recommended we put our *best* scientific minds to work on the problem.

Whose to say that a new chemical process can't be invented to facilitate the process? Or what about enhancing nature's own process - evaporation ... using solar energy?

I believe not only can we do it -- but we must do it.

[redqueen]

19. It's already being done.

http://www.gewater.com/equipment/membranehousing/desal.jsp

http://www.ge.com/stories/en/20367.html?category=Product_Business

[Rowdy Church]

30. Thanks for the Link

This is exactly the type of technology we should be advancing and enhancing on a global scale to ensure that every continent has water systems in place to prevent sources of fresh water from being depleted. This type of desalination technology combined with improved sewage and waste water reclamation systems could avert water shortages everywhere on the planet.

There is no reason coastal cities like Los Angeles or NYC should ever be without a source for fresh potable water. Systems like these could be installed on coastal areas to pipe water inland to the heartland that could be stored in reservoirs or tanks for distribution.

This could be done on every continent around the globe. The continent of Africa could pipe water inland and where there is drought and famine -- agriculture could flourish producing food to feed the starving.

Its takes vision.

[redqueen]

31. Another positive step would be tightened restrictions on water use.

Why grow gardens in a desert? It's stupid. Astroturf for golf courses, too.

[The2ndWheel]

9. You think screwing around with the oceans is eco-friendly?

It was also nice of you to give thought to the life that actually live in the oceans. We don't need ocean water to survive, but to feed the machine, we'll take it from the life that does require ocean water, an aquatic Manifest Destiny if you will.

I have no doubt that we'll try. At this point, after all these years of wanting everything to fit our desires, I don't see how we could stop ourselves. It will end up causing more problems, bigger problems than we currently face, but that's hardly our concern. Whatever stands in the way of solving those new problems will pay the price.

[Rowdy Church]

11. Basic Elementary School Science

Good grief.

Do you really believe we'd suck up all the water from the oceans?

What do you think all the water on Earth will be used up?

Basic Elementary School Science teaches "The Water Cycle"

1. evaporation (and transpiration)
2. condensation
3. precipitation
4. collection

... or did you miss that day in third grade?

I see nothing wrong with intelligent use of our natural resources, especially when we allow for their uses in consideration for future generations and the planet's eco-system at the same time.

[The2ndWheel]

13. You don't want a water cycle

"If we put our best minds to work on creating earth-friendly techniques of harnessing and harvesting the water that exists on planet earth"

This does not say water cycle. This says using however much of the water we wish to use.

"Do you really believe we'd suck up all the water from the oceans?"

In a way, yes. Did America stop at 13 colonies? Did it stop at the Pacific Ocean? If we can harness and harvest a little bit, why would we stop there?

"What do you think all the water on Earth will be used up?"

Altered. For our benefit. Yeah, we'll give thought to ocean life at first. Over time though, we'll need more.

"I see nothing wrong with intelligent use of our natural resources"

We don't know enough about the ocean to intelligently use it. Not that that would stop us. If we can use it, we will. We'll give a damn about life in the ocean up to a point, then we'll move that point to fit our wants.

[redqueen]

18. But as the ice caps continue to melt, they'll freshen the water...

a little bit at least... yes it's a risky move, but what's the alternative? Just let millions die of thirst?

How many die now, every day, just from lack of access to clean water? It's a shocking figure.

[The2ndWheel]

21. There is no alternative, that's the problem

I have no doubt that we'll try and mold the oceans to fit our needs. Provided we have cheap enough energy to even get started.

Yes, we've come to the point where it's us or life/the planet/nature/whatever you wish to call it. We have no choice but to attempt to control as much of it as we can, or else billions will die voluntarily. As we control more and more, that will mean more people survive, which means we'll need even more control in the future. If we stop then, a greater number of billions will die. To keep that from happening, we'll need increasing amount of cheap energy. Be that oil, nuclear, whatever, we'll need more and more of it. As we alter the environment to fit an increasing amount of our needs, we'll have to control more and more of it, and if a species or two has to die because of it, we're not going to care.

You're right, we don't have a choice at this point. Just like Manifest Destiny. Without it, America doesn't exist. If we don't control all aspects of the planet for our wants, we don't get to progress to whatever our destination is.

[Lorien]

26. "Control" is a myth

try as we might, we can't control mother nature. The more we try, the more we are at risk for complete annihilation. History has millions of examples of man's foolish and self destructive efforts to "control" his environment. Such efforts lead to only one destination: extinction for our species.

Zero population growth is the best way to ensure human survival. That means encouraging the world's population to stick to smaller families. The future will be full of wars and starvation otherwise. It's a simple choice.

[redqueen]

27. Water is more of a 'need' than a 'want'.

I guess population reduction is the answer, then.

:shrug:

[Lorien]

22. They'll desalinate the water, yes, and likely alter the world's ocean

currents which could plunge us into another ice age. Some trade off, eh?

[redqueen]

28. Well global warming is already doing that...

desalinating water seems like it'd be the reverse of that happening, so... who knows what'll happen.

Guess we'll find out.

[Rowdy Church]

34. It wouldn't alter the Oceans Salt content

Siphoning water from the worlds oceans would not desalinate the ocean's themselves.

Surely you realize that the desalination projects proposed would not alter the ocean's saline levels? It would be like taking a drinking straw and sipping water from all of the world's oceans.

Nature already draws water from the oceans through evaporation and its dispersed again by rain fall over land masses - only to make its way back to the oceans through tributaries and rivers that drain back into the sea. The natural Water Cycle.

There is a Global Warming hypothesis that as the ice caps melt ( and the ice caps are fresh water ) that this influx of fresh water into the world's oceans will have a slight desalination effect that could interrupt the currents that exist today and are responsible for our present day weather patterns around the globe. But this is a whole different ball of wax completely. If all of the ice caps melt over the next 50-100 years (or less) then the coastal cities that I've already mentioned will have not concern for fresh water -- as they will likely be under water.

But the problem for fresh drinking water will continue to be exacerbated by global warming -- if you've seen Al Gore's slide presentation as an example -- major populations like India and China, which depend upon glacier melt and run off for a majority of their fresh drinking water and water for their crops will be desperate for fresh water. As these glaciers disappear -- so does their potable water.

And once again -- the idea for siphoning water from the world's oceans and desalinating it and recycling it makes perfect sense.

[barb162]

7. I would like to see this read that population is kept at zero growth

(and there probably wouldn't be water wars). Too many people fighting over too few resources

[raccoon]

10. And people consuming too many resources.

Those of us in the US, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, consume a heckuva lot more than those in Third World countries.

[Lorien]

14. Unfortunately, zero population growth is a very unpopular topic

for every government except China. People will always believe that there are unlimited resources for an unlimited number of human beings because that's what they WANT to believe (plus, our economy requires continual population growth). I might be able to feed four people for a week with what's in my kitchen, but I can't feed a thousand people more than a small bite of food each. The planet is also only capable of supporting a finite number of human beings.

[The2ndWheel]

15. "The planet is also only capable of supporting a finite number of human beings."

Unless we take out any species that steals our resources. We can just call them pests. It's a give and take sort of thing.

Although taken to the logical conclusion, you're right. Once we rid the planet of every other species, we'll hit a wall again. We'll have to take each other out then.

[Lorien]

20. We depend on other species to survive

the planet is a living organism itself. Take bats, for instance. Without bats crops would be decimated by insects because no human devised method of "pest control" is as effective as the bat at controlling insect populations (ask the residents of San Antonio). The planet would also see a severe reduction in the world's rainforests (which help regulate weather and act as a HEPA filter for our emissions) if bats were to become extinct, as a large number of keystone species of trees require that their seeds pass through the digestive tract of bats in order to germinate.

Like it or not, we are all connected and depend on one another to survive.

[The2ndWheel]

25. Agreed

But it won't stop us. If we kill the rest of life so that we can fly beyond our limits, we'll just make artificial bats. I think our ultimate goal would be a completely artificial world. A completely predictable, identical, efficient world, which serves us, and only us.

We are connected, but I don't think we(the royal one) want to be. I think that's what the last few thousand years have been about. We don't much care for diversity. We're not all that fond of nature. We don't particularly like evolution. We know about it, and that's why we want to control it, manipulate it, and eventually destroy it.

[Lorien]

29. Speak for yourself

I love nature, and I don't want to control it because I know damn well that we can never control it. Artificial bats? We're not Gods; such a creation can never exist.

I seriously don't believe that the majority of people on the planet are as idiotic as you've made them out to be. Even the Freepers I know think that tampering with "God's creation" can be very, very dangerous. The solution is simple: breed less, educate more. Take only what you need from the planet and leave to rest to function as it was intended to.

[Rowdy Church]

32. Green Here 2

I'm as much a tree hugger as anyone.

Not to get off topic - but I also propose that we should be getting off fossil fuels and turning to solar, wind and any other plentiful earth friendly sources for energy. But thats another thread.

The fact of the matter is that humankind has always sought to control his environment. If we hadn't we'd still be living in the stone age. When the hunters and gatherers first settled down to cultivate crops they sought to control their environment. As we advanced we found ways to divert streams and rivers to water crops and provide sources of fresh water for civilizations to flourish.

There are plenty of examples where humankind has harnessed the earth and profoundly benefited from it - while at the same time not always done irreparable harm to the eco-system. Its a balance and its takes planning.

But on the flip side of that coin there are plenty of examples where civilizations grew to capacities that were unsustainable by their level of technology and the availability of natural resources within their grasp.

While I detest our current system's hunger for fossil energy sources and the abuses that come along with it ... unfortunately our world economy is based upon this black gold and it is a change that will not come easy.

But the same money grubbing crooks and scoundrels that control the fossil-based energy sources already recognize that their next monopoly will be fresh potable water -- and they will make everyone pay through the nose for it. The Bush family is already staking their claim in South America to that regions source for fresh water.

My point is that it is absolutely ludicrous to imagine a world where despotic rulers, multinational corporations and money grubbing bastards like the Bush family have the potential to hold humankind hostage for fresh drinking water -- when if you look at an image of the earth from space -- the one thing this planet has ... is water !!!

[Triana]

33. BINGO!

NO ONE wants to address this. But until and unless we do, NOTHING else will matter, ultimately. We're breeding ourselves out of a place to live and survive because this planet cannot sustain unlimited growth infinitely. DUH.

[pushycat]

16. Just look at what we're willing to do for oil. Water is no different..

[redqueen]

17. That's a joke, right? Share?

Profit uber alles, bub. Welcome to the corporatist world.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0305-02.htm

[shanti]

23. the paraguayan aquifer

that *ush's property sits over...doesn't that encompass a LARGE percentage of the world's fresh water? anyway, that's what i'd heard on DU before. he made sure that HE and his own would never worry about enough water :(

[electron_blue]

24. World leaders must *want* to avoid war in the first place.

I agree that sharing water is going to just get more difficult, but I haven't seen any indication that by and large humans will insist on a world without war.