Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

An enlightened mystic of this age, Osho, has proclaimed that the third world war can happen due to water– or, rather, the lack of it. The statistics say the same thing: as the share of fresh water per person decreases globally, and the population demanding it increases, there are bound to be conflicts which, as history dictates, can lead to military action and, ultimately, even a world war.

As the world population surpasses 6 billion, underground water levels are falling on every continent, most people on Earth are not getting enough water for the basic necessities of life. Rivers are drying up before they reach the sea, and plants and animals are undoubtedly suffering too.

India

China, India, and the U.S. claim half the world’s population, and provide half of the global food supply as well. In the past, irrigated farming has been plagued with problems like waterlogging, salting, and silting. Now, thanks to science and technology, there is another price to be paid– it is possible to dig ever deeper for water with more powerful pumps, but the cost is aquifer depletion.

Hydrologists define a country as suffering “water stress” when the amount of fresh water per person drops below 1,700 cubic meters per year. In recent times the number of people facing water stress has reached almost one billion, which will increase to 3 billion by 2025 according to the current trend of growing population. This means people affected by water stress will not get enough water for their daily life– cooking, drinking, bathing, etc.

In India, where one-sixth of the world population is living, the water acquired by underground pumps is twice as much as the aquifer recharge from rainfall. The well-known international water research group,

International Water Management Institute, has
estimated that the grain harvest of India could be reduced by up to 25% as a result of aquifer depletion. In a country which is producing 18 million people per year– as much as the entire continent of Australia– this is, for some, a death sentence.

Drought

Other than the Eastern states and the Southwestern coast, which get 300-1,000 cms (120-400 inches) of annual rainfall, most of the Indian regions are getting rain under 40-300 cms (16-120 inches) annually. The driest regions are Western Rajasthan and a few parts of Gujarat, receiving 0-40 cms (0-16 inches) of yearly rainfall as well as Leh in Kashmir. Snowfall is limited to Himalayan mountain range, whose runoff provides valuable water for most of the country’s rivers. As an estimate India receives 70 cms (28 inches) average annual rainfall.

By the time the Ganga (Ganges) River reaches the Bay of Bengal, in the dry season, it is severely depleted, leaving little for Southeastern farmers. 90% of the rain in the Gangetic plains is not harvested or used, and flows into the Bay of Bengal.

India receives 420 million hectare- meters (mham) of water each year: 400 mham from precipitation and the remaining 20 mham as surface water, coming from rivers outside the country. This is equivalent to 4,200 cubic kilometers of water. At least 40% of this water is flowing out to sea and to neighboring countries.

In 1955, India’s per capita water availability was 5,300 cubic meters (cu.m.). Currently this figure is only about 2,000 cu.m., as compared to the global average of 7,420 cu.m and, in Asia, 3,240 cu.m. Statistics say that by the year 2025 the number can drop as low as 1500 cu.m. due to rising population levels, urbanization and systemic abuses of water.

If more rain is harvested, and more efficient methods of rain harvesting are implemented, the 40% of water that is flowing unused from the country can be utilized, as well as lessening the risk of floods and national problem of water stress.

The ancient ways of harvesting rain were quite efficient. Water was everyone’s business, unlike the present age, when, in towns, water is simply expected to flow from the tap, and if it doesn’t, it is the fault of city corporations run by the government. A few of these ancient ways are still practiced in villages, without any new energy or developments.

Inside a dry Talab

The main traditional method of rain harvesting in India is Talab or Kundi. This way is easiest, as any open place with diameter near about 100 meters or more can work for it. The land is sloped towards the center which can be cemented or lined with limestone to support the rain water flow in the middle, where a well lies. Covering the well from the top is also beneficial as it keeps the water clean and protects it. Even with only 10 cms (4 inches) of rainfall, as in Jaisalmer district right in the heart of the desert in the Westernmost state Rajasthan, 1 million liters of water are available year-round.

One other good example of this method of rain harvesting is the 500-year-old fort of Chittor in Rajasthan, where the builders of this fort made tanks to save the precious rainwater. It was built on a good height where the people living in the fort did not have access to the town’s groundwater or any streams. Yet, the tanks were so efficient that the fort never ran out of water, even though the town did in drought years.

In Jodhpur, the second largest city in Rajasthan, there are several talabs. Two, Ranisar and Padamsar, were also made over 500 years ago, by the builders of the famous Meharangarh Fort, and rarely run out of water.

Water harvesting has traditionally meant valuing the raindrop, and being continuously conscious of water conservation in daily life; this value has grown back in many residents of Chennai. The simple urban rain harvesting system they are using there is quite low in cost. The water falling on the roof of the buildings is collected and stored in a ground-level well via pipelines. This well can generally provide water around the year. The water in the well is being cleaned before pumping by alum, which is good enough for drinking and cooking. Water used for bathing and washing clothes is drained into another storage sump after being subjected to organic treatment. About 40% of this water is used for flushing toilets and the rest is used to water the gardens. This new move has made these people free of water shortages and the Chennai Municipal Corporation has made it mandatory for all new buildings to install this low-cost system.

Another large-scale method for the conservation and distribution of water is to build dams and canals. 9% of the world’s large dams, according to the World Commission on Dam Report 2000, are Indian, numbering 4291; 3596 (73%) of these dams are located in the three Western agricultural states, one of which is Rajasthan.

The Indira Ghandi Canal

One of India’s most remarkable examples of water management is Rajasthan Nahar (canal), now known as Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (canal project) or IGNP. In a state where the annual rainfall is just 10-65 cms (4-26 inches), fresh water is precious thing.

The creation of IGNP commenced in 1958, and construction and expansion of the canal system continue today. Its aim is to use approximately 90% of the surplus water of Ravi and Byas rivers, which are fed by runoff from the Himalayas. The construction of IGNP was planned in two stages. The total length of the main feeder and distribution canals is currently about 7000 kms.

Although the funds invested in IGNP in the last ten years alone total almost 32000 million Rupees, the benefit-cost ratio is near 3:1, calculated on the basis of annual agricultural production. 1500000 ha land is being irrigated due to IGNP, which is about 8% of the total sown area of Rajasthan.

Yet the unconscious behavior of human beings is destroying the natural balance. Global warming, pollution, the decay of the Ozone layer and deforestation etc., all cause the snowfall over the Himalayan region to be severely affected (sometimes greatly increasing and vice versa), which is the source of most of the Indian rivers. The result of this is the endangerment of human, plant and animal life, either by drought or by flooding.

Trikal, meaning a drought of three consecutive years, is what the state of Rajasthan now faces; other parts of India also share this condition. This year’s meager “rainy season” could hardly have been called such– in certain areas the rainfall was the lowest it has been in 100 years. The effects of such a drought are widespread, causing scarcity of drinking water, inflation due to poor crop yields, and even severe rationing of electricity due to the sinking water table. This year’s warm winter temperatures, as of December 20, broke records of 150 years.

Many Rajasthani towns and cities, now in a state of emergency, are forced to rely on the government’s reallocation of drinking water via tankers and water trains, and the quality of drinking water has in some areas decreased as well, causing illness.

Long-term solutions to the Indian and essentially global water crisis include tackling the problem of overpopulation in order to decrease the demand for water. In addition, not only new ways of water conservation are needed, but in fact the old ways of water consciousness, of recognizing the true value of what makes up not only 70% of our planet, but up to 80% of our own bodies: water.

The sacred nature of water in Indian consciousness is well-known, but a shift in viewpoint is essential: the obvious example is the Ganga (Ganges) River, famous for being simultaneously the world’s holiest and most polluted body of water. Rather than seeing water as a purifying element to be used and thrown away, it must be understood to be as precious as life itself.

Brook and Gaurav Bhagat are writers and independent filmmakers based in Jodhpur, Rajasthan, India.

But implementing environmentalist ideals has a price. Across a gamut of fundamental areas including energy, transportation and housing, environmentalist-influenced policies have slowed economic growth.

Replanting the World’s Forests Read “Reforesting Central America”

Eliminating pollution and protecting wildlife habitats are important goals, worthy of measured economic trade-offs, but many environmentalists have become extreme.

The following Environmentalist Myths, in which far too many environmentalists blindly believe, have, for non-environmentalists, stigmatized the very idea of environmentalism. Any environmentalist, whether they are extreme or mainstream, would do well to examine these assumptions. In the spirit of creating healthy discourse, from within the environmentalist camp, with the desire to promote deeper understanding and a broader movement; here we throw down the gauntlet. And for those readers who are ready to excommunicate EcoWorld from the environmentalist world, stay tuned for the Ten Capitalist Myths…

Myth #1
Being environmentally correct requires lower standards of living.

Not true. The idea that a sustainable and pollution-free lifestyle requires sacrifice is a myth. It is how we get to sustainable and pollution-free lifestyles, not getting there, which will determine whether or not sacrifice is required. Heavily regulated energy and water markets nurture cartels and discourage innovators. Narrowly defined regulatory approaches to controlling pollution are usually obsolete before the ink is dry; they do as much harm as good. It’s over-legislated “solutions” that cause economic misery and sacrifice, not true environmentalism.

Myth #2
Any good Environmentalist is a socialist.

Baloney. The precious bird of environmentalism has been flying for too long with one wing, the left one. No ideology can own the desire (or the ideas) to control pollution and use energy efficiently, just innovation, with true believers backed up by inventors and entrepreneurs. Government regulations and “takings” aren’t always bad, but they aren’t always good either. Sustainable business should mean perpetual profit as often as it means taxes and regulations. Whether or not socialists or capitalists claim moral high ground can vary, but the claim that any genuine environmentalist has to be a socialist is a myth.

Solar/Coal Hybrid Power Read “Serious Megawatts”

Myth #3
Hydrogen and other renewable energy are the answer to our energy needs.

Maybe so, but for the forseeable future they are only part of the answer. Renewables (not including energy from dams) still provide less than 1% of the world’s energy, and cleaning up and improving the efficiency of our conventional energy infrastructure is a compelling alternative to renewables when choosing where to invest – both for financial and ecological returns. Burning fossil fuels more efficiently with virtually no pollution, either via huge gas turbines, modern diesel engines, or super-efficient hybrid engines, is still much cheaper and nearly as clean as using pure hydrogen. Fuel cells are still very expensive and they wear out quickly, especially when their hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels, and extracting hydrogen from water requires vast amounts of electricity that must be produced somewhere. Hydrogen has interesting potential as an ultimate energy carrier, but must more persuasively demonstrate it can be competitive with super-efficient, virtually zero-polluting fossil fuel solutions. Should we continue to develop renewable energy? Yes we should, but we also need to find more efficient, cleaner ways to use non-renewable energy.

Cleaning Contaminated Soil Read “Toxins into Topsoil”

Myth #4
We have to recycle everything.

No we don’t. Landfills in the U.S., strictly regulated and ultra-safe, can handle many decades of waste input at current levels, and there are countless additional areas that can be used for new landfills. Recycling is far less efficient than using existing landfills and building new ones. Landfills are at least as safe as other civil engineering necessities, such as power plants, harbors, and the like, and they are now set up to screen virtually all valuable or hazardous materials out of whatever they store. Recycling programs for glass and many other common recycling items consume far more energy and create far more pollution in their recycling process compared to the cost to inter the old in a landfill and manufacture replacements.

Myth #5
New housing developments must be limited to within existing cities.

Why? Private property is the foundation of free enterprise, a core American value. The constant war of Environmentalists against developers drives home prices artificially high, and homes become unaffordable unless built on lots barely big enough for the structure. There is nothing wrong with building more homes on the former farms, dairy farms or cattle ranches that typically surround urban areas; they are far from pristine already. Should there be reasonable community oversight over developers? Yes, but environmentalists want zero development outside of existing cities, which is totally unrealistic.

Myth #6
Natural Wilderness and Biodiversity are sacred.

No they aren’t, unfortunately. Using the discovery of some obscure insect or creature to prevent building a power plant, or a road, or homes, factories and cities is not always right. Europeans get along just fine without much pristine wilderness left in most of their continent. Having wilderness and biodiversity at all costs is a choice that societies make, it isn’t sacred and it has little to do with their well-being. Environmentalists are not wrong to want to preserve wilderness and wildlife, more should be preserved, but the idea we must protect all biodiversity at all costs is a myth.

Myth #7
We must have mass-transit.

Not really. If “mass transit” means more freeways, more cars, and more busses, then full speed ahead. Instead, unfortunately, current U.S. federal law mandates that “light-rail” and “carpool lane” options must always come first. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money, the unwitting result of a barely contested environmentalist myth that costs Americans billions to build slow trains that hardly anyone rides, and carpool lanes that are 75% empty during rush hour when extra lane capacity is most needed. Spend taxes on more freeways and more busses. Government funding should save trains for high-speed projects. Government regulations should focus on encouraging pollution-free cars, instead of mandating carpool lanes in a futile attempt to drive people out of cars altogether.

Water Markets Increase Supply Read “What Shortage?”

Myth #8
There are going to be worldwide energy and water shortages.

Well if there are shortages, then environmentalists will share blame. Centrally planned mega-solutions and micro-managed regulations alike are the natural output of leftist environmentalist-influenced governments. Over-regulated water and energy markets can lead to shortages where no real shortage need exist. Water and energy will be more abundant and affordable when inventors and entrepreneurs can invent solutions without red-tape. Solutions to increasing available water range from small, decentralized rain-harvesting systems, to piping and underground storage systems built on a continental scale. These can co-exist in proper free-enterprise economies. The same holds for energy.

Myth #9
There is a population explosion.

Not anymore. Some human populations are still increasing alarmingly quickly, in diminishing pockets of the world. But population growth always slows when prosperity grows. Extreme environmentalists and their myths, by fighting against new homes and roads, by over-regulating energy and water systems, create economic misery instead of prosperity. If prosperity slowed population growth, there would be more money to fight pollution, and fewer people to pollute. In any case, all population projections promulgated by environmentalists have been way over the mark. The current projected peak human population, eight billion in about twenty years, is at the lowest point since serious projections began over 50 years ago. There aren’t too many humans for this earth to support, and there never will be.

Restoring Healthy Ecosystems Read “Rishi Valley”

Myth #10
If we don’t make drastic changes right now the earth will become uninhabitable.

This is a tough one. Even if this is true, it can’t be proven, and making a statement like this is not likely to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. And even if global warming, for example, were to cause the oceans to inundate low-lying coastal areas across the planet, it probably wouldn’t destroy the bulk of human civilization. Habitats, overall, would migrate northwards, with the tropical belt extending somewhat further up from the equator, and vast, viable summer agricultural regions opening up in the ample landmass of the upper northern hemisphere.

To say an icecap meltdown would be horribly disruptive is an understatement, but so adaptible are we, it would be a business opportunity alongside the human catastrophe. Moreover, the theory of global warming, and the related evidence, is substantial but not conclusive. Fundamental uncertainties remain in all models of global warming that render their predictive value nearly worthless. Should we stop polluting? Of course we should, and we will, but not because everyone is going to die tomorrow if we don’t.

Being capitalist and being environmentalist are not incompatible, if the assumptions of environmentalism are carefully challenged when determining public policy, and companies that use and process energy and water efficiently are rewarded in a less-regulated marketplace.

Does a myth-free environmentalist still want to save species, preserve wilderness, biodiversity? Yes, of course, even passionately, but with passion moderated by practical compromises.

Ed Ring is Editor and CEO of EcoWorld Inc., publisher of www.EcoWorld.com.

REACTION TO ECOWORLD’S “TEN ENVIRONMENTALIST MYTHS”

“FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED”

—–Original Message—–

From: anonomous [mailto:anon@anon.com]

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:43 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: TEN ENVIRONMENTALIST MYTHS

Ed – I just read this piece you wrote. Not only is it fundamentally flawed, but it also demonstrates deep ignorance of the larger environmental arena.

Sincerely,

anonomous

“COMPLETELY WRONG”

—–Original Message—–

From: Aida [mailto:anon@anon.edu]

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 8:42 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: 10 Environmentalist Myths

Ed Ring:

What are your credentials?! You are completely wrong on all 10 of your “myths”. You are wrong in their defense and in the belief that some of the myths even exist at all! Have you even studied environmental science or economics??? Stop wasting internet space with such ignorance!

EDITOR’S REPLY:

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 2:56 PM

Subject: RE: 10 Environmentalist Myths

Aida,

You are welcome to submit a rebuttal to any of the points raised. Time permitting we would be happy to post any thoughtful replies. If you read other stories on EcoWorld you will see we care deeply about the environment. The story was intended to provoke comments, and it’s working.

Ed

“WILDERNESS IS SACRED”

—Original Message—–

From: Richard Jackson [mailto:anon@anon.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 8:32 PM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: Myths

Dear Sir,

Your article ‘Ten Environmentalist Myths’ for supporters of capitalism who may be environmentally concerned provokes rebuttals on many levels. Time restraints only permit me to respond to your perspective briefly, but ‘myth six’ is extremely ‘provoking’ and warrants discussion.

Your comment that the natural wilderness and biodiversity are not sacred is only partially correct. For example, the Indigenous Australian people believed nature to be the centre of the universe rather than man! In line with this, it was thought that one had to work within the natural environment to ensure their future survival. The idolising of nature by these Aboriginal people is clearly portrayed in early rock art and obviously these views are sacred yet they are forced to live according to the dominating Western capitalist perspective which is based on your comments. In turn, therefore, not only is the natural wilderness and biodiversity sacred to many people who relate to the Indigenous Australian perspective, but the very idea that the natural wilderness and biodiversity is not sacred and can be used solely for human purpose is indeed itself a myth.

Yours Sincerely,

Richard Jackson

Media student

Swinburne University

Melbourne, Australia

EDITOR’S REPLY:

—–Original Message—–

From: Ed Ring [mailto:ed@ecoworld.com]

Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:55 PM

To: Richard Jackson

Subject: RE: Myths

Richard,

I agree with your points completely except capitalists are capitalists, north, south, east, west. My point is that environmentalists HAVE to say nature is sacred, we have to admit it. It is that value that inspires environmentalists, but also has credibility with non-environmentalists. Telling someone who is unsympathetic to environmentalism that we have to stifle economic growth or we’ll all die is fearmongering and only breeds more opposition. Environmentalists have to appeal to the compassion of capitalists because when it comes to economic or ecologic arguments, totally unfettered capitalist development can hold its own. Assuming pollution is sufficiently mitigated, it’s not at all clear that if we carve the world into a giant industrial plantation with corporate crops and weedy species crowding out virtually 100% of the original ecosystems, that the world’s environment wouldn’t be perfectly habitable.

Environmentalists have to face the challenge of how do you allow rapid economic development for everyone, everywhere, without ending up with that? Capitalists create wealth, allowing many more options for society, including health, education, welfare, and more resources to protect the environment! The capitalist challenge to create wealth for everyone while not dominating cultures, creating pollution, and destroying wilderness and biodiversity is also not easy – but we need capitalism as much as we need environmentalism.