Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Rising Energy Demand Hits Water Scarcity 'Choke Point'
WASHINGTON - Meeting the growing demand for energy in the U.S., even through sustainable means, could entail greater threats to the environment, new research shows.
About half the 410 billion gallons of water the U.S. withdraws daily goes to cooling thermoelectric power plants, and most of that to cooling coal-burning plants, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. One of the things missing from the discussion, then, is the recognition that saving energy also saves water, contends Circle of Blue. (photo by Flickr user Argonne National Laboratory) The study was carried out by Circle of Blue, a network of journalists and scientists dedicated to water sustainability, and could have implications not just for the relationship between energy demand and water scarcity in the U.S. but elsewhere in the world, as well. "It is not just that energy production could not occur without using vast amounts of water. It's also that it's occurring in the era of climate change, population growth and steadily increasing demand for energy," explained Circle of Blue's Keith Schneider, who presented the findings in Washington Wednesday.
"The result is that the competition for water at every stage of the mining, processing, production, shipping and use of energy is growing more fierce, more complex and much more difficult to resolve," he said. About half the 410 billion gallons of water the U.S. withdraws daily goes to cooling thermoelectric power plants, and most of that to cooling coal-burning plants, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.
Meanwhile, climate change is leading to decreased snowmelt, rains and freshwater supplies, says Circle of Blue.
One of the things missing from the discussion, then, is the recognition that saving energy also saves water, the group contends.
The U.S. government has not been blind to the conflict between energy and water needs. The first part of a report commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 2005 laid out the consequences of not paying enough attention to water supply issues in increasing energy production. The second part, which would have laid out a research agenda and begun developing solutions, has yet to be made public, says Schneider.
He says the U.S. Department of Energy has declined repeated requests to explain why the report has not been published.
Energy demand in the U.S. is expected to increase by 40 percent as the U.S. population rises above 440 million by 2050. The water supply will not be able to support that growth, Schneider says.
Renewable sources of energy will certainly be a large part of trying to meet that energy demand, but these, too, come with a hidden water cost.
In 2009, the U.S. dedicated 23 million acres of public lands in six states for new solar electricity-generating plants as part of its economic stimulus package, which apportioned nearly 100 billion dollars for clean energy projects. Though the plan appeared promising, environmentalists soon began to point it could have damaging, unintended consequences. Schneider notes that criticism of the impact the water-cooled solar plants could have on water priorities in the U.S. Southwest even came from within the government.
"In arid settings, the increased water demand from concentrating solar energy systems employing water-cooled technology could strain limited water resources already under development pressure from urbanization, irrigation expansion, commercial interests and mining," wrote Jon Jarvis, then head of the National Park Service's Pacific West Region, in a February 2009 internal memo. "Solar generating plants that use conventional cooling technology use two to three times as much water as coal- fired power plants," Schneider noted.
In other countries, the threat of water scarcity is even more pertinent.
Egypt, for example, has a population of approximately 82 million, but an annual water quota of about 86 billion cubic meters - and the population is expected to rise by more than 10 million people in the next decade.
Yet 30 European blue chip companies are set to invest 560 billion dollars over the next 40 years to build solar power plants in North Africa as part of the Desertec Industrial Initiative. Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia have agreed to work with the initiative. Comparing this project with the U.S.'s, Schneider notes that in an environment that faces even greater water scarcity than the southwestern U.S., such projects could prove disastrous. Circle of Blue calls the intersection of a rising demand for energy and diminishing supply water a "choke point", but energy development - whether of the fossil fuel or renewable variety - is just one aspect of the water scarcity crisis that is unfolding in various regions of the globe.
Yemen is widely seen as the place where this scarcity will hit first and hardest.
"Analysts are worried Yemen could be the first country in the world to effectively run out of water," said Christine Parthemore, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, where she studies the intersection of natural resources and security issues. She spoke at a separate event Wednesday.
Yemen, which has no rivers and cannot afford desalination, is drawing water at around 400 times its replacement rate, she says, and this looming crisis is compounding other issues in the region, like the fact that Yemen has become a key recruiting spot for groups like al Qaeda.
"We are about to see water wars in the future," said U.S. General Anthony Zinni. "We have seen fuel wars; we're about to see water wars."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
81 Comments so far
Show AllAgreed with Tom Larsen, the structure of our communities and the state of our technology - how advanced? Is it used for and by the people or reserved for only pillaging for profit - are far more salient factors than population. Excellent points Tom thanks for clarifying so well!
We're in this situation due to the actions of a tiny, priviledged percentage of the population after all. They are the ones who need to be limited!
Bravo!
It's true that the notion of "carrying capacity" has to be evaluated according to the kind of society that is making demands upon the Earth. Certainly the United States consumes more resources than it should.
At the same time, countries like India are degrading the environment not just through their switch to technology but through ill-thought out plans to irrigate areas that should not be irrigated, applying fertilizer--even manure--to freshwater supplies, thereby contaminating the water, destroying forests for fuel, farming areas that are ill-suited for agriculture, and polluting soil, water, and air with open-pit, burning dumps. The result of such practices is a landscape like that of much of Iraq: a land formerly noted for its fecundity and beauty, now little more than a desert. Peasant people destroyed the land through centuries of agriculture, not our present obsession with consumerism. Within the area occupied by the Iraqi people, it is fair to say the carrying capacity of the land was exceeded.
Captialism can be blamed for hastening ecosystem collapse, but it is not responsible for starting the whole process. Agriculture started it and industrialism (begun before the current cowboy brand of capitalism came about) jumped on top. Remember: the Soviets (not exactly a capitalist empire) treated the environment as if it was something to be exploited. I tend to think of the human penchant for gumming things up comes from an inborn tendency to achieve power at the expense of others. That tendency does not necessarily have to take the form of the disgusting economic system we have today.
RE: Capitalism can be blamed for hastening ecosystem collapse, but it is not responsible for starting the whole process.
No. Class societies are, and capitalism is the system under which our current class divisions are organized.
RE: Remember: the Soviets (not exactly a capitalist empire)...
The USSR was an example of STATE capitalism, where the economy is planned by the state (as opposed to markets) yet operated in a capitalist manner. Real socialism is where the economy is run by and for the working class, that is, the majority of the population - not by a state bureaucracy as in the Soviet Union, China or Cuba.
RE: ...inborn tendency to achieve power at the expense of others...
This idea is very common. It is an example of "the ruling ideas being nothing more than the ideas of the ruling class." Your notion is that it is part of "human nature" therefore we can't really do anything about it. Your view here supports the status quo. Just like you do, it is always presented in a tone of tragic realism, yet what defines "human nature" is always asserted without any factual or scientific basis. Who decided what human nature was/is anyway? If you are interested in expanding your understanding of this, look at the difference between Philosophical Idealism vs. Philosophical Materialism. Unless you are already familiar with these concepts, they are not what you think...
What about the environmental devastation conducted by ancient societies--Rome, for example. You cannot define "capitalism" so broadly as to include the socioeconomic system operating there. Hell, Easter Island natives destroyed their home through bad decisions--and I wouldn't call their system "capitalist."
The Soviet system was not based upon consumerism. Advertising was fairly minimal as compared to our society. The main thing was industrialization, an end in itself. Market choices did not determine the direction of the economy as you, yourself, admit. Whatever Soviet communism was, it was not capitalism. For you capitalism is the basis under which our current class divisions are organized--that is your definition. Others would define in terms of free markets.
Does the term "ruling class" apply to other systems besides capitalism? If so, you have defined capitalism to include practically every political system, since there is always a ruling class--the pharoahs were a ruling class. I am not saying the ideas of rulers are not related to the way society is conducted. Quite the contrary. I am saying there is more than one socioeconomic system that works to devastate the Earth.
RE: Whatever Soviet communism was, it was not capitalism...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
RE: I am saying there is more than one socioeconomic system that works to devastate the Earth.
Maybe, but we are not living under a feudal (or any other) system now. And, no other system has developed the mechanized exploitation and destructiveness on a global scale as has capitalism. No other system has threatened all life, let alone humans, as does capitalism. This is not an academic exercise. Capitalism is the socioeconomic system we must address.
What is true of all class societies is a class hierarchy where the few (the ruling class) exploit the many. We see the development of class societies around the same time as agriculture - only about 10,000 years ago. Human beings have been around in our current form for at least 100,000 years. That means that for the overwhelming majority our (pre) history we lived in relatively egalitarian, communal and sustainable societies.*
*See Chris Harman's "People's History of the World."
Don't know if I would take Wikipedia as the last word in defining terms.
Lots of people are living under systems which are only slightly capitalist. Some of the dictatorships in African countries, for example. Iran. Myanmar. North Korea. Honduras. All of these countries are governed by a strong man whose sole goal is to maintain his own personal power. Everything is subservient to that goal. In general these leaders don't give a shit about the environment--or if they do, it is because it fits into their scheme of garnering money and power.
Your insistence that pre-ag societies were classless will require lots of proof. It reeks somewhat of the "noble savage" ideal that existed in Europe, a perspective that was built upon fantasy more than actual encounters with American Indians. You have to look at each society separately to see how "classless" it was. Certainly one class was deemed inferior to another: women. At times chiefs would trade them to neighboring tribes to cement relations. They didn't have any say in the matter.
Look, I agree that capitalism is the main enemy of ecosystem integrity. But getting rid of it will not necessarily solve the problem. Even in a democracy, people believe what they want to believe about the environment and not what is actually true. There is no pie in the sky after capitalism disappears--only a new set of battles taking place under new rules.
There is nothing about capitalism that requires a representative form of government. The "union" of democracy and capitalism is a myth propagated by the capitalist class. Capitalism concentrates wealth and power; it is inherently anti-democratic. "A capitalist democracy is nothing more that democracy for the capitalists."
What we are witnessing today is the result of a form of capitalism developed at the University of Chicago over 40 years ago. What country was the first to impose eo-liberalism? Chile on September 11th, 1973 under the dictatorship of Pinochet. In fact capitalism is much more profitable for the capitalists under strong man rule, no pesky unions pushing up wages, or human rights activists, environmentalists (or if they exist you can just disappear them).
RE: Your insistence that pre-ag societies were classless will require lots of proof.
I offered you a 600+ page book to read. I've done my homework, have you?
I don't think capitalism goes well with democracy. After all, you conflate the "ruling class" with the men that own the most property. In a democracy the "ruling class" is the people. Democracy works to break down class barriers. By the way, I do not believe we have anything like a democracy in this country. Certain countries in Europe--like Finland--are pretty close to a democracy. The evils of capitalism are played down in such places.
Do you really expect me to read 600 pages to see if I agree or disagree with it? A lot to ask. I might ask if the author gets respect from others in his field. What field is he in, anyway? I don't recognize his name.
Good thing we don't live in a Democracy. We live in a Represetative Republic, It's so much easier to bribe and push around a few people; seperated from their homes and coralled in one city, much easier than say controlling the thoughts and attidutes of a whole nation.
Democracy; is pablum fed to children to make them feel good about following directives from the other side of the continent. (Bless the sheeple)
>^^<
I think in Co-evolution Quarterly the differences between biologists and economists were noted. The idea of carrying capacity seems to be ignored by economists. When I think of food wars, or water wars, along with any other wars, I suppose that might be one way to eliminate other humans. When I think of billions of people living on less than a dollar a day, and privatizing all resources, that is another way to eliminate humans. There is that concept of treating others as you wish to be treated. I guess to many, it means kill or be killed. When there is too little water, death is not far away.
I disagree...not that we can sustain infinite growth, of course, but that the problem lies not with advanced civilization but with our civilizations inability to advance. We CAN design our own future, one which can support our current population with ease and respect for Earth's natural systems. The current and primitive monetary based economy MUST be replaced with a Resource Based Economy! This is NOT about politics, or any ideologies for that matter...this is about embracing the scientific method, efficiency and utilizing technology, not as a way to make profit, but as a way of structuring our civilization in a most "civilized" manner.
http://www.thevenusproject.com/
and the activist arm of The Venus Project:
http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com/
comment removed
We can either use our remaining resources to build sustainable food/energy/water infrastructures/systems or we can use our resources to build weapons to fight global resource wars.
I think the elites and the MIC/Pentagon have already decided what they want to do. Are they mad? Insane? Do the wealthy elites - in ALL countries - give a damn how many poor people will have to die like they are already dying in Iraq, Af-Pak and Africa?
Under such conditions, to waste anymore wealth on weapons and war is obscene and insane. Unfortunately, we can already see the world gearing up for increased and expanding global resource wars. This is very very sad.
Kitaj - agreed, very well-said. And terribly upsetting! What can we do?
The mentalities of weapons, war and the social patriarchal heirarchy must become extinct in order for the survival of the earth.
So you mean a reverse China senerio? one child per family,, Must be Female? I'd go for it. But your living in a fantacy if you think Women will not make stupid tribial based decisions, same as men do. Women kill as easily as men, see history. Under Zulu, Amazon, Hittite, Egypt, and yes Briton.
Women are just as human violent as men, don't fool yourself.
>^^<
At present we are witnessing the expansion of Hadley Cells throughout marginal temperate regions - the American Midwest and Central Asia.
While the Hadley "effect" increases evaporation and rain in the tropics, it also results in dry zones (deserts) in higher latitudes.
Of considerable concern is the effect on the Himalayan ranges. There is already decreased snowfalls and a loss of galciers. As the Hadley effect increases, there will be less snowfall and increased snow/glacier melt.
As glaciers melt, they released stored methane which further exacerbates the problem.
China is dependent on the Hamilayas for their major rivers. So also is Pakistan and India. At present, China controls the waters of India which control the waters of Pakistan.
As China suffers from the Hadley effect, drought will set into the much of norther China (the wheat zone). Hundereds of millions may starve due to drought and famine. Migration into Siberia (now temperate) may relieve some pressure and piss-off Russia.
Remaining snowmelt in the Himalayas will be contested and controled by China. Indians can migrate south.; Pakistanis are S.O.L.
Since we are talking about 50% of the world's population, a modest loss in Yemen is irrelevent.
The Canadians, however, will be well-advised to build a wall to keep Americans out as agriculture migrates north.
Frequently, I have asked in many forums : 'What is the most precious liquid on Earth?' and have had the reply :
OIL!
Hard to believe that some seem to have no idea - even TODAY (even 'instinctively'), that without fresh water for ouselves and our crops, all breathing things - die.
Water? - of course there will be wars over water.
There has been a great deal of talk, over the years, of the possible damming in parts (and turning away from its normal flow) the Euphrates and the Tigris... leaving counteless numbers without water - to die, without water.
“Water is life's mater and matrix, mother and medium. There is no life without water.”
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi quotes (Hungarian Biochemist, 1937 Nobel Prize for Medicine, 1893-1986)
“In an age when man has forgotten his origins and is blind even to his most essential needs for survival, water along with other resources has become the victim of his indifference”
Rachel Carson quote (died 1964)
~sc
Yes, but there are probably some households literally use more gasoline than water -and most US households use more gasoline than water if only drinking and cooking is considered.
This is a terrifying article. Does anyone know anything about the authors? Are they legit? What about nanotechnology and molecular manufacturing? It has the potential to prevent ecological and economic collapse if used for the good of all rather than the profit of a few. Who is developing it and regulating it? While I doubt it can make water it can reduce pollution and waste and increase efficiency - current wasteful methods of resource extraction would be completely obsolete. (For this reason its probably being hidden and carefully controlled/reined in.)
Also, as someone pointed out, the US military industrial complex is one of the worst polluters out there.
People must regain the power. Our last best hope to do so in a "civilized" manner is via a third party. The 2 major parties are far too corporate to advocate for the people and regulate the MIC and destructive industries. Neither will they pass the Fair Elections now act which would enable them to be released from corporate ownership.
Personally I am hoping that ethnic minorities, especially Black citizens, will lead us in this direction. The inequalities for Black citizens are getting worse. The rest of us are mostly still hypnotized by obama or the 2 party competiton.
Without a turn to a 3rd party I don't know what we'll do.
Nanotechnology, molecular manufacturing - hmmm, and what sort of havoc do you think that will create when it "escapes"? As in genetic engineering, IMO, that is best left to Mother Nature. Not to mention which they are technologies which will, because of the sophistication required for their production, remain under the control of those with the abilities to produce them - available to others "at a price". Nature has already done, and is in the process of doing, all the nanotech and molecular manufacturing we need for life to sustain itself - as long as we don't muck it up with our own versions ....
>Personally I am hoping that ethnic minorities, especially Black citizens, will lead us in this direction. The inequalities for Black citizens are getting worse.<
What direction? hopefully not the directions of Africa, or Hathi. Or their own neghborhoods which they'll burn at the turn of a phrase. See Watts Riot, Chiago Riot. I was in the second Watts riot. Morons burning their own homes when Beverly Hills and the White fatcats were in walking distance. Terminally Stupid.
I don't see anyone doing better or worse. Racism isn't the answer. nor Sexism. Only a true coming togther can break the power of this current cycle and take us to somewhere new. Not the old follow the leader,, usually off a cliff, we must! think! for Ourselves!
>^^<
Think about how expensive water has gotten here. In about the last 15 years it's at least tripled in price for the same amount of usage where I live. With the crumbling economy, many will be having their water cut off! Privatization of resources at its best.
"The U.S. government has not been blind to the conflict between energy and water needs. The first part of a report commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 2005 laid out the consequences of not paying enough attention to water supply issues in increasing energy production. The second part, which would have laid out a research agenda and begun developing solutions, has yet to be made public, says Schneider.
He says the U.S. Department of Energy has declined repeated requests to explain why the report has not been published."
Why not try a Freedom of Information Request? It will be denied, but they should have to explain why they won't release it. Surely there is no national defense excuse.
Seriously! Good question!
From Alternet Oct. 6, 2008 "The New Corporate Threat to Our Water Supplies"
http://www.alternet.org/story/101177/?page=entire
The huge increasing network of privatization and corporate interests creating local / global political water policy and control as a commodity to the public and resource weapon around the world.
The future water wars are very close.
There is absolutely NO NEED for water wars. This planet has plenty of water for all. It's just another sorry excuse for the MIC to create more wars. Shame on them, shame, shame, shame on the MIC! They are abusing and hoarding water so they can start wars. Same MO, different resource.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
God this stuff is so depressing. I've been watching this slowly building storm unfold since I interviewed Dr. Dixon Butler in the late 1980s re: NASA's Mission To Planet Earth--later programatically and budgetarily gutted by Newt Gingrich and Bill "Rhodes scholar" Clinton.