"oil" of the future

[jverne]

few people are aware of the water pollution problem, that might lead to a downfall of moder civilizations in the near future.

most people are concerned with global warming, but what about more regional effects that could cause widspread destruction in an economical and social sense. picture New york become uninhabitable in some years time?

some interesting reading for beginners:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution

------------------
some "interesting" data for US

Agricultural water use is probably the most important thing to mention in this class, because it directly has to do with sustainability. Approximately 99 Bgal/d were used in agriculture and irrigation in 1950. This accounts for the second highest amount of water withdrawals, next to industry. This number increased by a lot to 130 Bgal/d in 1970. This accounts for the large increase in acreage and thus irrigation water between 1950 and 1970. In 1980, this number increased to about 150 Bgal/d. The nine western regions accounted for 91% of all irrigation water withdrawn in 1980. 1990 came around, and this number actually decreased to 137 Bgal/d, which could be contributed to more micro irrigation systems, so there was a lot less wasted water. In 2000, the total amount of water stayed the same at 137 Bgal/d

http://asuwlink.uwyo.edu/~mthomas/

large numbers just for one industrial sector. do we even consume what we produce? guess not.
btw...agriculture is on of the largest polluters, not just in US but also across the world. But like many things, North America likes to exagerate.

-----------------------------

water usage comparison

http://www.environmentalindicators.com/htdocs/indicators/6wate.htm

way to go north america!
-------------

Environment - current issues:
air pollution resulting in acid rain in both the US and Canada; the US is the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels; water pollution from runoff of pesticides and fertilizers; limited natural fresh water resources in much of the western part of the country require careful management; desertification

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html


----------

some advice on conservation:

Low-Flush Toilets. Residential demands account for about three-fourths of the total urban water demand. Indoor use accounts for roughly 60 percent of all residential use, and of this, toilets (at 3.5 gallons per flush) use nearly 40 percent. Toilets, showers, and faucets combined represent two-thirds of all indoor water use. More than 4.8 billion gallons of water is flushed down toilets each day in the United States. The average American uses about 9,000 gallons of water to flush 230 gallons of waste down the toilet per year (Jensen, 1991).

and many others...

http://www.epa.gov/OW/you/chap3.html
-----------------------------------------------------

of course there are laws prohibiting irrational use of water in most wester countries, but i couldn't find much info on how effective they are. in the agriculture link they mentioned a 20 Bgal/d decrease.



anyway i'd like to see what is your opinion on (irrational) water consumption. do you practice conservativsem or do you you daily spend 30min under the shower? i heared that an average californian household uses 400l/d of tap water. we may take into account the swimming pools which are common there.
in my country nobody gives a shit about water preservation.


my first guess would be that nobody here actually cares. but i dare say that water shortage might be worse than global warming in the short term.

 

[BirdMan]

People worry more right now about OIL because it's gonna happen sooner than water problems. Humans have the tendancy to wait until de borderline to do something REALLY efficient. Right now, since we're expecting an oil crisis in the next 20 years, it's our priority. But in 30-40 years, when clear water will be at stake, then we will do something. Thank god I live in one of the countries with high quantity of clear water... but we must be careful.. The US will put alot of pressure so we export our water. I say we need water counters but you pay only if you consume more than a certain quantity of water. Its one of the case I am the most dedicated.

But we must keep in mind, there are alot of sources of pure water in the world. Let's just think of the icebergs. Massive quantity of clear water, but with the global warming, the north is slowly melting and the icebergs get mixed with salt water. One problem causes another. We are consuming ground water at a much faster rate that the time it takes to refill. Most of the the american aqueducts system is flawed and ALOT of clear water is lost.

But like you say.. nobody cares.. unless it concerns them personnaly.

 

[kirovman]

People worry more right now about OIL because it's gonna happen sooner than water problems. Humans have the tendancy to wait until de borderline to do something REALLY efficient. Right now, since we're expecting an oil crisis in the next 20 years, it's our priority. But in 30-40 years, when clear water will be at stake, then we will do something. Thank god I live in one of the countries with high quantity of clear water... but we must be careful.. The US will put alot of pressure so we export our water.

Or you'll get 300 million immigrants on your doorstep.

 

[VictimOfScience]

There's a lot we have to do in the coming years if we want this world to be at al inhabitable for future generations. Stop supporting/growing tobacco and use the land for crops that sustain humans instead of kill them. Stop eating meat because the energy wasted on producing feed for the animals could be directly given to us if only we would grow feed and consume it rather than consuming the animals that have already used most of the energy of the feed. Redistribute the world's wealth so that developing nations can have better means of achieving what we already have. Those are just three things we can strive to achieve, but there is so much more we can do technologically, economically, socially, and environmentally. Check out Ervin Laszlo's book, The Chaos Point, to find out more about how we can hope to do this together as a race of human beings. Incredible read.

 

[jverne]

There's a lot we have to do in the coming years if we want this world to be at al inhabitable for future generations. Stop supporting/growing tobacco and use the land for crops that sustain humans instead of kill them. Stop eating meat because the energy wasted on producing feed for the animals could be directly given to us if only we would grow feed and consume it rather than consuming the animals that have already used most of the energy of the feed. Redistribute the world's wealth so that developing nations can have better means of achieving what we already have. Those are just three things we can strive to achieve, but there is so much more we can do technologically, economically, socially, and environmentally. Check out Ervin Laszlo's book, The Chaos Point, to find out more about how we can hope to do this together as a race of human beings. Incredible read.

well yes i do agree that most of our production sectors screws the world
over and over. but i think water is one of the more critical materials that can cause massive damage. almost anything uses water nowday, one way or another.

one nice example. all argiculural crops before they can be sent to the store need to be washed. estetically that is a good thing, but the funny thing is that most consumers make a double wash at home. i know this because i have relatives in agriculture.



edit: Birdman...i dont think glaciers are an option. it is just economicaly impossible and the water quality stored in the ice is questionable due to most toxic waste usually ends up at the poles.

 

[BirdMan]

edit: Birdman...i dont think glaciers are an option. it is just economicaly impossible and the water quality stored in the ice is questionable due to most toxic waste usually ends up at the poles.

Well that's a problem because we can't move the icebergs to a place where we could safely extract clear water. They are, in themselves, a HUGE source of clearwater, it's not just possible right now to use them as a source

 

[DEATHMASTER]

IMO New York is already kind of uninhabitable to my decent standards, the air quality so horrible and smogged up, I just couldn't stand it when I went to visit.

 

[repiV]

IMO New York is already kind of uninhabitable to my decent standards, the air quality so horrible and smogged up, I just couldn't stand it when I went to visit.

Dude...
Try this place.

Hmm, no image hotlinking?

 

[gick]

Isnt London's air supposed to be the cleanest its been since before the industrial revolution? Or was that the Thames?

 

[VictimOfScience]

but i think water is one of the more critical materials that can cause massive damage. almost anything uses water nowday, one way or another.

Its true. You can survive weeks without food, but no more than a week without water. In 1950, there was a potential world reserve of 17,000 cubic meters of freshwater for every man, woman, and child. In 1999, this amount decreased to 7,300 cubic meters. If things continue this way, by 2025, there will be only 4,800 cubic meters of reservesper person. This would have a staggeringlyhorrific effect on the world's populations, esp. those of Africa, the Middle East, and South and Central Asia.

^This^ is all detailed in Ervin Laszlo's book that I mentioned in my previous post. Everyone on the planet should be forced to read it. Maybe things would change....

 

[repiV]

Isnt London's air supposed to be the cleanest its been since before the industrial revolution? Or was that the Thames?

That picture isn't London. It's Chongqing, China.
I imagine London during the industrial revolution was as bad as that though. If not, then certainly places like Sheffield etc.

 

[theotherguy]

why not desalinize seawater? Sure, it would be expensive to refine, but we have a nearly unlimited source of water in the world's oceans.

 

[GhostBoi]

There's a lot we have to do in the coming years if we want this world to be at al inhabitable for future generations. Stop supporting/growing tobacco and use the land for crops that sustain humans instead of kill them. Stop eating meat because the energy wasted on producing feed for the animals could be directly given to us if only we would grow feed and consume it rather than consuming the animals that have already used most of the energy of the feed. Redistribute the world's wealth so that developing nations can have better means of achieving what we already have. Those are just three things we can strive to achieve, but there is so much more we can do technologically, economically, socially, and environmentally. Check out Ervin Laszlo's book, The Chaos Point, to find out more about how we can hope to do this together as a race of human beings. Incredible read.

Well Actually, growing crops that kill humans could be the best thing for sustainabilitly of the Earth, the more people, the more resources are used its really quite simple.

EDIT:

People worry more right now about OIL because it's gonna happen sooner than water problems. Humans have the tendancy to wait until de borderline to do something REALLY efficient. Right now, since we're expecting an oil crisis in the next 20 years, it's our priority.

Well actually the oil crisis could be within this next decade much sooner than you think.

http://www.peakoil.com
http://kunstler.com
http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net

Some of my favorite sites on the subject.

 

[DEATHMASTER]

China gets a break because of that pathogenic bacterial cloud.

 

[delusional]

i would never stop eating meat.

 

[gick]

That picture isn't London. It's Chongqing, China.
I imagine London during the industrial revolution was as bad as that though. If not, then certainly places like Sheffield etc.

Why the hell did I think that was London?

Anyhoo, I read somewhere that the CO2 given off by fires in unregistered Chinese coal mines is greater than all the CO2 given off by the UK as a whole. And thats just fires in illegal coal mines, imagine the kind of emissions that are coming out of all the legal ones, not to mention the rest of Chinese industry.

/disclaimer - I cant remember where I read that, so the above statistics may have been pulled out of my backside.

 

[jverne]

well as theotherguy mentioned desalinization would be a temporary option, but mainly for drinking water. for anything else it would be an economic nightmare.
also keep in mind that all the waste we dump into rivers sooner or later end up in the seas. desalinization only desinfects water, the deadly chemicals still remain. i'm not entirely sure but i heard that few mililiters of motor oil can contamine 1l or more of water! it might be even more.

thats why i propose few simple methods that aren't to difficult to manage. putting a low flush toilet isn't really a big deal and it can save you lots of money plus preserv water. i think that stop eating meat is a little to drastic.
few people need an everyday wash, most just like the feeling of being clean.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Erm, the whole giving up meat thing was just a suggestion that maybe it would be better for the human race as a whole in the long run if meat eating were slowly phased out.

Oh, and I think that growing crops that kill off humans is kind of not what I had in mind. Yes, humans are part of the problem, but we are talking about trying to maintain the status quo here, not mass killing on a global scale. Humans are also (potentially) part of the solution. They just have to start thinking before they act.

 

[GhostBoi]

Humans are the biggest problem for the sustainablity of the earth we are the ones that cause the most imbalance, because we love our shiny, fancy, yet mostly useless technology. We cause massive rapid switches in ecological systems that aren't natural, but its okay, Mother Earth won't sit down and let us conquer it its just waiting its turn.

 

[kirovman]

Well, it is true that the amount of crops required to sustain a enough cattle in order for humans to consume is far greater than if humans used crops for themselves only.

But our problem is our population, which is still exponentially increasing.

Even if we solve all our problems using today's population as a standard, that won't be good enough when our planet has 60 billion people.

Unfortunately we're probably overdue a nuclear holocaust to thin us out a bit.
If nature doesn't get rid of the majority of us, we'll probably do it to ourselves.

Almost any global problem you can think of is a result of overpopulation.

 

[jverne]

Well, it is true that the amount of crops required to sustain a enough cattle in order for humans to consume is far greater than if humans used crops for themselves only.

But our problem is our population, which is still exponentially increasing.

Even if we solve all our problems using today's population as a standard, that won't be good enough when our planet has 60 billion people.

Unfortunately we're probably overdue a nuclear holocaust to thin us out a bit.
If nature doesn't get rid of the majority of us, we'll probably do it to ourselves.

Almost any global problem you can think of is a result of overpopulation.

well you got a point there. i however do not see the wold population decreasing anytime soon.


last i heard is that eating meat allowed us to develop our biger brains, high protein food.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

The most vital and valuable resource of the future will inveitably become water.

 

[kirovman]

Or oxygen.

 

[99.vikram]

At some point we'll have to colonise other planets/moons or die out.

 

[one]

Or you'll get 300 million immigrants on your doorstep.

Then Mexico can have what's left of the USA, right? :E


But actually I think the USA and Canada both don't really have to worry about future water problems, the Great Lakes are still quite clean fresh water, aren't they?

And here in the EU ... I hope we've got enough rivers and lakes for that time.

The problem will probably mainly affect the ones in warmer regions first, the poor people in Africa perhaps.

 

[delusional]

We cause massive rapid switches in ecological systems that aren't natural, but its okay, Mother Earth won't sit down and let us conquer it its just waiting its turn.

what could be natural then massive changes in ecological systems, it doesnt matter what causes it but ecological changes occured many times in history, remember the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. we wouldnt be here if werent for that.

 

[jverne]

what could be natural then massive changes in ecological systems, it doesnt matter what causes it but ecological changes occured many times in history, remember the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. we wouldnt be here if werent for that.

recent findings don't quite match with the asteroid theory.

Nor does the cause appear to have been a meteorite strike, as in that famous event.

Pedro Marenco, a doctoral student in Bottjer's lab, has been testing a leading theory for the P-T extinction: that a warming of the earth and a slowdown in ocean circulation made it harder to replace the oxygen sucked out of the water by marine organisms. According to the theory, microbes would have saturated the water with hydrogen sulfide, a highly toxic chemical.

http://www.physorg.com/news80653738.html

 

[delusional]

still a massive change in ecological systems
and the human race is going to experience a long dark age in the near future. then after that we'll become extremely advanced.
http://www.darkage.com/fsnet.co.uk/longtermhistory.htm

 

[VictimOfScience]

STRATFOR has just released their thoughts on the issue of water in business. Here it is (its a bit long, but a thoroughly informative read).

Water: The Emerging Business Concerns
By Bart Mongoven

Shanghai experienced its third "salt tide" in six weeks Oct. 24: With low water levels in the Yangtze River, a tide of salt water surged into the river and traveled far into the country's interior, contaminating the water supply of the world's fourth-largest city. Shanghai water authorities assure the public that disruptions from this salt tide will be brief, but they also note that, given the low gauge of the Yangtze, significant water shortages might be possible during the traditionally dry winter months.
This is not the first water scare this year for China -- or other economically dynamic parts of the world, for that matter. Continuing water shortages in India, for example, are driving some to question whether the snow melt that has fed some rivers for centuries is permanently changing. In many other developing countries, water is being polluted so quickly, and to such a degree, that antiquated treatment facilities cannot keep up with the problems.

These concerns, and episodes like the Shanghai salt tides, have made water an issue of rapidly growing concern for business. During the past 18 months, some companies have begun to make concentrated investments in water infrastructure; others have begun to invest1igate new strategies for dealing with water problems, particularly in developing countries.

The emergence of water as a business concern has been accelerated by two distinct issues. One of these is the growth of the global beverages industry: As corporations attempt to introduce familiar brands in formerly unreached parts of the world, the industry is becoming more dependent on the water supplies of developing countries -- which frequently have not been well cared for by municipal authorities. The second issue concerns the need by some industrial manufacturers -- including paper manufacturing, chemicals and electronics companies -- for large supplies of fresh water at plants in Asia, Europe and North America. Production processes for such things as silicon wafers rely on access to large amounts of purified water.

Together these factors are generating growing attention to the ways fresh water resources are regulated and used. Businesses not only are investing more in water purification, delivery and management systems as a way of protecting their own interests, but also are coming to be viewed as bearing some responsibility to the public to help ensure water quality standards in certain parts of the world. The financial and social issues facing industry are complex and interrelated, and over time corporations are likely to respond by working with government and each other in new ways.

Air and Water as 'Commons' Issues

Air and water are two of the classic "commons" issues -- that is, resources that are shared by all people equally but that can be used or despoiled in unequal ways.

Consider the example of air pollution and old-fashioned "smokestack" industries. In the West, polluting plants have not always been regarded as a bad thing by local communities. Even into the 1970s, many equated smoke in the air with jobs for local residents; the detriment to air quality was considered the unfortunate byproduct of a net positive. This is a view that remains common in the emerging economies of Asia and Latin America.

It was only with the growth of environmental consciousness in the West during the 1970s and 1980s that air pollution came to be seen as a negative and industrial areas sought a better balance between the environmental drawbacks and economic benefits of manufacturing jobs. Over time, air became dramatically cleaner in industrialized countries as pollution regulations forced manufacturers to adopt new technologies or shift their operations to more permissive regions. The migration of heavy industry to countries that also offered large pools of low-cost labor and other efficiencies -- such as Taiwan and South Korea (and later, China) -- contributed to significant air pollution throughout Asia. But for the Western companies that built plants there or began to buy merchandise from new Asian manufacturers, the air pollution was easily dismissed: The industrialists did not have to breathe dirty air, and the residents of the newly industrialized cities seemed happy with the jobs and economic growth. From a Westerner's standpoint, the air pollution was someone else's problem.

Water, however, poses a different commons problem. Because access to clean water is instrumental to many modern manufacturing processes, pollution or "unfortunate byproducts" cannot be ignored by industry or viewed strictly as a government's problem to solve. Whereas air pollution was easily dismissed as a local problem -- perhaps generated by industry but with no impact to operational capabilities -- water scarcity and pollution problems place constraints on industrial processes themselves.

Case Study: A Premium on Water Quality

The premium being placed on water quality is perhaps best illustrated by the difficulties that soft drink manufacturers recently have experienced in India.

During the summer, a major controversy in Kerala state developed around Coca-Cola: Its beverages were banned there because studies had showed they carried pesticide residues. The problem originated in the source water, which was so thoroughly polluted that purifying it to U.S. standards was prohibitively expensive. Kerala state authorities then banned Pepsi's products as well, and the states of Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh eventually followed Kerala's lead. Significantly, the products of local soft drink makers were not banned -- even though the water they used contained the same kinds of impurities.

The motivation of the activists who pushed for the state bans in India points up an important issue in the larger trend. Though they capitalized on anti-American sentiment in the Indian states, their strategy and goals were more nuanced. The activists reasoned that, because Coke and Pepsi command 80 percent of the soft drinks market and have significant financial resources, the companies could persuade local governments to enforce international conventions governing the pesticides named in the water pollution allegations. The goal was not to drive out American commerce, but rather to bring its power and influence to bear in improving water quality for Indians.

Though the activist campaign in Kerala was not tied in to other movements, the approach is not an isolated one. Those who have money and power, and for whom water issues and profits are intimately linked, increasingly will be viewed as having some responsibility for global water quality. And this view is one that corporations are increasingly likely to adopt themselves.

A Question of Supply

Just as agricultural growth in India is bringing water problems to soft drink manufacturers, the industrial boom in China is beginning to stress the water systems there (especially in Beijing and Western China), which is particularly concerning for high-tech industries. This is placing pressure on Chinese governments, both in Beijing and at the local level, to begin to consider choices relating to water and industrial development.

A team at MIT concluded in 2005 that, despite persistent drought in some areas, China has sufficient water reserves to support agricultural production in its "breadbasket region" -- the vast farming expanses of southern and central China -- for decades. It does not, however, have sufficient water supplies to maintain current levels of agricultural production and support other kinds of industry as well, particularly not water-intensive manufacturing. Yet industrial development of China's interior provinces is being highly encouraged by the central government as part of an economically critical wealth redistribution program. Many local governments are responding to the pressures by implementing water conservation programs, hoping to ensure that sufficient water supplies will be available for both farm and factory.

As was obvious with the Dongyang "pollution riots" last year, concerns about access to clean water in China are a source of political tension, and anything that either diverts or pollutes water supplies can cause unrest. The diversion of water from traditional uses in agriculture to industrial applications in some regions easily could spark new protests among poor, rural Chinese, who already are disgruntled over the government's past emphasis on the booming coastal regions. The government is attempting to correct the industrial and economic imbalance, but water scarcity issues seemingly inevitably will attach to industrialization.

This is largely related to modern manufacturing processes. Consider the example of semiconductor makers, which -- unlike beverage companies -- cannot settle for the quality standards applied to local tap water. Natural water supplies are not sufficiently pure for modern manufacturing; instead, facilities require "ultra pure" water that is filtered and refined through sophisticated membranes and electronic processes. Supply issues are a related concern: Microchip fabrication is highly water-intensive. For instance, a new Texas Instruments facility in Austin, Texas, that has been lauded for resource efficiency uses 2 million gallons per day -- significantly below the industry average of nearly 3 million gallons for a comparable fab. With consumption like this, water shortages can bring a plant to a screeching halt just as easily as an electrical blackout or labor strike could.

In Beijing, the water supply situation is already becoming problematic because chip facilities must truck water to their facilities several weeks out of each year as droughts impact the supplies available from municipal authorities. The massive Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. facility outside Beijing, for example, maintains its own backup reservoirs, in addition to the backup reservoirs of the Beijing and Tianjin water utilities.

Developing Water Strategies

Water-related uncertainties like those facing the beverage and semiconductor industries are forcing corporations in almost all sectors to devote significant time and thought to water strategies. In fact, Nestle Corp. considers water "the single most important issue we will face as a company in the next 10 years." The result of strategy efforts, however, is a cloud of swirling, sometimes incompatible, priorities. Ultimately, the questions that are emerging probably will be addressed either through a global "code of conduct" for corporations or, even more likely, by governments complying with demands put forth by industry.

Corporations certainly are not waiting solely for government to act. Beverage companies and consumer product manufacturers can use filtered water, but it must meet certain standards for cleanliness before production begins. Thus, supply and the pollution problems have led to dramatically increased investments in purification technologies, coupled with conservation and regulatory approaches designed to ensure more clean water is available. Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Unilever, Nestle, Fosters, Altria and Anheuser Busch all have unveiled multimillion-dollar water conservation and advocacy programs during the past decade.

Meanwhile, almost all semiconductor manufacturers -- along with Coke, Anheuser Busch and others -- have begun to negotiate water contracts with municipalities to ensure that they will not be crippled by shortages. Still, if the sufficient water is not available, force majeure can be declared -- and managers are powerless to prevent that. For businesses with important manufacturing facilities in developing countries, the conclusion is growing clear: It is going to fall to them to address water supply and quality problems.

Though water obviously is a complex commons issue, business has shown itself adept at finding ways to address commons problems that affect profits. In this case, the effort to ensure that one company's pollution or misuse will not impede other manufacturers is most likely to be expressed through political pressure for new regulations at the local and national levels, in countries around the world.

Increasingly, businesses can be expected to take on the role of activist, calling for governments to improve water protection and reduce waste. And, because corporations equate to jobs and investment -- which, unlike votes from the public, are of value to all states and governments everywhere -- the political bodies will listen. But whether government regulation and corporate standards, even in concert, will be sufficient over the long haul remains an open question.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

At some point we'll have to colonise other planets/moons or die out.

Is this a joke or are you being serious? Stop watching Star Trek. We either Die with this planet, or surivive with it.