The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Only a price on water can end threat to food security > Comments

Only a price on water can end threat to food security : Comments

By Colin Chartres, published 24/8/2009

There is a looming global water crisis which climate change will aggravate by making rainfall more erratic in many regions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
A timely and interesting article. Cubbie Station is for sale and in the interests of reducing the impact of water-intensive cotton, I hope the government is putting in a bid.

Another way to look at this problem is not to see it as a water problem but a population problem. The solutions might be better approached from a population sustainability aspect than purely focussing on water restrictions or pricing mechanisms.

In the Third Word, water issues are exacerbated by lack of social infrastructure and volatile governments.

A better solution might be arrived at by spreading our attention across the board to include not only agricultural measures but economic, population, health, education etc.

Limiting our outlook to agriculture might be necessary in the short term however if we continue to ignore other factors it will be a bandaid fixture only.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 24 August 2009 9:14:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This morning I read the ABC's news item "4.6m short of water in China drought". http://www.abc.net.au/news/world/topstories.htm This makes me shudder, as it looks more and more like a reality: http://www.japanfocus.org/-Brahma-Chellaney/2458

It is my computer's desktop that made me truly aware of the politics of water in Asia. The background picture is of earth, looking down on Australia from space. It changes every 10 minutes to reflect the day / night shadow, the night time city lights as would be seen from space, the moon circling the earth, and the current weather (ie clouds). Very pretty, and the clouds give me a 2 second overview of what the weather is like. For example, right now I can see the cloud front that will bring rain to Melbourne today, while Brisbanes sky's are clear.

Over time I noticed something. No matter when I looked, there always seemed to be clouds in one place: banked up behind the Himalayas. Those clouds are evidently the water source for 1/3 of the worlds population: India and China. Both are running low, and China is evidently trying to fix its problem by redirecting the water flowing through Tibet to India, so it flows to China instead.

Then I read this article, particularly the words: "This is almost twice what we use today and is not sustainable." Quite. A statement of the obvious, I guess. Yet I know we will see comments here saying he is mistaken, the world is a magic pudding the population will grow and it will all be OK, and I will wonder just what percentage of people have such a loose grip on reality, and hope that it is small.

Then I read "Study demonstrates how we support our false beliefs", http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/08/21/study.demonstrates.how.we.support.our.false.beliefs I see the figure 50%. I shake my head, say this must be a US disease, and go back to work. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, that's what I say.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 24 August 2009 10:54:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We can reduce immigration. There's no way our country can sustain more numbers, look at how many rivers we've destroyed already, such as the Snowy, Murrimbidgee, Ovens and Murray just to start off with. We still have hardly any flows in the Snowy below Jindabyne dam, the greedy hydro company has kept the MOwamba aqueduct operating to divert this little river into the lake when it could run straight into the Snowy instead.

Overseas we need to offer population control in our aid programs, promote reproductive health and contraception as a way to reduce population and give the people more food security. In countries that refuse to allow these programs, we can reduce aid, which may have a similar affect as the reducing and eventually totally withdrawn aid will hasten attrition of their unsustainable numbers.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Monday, 24 August 2009 12:14:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While water scarcity and means of dealing with it is an important issue, the article's suggested solutions along with some here in the forum, seem to only be responsive (and thus limited their ultimate effect) in nature.

Addressing the forum comments first- 'overpopulation' is not the problem and population control is certainly not the solution. Equitable resource use and distribution are instead meaningful and just solutions.
Australian water usage for example (or use of any other scarce resource for that matter) would be far out of proportion on a per capita basis than anywhere in the developing world. This ties into responding to the Chartes' proposals. Our current market system and the inequitable social and environmental conditions it perpetuates simply aren't sustainable. Those in the industrialized world (a fraction of the world's population)use a lot more of scarce resources to maintain lifestyles that aren't sustainable.

Valuing and pricing water in the end seeks a market solution for a market problem. Yes it might create some better usage, but it will most likely lead to costs be passed on to the consumer or subsidized by the taxpayer, while doing very little to fundamentally change patterns of use and consumption and thus the issue of water scarcity.
Chartes rightly mentions increasing meat and dairy consumption patterns as lead cause in water usage in wealthier nations. However he doesn't see/suggest the solution in ending the long-term subsidies of such unsustainable practices, creating a change in eating patterns and farming that is much more water efficient, not to mention numerous other benefits for environment and health from such changes.
Nor is there any questioning of the notion that unlimited growth (the driving force of markets)is in the end what needs to be addressed to stop the absurdity of climate change and its many effects including water scarcity.

Chartes' solutions only delay the problem and don't go far enough in fundamentally addressing the important points he raises.
Solutions to the water crisis, like all the environmental problems facing both the developed and developing world, are inexorably linked to changing our economic and social structures.
Posted by Movingpast, Monday, 24 August 2009 4:32:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am of the opinion there is enough water, it's just that we take it for granted.

We all know water is our most presious assett, yet, we often continue to use it only once.

We treat all household water to 'A grade' drinking standard, yet, we only consume less than 2%. Why?

Why can't the run off from aguculture be captured, treated if needs be, then re-used again and again.

Now as for third world counties and thier population problems, it's simple, THEY JUST CAN'T STOP BREEDING! Now if you want to teach them anything, teach them about contreception. Then, and only then, you may get somewhere. Otherwise you may as well pee into a fan!

Of cause the other competitor for food is bio-fuel.

What farmer in thier right mind would continue to jump through hoops to grow food, when they can simply grow fuel.
Posted by rehctub, Monday, 24 August 2009 6:13:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Putting a price on water - not privatising it - is certainly one step that can be taken. Stop wasting food- it's estimated that up to 40% of our food is wasted - that's always wasting water. Stop growing water hungry crops - eg cotton or rice - in countries without enough water. Stop industrial monoculture cropping and start mimicking natural systems and the efficient way they use and reuse water. Finally, eat less meat.
Posted by next, Monday, 24 August 2009 7:57:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some very simple arithmetic that very few people seem to bother about:
My family can live quite comfortably on 3000 litres/week. That's 156000 litres a year. If one mill of rain on a square meter of roof = 1 litre, and if the average rainfall in my area is 1000mil a year, how much roof do I need to be sustainable?
I get 156 sq. metres, or a roof 12.5m sq. Not a very large house. As rehctub points out, all that water can be reused. (we redirect washing machine water to the veges, waste water onto a paddock).
Instead of building dams, we would be better off if our governments spent the money on water tanks.
For agricultural purposes, untreated water is far more effective than treated water.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 24 August 2009 10:27:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim I have always wondered why the old backyard water tank went out of favour. We installed a 5,000 litre tank in our garden a few years ago to water the vegies and fruit trees and I don't know why we can't all do the same.

Domestic water use is low compared to agriculture. Your idea of using grey water for agriculture is sound and it can be treated by running through reed beds prior to being used for food crops. I know of some councils who have done that for rural estates (as much as I hate contrived rural estates).
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 9:33:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A question (or two) for Grim and Pelican.

Why would the government favour individuals saving on water, energy and other resources when it can subsidise business to build water desalination plants and other private (for profit) enterprises and receive hefty 'donations'?

Why "clean" coal?

Why invest in nuclear?

While these are rhetorical in nature, they are also serious questions. And I am not very happy about the answers.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 10:33:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
These articles by Colin Chartes are great. Always clear with easy to understand logic. After reading them though I always think they are too staid and academic. “Oh by the way we won’t have enough water to grow all the food we need in a few years. Nice to see you. Give my love to the wife and kids. See ya.”

He says it is a crisis but there is no Crisis-worthy passion. Maybe that is the best way to get a reasoned response.

He also says the 2.5 billion increase in the worlds population will have to exist on 2500 calories a day. That is not much food. Is that the world we are aiming for? “Hey all you new 2.5 billion, you’ll be living in poverty.”

I’m glad he mentioned Pakistan. Much of the food Pakistan grows is irrigated by the Indus River. Pakistani farmers take about 80% of the water out of the Indus River to irrigate. The population is likely to increase by 85% (150 million) in 40 years. They are already running down aquifers. Where will the water come from to grow the food to feed the 150 million? It must come from outside Pakistan.

The Pakistani government doesn’t even control much of the land shown on the map. Half the population is illiterate. Pakistan is the 170th richest country in the world with 24% of the population living under the poverty line. Is this the kind of country that is going to be able to implement complicated water pricing systems and new water saving irrigation methods?

These aren’t their only problems. The majority of the water that flows in the Indus, doesn’t originate in Pakistan. About 60% of the catchment is in dry (<300mm / year) Pakistan, but most of the water flowing in the Indus comes from Chinese controlled Tibet and Indian controlled Kashmir. China just built a dam on the Indus in Tibet and didn’t tell the Pakistanis. India and Pakistan’s conflict in Kashmir is longstanding. Now let's throw in Nuclear weapons and terrorist hideouts.

That is a crisis.
Posted by ericc, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 3:47:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
150 million in Pakistan? An example of many countries with huge populations where soon if not already, the land and water will be insufficient to properly feed them all.

It will be sorted out on an evolutionary scale. As with animals, if they breed excessively, there will be a high mortality as the strongest in their part of the globe grab the most resources, so it will balance out.

If we keep dishing out a stack of aid to 3rd world countries who do not have in place population control programs, and a full range of reproductive health services that women can confidently access, without issues with cost or persecution, it is irresponsible to keep giving out aid without these issues being addressed, because they will not change their behaviours and keep up contributing to their own hardships.

ie perhaps its better to reduce aid to such countries by 10% annually until it either reaches nil, or they take steps with population control and reproductive health, then higher aid can be restored as needed.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 4:33:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rehctub: "I am of the opinion there is enough water, it's just that we take it for granted."

You seen to be talking about the water situation in Oz; the article was discussing the global water situation. That aside, we in Oz do appear to have hit a limit. Whereas before there was no pain when we added a person, now it means we must all reduce our water usage accordingly. As you say, this is possible. But which do you think is better - keep making sacrifices to reduce out water usage, or lower immigration so we don't have more mouths to water.

You also seem to think most of out water consumption is for household use. It isn't. It is used in food production. Thus using tank water at home doesn't solve the problem - it just helps in a small way. We accommodate new people by exporting less food, and one hopes by importing correspondingly less and lowering our standard of living accordingly.

Movingpast: "Addressing the forum comments first- 'overpopulation' is not the problem"

Movingpast: "Chartes' solutions only delay the problem"

What an odd pair of statements to appear in the same post.

When an entire country has run out of water population most certainly is the problem. The countries population has grown beyond of its land to support it. Sure, the country can import food - if they can afford it, but if the population keeps growing that only delays the inevitable. The inevitable is famine, and the population reduces for a while. This is just stating the obvious; repeating what is historical fact. It has already happened several times in my lifetime, and probably yours.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 7:07:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fractelle

I tend to think more the government is lacking in foresight and creativity. More of the same economic consumption and consumerism mentality (Growth, Growth and more Growth) rather than any genuine discussions about sustainability. Hence the desalination and clean coal initiatives.

However, I agree that political donations should be banned and a whole new system put in place to remove any enticements or influence on major policy whether real or perceived. Particularly after revelations from developers in regards to the NSW State Government and Wollongong Council sagas.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 25 August 2009 9:31:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim -

The water tank arithmetic isn't quite as simple as you show.

First you never get 100% of the runoff going into your tank. If that was the case your roof would be dry the moment the rain stopped. 90% might work.

Second, most houses aren't set up to drain the entire roof to one point. Half or two thirds of the roof is probably a good assumption.

Third, the rain doesn't fall just when you need it like it does out of the tap. If we get 70mm of rain on 100 m2 of roof and 90% runs off that is 6300 Litres. If your tank is smaller than 6300 itres or isn't empty when the rain hits, some of that rainfall will run down the gutter into the stormdrain.

Fourth, If you have a 5000 Litre tank and it doesn't rain for two weeks you still need water.

I'm not saying tanks don't help but you are unlikely to be able to replace all your water needs with a 5000 L tank and a 156 square metre roof.

Also water isn't priced to make the purchase of a tank attractive. If you buy a 5000L tank for $4000, then you have to fill it up 700 times to get your moneysworth out of it. If you use it regularly you might be able to fill it up about 14 times a year. That means it will take 50 years to pay it off. The tank is unlikely to last 50 years. If the price of water continues to go up then this might drop to 40 or 30 years.
Posted by ericc, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 10:17:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And if you invest the money it buys a lot of water.
If it is purchased as part of the house then it is on the mortgage so double the cost or more.
Not everyone has the finance to purchase.
Would it not be better if the money was invested in a community venture? One large tank is cheaper to build and uses less resources and reduces green house gases as would be used in the production of tanks, transport and installation.
A lot of water that runs off is not wasted goes into the local stream so others down river benefit thus it is only diverting.
Posted by PeterA, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 4:44:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ericc, granted; however...
First, possibly true, however... my water tank is outside my bedroom window, so I know only too well that I get small amounts (drip, drip, drip) of water from condensation, even when it doesn't rain.
Second, houses in my part of the world which rely entirely on rain water, do catch the whole roof. Naturally.
Third, very true. again, if you rely entirely on rain water, you are going to get the largest tanks you can, and they will very rarely be full (I have 2x20,000l tanks). My point was actually to put rainwater tanks back into suburban backyards, and for the government to pay for them, instead of spending the money on dams no one seems to want. It would not be an insuperable engineering challenge to meter tanks hooked into the water grid to be perpetually half full.
That way, flooding rains in Sydney could be ameliorated, and at least some of that flood water could be captured.
I'm thinking along the lines of electricity; 2 way inverters for those with solar panels, so they can draw from the grid, or supply to the grid, according to the circumstances.
This point I hope also answers PeterA's observation.
Posted by Grim, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 5:42:53 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I fail to see how increasing the price of water solves the problem. It suggests that people are wasting it which is certainly no longer the case in Australia. How can poor countries pay more? The problem, which has been outlined by other posters, is overpopulation which is not being addressed at all.
Posted by Atman, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 7:44:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Grim: "water from condensation"

You are claiming you get a meaningful amount of water from condensation? You've gotta be kidding me. (I also have a 20,000 L tank.)

I agree ericc's back of the envelope calculations are based on unrealistic assumptions, but by some fluke his conclusions are about right. A household of 4 using 140 L per person uses very roughly 4,000 L per week. I recall some tank proponent saying realistically you need 4 20,000 L tanks - one on each corner of the house. That gives you 20 weeks of water which is about what you need to keep you out of trouble near the coast - so I guess he was right. The tanks are about $3,000 each, so $12,000 in total and we end up roughly were ericc did.

It also turns out that an average 4 bedroom house has 200 m2 of roof. And guess what? In Brisbane that almost exactly equals the amount the household would consume. (Assuming 1200mm/yr, 15% wastage, 4 people in the house using 140 L per person.) http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/236-water-use-in-australia.asp http://www.enviro-friendly.com/brisbane-rainfall.shtml The point being you can't loose any to overflow - which is another reason you need 4 tanks.

Anyway, as I said, it is all beside the point. Household's use 11% of Australia's water. http://www.nwc.gov.au/www/html/236-water-use-in-australia.asp So tanks aren't going to solve the water problem described in the article.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 26 August 2009 9:52:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart, you're right, I wasn't being entirely serious. The drip, drip just annoys the hell out of me.
As someone who hasn't had the benefit of town water for 25 years, certain things really stand out to me. The first being, flying over any major town, much less a city, shows a huge and entirely wasted water catchment.
Keep in mind, the vast bulk of Australian roofs are only a few kilometres from the coast, so almost all the water that runs off those roofs goes straight out to sea.
If all those roofs had a 2 way connection to the water grid, so they could contribute,as well as use, the collection would be far greater than 11% domestic use.
Many of those roofs are factories and warehouses, remember.
And they would also contribute to flood mitigation, which is another very sore point, in my personal book.
On my farm, I copied the philosphy of that wise and famous ancient ruler of Sri Lanka (whatshisname 111) who said every drop of rain that falls on the island should stay on the island. I had a dam on every gully that ran through a fence.
On the driest continent in the world, we need to give a lot more thought to capturing flood waters.
Posted by Grim, Thursday, 27 August 2009 6:48:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pelican is right, water is not the problem it is population that is
the problem.

The worlds population is not sustainable in an energy depleting world.
Some of the real experts believe that peak oil occurred in the middle
of 2008. Whether they are right or wrong does not matter as we are
looking at short time period in this context.

Taking Pakistan as an example as someone as done here.
They are already in fuel and electricity crisis.
They cannot afford their oil imports now, how are they going to
increase their imports of fuel to produce and distribute more food ?
Will there be an increasing amount of fuel available to them ?

Only large scale agriculture can sustain populations like we have
now let alone another billion or two. Such agriculture cannot
exist in the future, so the population must decrease.
It now seems certain that the decrease will be by starvation and
by a reduction in fertility caused by poor diet and starvation.

Like global warming, water is the wrong problem to worry about.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 31 August 2009 3:40:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy