Is Water the New Oil?
It's the world's most precious commodity, yet many of us take it for granted. But that's all about to change.
It's hard to imagine why humans would have chosen the achingly arid stone desert of Wadi Faynan for their first settlement. But water would have been one important reason, says archaeologist Steven Mithen. When Neolithic men and women arrived 11,500 years ago, things were very different: the climate was cooler and wetter; the landscape was covered in vegetation including wild figs, legumes and cereals, and there would have been wild goats and ibex for meat.
Initially WF16, as it's now called, would have been a seasonal camp. But Mithen, professor of early prehistory at the University of Reading, and his fellow archaeologist Bill Finlayson believe that, gradually, people stayed longer. Sifting evidence from so long ago, the archaeologists can't be sure, but remains of food from different seasons and the scale of 'rubbish' piles suggest that about 10,000 years ago the inhabitants stopped moving altogether. If they are right, it would make this one of the oldest sites ever found where humans made a permanent settlement, learned to farm, and changed the course of human civilisation. But the tiny community drawn to water, which attracted successive waves of settlements, would eventually all but destroy the resource which made life possible. It is a pattern that's been repeated for millennia, around the world, and it now threatens us on a global scale.
First people cut trees for shelter and fuel, until rains swept away the soil instead of seeping into shallow aquifers, and the springs dried up. At least as long ago as the Bronze Age, farmers began mankind's obsession with diverting water for crops to feed the growing population. Meanwhile, the moist, cool climate which encouraged the first settlement was naturally becoming drier and hotter.
At least twice, historians believe, Wadi Faynan was abandoned. The first time possibly because of a sharp change in the climate, and later because it became too polluted. Today, Bedouin who survive in the valley have laid pipes down the dry stream bed to suck what is left of the spring in order to irrigate fields of tomatoes they have scratched out of the dry soil. But it's getting harder. According to local water lore, good rains now come in less than every other year.
The farmers in Wadi Faynan are not alone. Like communities around the world, they are paying the price for thousands of years of exploitation of our environment. Already, 1bn people do not have enough clean water to drink, and at least 2bn cannot rely on adequate water to drink, clean and eat - let alone have enough left for nature. Lack of water is blamed for many of the world's most distressing crises: millions of deaths each year from disease and malnutrition, chronic hunger, keeping children away from schools which offer hope of a better life. Mostly it is the poor who suffer, but increasingly rich nations are struggling, too. Australia has endured so many dry years that a leading climatologist has said it's time to stop saying 'gripped by drought' and accept that the lack of rain is permanent.
In parts of the US supplies are so vulnerable that last autumn the Red Cross delivered water parcels to the town of Orme in Tennessee. 'I thought, "That can't be the Red Cross. We're Americans!"' resident Susan Anderson told a reporter. In California, some farmers abandoned their crops this year as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared the first state-wide drought for 17 years. Meanwhile Barcelona was so desperate that it began importing tankers of water from cities along the coast. Even in the notoriously wet UK, water has become such a problem in the crowded southeast that one company plans to build a desalination plant, the sort of desperate measure associated with oil-rich desert states.
The Stockholm International Water Institute talks about 'an acute and devastating humanitarian crisis'; the founder of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, warns of a 'perfect storm'; Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary General, has raised the spectre of 'water wars'. And, as the population keeps growing and getting richer, and global warming changes the climate, experts are warning that unless something is done, billions more will suffer lack of water - precipitating hunger, disease, migration and ultimately conflict.
In a bid to avert this catastrophe, politicians, economists and engineers are pressing for dramatic changes to the way water is managed, from tree planting and simple storage wells, to multibillion dollar schemes to replumb the planet with dams and pipes, or manufacture freshwater from sewers and the sea.
The water crisis is an expression of the environmental catastrophe of human over-exploitation. This is the age the Nobel prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen has called 'the Anthropocene', because the natural system has been so fundamentally altered by human activity. And it all began when people settled down and began to chop wood and farm.
'The start of sedentary communities is the start of the need to manage fresh water supplies,' says Steven Mithen. 'This is a starting point for our whole modern dilemma. It's gone from the concerns of individual settlements, to cities, to nations, and it's now a global issue.'
There is, in theory, plenty of water on the earth to sustain its 6.5bn people. More than 97 per cent of all the water on the planet is salt water, and most of the freshwater is locked up in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. But that still leaves 10m cubic kilometres (km3) of usable water, circulating in cycles of evaporation and precipitation between the atmosphere and earth, where it appears in underground aquifers, lakes and rivers, glaciers, snowpacks, wetlands, permafrost and soil. Each km3 is equivalent to 1,000bn litres, or 1bn tonnes, of water - about the remaining annual flow of the River Nile.
On the other side of the equation, the UN says individuals need five litres of water a day simply to survive in a moderate climate, and at least 50 litres a day for drinking and cooking, bathing and sanitation. Industry accounts for about double the average domestic use. But agriculture needs much, much more - in fact, 90 per cent of all water used by humans. The water is not 'lost' from earth, but over-abstraction by irrigators means it is often moved from where it is needed. Tony Allan, of King's College London, estimates that, together, 6.5bn people need 8,000km3 of water each year - a fraction of what is theoretically available. 'There's certainly enough water for every person on the planet, but too often it's in the wrong places at the wrong times in the wrong amounts,' says Marq de Villiers, author of the 2001 book Water Wars
Three hours north of Wadi Faynan is the much greener Wadi Esseir, where Salah Al-Mherat and his family are one of millions of households in Jordan who feel the daily effects of inhabiting one of the driest countries on earth. Once a week, Al-Mherat gets water from the local irrigation co-operative for his fig, lemon, olive and grenadine trees and vegetables. For the rest he relies on rain. But since the Nineties the springs have been drying, sapped by demand from the nearby capital, Amman, and rain has been declining.
On a hot morning in April, Al-Mherat comes in from picking petits-pois, hitches up his smock and settles on to a pile of cushions. Fidgeting with a pot of scented tea he explains that the crops now barely cover their costs; he has to work as a security guard to supplement his income. 'When I started it was very good compared to now,' he says. 'The first impact was that the size of the irrigated area became reduced. People also changed what they irrigated, so the water now goes mainly to the trees - some farmers stopped completely from doing vegetables.' Al-Mherat says he keeps hoping things will improve, because he will pass the land to his sons. 'It's my life,' he says. 'But even if I'm positive, the reality is it's like the wish of the devil to go to paradise.'
Global population, economic development and a growing appetite for meat, dairy and fish protein have raised human water demand sixfold in 50 years. Meanwhile, supplies have been diminished in several ways: an estimated 845,000 dams block most of the world's rivers, depriving downstream communities of water and sediment, and increasing evaporation; up to half of water is lost in leakage; another 1bn people simply have no proper infrastructure; and the water left is often polluted by chemicals and heavy metals from farms and industry, blamed by the UN for poisoning more than 100m people. And still the rains are getting less reliable in many areas.
Underlying these problems is a paradox. Because water, and the movement of water, is essential for life, and central to many religions, it is traditionally regarded as a 'common' good. But no individuals are responsible for it. From Wadi Esseir to the arid American Midwest, farmers either do not pay for water or pay a fraction of what homeowners pay, so they have less incentive to conserve it and might deprive suppliers of funds to improve infrastructure.
The UN defines 'water scarcity' as fewer than 1,000m3 of renewable clean water for each person every year to drink, clean, grow food and run industry. By this measure half the world's population lives in countries suffering water scarcity. Jordan is one of the most water-scarce countries on earth, averaging just 160m3 of renewable water per person per year.
The result is that it is not just farmers who are rationed. The Al-Mherat family, like the rest of greater Amman, only get water to their house one day a week. A city of more than 2m people runs to the rhythm of 'water day', says Dr Khadija Darmame, who is part of a £1.25m project organised by Mithen and sponsored by Britain's Leverhulme Trust to study links between 'water, life and civilisation' in Jordan, from the earliest settlements to modern day.
Poor supplies and stagnant tanks occasionally lead to infections. But for most, the problem is drudgery. 'The first thing is to do the maximum laundry and then clean the house,' says Darmame. Children and men take a shower, 'and the last thing is for the women to take a shower, and then you need a few hours to fill the tanks,' stacked on every roof.
For millions of others, bad supplies are a question of life and death. Lack of clean drinking water and sanitation are largely blamed for the death of 11m children under five each year from disease and malnutrition; for nearly 1bn people who are chronically hungry; for 2bn who suffer what the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization calls 'food insecurity', because they do not have adequate food and nutrition for an 'active and healthy life'; and for keeping more than 60m girls out of school. These people then get caught in a water and poverty trap: two-thirds of the people who lack enough water for even the most basic needs live on less than $2 a day. 'Variability of water availability is strongly and negatively related to per capita income,' says Professor Jeffrey Sachs, author of Common Wealth: Economics For a Crowded Planet, and a special adviser to the UN Secretary General. Poor health, lack of education and hunger make it hard to escape.
Ultimately, lack of water is seen as a threat to peace. From genocide in Darfur to rows between states in India and the US, Ban Ki-Moon is one of several global leaders who have warned of further legal and armed disputes over water. Intuitively it is obvious people will fight over their most precious resource, but so far few conflicts have broken out. The idea of 'water wars' seized the public imagination in 2001 when Marq de Villiers's book of that name was published in the UK, but the author disagreed with the publisher's choice of title. De Villiers agrees that water is often an underlying cause of tension, but has only identified one water 'war', between Egypt and Sudan. 'You cannot do without water, so when shortages pinch, states do co-operate and compromise,' he says.
But if half the world's population lives in water-stressed countries, how do so many, from the breadbaskets of Asia to the sprawling cities in the arid American west, keep watering fields and running taps?
One reason is that water flows uphill to money, as the saying goes. Thus people in oil-rich Kuwait enjoy expensive desalination, while Palestinians suffer daily hardship; tourists in Amman can turn on the tap at any time, while those in the poorest areas of the city have access to water for a few hours each week. As Tony Allan says: 'Water shortages don't pose serious problems to gardeners in Hampshire or California homeowners with pools to fill.'
Another answer to the conundrum was identified by Allan, who in the Sixties became curious about why Middle Eastern countries without abundant water supplies were not suffering from a more obvious water crisis. The answer, he realised, was trade: by buying food, water-poor societies were 'buying' what he dubbed 'virtual water'. They were helped by farmers dumping grain into the world market once subsidies created massive over-supply. 'This potential tragedy was motoring on and hit the calm waters of the Americans and Europeans providing food [for the world market] at half cost, and the water contained in that food [was water] they didn't have to find.'
The other answer is that communities around the world have been forced to tap rivers and lakes and aquifers, sometimes millions of years old, far beyond the limit at which they can replenish themselves. Above ground, lakes are shrinking and rivers are being reduced to pathetic flows, or drying up altogether. Below ground, a largely invisible crisis is unfolding as millions of wells have been sunk into aquifers - 4m in Bangladesh alone. Many aquifers are replenishable, but not all, and many that can be recharged don't get enough rain to match demand. Sometimes the empty cavities simply collapse, putting them beyond use forever. In his recent book, Plan B 3.0, Lester Brown catalogues the results. In the breadbaskets of China, India, the US, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Israel and Mexico, water tables are falling, sometimes by many metres a year. Pumps are being drilled a kilometre or more to find water, thousands more wells have dried up altogether and agricultural yields are shrinking. These countries contain more than half the world's people and produce most of its grain, warns Brown. Meanwhile, almost forgotten amid the human suffering are the terrible consequences for the natural world: freshwater fish populations fell by half between 1970 and 2000, says the UN.
All these dams and irrigation channels and pumps and pipes allow billions of people to run up a gigantic global water overdraft. What worries experts is that there is no sign of humans withdrawing less water.
Two years ago, the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) published a report by 700 experts warning that one in three people were 'enduring one form or another of water scarcity'. 'Scarcity for me is when women work hard to get water, [or] you want to allocate more but can't,' says David Molden, deputy director of the Sri Lanka-based organisation.
Molden warns that the situation is becoming 'a little bit more critical', because of continuing rising demand for food, the recent boom in biofuels and climate change. To that can also be added another, poignant 'demand': the long-overdue realisation that nature also needs water, which in Europe and other countries has led to laws to ensure 'minimum environmental flows' remain in place.
For food alone, the World Bank estimates that demand for water will rise 50 per cent by 2030, and the IWMI fears it could nearly double by 2050. Whether these crops require rain or irrigation depends on where they are grown, and how much rain there is.
Like a great river fed by many tributaries, water is a conduit for the various effects of global warming: more variable rainfall, more floods, more droughts, the melting of glaciers on which 1bn people depend for summer river flows, and rising sea levels, threatening to inundate not just coastal communities but also their freshwater aquifers, river deltas and wetlands.
From the headline figures, climate change should be good news. Crudely, scientists estimate for every 1C rise in the average global temperature, precipitation will increase one per cent, as warmer air absorbs more moisture. The world's total volume would not change, but it would be recycled more quickly, affecting the majority of the world's agriculture which depends on the volume and timing of rainfall.
Balancing all these impacts, Nigel Arnell, director of Reading University's Walker Institute for Climate Change, calculates that the number of people living in water basins exposed to water stress will rise from 1.4bn to 2.9-3.3bn by 2025 and to 3.4-5.6bn by 2055. In fact, the greatest impact in Arnell's modelling is from rising populations, particularly in China and India, and, globally, climate change is actually reducing exposure to shortages. This may be good news for some, but masks huge disruption, as some regions fear too much water, while hundreds of millions of people start to run out.
It is impossible to attribute one farm's difficulties or one year's rainfall to climate change. But if climate is the statistics of weather, then the rain gauge this year on the farm of Sameeh Al-Nuimat, northwest of Amman, is typical of what the experts forecast. Al-Nuimat had noticed a gradual decline in rainfall for years, but this year it dropped off steeply and there was no rain at all in March, a critical time for summer crops. 'My father told me he'd never seen such a year,' he says.
Such dramatic events have injected urgency into discussions about Jordan's precarious water supplies, says Al-Nuimat, who is also an irrigation engineer at the Ministry of Agriculture. 'Before, when water was available, no one worried about it. But now there's interest - every night people speaking, every night debating, at every level, from the farmer to the planner to the politician. As a farmer I'd like to see drought-resistant crops; from a civil engineering point of view we should look for mega projects; and, if you're thinking about global planning, there should be acceptance of people moving from water-scarce regions to where water is available.'
Around the world the same debates are under way. Rich countries can make significant gains from domestic efficiency, but most of the world's population does not have power showers and swimming pools, or waste great quantities of food. Instead the main focus is on reducing water in agriculture, through more efficient irrigation, by engineering seeds to grow in more arid and salty conditions, and even shifting crops. 'If the world were my farm, I'd grow things in different places,' says David Molden. But even benign-sounding conservation is often unpopular. There is widespread resistance to raising prices for water (or energy for pumping) to increase efficiency, suspicion of genetic modification, and a reluctance among farmers to abandon water-hungry but lucrative crops when they are struggling to feed their family. 'It's a socioeconomic dilemma,' says Al-Nuimat. 'You can't stop now: it's the source of their life.'
Faced with public apathy and even resistance, responses have tended to focus on increasing supply. For decades the scale of ambition has been like a game of global engineering one-upmanship: rivers have been diverted across countries, pumps sunk kilometres into fossil aquifers, and bigger plants commissioned to recycle or desalinate water. And there is no sign of a let-up. As shortages become more desperate and costs and energy use fall, Global Water Intelligence forecasts that desalination capacity will more than double by 2015, and the potential to increase wastewater recycling is enormous, being only 2 per cent of volume.
But huge costs, environmental concerns and public distaste for drinking their 'waste' has forced many communities to reconsider simpler, traditional methods, too. Some of the ideas the earliest farmers would have recognised: tree replanting, ripping out thirsty non-native plants, stone walls to hold back erosion, and rain harvesting with simple ponds and tanks. Some have even urged a return to more vegetarian diets, which at their extreme demand only half the water of a typical American meat-eater's. This is, according to Lord Haskins, the former chairman of Britain's Northern Foods group and a government adviser, 'the most virtuous and responsible step of all'.
And when all options are exhausted at home, countries have another option: to import water in food and even industrial goods. Political meddling with subsidies makes trade a controversial 'solution', but by favouring regions with a 'competitive advantage' in water it can work. Globally the IWMI estimates irrigation demand would be 11 per cent higher without trade, and quotes a projection that imports can cut future irrigation by another 19-38 per cent by 2025. Saudi Arabia has gone further than most, announcing in February that it would stop all wheat production in a few years, though other countries might now be deterred by higher food prices.
Ultimately governments are being forced down several paths at once: to raise prices to reflect the true value of water to humans and the environment, invest in technology to improve efficiency and supplies, engage in more trade, and make peace with neighbours that can hold up incoming water or food. These will only be possible, though, if people can be lifted out of poverty, to afford higher prices, capital spending and imports. 'When you diversify your economy you solve your problems,' says Allan.
Looking back at the history of mankind's struggle for enough water, experience suggests the initiative which enabled humans to settle, farm and dominate the planet will provide many solutions. But sometimes we might have to accept defeat. 'On the one hand you can see this amazing technological ingenuity of humans, which throughout prehistory and history continually invented new ways to manage water supply,' says Mithen. 'On the other, the story of the past tells us that sometimes, however brilliant your technological inventions, they are just not good enough, and you get periods of abandonment of landscapes. We have got to be prepared to invest in technology, but also to recognise in some parts of the world there are going to be areas where we're going to have to say "enough's enough".'
A person uses about 50 litres of water a day; industry accounts for double that. But agriculture needs much more - in fact, 90 per cent of all water used by humans.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
44 Comments so far
Show AllIt is possible to imagine that Mark de Villiers might have dreamed about having his book “water wars” to be a Hollywood production, but not in global proportions and as a world reality rather than a fiction. The story of Wadi Faynan as written by Julliet Jowit, contrasts and compares the daily use and necessity of potable water by the earth’s population; from farm uses to our homes. And ‘the Anthropocene’ scenario depicted by Paul Crutzen is what we are living right now. If everyone starts to think not only about the scarcity of water but the environment in general and, truly have a change in behavior as to what and how much to consume, this war might not happen. As an analogy to the current financial crisis, if we all think of the environment, water especially as our bank account, maybe we will start to be more cautious. The money in the bank account [potable water] has a limit and, when one withdraws more than what it is available, the bank [environment] charges a fee [diseases, hunger, malnutrition and so on…]. Which in this case is ironic for an institution to charge money for not having any. What is really needed is a radical change in rationale from bottom-up, from farmer to consumer. Such a change is difficult to imagine especially if you live in cities in the United States such as Seattle or Pittsburgh; which are the top two in terms of rain. No need for worries here, we have got a lot of water right? And it is also a common good, which is free, right? Wrong, use too much here and soon will be gone just like the cities mentioned in the article.
Whenever the President or the legislature says that Americans are too dependent upon oil, it registers that this could be said of any natural resource where the prices are so high, or sources so scarce that they are located only in one small portion of the world.
The idea of globalization is a sharing of resources, not a hoarding of resources so that all may live a quality lifestyle, and not become hostage to other persons on the planet; where trade can displace torture and hostage taking; where resources are not used for the purpose of extortion for personal enrichment.
Would anyone expect less?
Where wars are appropriate is where persons upon the planet are endangered so that intervention from other nations is necessary to prevent that endangerment. It was the premise of WWII, if not WWI, and whether it is the positive benefits of coordinated space travel, and health research that drives economic prosperity, or whether it is the negativity of resource hoarding, and hostage taking is supremely important to the planet, as well as to the global economy.
Physical danger is a good reason for intervention, but economic danger is sufficient where collective survival are the stakes. No nation can afford to become the bully of the universe, neither America, nor Iraq, regardless of the resources at their disposal. When diplomacy and trade doesn't work, violence is sure to be the last desperate hope of humanity.
Water is a kind of so-called common good which people think they are eligible to use it without any limitation. Most of human regard water as extra gain in the earth. Therefore, they do not care the amount of is being used. However, water is also a kind of necessity of humans. Once they are lack of water, their lives are thretened. Humans currently are alarmed by the wasting water. Even though many people with advanced thought are incented by the water wasting. Many others are still keeping doing their wasting on on water. In many developing world, economic growth is always regarded higher than environmental protection. People there does not think that wasting water is a big issue. However after they feel that they need more water. People might be in conflict.
In 21st century, blasting fuse of war between nations is likely for resources such as the Iraq war. I wonder whether or not for water will be the next reason that cause war between nations. If it will, our world will become much more unstable than today because everybody needs water to survive.
Liu Chen
Chao Lin
In the world the water resource distribution is uneven. The five countries who have the largest water resource are Brazil, Russia, Canada, China and USA. From my point of view, these countries should take relatively more responsibility to protect the water resource.
Every country agrees that we should restrict the water contamination. Obviously that is quite important for the freshwater quality. But how about the quantity? As we know the agriculture need the water most. If we cannot improve the efficient radio of the water use, our development will be limited by the large water consumption. The United State, whose agriculture is advanced, has scientific methods in managing the water. But some other country, like Brazil and China, may spend a lot of water resource in agriculture. So to protect the water resource, the most important thing is to improve the agriculture technology.
JohnE: Besides the greater scarcity of water is the increasing unpredictability of the weather patterns. The rainfalls are getting ever more randomised. When will the rains come? Where? How much rain -- a deluge, just a sprinkle, or none at all? Or will it come as snow or frost? This greater uncertainty is particularly dangerous for agriculture in places like the high mountain regions of the Andes where viable agriculture has always depended on effective collective risk management. To minimise risk multiple crops are sown in many distinct fields in different places and at different times. This requires that agro labour requirements must be carefully planned over the year. The increasing climatic uncertainty is leading to levels of risk that are no longer manageable, and so to its abandon by many agricultural communities.
Carol
First of all "Water is GOD given" and that is a fact.
Most people think that it is a bill but without rain that is GOD given we would have nothing to drink or bathe in or electricity to run everything. If HE decides to turn it off we can not do anything about it and that is a fact.
I live in Florida and I know what it like feeling like there will be no water to use for bathing or cooking it was really really scarey. We have to realize that water was given to us by our Maker and not by the government and HE will decide whether we still should have what keeps us alive and that is a fact.
Everybody had better pray to God that he does not decide to turn off what we need for life itself.
If water were NOT the new oil, there would not be US Spcial Forces troops in the Triple Border (Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil) supposedly chasing after Hezbollah (sic, for wrong hemisphere) while trying to stake the US claim on the world's largest aquifer!
canadians have seen this coming for many years.
Great article! The author alludes to future conflicts over water. He mentions issues in the Middle East, particularly the Jordan River Basin. Tensions have existed involving Jordan, Lebanon and Israel and should be monitored closely due to the tinder-like quality of the disputes.
We live in a very populated area. It is also in a semi-arid but fertile plain not far from the ocean. I tried conserving water…however; my city sent a notice to me that I had to have a GREEN lawn.
I informed the city leaders that governor Schwarzenegger said that California is in a drought situation and that there was water restrictions and maybe soon water rationing.
I was told, that that statute did not concern my city. WHAT!?
If I had the resources, I would try to grow vegetables on my front lawn. However, I am sure that would upset them too.
Drip! Drip! Drip! Once again, it is not the citizens who cause the irreversible catastrophes. It is always the ill-informed city officials that have their eyes and ears closed against progress.
...and a hard rain's gonna fall...
Moondoggy,
In this case, the choir needs preaching to because it is this very choir that could be the models for creating future living spaces using permaculture.
My dream is to build a Yurt village on a parcel of land and include permaculture techniques i.e., fruit and nut trees, a crop like hemp or bamboo to use for building and repairs, a cistern for water collection, a vegetable patch and a grain field. Maybe a chicken hut. The Yurt idea came from my thoughts of a mortgage/rent free living space that would be beautiful and have a very small environmental footprint. Wind power, solar power, propane for stoves, composting toilets, and a water source would be necessary.
The problem....where to find land that would be reasonable, not subject to monetary minimums, not be high tax areas, and be in a safe area. Any ideas out there? Some friends of mine recently lived in a Yurt in Montana on their uncles land. No problem with that...the land was privately owned and Yurts are perfectly accepted as guest houses, office space, spas, camps, ski lodges, forest ranger stations, but not free standing villages. Pacific Yurts and Colorado Yurts offer a good product. The fact that they are made of vinyl (on the outside), turns off code inspectors and many others who think they are a fire hazard. They are no more a hazard then a house made of wood! I'm hoping for a future where many of these kinds of living spaces can be used as sustainable, affordable, alternative dwellings.
Inanna~
Thanks for responding to my post. I love yurts, and have been dreaming about them for a long time. I've been in a few and they are cozy dwellings. Where I live there are no restrictions on what you can build because there is very little private land around here. Mostly public land.
There are grizzly bears here and they are the biggest concern. You don't want a flimsy structure because bears have a great sense of smell, and any food not secured can attract the huge bruins. So a vinyl wall is no match for a razor sharp 5 inch set of claws if a bear is hungry.
I've dreamed about doing this in Hawaii on the big Island where you can buy old sugar cane fields and restore them back to little gardens of eden. I've dreamed of growing bamboo for house building materials, the concept of "grow yer own house". I would grow hemp if it was legal, for all the multitude of purposes that hemp offers, including good medicine for da head. A puff a day keeps the shrink away.
There are so many sources I could turn you on to for permaculture, mortgage-free living and all the other related things you brought up. But you have the internet at your finger tips. Yurts are great temp structures and can be set up in a day. Tipis are less expensive and can be set up in less than an hour. Keep in mind however that yurts and tipis don't last forever. You'll get about 10 good years out of a tipi and probably twice that from a yurt.
I wish I could remember the authors name, but there's actually a great book called "Mortgage Free Living" that a friend of mine showed me last summer, but he's in Europe at the moment. It contains plans for building with straw bales, cord wood, cob, and other earthy alternatives. The idea is to find some land and then build with the most abundant building materials the area offers. In rocky areas build with stone, in clay rich areas build with cob, in forests like where I live, build with wood, and so on.
Also I have some friends who just bought a large piece of land about 60 miles south of here for the purpose of starting an ecovillage. They are looking for people just like you and me to join them in creating their intentional community. Have you checked out the Intentional Communities Directory?
I could tell you so much about all these and related topics. It's my life. I feel confident that if everyone made the changes my partner and I have made the world would be looking a lot better for future generations.
"Keep it simple - it's so - simple to do - keep it simple - it's just - my advise - to - you..." -Keller Williams
~Moondog
As an Australian and an occasional farmer, I have had some experience with droughts. Most city dudes wouldn't have a clue about such things, about the depression, the hardship, the ache to hear rain on the roof and see mud on your boots, the ordeal of trying to keep stock alive, etc.
Global warming will increase the number of droughts and their severity and decrease the world's food supply. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to work out where that will lead.
If you can make yourself self-sufficient it would be a wise move. And you can't do that in an apartment no matter how chic it is!
Hint: you need some arable land.
www.dangerouscreation.com
Dude, you are sitting one one of the largest uranium supplies on the planet and are surrounded by water. Ever hear about nuclear desalination plants. Tell your government to stop kissing the NWO arse, and the Queens as well, and go nuclear.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/3348nubian_acquifer.html
And Global warming is supposed to increase the amount of precipitation. Warmer air absorbs more water. Some areas might experience more droughts, but globally, it means more water.
Are you trying to be obtuse? Have you not read or heard of Dr. Helen Caldecott? The uranium miners in Australia have.
Can you tell me where do you stick all of the radioactive waste? The moon? We could try sticking it up YOUR butt!
You can't eat or drink uranium, Dude! And nuclear desalination plants take a long time to build and only provide limited amounts of water anyway. And scientists are warning that global warming will mean less potable water not more.
You've been warned. Don't come knocking on my door when you're thirsty or starving. You deserve what you get!
I know if I say anything here I'm probably just preachin' to the choir. But hopefully the following information will inspire someone. My wife and I have been making gradual changes in our lifestyle over the years that have brought us to a place of near sustainability.
First thing we did is began digging up the turf to plant a small patch of onions. Each year for the past 13 years we've added to and expanded our garden. We grow about 30 or so different fruit and vegetable crops. And now for 2 years in a row have been selling our surplus produce to about 10 or so local families. We call our customers on Tuesdays and tell them what we have available. They call us back with their order which we deliver to a central pickup place on Wednesday mornings.
We also built a composting outhouse, so we haven't used a flushing toilet in over a decade now. We use the "humanure" compost for our fruit trees and vines and fertilize the veges with compost from the kitchen, garden as well as horse manure. It's a bit of hard work, but it's invigorating and healthy work and the rewards certainly outweigh any "inconvenience".
We use drip irrigation and some hand watering here and there, but the secret to saving water in the garden is to cover the bare soil with mulch in the form of straw which slows evaporation, keeps the soil from overheating and cuts way down on weeds. Any weeds we do pull go directly into the compost pile to return eventually to the garden as rich humus.
It's been a wonderful transition that has provided us and our neighbors with tons and tons of fresh organic produce, and it gets better every year. And we use much less gas and water than we ever did before, thus saving a lot of money. In fact we earn money. And we do it all by hand, no rototiller, no tractor, no petroleum.
We grow about half the food we consume and we eat something that we grew every day of the year. And we are doing this in a most unlikely place, in a non agricultural mountain valley in northwest Montana. And we don't even have a greenhouse. We just grow crops that do well in this climate. If we can do it here, people almost anywhere can do it too.
The system we model this after is known as "permaculture". Check it out.
.Sounds like you lead a rather wonderful and rich life...thanks for sharing.
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
Water. The new oil? Not news to us up here in Maine. For the past few years now, Poland Spring (parent company - Nestle) has been trying to buy up rights to all the best ground water sites in Maine. They claim that they need more supply. What they are really up to is to privatize as much of Maine's water supply as they can before even the dumbest half-wit has figured out just how scarce clean drinking water is about to get.
Before the half-wits figure it out, Nestle will have secured most of our water rights and we will have to give them fifty dollars a liter for what God has given us all for free.
small scale organic farmer
It is the same problem no matter what the resource is. People with money that are consumers and not producers (i.e. westerners) have little idea of how to use anything. If we stopped using flush toilet and switched to composting toilets which use no water, we would save some water. Stop washing the car and watering the grass. Lets get rad, start growing your own food and you will surly use less water than the agricultural industry, and get better quality food. Shower with a friend and use that grey water to irrigate some of your perennials. The list can go on and on once you decide to mix your labor with your existence (like all other critters on the planet). And once enough of us to adapt to this exciting way of life, we will have commonality, other wise know as solidarity.
The scarcity of clean water, and shortages that result because of it will see the Private Corporations enter the fray claiming that only by converting it to a commodity with a price tag attached to it, will we see it properly managed.
Indeed this is the technique they have tried and continue to try the world over and a dream of those that promote the "Free markets".
It CAN be argued that overuse in the Western world is due to it being "free" (Or overly cheap) and that by privatizing it we can help conserve it and see it used more responsibly.
This ideology will have its proponents amongst Government but must be resisted at all costs.
Now what might be done is a Government in a given jurisdiction make it clear that water is a common good and can never be owned by a Corporation or Individual. Then each Citizen allotted XXX litres of water per year gratis. Any water use after that is taxed with monies going into the GOVERNMENT coffers to provide services for the people.
A Corporation should not count as an individual. They want water, they pay for it.
As example, the plants in Alberta's tar sands should be paying a stiff fee for the millions of gallons of water they use and pollute.
PK
small scale organic farmer
Paul Siemering
No, it is not the new oil. It is not a commodity. It can not be privatized or capitalized. It is a fundamental human right, like air. Water to the people!
Man just has to do a little work and use ingenuity to get the water from where it is to where it is needed, or to save some of that rain which causes the occasional flood for a sunny day. Infrastructure and technology spending by government using government created money (instead of private banking created money that buys government created bonds which pay interest, or taxes).
Climate is always changing, man just has to adapt to the change rather than trying to stop the change. Climate is incredibly complex, we do not even come close to understanding cloud formation, precipitation efficiency, etc.
The problem with water and oil and other infrastructure and energy needs is our current financial system. We have to understand government should be able to create it's own money and use it to invest in projects which may not be very profitable (the only measure used by private bankers), but provide for the general welfare of it's private and corporate citizens. Until we recognize this we will remain a mess.
But the neo-malthusians want us to be in a mess, so we can be depopulated and our standard of living lowered (or in 3rd world countries prevented from rising), and nothing will change.
Instead of allowing CORN to dominate everything, why can't people in this country put aside their INTOLERANT attitudes against HEMP and learn to embrace it? Unlike corn, HEMP does NOT consume loads of water and oil. When will the ignorant masses ever get it and when will they STOP supporting Big Government's OVERSUBSIDIZATION of Big Agri and King Corn? And when will the UN do the same? Instead of blaming cows for global warming, they too should quit allowing Big Agri to control them financially !
Hint: If you take one serving of pasture raised meat instead of the regular corn-fed type, you won't get thirsty as often. Moreover, the costs of sucking up water and oil are greatly reduced. Therefore, production and the consumer together consume less water and oil. Get the picture?
The "END WAR" will not be fought over oil, it will be fought over water. Wise County, Virginia has become a toxic waste dump thanks to Mountain Top Removal, see for yourself under "Hannity's America" on my web site .
http://www.wisecountyissues.com
Sorry: I lost a few words in that post... Meant to say, "Only those who understand that taking more than we need (such as this article points out happens with urban areas, agriculture, and other industry)"----Missing words: IS WRONG....
Only those who understand that taking more than we need (such as this article points out happens with urban areas, agriculture, and other industry), only those who still know how to live like humans lived thousands of years ago--Only they will have a modicum of a chance to survive the next 20-50 yrs with regards to the water issue (leaving aside the climate change / global warming component). And only those humans will do what those in the article link below have done, because they know their life, and the life of the planet, depends on it...
Article published October 17, 2008
In an attempt to protect the Juruena river in western Brazil, an estimated 120 members of the Enawene Nawe tribe occupied the construction site of a hydroelectric dam on October 13, and then burned it to the ground.
http://intercontinentalcry.org/amazon-tribe-lays-waste-to-hydro-dam-site/
"Art for art’s sake is the attempt to instill ideal life in one who has no real life." (Gaither Stewart)
&YYY&
A well written article, it covers a lot of issues. Human lifestyle, and agricultural environment management are now the most important factors deciding how long we continue on with still growing numbers of people. Everywhere the trend is that of more environment degradation. Climate change is advancing. Breakdown is happening in many places. Will people die of thirst?
We are destroying the earth's hydrology cycle. A large reduction in meat consumption is a good idea. Without actual reductions in human numbers, all efforts to utilize resources efficiently, even massive reductions in meat consumption, will be in vain. Billions of desperate people are not sustainable, and the rest of us are taking more than a fair share.
I do live in America ,I am not proud at this time to be from here . I am very grateful for all we have when so many have nothing .... .I cannot understand people who just want to look the other way .I talk to people all day ,about everything and I am just amazed at the generation of me first devoted humans that pass by . It is my feeling that we need to understand and share our understanding by talking to others to raise the awareness level. People don't know what it takes to feed a cow that they might eat , people don't know how vegetables get to the store . We have never had a lawn as they are just politically incorrect .How do you tell some one no more golf ...??? We have to teach our children and adults how all this came to be . Dryers don't grow on trees and water is a resource not a right .Just get a clothes line to start and if you pay anything .... Pay attention.
Most golf courses use reclaimed water. Not something Americans are ready to use.
Many municipalities have ordinances against use of gray water. It MUST be drained into septic tanks or sewar systems.
It takes an ocean of water and six barrels of oil to raise one steer.
Eating our fruits and vegetables, beans and rice makes more sense to me.
Everyone needs water to survive - it's a necessity - a right - and no one has any 'right'
to take more that their fair share, certainly not the mad cowboys or ethanol junkies.
good post Juliette... thanks... just posted a response to one of yesterday's posts on nuclear and noted that it takes billions of gallons of water to cool a reactor... and Obama wants to build MORE! How many hundreds of billions of gallons of water do we want to waste in the name of nuclear energy?
Water is currently our most precious commodity... what happens tomorrow when increased drought and water temps cause many more shut-downs of N-reactors?... Will we then admit that WIND was always the right decision?
Say no to demands by Big Power.
why isn't the nuclear issue ENOUGH to get people to stop supporting both major parties & their corporatist imperialist candidates??
and don't forget all the golf courses worldwide that use millions of litres of water on a daily basis..............what a waste, whilst some people have to walk 10 kms. just to get a bucketfull.
The Himalayan glaciers furnish water for a number of Asian rivers and for nearly a billion people. Climate change has already caused the glaciers to shrink. There are also lakes where previously there was ice. Some of them are dammed by ice which, when it gives way, will cause terrible flooding.
It is estimated that the glaciers will be gone by 2035. Since I'm 72, I probably will not live to see it. That is fortunate for me.
What happens when nearly a billion people are without water? Will we have water wars? Where will the people go?
That's one of the main areas of contention between India and Pakistan over Kashmir...water from glaciers in the region supply Pakistan with something like 80% of its water..it's a problem that could go nuclear.
-----------------------------------
I think, therefore I am dangerous.
I teach HS in Michigan and all my students talk about is getting out of the state. I keep telling them that water is more important than any other resource. Soon we will be the center of the universe. "The spice must flow!"
Velvet gloved corporations will be polite at first...then they will use the warped courts and the bought and paid for politicians to comodify and steal every last drop of fresh water. Maybe Canada will invade and restore sanity to America. :)
Go Vote and God Bless
As important as conservation and reducing meat consumption are, they are only secondary by comparison to population control.
This president has waged war against family planning and the eenvironment since his first day in office, when he essentially halted our international aid to these essential programs. Our planet can not sustain the current reproduction rates.
Bush’s contribution to over population, as well as his other enviromental crimes, have already caused immeasurable suffering & environmental damage to our planet. Until effective family planning programs can proceed without blockages from such irrational zealots guided by religious right radicals, starvation and environmental degradation from overpopulation can only worsen.
What about the water wasted in livestock agriculture?
You must have water to nourish the enslaved animals and then to water the crops which they eat--which is a lot more than the average human eats. Cut out the livestock component and feed way more people. And remember, the only way they can currently control(or claim to) water consumption with livestock is by locking them up in factory farms-which leads to massive sewage problems, so for the "slow food" dimwits i.e. Michael Pollen, they have to get it into their heads: you cannot feed large numbers of humans on meat.If you graze them in the open you need streams and rivers, which leads to pollution.
Interesting article:
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=30f27a49-9c8b-41c9-aa64-8a0bfd50ae3b
(note: it leaves out the human supremacist reasons that humans dont discuss the subject of cutting out meat, and I think the vegan hippie image is a dodge, most people know vegans arent hippies, like Goerge Monbiot and his "grey vegan" claim, its just a half assed excuse for not making the right decision )
agree... We don't consume meat for a number of reasons... none of them tied to a higher spiritual plane... it just makes good sense to us.
The greatest impact of grazing may be the animal waste runoff into streams and rivers. It renders potential "clean" water as non-potable for humans.
.Every day my work takes me past a number of "feed lots" wherein cattle are fattened prior to shipping off to slaughter. The smell is sickening, especially in the heat of Summer. Many days one can see downed cattle being discarded via fork lift, at least I hope they are being discarded.
These lots are adjacent to fields of alfalfa, corn, grapevines also..I cannot help but wonder about the effect to the ground water from these awful lots....
.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin