Environmental Outlook: Water & Global Security
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-04-03/environmental-outlook-water-global-security
The American intelligence community recently released a report warning that problems with water could destabilize various regions of the world over the next decade. The earth's rising population, climate change, and poor water management have put pressure on water supplies. On this month's Environmental Outlook, we look at global water security and water shortages in the U.S.
Guests
Geoff Dabelko
director of environmental change and security at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Steve Fleischli
a senior attorney in the water program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, former President of Waterkeeper Alliance
Jessica Troell
Senior Attorney and Director of the International Water Program at the Environmental Law Institute
Major General Richard Engel
U.S. Air Force (Retired), director of the National Intelligence Council’s Environment and Natural Resources Program
Program Highlights
The U.S. Director of National Intelligence recently released a report on global water security. It warns that over the next decade conflicts over water could destabilize
several world regions. For this month's installment in our environmental outlook series, we consider how hard it may soon be to provide people around the world with a reliable
fresh water supply.
Water Is Not A Single-Sector Issue
Water security is connected to energy, food, health, economic development, and agriculture, Dabelko said. This seems obvious, but when the U.S. organizes a response to
water insecurity, it has a tendency to "respond in sector, and there's not nearly enough communication and cooperation," he said.
800 Million Without Access To Safe Drinking Water
In addition to the estimated 800 million people around the world without access to safe drinking water, an additional 2.5 billion don't have access to sanitation, Fleischli said. And even in the U.S., some studies have projected that by the year 2050 one third of the counties in the lower 48 states will be facing extreme to high water supply sustainability challenges, he said. "It's something we really need to think about here domestically as well," he said.
Water As A Weapon Of War
Water has not yet been used as a weapon of war, but some are concerned that it could be. Water situations could be used as leverage in existing conflicts. "One state would put pressure on another state to stop a construction project of one would put pressure on a state - maybe deny it lines of communication of other things to preserve its water interests," Engel said.
You can read the full transcript here.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Another part of the problem is the "we are superior" attitude that not all but many Americans still have. Why are we entitled to use up so much of the planet's resources? Just because of who we are? I don't think so.
Manifest Destiny indeed, welcome to the new world we've taken...there's no water.
I have family living in DC. DC is known to have some of the most contaminated water in the US, containing hormones, antibiotics etc. All water has to be filtered at the tap before using it for any purpose. Is that unfiltered water coming out of the tap considered clean water by DC water officials? I find it very troubling that such unclean water is considered "potable." And I am concerned about those living in DC who are not educated about what is in the water there.
I got my information a while back from a series of articles about water in the New York Times.
Two thoughts (not original ones):
The Palestine/Israel problem is now more of a regional water access conflict than a land conflict. Residential and agricultural land is almost worthless without water.
Fracking is a more immediate threat to American food production than to residential potable water quality. Groundwater once fouled will never be clean again, and poorly treated chemical wastes from municipal sewage treatment plants not equipped to handle them will permanently contaminate waterways and eventually add another toxicity to our already fading ocean ecosystems.
We shouldn't be at all surprised by the suffering that goes on in the world. Since the dawn of history, it has always been the goal in all societies that the powerful have the right to abuse the weak. Power is the universal value. Meaning all people in all times and in all places have desired power above all things.
The biggest danger to clean water is the 'fracking' process which uses hundreds of thousands of gallons of water for each well it drills and after use it becomes toxic sludge.
With the use of genetically modified crops, could we see the percentage of water allocated for farming decreasing in the future? This could be one way to off set the diminishing water supply.
I find it ironic that water would be covered under national security but petrol and food/grains are not? Could that be because water is not yet a commodity where greedy speculators cannot make money off it at the expense of others?
Should we not do the same for those as well. It shows our hypocrisy that it is not.
Global warming, huge icebergs. What is being done in regard to moving huge pieces of fresh water icebergs to areas with scarcity. Also desalinization efforts?
Have the same questions been explored with respect to the US? The states are in conflict in the courts over scarce resources. The Colorado River is exhausted before it exits the US border, a mere trickle in Mexico. The Rio Grande and Chattahoochee are both under severe stress though not so hard as the Colorado and get only small notice in the media.
The aquifer under Florida has been so drained of fresh water that salt water is infiltrating it. 30+ years ago I read an article that stated about 15% was salty. Degradation has increased since then to the point 2 desalination plants are being proposed for the Jacksonville area.
THE HEADWATERS OF INDIA, PAKISTAN, SOUTHEAST ASIA, AND CHINA ORIGINATE IN HOLY TIBET, AND THE RIVERS OF CENTRAL ASIA UNITE AFGHANISTAN.
To understand the holiness of Tibet we must understand that the Tibetan High Plateau is not just an awesome place of tremendous mountains, snow, and ice (ice that is melting increasingly quickly now due to environmental warming): the Tibetan High Plateau is where the headwaters of all the great rivers of Asia may be found
The religious holiness of Tibet corresponds to the political holiness of Tibet, and therefore the occupation of Tibet by China may be understood politically as an imperialistic assault by China to control the entire water supply of India, Pakistan, China, and Indochina. This is a political tension that the world does not need. These headwaters ought best be in the safe and secure hands of a free and independent Tibet, which by it's Buddhist faith and reverence for all sentient beings, may be trusted not to leverage water as a tool of political domination.
It is in this context that we must understand that Tibetan freedom and Afghani freedom are not unrelated. Afghanistan is the water basin of Central Asia, geographically separate from the headwaters of Tibet; should China mop up Afghanistan subsequent to American and Allied departure, then China would occupy and control all of Asia. The world should not countenance this.
It is water, which ties together the disparate peoples of Afghanistan into one nation. It is water, which inspires Tibet to high holiness. The world should devote itself to the freedoms of Tibet and Afghanistan. It would be no shame on China, if China were to voluntarily cease it's occupation of both Tibet and Siankiang. In fact such a stunning act of peacefulness would inspire the mindfulness of the world.
The US is exporting a large amount of water in the form of products which consume water in production, particularly agricultural products but also numerous industrial products.
Perhaps even more worrisome is that we are importing much of the consumption demand for survival in the form of immigration. The flood gates were opened years ago. Sadly much of the population growth is in regions of America in which water resources are already under severe stress.
Yes, let's pontificate about people's use of water, now that we've got the use of oil all sorted out. The military is always the best option and the best experts when it comes to any problem, right? NPR has become a huge bore, with its nonstop parade of decider-approved experts. You are becoming as relevant as Pravda was in the USSR - the trouble is all the airtime and resources you consume that would be better used by real news sources.
POPULATION is the overarching problem. At the very least that conversation has to start or life on this planet is in peril. Of course we do not know how to answer the question because so few people even recognize it is a problem.
fracking water usage
The Texas Water Development Board estimates the total amount of water used for fracking statewide in 2010 was 13.5 billion gallons. That's likely to more than double by 2020, and decline gradually each decade after that until dropping back down to current levels between 2050 and 2060.
"We're using scarce resources to get scarce resources," said John Christmann, Permian Region vice president for Apache Corp., a Houston-based oil and gas company that operates in almost every West Texas county.
I wonder how much of that gas will be exported for profit!!
Why not have a national security mandate that requires storage of fresh water in underground caverns in times of plenty and a distribution infrastructure for shutling water around during times of scarcity.
Holy Cow!! we've built house IN THE DESERT with pools....and we're complaining about using our resources well??? Let's take a look at our resources, our thinking and re-arrange our priorities.....money is still talking... and monopolizing the whole conversation!
Holy Cow!! we've built house IN THE DESERT with pools....and we're complaining about using our resources well??? Let's take a look at our resources, our thinking and re-arrange our priorities.....money is still talking... and monopolizing the whole conversation!
There is a problem with overpopulation which leads to overconsumption of resources - especially water.
Right now we have the technology to lessen the overpopulation but the religious people think it is blasphemous to use birth control - for some reason there is a disconnect between the words written two thousand years ago and the world we live in today.
Legislation that takes the right of choice away from women is just one more cause of resources disappearing.
Way back in the 1960's the water rights in the USA began to be contested - the State of California tried to force Washington and Oregon to send water south because we have so much of it. They sued in federal courts and the result was we had to 'register' every well located on every property in the State to "prove" we could not send our water to them.
It is time to stop legislating religious beliefs and use the knowledge and technology we have to make the best use of our resources.
Great program. I'm in a journalism class at the University of Florida and our topic is water. We're building a Web page called State of Water to be up sometime later in the spring.
I agree peak oil is the least of our worries.
OVERPOPULATION = OVERCONSUMPTION
Here is a person who can see reality - the fact that religious words from thousands of years ago can dictate our actions now is beyond the pale.
When can we stop this over-reach of religion and deal with reality?
Not soon I'd guess while the re-pub-lickers running for president are holding tight to those words that have very little meaning in today's world.
It brings scary stuff into the lives of my great-grandchildren.
Will they still be stuck to these words that do not relate to our world of today?
When will common sense be brought into the realm of governance?
"Be fruitful and multiply" just doesn't cut it in our world today.
Let it go!
Check out Circle of Blue's analysis of the national security assessment that was released on World Water Day during Secretary of State Clinton's presentation in D.C.
Here is an excerpt:
"The report prepared for the State Department by the National Intelligence Council, found that, unless there are serious changes in conservation and water use practices, global water demand will reach 6,900 billion cubic meters (1,800 trillion gallons) annually by 2030, a figure that is about 2,400 billion cubic meters (634 trillion gallons) higher than today. The authors of the report concluded that level of consumption is '40 percent above current sustainable water supplies,' and will 'hinder the ability of key countries to produce food and generate energy, posing a risk to global food markets and hobbling economic growth.'
In other words, this would be the equivalent of adding four Chinas over the next 18 years, since China currently uses around 600 billion cubic meters (158 trillion gallons) of water annually."
Also of note: 14 of Circle of Blue's images from the world water crisis were featured at the State Department event. (See the photos here.)
Claire, had we had more time I would have added to Rich Engel's comment to your question by saying that the details of the report show that actually food and fuel are part of the assessment. Whether it is the high vulnerability of countries so dependent on water for agriculture and food security or the virtual water trade of moving food rather than water from water rich to water poor countries, the food issue is addressed. And on fuel, we didn't discuss it on the show but the water intensity of biofuels and even extraction of coal and production of electricity from coal is very water intensive. In places like China for example, there are very real concerns about the ability to utilize their significant coal deposits in the north of the country because the water needed for those processes are in the south. So while the name on the report says water, one strength of it is that it makes these connections directly to the other areas that as you point out are critically important.
The western US is a good example of present and looming problems. Having been involved in these water politics for many years, I am concerned that the natural environment suffers at the promotion of growth and development, and how does one put a dollar amount on nature/natural systems. Yes, we need to find better ways of irrigating crops such as drip systems; yes, we should reduce wasteful uses... but how much population growth and development is sustainable in arid parts of the world? No one wants to discuss that because to do so is negating the economic (biased) basis of growth. Yes, we need to share, but making water a commodity is risky business, as most of us have heard the phrase "water flows to money". Is a person going to be disallowed from having a vegetable garden, looked at as wasting water, because they cannot afford to buy healthy food? Must we be forced to eat foods created by agribiz, sprayed with pesticides and herbicides, against our will? Here we have a very serious issue of rich vs. poor, as wealthy people will be able to pay for filling swimming pools, watering lawns, etc., however poorer people will not be able to raise a sustenance garden. Very important topic... thanks.
Claire, for more on China's water-energy-food nexus, check out Circle of Blue's reporting "Choke Point: China", in collaboration with Geoff Dabelko and our other friends at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Many of the topics Geoff references above can be seen here:
Also check out our infographics on how much water is needed to produce:
Lastly, check out our analysis of the new State Department report, which is linked in my comment just above Geoff's.
I agree with you on the 'fracking'. When the General said they didn't consider 'fracking' because it was such a new technology I was really disappointed. There should be some way for representatives of the general population to get ahead of the commercial interests that never consider the common good. The amount spent on advertising done by the oil companies convincing us how wonderful fracking is shows how devastating it really is.
To mountainwomon:
I so agree about overpopulation, but no one wants to face the facts, and when I do bring this up the accusations of being racist start flying. I am a "white" person and chose to have no children, as did my 2 sisters, because we felt like some of us were going to have to make the supreme sacrifice of not reproducing, not carrying on the family name and genes, etc. THAT is the supreme sacrifice for the planet, and I wish others would teach that, as opposed to "there's something wrong with you if you don't have children".
Geoff Dabelko sets a great example for future DRShow guests by respecting the listeners enough to continue discourse off the air post show. I will note and remember how you extended an extra effort on a vital subject. Thanks very much.
Thanks Aubrey for posting the great Circle of Blue links. Your water stories and data and images are always so compelling as well as informative.
And thanks Pancake Rankin for the kind words. We are all committed and passionate about these topics. So we welcome the opportunity to continue the conversation and share our perspectives. If you are interested in more on the links among water, food, energy, health, population, development, and security, I might modestly suggest you check out our Wilson Center blog New Security Beat http://www.newsecuritybeat.org