The Water is getting scarce... time for radical policy?

Húrin

I came across this article from George Monbiot, always one for a good read.

Given the seriousness of the situation as outlined below, is it not time to consider radical policy? Considering that almost every kind of industry uses water in great amounts, and considering that agriculture is without a doubt the most important human economic activity of all, should further economic growth even be permitted?

Consider also that meat, particularly beef, requires vastly more water and land to produce per unit mass than any grain crop, would it not be justified, to control and reduce the amount of meat that may be produced? I'm essentially talking about legislating vegetarianism.

I think my views are clear. Call them extreme, I'm up for a debate.


Global freshwater supplies could start to determine whether or not we can feed ourselves.



By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 10th October 2006.

It looks dull, almost impenetrable in places. But if its findings are verified, it could turn out to be the most important scientific report published so far this year. In this month’s edition of the Journal of Hydrometeorology is a paper written by scientists at the Met Office, which predicts future patterns of rainfall and evaporation(1).

Those who dispute that climate change is taking place, such as Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail, like to point out that the predicted effects of global warming rely on computer models, rather than “observable facts”(2). That’s the problem with the future - you can’t observe it. But to have any hope of working out what might happen, you need a framework of understanding. It’s either this or the uninformed guesswork that Philips seem to prefer.

The models can be tested by means of what climate scientists call backcasting - seeing whether or not they would have predicted changes which have already taken place. The global climate model used by the Met Office still needs to be refined. While it tracks past temperature changes pretty closely, it does not accurately backcast the drought patterns in every region. But it correctly reproduces the total global water trends over the past 50 years.

When the same model is used to forecast the pattern over the 21st Century, it uncovers “a net overall global drying trend” if greenhouse gas emissions are moderate or high. “On a global basis, drought events are slightly more frequent and of much longer duration by the second half of the 21st century relative to the present day.”(3) In these dry, stodgy phrases, we find an account of almost unimaginable future misery.

Many parts of the world, for reasons which have little to do with climate change, are already beginning to lose their water. In When the Rivers Run Dry, Fred Pearce, who is New Scientist’s environment consultant, travels around the world trying to assess the state of our water resources(4). He finds that we survive today as a result of borrowing from the future.

The great famines predicted for the 1970s were averted by new varieties of rice, wheat and maize, whose development is known as the “green revolution”. They produce tremendous yields, but require plenty of water. This has been provided by irrigation, much of which uses undergound reserves. Unfortunately, many of them are being exploited much faster than they are being replenished. In India, for example, some 250 cubic kilometres (a cubic kilometre is a billion cubic metres or a trillion litres) are extracted for irrigation every year, of which about 150 are replaced by the rain. “200 million people [are] facing a waterless future. The groundwater boom is turning to bust and, for some, the green revolution is over.”

In China, 100 million people live on crops grown with underground water that is not being refilled: water tables are falling fast all over the North China plain. Many more rely on the Huang He (the Yellow River), which already appears to be drying up as a result of abstraction and possibly climate change. Ninety percent of the crops in Pakistan are watered by irrigation from the Indus. Almost all the river’s water is already diverted into the fields - it often fails now to reach the sea. The Ogallala aquifer which lies under the western and south western United States, and which has fed much of the world, has fallen by 30 metres in many places. It now produces half as much water as it did in the 1970s.

All this was known before the new paper was published. While climate scientists have been predicting for some time that the wet parts of the world are likely to become wetter and the dry parts drier, they had assumed that overall rainfall would rise, as higher temperatures increase evaporation. At the same time - and for the same reason - soils could become drier. It was unclear what the net effects would be. But the new paper’s “drought index” covers both rainfall and evaporation: overall, the world becomes drier.

Even this account - of rising demand and falling supply - does not tell the whole grim story. Roughly half the world’s population lives within 60 kilometres of the coast. Eight of the ten largest cities on earth have been built beside the sea. Many of them rely on underground lenses of fresh water, effectively floating, within the porous rocks, on salt water which has soaked into the land from the sea. As the fresh water is sucked out, the salt water rises and can start to contaminate the aquifer. This is already happening in hundreds of places. The worst case is the Gaza strip, which relies entirely on underground water which is now almost undrinkable. As the sea level rises as a result of climate change, salt pollution in coastal regions is likely to accelerate(5,6).

As these two effects of climate change - global drying and rising salt pollution - run up against the growing demand for water, and as irrigation systems run dry or become contaminated, the possibility arises of a permanent global food deficit. Even with a net food surplus, 800 million people are malnourished. Nothing I could write would begin to describe what a world in deficit - carrying 9 billion people - would look like.

There are four possible means of adapting to this crisis. One is to abandon regions that are drying up and shift production to the wettest parts of the world - the Amazon and Congo Basins, for example. But as these are generally the most forested places, this will lead to a great acceleration of climate change, and of the global drying it’s likely to cause, as the carbon in the trees is turned to carbon dioxide. Another is to invest in desalination plants. But even the new desalination technologies produce expensive water, and they use a great deal of energy. Again this means more global warming.

Another is to shift water, on a massive scale, to the drying lands. But vast hydro-engineering projects have seldom succeeded in helping the poor. Giant dams and canals - like the Narmada system in India, the Three Gorges in China and Colonel Gaddafi’s “Great Man-made River” - are constructed at stupendous cost. Then, when no further glory can be extracted by the government officials and companies who built them, the fiddly work of ensuring the water reaches the poor is forgotten, and all the money is wasted. As Fred Pearce shows, perhaps the best method, which in the past has kept cities alive even in the Negev desert, is the small-scale capture of rainwater in ponds and tanks(7).

But to stand a high chance of averting this catastrophe, we must ensure that the drying doesn’t happen. The predictions in the new paper refer to global warming in the middle or at the high end of the expected range. Beneath that point - 2C of warming or so - a great global drying is less likely to occur. As the figures I’ve published show, to keep the temperature rise below this level requires a global cut in carbon emissions of 60% by 2030 - which means a 90% reduction in rich nations like the United Kingdom(8). It sounds impossible. But then you consider the alternative.



www.monbiot.com

References:

1. EJ Burke, SJ Brown, and N Christidis, October 2006. Modeling the Recent Evolution of Global Drought and Projections for the Twenty-First Century with the Hadley Centre Climate Model. Journal of Hydrometeorology vol 7, no 5, pp 1113–1125.

2. Eg Melanie Phillips, 12th January 2004. Global Warming Or Global Fraud? Daily Mail.

3. EJ Burke, SJ Brown, and N Christidis, ibid.

4. Fred Pearce, 2006. When the Rivers Run Dry. Eden Books, Transworld, London.

5. VEA Post, 2005. Fresh and Saline Groundwater Interaction in Coastal Aquifers: is our technology ready for the problems ahead? Hydrogeology Journal, vol 13, pp 120-123.

6. Gualbert H.P. Oude Essink, 2001. Improving fresh groundwater supply: problems and solutions.

Ocean & Coastal Management vol 44, pp 429–449.

7. Fred Pearce, ibid.

8. George Monbiot, 2006. Heat: how to stop the planet burning. Penguin, London

McSandwich

It surprises me that they did consider that desalination plants could be powered by solar or wind power..

Húrin

McSandwich wrote: »

It surprises me that they did consider that desalination plants could be powered by solar or wind power..

And we'll be apparently relying on solar and wind for everything else too? I suspect desalination may be too energy-intensive for that.

In any case, depending on desalination for water supplies is precarious business and should be a last resort.

SeanW

First of all, legislating vegetarianism is an massively extreme measure. As a grave encroachment on civil liberties, I believe I speak for all right thinking people when I say "not without a matchingly grave emergency."

The market works much better for this sort of thing - i.e. if it becomes impossible to produce meat products in an affordable and efficient way, or if it becomes scarce, then prices will rise and usage (i.e. consumption) will necessarily fall. Agriculture in particular is a complicated beast, affected by global market conditions, fuel costs, (primarily 1st world) politics etc. Even if the premise of his article is true - that rainfall levels will decline as a result of global warming - its too simple an analysis.

What you are proposing is environmental extremism gone mad.

Secondly, we CAN use wind and solar to run a water desalination programme because that task may be suited to the irregular nature of those plant types electrical outputs. That is to say, that if the local authority has a big basin or resivoir somewhere where they store large and variable amounts of water, they may not be too worried about the loss of power from a solar generator at night or the tapering off of a breeze.

George Monbiot is a muppet who gets way too much attention.

He opposes nuclear energy on nonsensical grounds (like most anti-nukes do), opposes biodiesel biofuels (with an ever changing and equally illogical grounds for this) and is openly supporting the artificial induction of a worldwide economic collapse or at least serious recession, as the fundamental answer.

His message is all about cut back, do less, and suffer more because energy use and economic prosperity are fundamentally evil. He ignores or trashes most every possibility at improving efficiencies, doing things better, or using better tools for the world of today. Essentially, all his arguments are fatally flawed by his avoidance of the need to use a multi-pronged strategy to achieve the stellar levels of environmental improvements he asserts are required.

Húrin

SeanW wrote: »

First of all, legislating vegetarianism is an massively extreme measure. As a grave encroachment on civil liberties, I believe I speak for all right thinking people when I say "not without a matchingly grave emergency."

I agree, it is extreme and would need a grave emergency to justify it. Such an emergency may be only a few years away.

The market works much better for this sort of thing - i.e. if it becomes impossible to produce meat products in an affordable and efficient way

...just cut down more rainforest! The market is causing the environmental disaster that is Brazilian beef exports to exist. Only recent regulation has kept that meat, which is less than a fifth the price of Irish beef, out of Europe.

or if it becomes scarce, then prices will rise and usage (i.e. consumption) will necessarily fall.

Consumption would not fall for those who could afford the price rises. Even if prices reduced consumption that significantly, it would be long after millions of avoidable deaths by starvation in places such as Africa. The market is flawed because it doesn't factor in such important things.

What you are proposing is environmental extremism gone mad.

The world we are living in is industrial extremism gone mad.

Secondly, we CAN use wind and solar to run a water desalination programme because that task may be suited to the irregular nature of those plant types electrical outputs. That is to say, that if the local authority has a big basin or resivoir somewhere where they store large and variable amounts of water, they may not be too worried about the loss of power from a solar generator at night or the tapering off of a breeze.

So how much ocean water can be economically desalinated? Can it compete with any major river? It is foolish to propose running a society on the back of desalination plants.

Monbiot opposes nuclear energy on nonsensical grounds (like most anti-nukes do)

I agree.

opposes biodiesel biofuels (with an ever changing and equally illogical grounds for this)

I disagree. His arguments against biofuels seem solid to me.

and is openly supporting the artificial induction of a worldwide economic collapse or at least serious recession, as the fundamental answer.

Seems no less crazy than the proposal that the economy can continue to grow without using more materials and energy.

His message is all about cut back, do less, and suffer more because energy use and economic prosperity are fundamentally evil. He ignores or trashes most every possibility at improving efficiencies, doing things better, or using better tools for the world of today.

More often his message is trying to stop the third world from suffering more. This planet has limits.

Essentially, all his arguments are fatally flawed by his avoidance of the need to use a multi-pronged strategy to achieve the stellar levels of environmental improvements he asserts are required.

Completely untrue. In much of his writing on global warming policy he advocates the use of new technology to strip carbon dioxide from the air. This is tempered by the warning that we should not depend on this, nor can such technology be rolled out fast enough to permit continued rising GHG emissions.

e.g. http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/12/04/what-is-progress/

probe

It never stops raining in Ireland... probably the last place on the planet to have a water problem. Fix all the leaking pipes and stop buying rubbishy plumbing supplies from China and Britain (ie define and enforce minimum standards, a la Germany), and the existing reservoirs would be overflowing.

If you are looking for places with a real water problem, close-by, where the North African desert is moving into Europe see:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/02/europe/dry.php

.probe

Húrin

probe wrote: »

It never stops raining in Ireland... probably the last place on the planet to have a water problem. Fix all the leaking pipes and stop buying rubbishy plumbing supplies from China and Britain (ie define and enforce minimum standards, a la Germany), and the existing reservoirs would be overflowing.

If you are looking for places with a real water problem, close-by, where the North African desert is moving into Europe see:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/02/europe/dry.php

.probe

Well, everywhere except Donegal in Ireland is set to dry up a bit over the next century. Water will or will not be a problem depending on how much is it used. For instance if everyone with a lawn is permitted to get sprinklers (grass is thirsty) I expect there may be water supply problems in cities. But I expect that it will be peanuts compared to what some places in the world, like those you mention will endure.

SeanW

I object to George Monbiot's opposition to biofuels because his arguments are far too simplistic - agriculture and starvation are complex issues. A few years ago, he said "stop using biodiesel, because the Malaysians etc are clearing forests to bring land into service for palm oil production." But that didn't yield the necessary results, so he went down the "won't somebody please think of the children" route, which is all to common with crazy-left demagogues.

His analysis is that biofuels are all bad because more biofuel use = more starvation in Africa is far too simplistic, and it ignores many economic and political failures. The Western world has a major agricultural capacity surplus and our farmers are only in business at all, facing comeptition from South America etc, because of subsidy schemes like CAP, which work by limiting the local market imports, while intervention buying large volumes of produce to keep prices high, which is then "dumped" on the 3rd world, where it prices out local produce from its own markets. This, in turn,damages the recieving country's ecomomy.

Also people were starving in Africa long before interest in biofuels started to pick up. His analysis also ignores the wide variety in efficiency of biofuel types. With corn based ethanol being the worst, requiring large amounts of land, fertiliser, crop dusting, and environmentally harsh processing etc, to produce bioethanol that has 10-15% less BTU/L than petrol. On the other end, we have things like rapeseed and palm oil that can be used to produce biodiesel much more efficiently, and leave the motorist with a fuel that is only 9% below petrodiesel (and as such about 33% better than petroleum gasoline) in BTU terms but with better lubrication properties that actually make some engines work better.

I offer the example of Zimbabwe as a textbook example of what really causes starvation. 10 years ago, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa and it had scenery and wildlife the envy of the known world. Things were so good there that the United States Libertarian party even cited Zimbabwe as a way to do things right - in this case the preservation of the elephant population
http://www.lp.org/issues/environment.shtml
But when Mugabe decided to nationalise all the farms and institue bandit rule, food production collapsed and took the economy with it. Now, many Zimbabweans rely on food aid from the outside world, their money is worthless and much of that country's wildlife has been hunted to near extinction in a desperate search for food. In 10 years they've done a 180 turn - backwards.

An answer to the many crises of food in Africa is coming from, above all places Japan. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1810351,00.html?xid=feed-yahoo-world
In addition to shipping 20,000 tons of its own rice reserves to Africa as a short term measure, it has also committed to working with African nations and farmers to increase their agricultural outputs - which would be good news for everyone.

Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda noted on Wednesday that the country had already established a network of international agencies to help double rice production in Africa to 14 million tons over the next 10 years.

Surging food prices may represent a short-term crisis, but they could also bring a long-term opportunity for Africa's 80 million farmers. Realizing their potential, however, requires cash from donor countries in order to get the necessary fertilizer, seeds and irrigation. Even more important is investment in the transport and storage infrastructure to bring crops to market — currently, as much as a staggering 50% of many of Africa's harvests spoils before it reaches consumers. "Africa could still double or triple food output but this would require major help to do it," says Jeffrey Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute and special advisor to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

Politics and economics are the main causes of starvation and malnutrition. Not biofuels. As Bill Clinton said in one of his presidential campaigns "It's the economy, stupid"

Seems no less crazy than the proposal that the economy can continue to grow without using more materials and energy.

It can - under the right circumstances.

This planet has limits.

It does, and it doesn't. If we do things properly, all the peoples of the world and our evironment end up winning. When we don't, by way of bad policies, demagoguery and economic misfortune, everyone and everything necessarily comes out the loser.

I fundamentally believe that not only can we can continue living our Western lifestyle sustaianbly, but that all the peoples of the world can share in it. That is, we CAN, IF we do it right.

You can have a 95%+ non-fossil electricity a-la France if you want it. You can have a thriving agricultural system anywhere in the world conditions allow - if policies are correct, i.e. we could set our (Western/European) farmers to work growing things like Rapeseed to augment our diesel supplies, while leaving the international food markets unmolested. You can have renewable energies to the extent that they are practical and feasable for a given use. You can do research into things like improved technolgies in all fields, nuclear, renewable, and "Second Generation" biofuels such as algae oil biodiesel and waste-straw ethanol, electric-battery cars etc.

But it requires good leadership and sound economics.

Yet offering no solutions except suffer more and destroy our economies, George Monbiot expects rich nations like the United Kingdom to reduce CO2 output by 90% in 22 years.

There is a better way. And IMHO the first step is telling George Monbiot which lake to jump into.

McSandwich

Húrin wrote: »

So how much ocean water can be economically desalinated? Can it compete with any major river? It is foolish to propose running a society on the back of desalination plants.

Once up and running, a solar desalination plant runs on free energy from the sun. In Africa where even large rivers are running dry (http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/Ote6_3.htm) it may be the only option - unless populations are moved elsewhere..

Húrin

SeanW wrote: »

I object to George Monbiot's opposition to biofuels because his arguments are far too simplistic - agriculture and starvation are complex issues. A few years ago, he said "stop using biodiesel, because the Malaysians etc are clearing forests to bring land into service for palm oil production."

But that didn't yield the necessary results

Why, did Monbiot's opinion become policy? No.

His analysis is that biofuels are all bad because more biofuel use = more starvation in Africa is far too simplistic, and it ignores many economic and political failures. The Western world has a major agricultural capacity surplus and our farmers are only in business at all, facing comeptition from South America etc, because of subsidy schemes like CAP, which work by limiting the local market imports, while intervention buying large volumes of produce to keep prices high, which is then "dumped" on the 3rd world, where it prices out local produce from its own markets. This, in turn,damages the recieving country's ecomomy.

None of this demonstrates anything other than that biofuels are not the only cause of starvation in Africa. Monbiot doesn't claim they are. He only thinks that they don't help the situation.

On the other end, we have things like rapeseed and palm oil that can be used to produce biodiesel much more efficiently, and leave the motorist with a fuel that is only 9% below petrodiesel (and as such about 33% better than petroleum gasoline) in BTU terms but with better lubrication properties that actually make some engines work better.

But both of these fuels tend to be grown on what used to be either agricultural land or rainforest, and usually in third world countries.

I offer the example of Zimbabwe as a textbook example of what really causes starvation. 10 years ago, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa and it had scenery and wildlife the envy of the known world. Things were so good there that the United States Libertarian party even cited Zimbabwe as a way to do things right - in this case the preservation of the elephant population

This is indeed one of the things that can cause food insecurity. But as you said yourself, it's never simple. Mugabe-style political corruption is not the only thing that causes starvation.

Politics and economics are the main causes of starvation and malnutrition. Not biofuels. As Bill Clinton said in one of his presidential campaigns "It's the economy, stupid"

Biofuels is related to politics and economics. There is an incentive to grow crops for fuel because it's the companies that want fuel that can afford to pay much more than the companies that want food. Paradoxically this drives up food prices. It doesn't help that it takes a huge amount of land to grow enough for even small quantities of fuel.

It can - under the right circumstances.

I'm not seeing how. Recycling only gets us so far.

It does, and it doesn't. If we do things properly, all the peoples of the world and our evironment end up winning. When we don't, by way of bad policies, demagoguery and economic misfortune, everyone and everything necessarily comes out the loser.

This is the kind of mindless, unrealistic optimism that has caused the ecological crisis in the first place.

I fundamentally believe that not only can we can continue living our Western lifestyle sustaianbly, but that all the peoples of the world can share in it. That is, we CAN, IF we do it right.

So the world has enough materials to harness enough energy and water to fuel the western lifestyle for 9 billion people?

You can have a 95%+ non-fossil electricity a-la France if you want it.

France does not run on 95% fossil-free electricity. The figure is 75% - that is the highest in the world. Suppose China decided to match France's statistic for its 1.3 billion people, and give them western standards of energy consumption. The uranium would run out before the power stations were even completed.

You can have a thriving agricultural system anywhere in the world conditions allow - if policies are correct, i.e. we could set our (Western/European) farmers to work growing things like Rapeseed to augment our diesel supplies, while leaving the international food markets unmolested.

That is already being done in the USA. Farmers there are growing corn for ethanol, so US food production is being outsourced to Brazilian soya and cattle farmers. Europe's food production areas already extend far beyond the borders of Europe. Notice how most supermarket peas come from Kenya?

You can have renewable energies to the extent that they are practical and feasable for a given use. You can do research into things like improved technolgies in all fields, nuclear, renewable, and "Second Generation" biofuels such as algae oil biodiesel and waste-straw ethanol, electric-battery cars etc.

But while all these things are being researched (and I find such faith in technology to be sad) demand must be severely cut, or world emissions will never peak in time.

But it requires good leadership and sound economics.

I agree.

Yet offering no solutions except suffer more and destroy our economies, George Monbiot expects rich nations like the United Kingdom to reduce CO2 output by 90% in 22 years.

He's a realist. He is not expecting the west to suffer. If you think that it is suffering to be unable to afford a new car every couple of years then you have a distorted view of reality.

There is a better way.

People have been saying what you are saying for years now, and the crisis is only deepening. Your ideas now appear to be unrealistic, irrational, and an opiate to all who don't want to face the reality of the problem.

Húrin

McSandwich wrote: »

Once up and running, a solar desalination plant runs on free energy from the sun. In Africa where even large rivers are running dry (http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/Out/Ote6_3.htm) it may be the only option - unless populations are moved elsewhere..

Migration on a vast a scale will certainly be a feature of this century. It may be the most decisive factor in all human society.

McSandwich

Húrin wrote: »

Migration on a vast a scale will certainly be a feature of this century. It may be the most decisive factor in all human society.

If the problems continue to be ignored then yes. However there are things which can be done to improve the situation.

Simple and inexpensive measures such as growing trees along with crops has helped make agriculture sustainable in Africa:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/11/world/africa/11niger.html?pagewanted=print

http://www.new-agri.co.uk/05-3/develop/dev05.html

http://www.worldagroforestry.org/ar2004/tf_story01.asp

Simple but probably too late to work on its own...


In Dubai desert irrigation has been very successful, take a look at one of their golf courses:

http://www.dubaiasitusedtobe.com/pages/galleries/emiratesgolfclub.shtm

http://www.asiatraveltips.com/AbuDhabiGolfClubnearDubai.shtml

If a desert can be converted into a golf course, then why employ similar (solar powered) technology, using once productive land, to help people feed themselves? It would be expensive (to build) but hardly radical..

SeanW

Húrin wrote: »

None of this demonstrates anything other than that biofuels are not the only cause of starvation in Africa. Monbiot doesn't claim they are. He only thinks that they don't help the situation.

But agriculture, geopolitics and economics are complicated beasts. If you're looking for reasons for starvation in Africa, biofuels likely don't even come into the top ten.

This is indeed one of the things that can cause food insecurity. But as you said yourself, it's never simple. Mugabe-style political corruption is not the only thing that causes starvation.

No, but it's one of the most spectacular examples of a formerly prosperous powerhouse nation doing a 180 degree turn almost overnight.

Africa is full of these kinds of problems, from kleptocrat governments to civil wars, genocide (Sudan, Darfur?), riots (Kenya). Throw in the odd drought like Ethopia in the 1980s and you have a geopolitical mess that prevents progess therein from ever occuring. To further screw things up, we have had EU CAP programmes crushing local agriculture in some countries by overrunning them with super cheap imports.

How the hell are you supposed to have economic and food security (both very strongly related) with all this nonsense going on? Simple answer is, it can't be done! This is what needs to be fixed, and not a minute too soon either.

It doesn't help that it takes a huge amount of land to grow enough for even small quantities of fuel.

I am the first to admit that I am only a selective supporter of biofuels. Clearly the wrong kind of biofuel programme, like corn ethanol or some feedstocks of biodiesel, can do more harm than good. But if you look up biodiesel on Wikipedia, you will see a wide variation in oil/hectare yields. At the lowest end is soybeans, but at the higher end there is palm oil, and other options common in Asia like jatropha (commonly regarded as a weed, very hardy, resistant to drought and can be grown in mix with other crops). People are also looking seriously at algal oils.

So the world has enough materials to harness enough energy and water to fuel the western lifestyle for 9 billion people?

It depends on what you consider the "Western lifestyle" to be. If you mean 9 billion people with Hummers, 10000 sq. ft. houses in the middle of nowhere commuting to a job 50-100 miles away, wasting every resource in sight, No, of course we can't provide that for everyone, heck even the Americans can't do it anymore in the numbers they used to. The market is taking care of that!

But if by "Western lifestyle" you mean something like how a Parisian or Berliner lives - more (energy) efficient all around, more use of public transport, who recycles, and has perhaps a small car powered by batteries and/or biodiesel that they use for the occasional weeked away or Sunday drive, while having a decent level of discretionary goods/energy use, well if all the other pieces (good economics, sound leadership) are in place, maybe.

If that makes me hopelessly optimistic, then so be it.

France does not run on 95% fossil-free electricity. The figure is 75% - that is the highest in the world.

The 75% is figure is for nuclear energy only, France has another ~15% in renewables, mainly hydroelectricity, which is particularly useful in dealing with peak-demand.

Suppose China decided to match France's statistic for its 1.3 billion people, and give them western standards of energy consumption.

They're already starting building dams and nuclear power plants. Unfortunately they're also opening a new unfiltered coal-fired power station every week

The uranium would run out before the power stations were even completed.

The newest large reactor type, the European Pressurised Water Reactor, of which two are under construction, will be 16% more uranium-efficient than France's existing generation of plants. One is being built at Flamanville in France, another in Finland. When currently economically recoverable Uranium runs low, we start using reserves that are economically recoverable at a higher price or use things like Thorium. The U.S. is now looking at reprocessing its spent fuel stockpile, adding further, momentarily at least to the nuclear fuels supply.

That is already being done in the USA. Farmers there are growing corn for ethanol, so US food production is being outsourced to Brazilian soya and cattle farmers.

And it isn't working because they picked the wrong technology.

He's a realist. He is not expecting the west to suffer. If you think that it is suffering to be unable to afford a new car every couple of years then you have a distorted view of reality.

To achieve the cuts he says are necessary without recourse to either biofuels or nuclear energy would require the complete and irreversible destruction of all 1st world economies. Not being able to afford a new car every two years would be the least of anybodies worries in that case.

People have been saying what you are saying for years now, and the crisis is only deepening.

That's why we're still subsidising via PSO levies the industrial-grade tearing up of pristine boglands to provide miniscule amounts of filthy, expensive electricity? Why people in countries like Ireland turn white with terror when someone even mentions the "N" (nuclear) word? Why the Americans are using the worst possible technologies for a biofuels programme? Why African demagogue leaders continue to leave trails of destruction every time they turn around?

If people like me have been saying things like this for years now, then we're obviously not being listened to.

diamondgeezer

More scare mongering rubbish. Maybe they should fix the system which currently demands that 50% of all water is lost through leaks.

But then with all the fat cats to keep in a style with which they have become accustomed, no funding is left over.

sarahirl

in dublin, as far my knowledge on the subject goes, the water shortages are due to; crappy infrastructure that is crumbling under the pressure and from old age, increased population, increased population density, increased demand for water (power showers, bucket and sponge no longer sufficient for cleaning car - must use power hose, etc), increased conversion of natural land into concrete (gutters let rainwater that would have seeped through the soil, now sent to sea or waste water treatment plant). it's so crazy to think that dublin city council are now actually considering taking water from the shannon... but people like the sound of flowing water, or they want to clear the pipes or the pipes will get clogged with toothpaste if they don't leave the tap on... seriously these are reasons for running taps that are from people close to me, really quite embarressing!!

also, have you heard of virtual water? gotta go, but read up on it:D

Climate Expert

Enforcing vegetarianism:
This is why the green lobby is such a dangerous force.

gerky

Climate Expert wrote: »

Enforcing vegetarianism:
This is why the green lobby is such a dangerous force.

So your apparently a climate expert and yet you post almost exactly the same ill thought out line in two separate threads.
Since when is boards a lobby group, last time I checked it was a discussion board.

AngryHippie

Hi Casey
:D:D

gerky

AngryHippie wrote: »

Hi Casey
:D:D

but but but he said he published over 30 papers on climate change are you implying that casey Climate Expert would lie:D

SeanW

Casey, please go away. The grown ups are trying to talk.

Climate Expert

SeanW wrote: »

Casey, please go away. The grown ups are trying to talk.

I'm not Casey and I'm plenty grown up.

Jimkel

There is roughly the same amount of water here as there was 2000 years ago, you drink, you pee, it goes down into the sewers back into the system, it evaporates. It rains, you drink etc etc.

We are in fact in more danger of running out of oxygen, but with more CO2 for plants to convert into oxygen through photosynthisis all we need is to get planting those trees and we'll be fine.

blackbox

There are a lot more of us - this is where the problem lies.

Jimkel

Good point, although with the amount of rain we are having in Ireland It's hard to be concerned.

djpbarry

I don't think there's much point in continuing the discussion of an article that is now almost 6 years old.