NASA: Huge Freshwater Loss In the Middle East

At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:02 · Score: 0, Troll

...we'll soon run out of it.

We should be conserving this precious natural resource. It's not renewable, you know!

Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by alen · 2013-02-13 06:24 · Score: 3, Funny

i give some back to the world every few hours
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Githaron · 2013-02-13 06:27 · Score: 4, Informative

It is renewable just not at the rate that it is being used. In any case, I think it is likely we will find ways to cheaply desalinate ocean water before the threat of massive death by dehydration is imminent. After all, necessity is the mother of invention. Also, grey water systems would probably become more culturally acceptable as water prices increased. Here is one interesting reverse osmosis technology that is being researched using graphene.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:30 · Score: 1

Hey humanity, guess what is more important than oil?
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by MarioMax · 2013-02-13 06:38 · Score: 0

Water that is absorbed by the ground and isn't directed into aquifers or similar structures is effectively lost. The rest is lost to the ocean or to evaporation. Granted, you could desalinate the ocean, but then the question becomes what to do with the leftover material, which is an environmental issue unto itself.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by englishknnigits · 2013-02-13 06:49 · Score: 1

Kickstart?
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by ackthpt · 2013-02-13 06:52 · Score: 2

Water that is absorbed by the ground and isn't directed into aquifers or similar structures is effectively lost. The rest is lost to the ocean or to evaporation. Granted, you could desalinate the ocean, but then the question becomes what to do with the leftover material, which is an environmental issue unto itself.
You sell it, duh!
Have you priced Sea Salt lately?
We still have operating salt ponds aorund the San Francisco Bay. Often easily identified by their giant piles of salt. Now if they trapped the water evaporated it would be a Win-Win.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-13 07:04 · Score: 1

Granted, you could desalinate the ocean, but then the question becomes what to do with the leftover material, which is an environmental issue unto itself.
I guess you pour it back into the sea, nicht wahr? It's not like you separate all the water from the brine, you'd get a terribly corrosive solution for your reactor vessels.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is an urban problem.
City folks give me a hard time about living in the country, but I pump my water from a hole in the ground and then I dump it back into the ground when I'm done with it. Bacteria eat up all my poo, and the cycle begins again. Call it the ultimate recycling.
Works pretty well until you cram a whole bunch of people into a little space.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by arth1 · 2013-02-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Granted, you could desalinate the ocean, but then the question becomes what to do with the leftover material, which is an environmental issue unto itself.
That depends on the technique used for desalination. There are methods where the only byproduct is sea salt. The problem is that they are not as economical as those where you start by pumping in chemicals and process the water in tanks that pollute the brine with corrosion.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Chrontius · 2013-02-13 07:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Foregoing moderation to point this out: They do just dump the brine back in the ocean in some places. Where that's done, you get huge zones where nothing lives, because the algae at the bottom of the food chain usually can't live in such radically different salinity than they evolved in. This results in blooms of exotic algae, which tends to produce toxins - think red tide - when exposed to agricultural runoff. Fishermen are usually just run out of town, and if there was a commercial fishery, or the place was popular with out-of-town anglers, you've just killed the jobs involved with both of those.

Since biological processes impact coastal erosion, you may or may not also have to worry about your coastline receding, too - that depends mostly on how lucky you get, I think, but I have no data handy.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by dj245 · 2013-02-13 08:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Water that is absorbed by the ground and isn't directed into aquifers or similar structures is effectively lost. The rest is lost to the ocean or to evaporation. Granted, you could desalinate the ocean, but then the question becomes what to do with the leftover material, which is an environmental issue unto itself.
You sell it, duh!
Have you priced Sea Salt lately?
We still have operating salt ponds aorund the San Francisco Bay. Often easily identified by their giant piles of salt. Now if they trapped the water evaporated it would be a Win-Win.
These ponds are intended to collect salt, and the water is lost. You can't use a pond for desalination on an industrial scale*. One common method is to boil the water in a partial vacuum to obtain vapor, and discard the brine. Brine's boiling temperature increases the saltier it gets, so at some point it becomes uneconomical to extract the water. Plus transporting brine is easier than bulk damp salt- you just pump it. You could then put the brine in a pond and let nature run its course, but the amount of land required would probably be prohibitive since desalination on useful scales is BIG. It is much easier and cheaper to just pump the brine back to the sea and deal with the environmentalist complaints. Maybe in the future regulations will be stricter but the places that need this water the most are the kind of places that won't care about a saltier ocean.

Incidentally, most desalination processes use large amounts of energy, so that is why the easier water is used up first.

*you can desalinate using a pond or other small body of water on very small scales, but this is not economical on large scales. It is done in survival situations however.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by thomasw_lrd · 2013-02-13 08:16 · Score: 2

I've always been curious about water. Does the amount of water we have today, equal the amount of water from the when the dinosaurs lived? While I know we can run out of freshwater in areas, does that freshwater all end up in the ocean and other parts of the world? Or can it evaporate into space? My guess is no, water cannot achieve escape velocity.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by craigminah · 2013-02-13 08:20 · Score: 1

As predicted by The Twilight Zone (great episode BTW):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rip_Van_Winkle_Caper
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by lennier · 2013-02-13 08:23 · Score: 1

...we'll soon run out of it.
We should be conserving this precious natural resource. It's not renewable, you know!
Don't worry, once we get massive arrays of seawater-powered deuterium fusion reactors online our energy problems will be solved forever and we'll have all the helium we can drink...
oops.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 08:57 · Score: 1

If you farm, you are still hurting the aquifer, as you suck up way more water then the water cycle puts back in.
Desalinators running off of solar and nuclear, and better suited crops for an environment will help water usage tremendously (most of the human race lives near oceans, so shut up heartlanders). Alas, as we see with oil, it is easier to use up our Inheritance rather then try to build a way to support ourselves.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-02-13 09:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is a desert/hot dry country problem. Meanwhile in other parts of the world, flooding is becoming more regular and dangerous.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 09:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

City folks give me a hard time about living in the country, but I pump my water from a hole in the ground and then I dump it back into the ground when I'm done with it. Bacteria eat up all my poo, and the cycle begins again. Call it the ultimate recycling.
So you're telling me that you've laid claim to so much fresh water that you shit in it? And you think the solution is for everyone to be so wasteful so they'll stop giving you a hard time? Cities are populated because urban living is less resource-intensive and cheaper. Rural living is horridly inefficient.
Here's what your "living in the country" means: two hundred people could live off the water resources that you currently monopolize with your awful well-water/septic leech lifestyle. Be grateful that long ago, a bunch of people decided to kill for the plot of land you live on and raise an army to shoot anyone who disagreed. Be grateful that you won the birth lottery and started your life on the butt-end of those guns.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Hognoxious · 2013-02-13 09:35 · Score: 2

Me too, but it's too salty to drink. Or so your mom says.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Hognoxious · 2013-02-13 09:37 · Score: 0

Jizz?

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Ogi_UnixNut · 2013-02-13 10:57 · Score: 1

No it cannot escape, my understanding is that the water molecules are too heavy to "float away" from the earths gravity. In fact chances are we have more water than back when the dinosaurs roamed, for the simple reason that all those frozen balls of ice that occasionally smash into the earth from the heavens have an ungodly amount of water in them.
Over the time span of the earths existance, I would suspect that the amount of water has been steadily increasing, overall.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by amorsen · 2013-02-13 11:05 · Score: 1

Water gets broken into oxygen and hydrogen all the time and combined with carbon and other atoms for all sorts of interesting molecules. The fact that water itself cannot escape does not necessarily mean that it cannot disappear in other ways.
I would guess the same as you though, that the amount of water is increasing, incredibly slowly.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:23 · Score: 1

1. You know nothing about drain fields.
2. You live in a city where your poo gets dumped in the ocean where people have to swim in it.
3. You're an asshole.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:25 · Score: 1

you can desalinate using a pond or other small body of water on very small scales, but this is not economical on large scales
Evaporation is absolutely economical on an industrial scale. Evaporation ponds around the Salt Lake produce around 1.5 M tons salt per year. Maybe not as high fast as digging it out of lake beds that spent a few million years evaporating, but letting the sun do your evaporation for free is definitely economical.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-02-13 13:06 · Score: 2

I've always been curious about water. Does the amount of water we have today, equal the amount of water from the when the dinosaurs lived?
More or less the same. There may be differences in how much is fresh, and how much is saline, and differences in ocean levels due to glaciation or polar ice.
The issues of water shortage are due to our using more and more of the fresh water that is available. We continue to believe that there will always be enough of whatever we need so that population will increase forever.
While we continue this process, we use water from sources that are not infinite. The Oglalla Aquifer in the Great Plains of the US has declined about 9 percent since it was first tapped for irrigation. (note this is not linear, as the aquifer shrinks, some places will run out of water long before other. In Long Beach, California, groundwater pumped subsidence was 29 feet in it's deepest part. Many oil wells were destroyed, as well as pipelines. http://www.longbeach.gov/oil/subsidence/story.asp , there are other places also, such as Houston Texas. http://www.subsidence.org/FAQs/Common.html
And once subsided, the aquifers don't come back, they are not elastic, at least on any time scales that will help humans.
There will probably be more rivers like the Colorado, that are completely used for people, and do not make it to the ocean any longer. We can feed the world with it's population growth - but only for a while
Is there a solution? Well, I would prefer that we stop popping out new people at the present rate. will that happen? I doubt it. So in lieu of a mass die-off, we might want to read the Dune novels, as a sort of look ahead. We'll probably go to hydroponic factory farms, which will free up land for more people, while going to a more manageable watering system. Efficient methods of irrigating on open land tend to salinate the soil.
The concept of the daily shower will probably go the way of the Dodo, I would expect strict water rationing per person.
Other possibilities might be massive nuclear plant fueled desalinization plants. As in plants much larger or more numerous than we have now, that are dedicated to desalinization. There are some serious waste material problems, like chlorine and salt. This method of producing fresh water does not help with the great plains water issues. There will still be liestyle issues. This whole method of getting water will put a lot of resources into just producing water and the resulting food/sanitation/life support will take up much more of our money.
Or we'll just all start fighting among ourselves, and kill most of us off. Which will solve the problem in the worst possible way.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-02-13 13:10 · Score: 1

Water that is absorbed by the ground and isn't directed into aquifers or similar structures is effectively lost.
No, the water eventually comes back as precipitation. It's a cycle. The problem is tht the water doen't aleay come back where you want it. I live in the Northeast of th eUSA. An area that gets plenty of water. Other places like Southern California, popular because it doesn't rain often, are using up water that they don't have, and have to get it form other areas.
But evaporated water always returns.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 14:17 · Score: 0

funny, your dad said cause its too muddy...
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by riverat1 · 2013-02-13 14:53 · Score: 2

Some water in the atmosphere gets decomposed by cosmic rays all the time and the hydrogen thus freed can escape the atmosphere and no longer be available to make water. But we probably get enough water coming back in from meteors, etc. to make up for it.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Troed · 2013-02-14 00:46 · Score: 3, Informative

I would prefer that we stop popping out new people at the present rate. will that happen? I doubt it.

The rise in population growth has been declining for decades. The UN median projection is that we will top out just below 10 billion around 2070 and then shrink.
No doubt needed.

--
it's in my head
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-14 03:45 · Score: 1

The feasibility of this approach is obviously dependent on local currents. Sun is already doing the same thing with sea water, on a global scale, by evaporating the water and keeping the salt in. I also believe that there are multiple mitigating techniques being used to cope with this even now, all different in principle, but all of them consisting in not dumping a large volume of highly concentrated brine in a single place.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Muad'Dave · 2013-02-14 04:57 · Score: 1

About the same amount, plus or minus the amount that this puppy's impactor added to the equation or blasted into space.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-02-14 06:17 · Score: 1

The rise in population growth has been declining for decades. The UN median projection is that we will top out just below 10 billion around 2070 and then shrink.
No doubt needed.
Oh, then all is well. The 10 billion people will be perfectly fed and watered, and have all the natural resources they will ever need.
We are aound 6.8 billion now. What is another 3 billion? And I agree that we'll probably start shrinking. Shrinking might a relatively pleasant term for what the process will be. Anyhow, my doubt is more based on my belief that we will take ourselves over some population brink, and then nature will adjust our population for us. And I wouldn't be surprised if it happens well below the 10 billion mark. Maybe not, perhaps Malthus will always be wrong.
But that is why I tie it in with our dissapearing water supplies. I pointed out a method to support a lot of people in a dry environment, but the expense might be too great, and the alternative will be to starve off a few billion. Not a pleasant thought.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by thoughtlover · 2013-02-14 14:25 · Score: 1

and lack of water limits fracking in many parts of th world.
Thank goodness, I'd rather have clean water and walk a mile to get food than water with who-knows-what in it and gas in my car. You can't simply pump that crap waste water back into the earth and think that aquifers won't be affected, aka, the hole in the ground. Watch Gasland... I live near the Colorado epicenter of gas-drilling and we're, thankfully, creating harder restrictions to the practice than any other state. You can't make clean food with polluted air and poisoned water.

--
No sig for you! Come back one year!
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by JBaustian · 2013-02-14 19:10 · Score: 1

The ocean is filled with fish. And these fish are constantly urinating and defecating.
Re:At the rate that we're drinking water... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-15 01:48 · Score: 0

I wonder which is more disgusting to most people: poop in the ocean or piss in the pool.

Welp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:06 · Score: 0

Time to get on with large-scale de-salinization efforts.

Re:Welp by fustakrakich · 2013-02-13 06:11 · Score: 1

Nature already does that. We only have to collect and harvest it. There is no technical reason to suffer any kind of water shortage.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Welp by AK+Marc · 2013-02-13 06:22 · Score: 1

The technical issue of distribution (and to a lesser degree storage) is the issue for many of the water problems.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Welp by Smidge204 · 2013-02-13 06:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Doesn't rain much in the middle of a desert and there are these things called "droughts" you have to worry about...
If you use fresh water faster than nature can replenish it, you're going to have a shortage. The fact that fresh water reservoirs are decreasing is a sure sign that water is being used faster than it is being replenished... so you either reduce usage (start with waste), supplement supply (desalinization, massive aqueduct construction, etc), or suffer drought.
=Smidge=
Re:Welp by ShanghaiBill · 2013-02-13 06:32 · Score: 4, Informative

The technical issue of distribution (and to a lesser degree storage) is the issue for many of the water problems.
This is not really a technical issue. It is more of an economic policy issue. Here in California, farmers receive subsidies, and subsidized water, to grow water intensive crops like rice and cotton. If you remove the subsidies, farmers will switch to crops and irrigation practices that actually make sense, and the "water shortage" will disappear. The problem in the Middle East is similar. For instance, Saudi Arabia pays huge subsidies to domestic wheat farmers, when for a fraction of the cost they could just import wheat.
Re:Welp by fustakrakich · 2013-02-13 06:41 · Score: 1

There's not an oil well or refinery within a thousand miles from me. Yet, I still seen to have an adequate supply of gasoline.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Welp by fustakrakich · 2013-02-13 06:44 · Score: 1

...for a fraction of the cost they could just import wheat.
But then, they would have to send out vast navies and armies to secure the supply. Now the costs start adding up.

--
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Re:Welp by nedlohs · 2013-02-13 06:54 · Score: 1

And if you are willing to pay $5/gallon water won't be a problem either.
Re:Welp by ackthpt · 2013-02-13 07:01 · Score: 1

Nature already does that. We only have to collect and harvest it. There is no technical reason to suffer any kind of water shortage.
Problem is, you divert a little here and a little there from the streams and rivers and you wind up with the Aral Sea.
Some places do get plenty of rain and could harvest from some collector system, say, around Seattle, and export it. There's an idea which will probably happen when the price of water gets high enough.

--

A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Re:Welp by Smidge204 · 2013-02-13 07:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's not an oil well or refinery within a thousand miles from me.
Somehow I doubt that. Where do you live?
Not that it matters. For the US, water usage is over twenty thousand times greater than oil usage. Oil, not gasoline, which accounts for only a fraction of oil usage. That ratio is probably higher for areas that use less gasoline per capita (which is nearly everywhere outside the US).
Do you think there would be plenty of gasoline if everyone used even a hundred times more, let alone twenty thousand times more? Could you imagine the infrastructure that would be required? Do you honestly think that there are enough sources of fresh water to import from, assuming you had all the infrastructure and all the energy you needed to distribute it?
Do you know what the term "false equivalence" means?
=Smidge=
Re:Welp by RabidReindeer · 2013-02-13 07:44 · Score: 1

Saudi Arabia pays huge subsidies to domestic wheat farmers, when for a fraction of the cost they could just import wheat.
Silly Saudis, don't you know you're supposed to outsource all your critical resources to the lowest bidder?
Re:Welp by HiThere · 2013-02-13 07:49 · Score: 1

Actually, there ARE enough sources of fresh water to import. At least currently. The problem is that the importation is expensive when you need to do it at a long distance. And global warming means an increased supply of fresh water...just not evenly distributed and not where it used to be, either. You might need to collect rain that currently falls on the ocean...Also a single iceberg contains enough fresh water to supply a large area for a long time. And the rate of iceberg formation has increased. (Also the rate at which new icebergs melt, so you need to catch them quickly, and isolate them from salt water.)
Desalinization is probably cheaper.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Welp by quacking+duck · 2013-02-13 07:54 · Score: 2

And if you are willing to pay $5/gallon water won't be a problem either.
People already regularly pay more than that. Willingly, without a second thought, while bitching about paying $3-4/gal for gas. They even do it when the water is freely available out of nearby taps and water fountains, thinking it's somehow cleaner, purer, or from a mountain spring like the label on the bottle says.
Re:Welp by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-02-13 08:23 · Score: 1

Doesn't rain much in the middle of a desert and there are these things called "droughts" you have to worry about...
And also the deserts have greatly expanded throughout the recent cold period in human history. Vast regions of Africa were once lush and are now just piles of sand.
It shouldn't be too surprising - there's now a three frikkin mile thick layer of freshwater ice that's been geologically trapped from the atmosphere on Antarctica, with a significant amount of accretion over the same period. But due to ocean current from that cooling Europe has warmed, and the monied interests of Europe are doing everything they can from stopping a reversal of this trend.
A group of my friends once tried to work out whether a tunnel dug with nuclear borers from Antarctica to Africa could be done inside the Earth's crust without running afoul of large-area gravitation/rotational effects. We fell down on the math skills, unfortunately.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Welp by triffid_98 · 2013-02-13 08:24 · Score: 1

Here in California, farmers receive subsidies, and subsidized water, to grow water intensive crops like rice and cotton. If you remove the subsidies, farmers will switch to crops and irrigation practices that actually make sense, and the "water shortage" will disappear.
For the most part farmers are already using drip irrigation and not growing water intensive crops. The trade for 'subsidized' (hint -not free-) water is that the water districts can and do shut off the taps anytime they feel like it.

The bigger problem is that in California and most of the southwest we have vastly more people than we used to, but no more water has magically appeared. Therefore it comes down to a choice between building less houses or growing less crops...and with California real estate prices that's really a no brainer for politicians.
Re:Welp by thomasw_lrd · 2013-02-13 08:29 · Score: 2

Most areas of the US you can collect enough rain water from your roof, providing you don't have a drought like we did last summer. For instance in my area, (I made up the square ft of an average roof around 200 sq ft, not sure how accurate this is) I could gather about 70,000 gallons of water. This is based on 50 square inches of average rainfall in a year. I really need to stop renting and start buying a house and put up some rain barrels.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man
Re:Welp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 08:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

And if you are willing to pay $5/gallon water won't be a problem either.
People already regularly pay more than that. Willingly, without a second thought
No, they really do not pay more. You see, water usage is not for drinking. Water usage is for,
1. agriculture (irrigation)
2. irrigation of stupid lawns - that is only a problem in few parts of the world.
3. industrial applications (eg. mining, steel production, consumer goods, etc.)
4. personal usage, like washing yourself.
5. distant last place is actual drinking of water.
You can pay $1/day for drinking water. You can't pay $0.10/litre if you want to keep yourself clean. And irrigation? Give me a break. Anything more than a few pennies per kiloton of water (millions of liters) is unsustainable for agriculture.
No water for agriculture? No food. No food? War. Which means less water. Which means more war. Simple as that.
Re:Welp by Cwix · 2013-02-13 08:44 · Score: 1

So you are willing to pay 5 dollars a gallon for your shower?
25 gallons * 5 dollars = 125 dollars.
No people ARE NOT willing to pay that much.

--
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Re:Welp by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 09:07 · Score: 3, Interesting

or grow crops that need alot less water and are native to Socal. Jojoba makes an excellent oil for use in medicine, cosmetics, and Biodiesel. Date palms for fruit, liquor, sweetener, animal feed, a coffee like stimulant, and as a cellulose crop. Citrus fruits are a no brainer, as well as some cultivars of squash, beans, and Corn.
This is all stuff native to california, but nobody plants it, and are willing to import dates from the Middle east and use soybeans to make biodiesel.
Come on California, your better then this
Re:Welp by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-02-13 09:09 · Score: 1

Or they could just form an economic coalition with friendly neighbours like the EU, where lots of countries aren't food-independent. The UK for example would be incapable of supporting its population using the existing territory. Of course that requires you play nice with everyone around you and act like a mature modern nation, so maybe more of a problem for the Saudis.
Re:Welp by chilvence · 2013-02-13 09:43 · Score: 1

Actually, in the UK there is a massive amount of water that spills straight into the gutter. It lands on your roof, and when you actually start to collect it, you wonder why there is even a water company...
Re:Welp by ahodgson · 2013-02-13 10:22 · Score: 2

The thing about the Saudis is that their population has grown from a few million to around 30 million in like 60 years, all funded by oil wealth.
They also know that the oil will eventually run out. They sort of want to find some way of feeding everyone after they have nothing left to trade for food.
I kind of think they're screwed, but they at least are looking forward to the future and trying to do something to avoid the cliff.
The water problem is a population problem, globally. Egypt had a stable population of between 2.5 and 5 million people for thousands of years. Now they're closing in on 90 million.
Re:Welp by quacking+duck · 2013-02-13 10:50 · Score: 1

You don't get car gasoline piped into your home like you do municipal water. The comparison is for liquids you must go out to buy at a distributor local to you.
Re:Welp by AK+Marc · 2013-02-13 11:00 · Score: 1

At least it's illegal in the US to collect it, guaranteeing the water companies profit (depending on jurisdiction, YLMV).

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Welp by Cwix · 2013-02-13 11:41 · Score: 1

Do not try to defend your comparison, you made a horrible comparison because you did not think it all the way through. Your comparison fails when it goes beyond drinking water. It fails to account for bathing, cooking, and other sundry uses of water. Drop it.

--
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Re:Welp by ShanghaiBill · 2013-02-13 13:04 · Score: 1

Come on California, your better then this
Most of the subsidies are Federal, not state. So this is an "American" problem, not a Californian problem. But anyway, as a Californian, I thank you for your contribution to our state's economy.
Re:Welp by nedlohs · 2013-02-13 15:05 · Score: 1

No, they pay that much for convenience in small volumes of water. They don't flush their toilets with it, or grow their wheat with it.
Re:Welp by quacking+duck · 2013-02-13 17:44 · Score: 1

Oh, but I did think it all the way through. My first comment had most of the disclaimer seen in my second. It survived two previews then got deleted because 1) it should have been obvious people aren't paying $5/gal for *municipal* sourced water; 2) it was inconsistent with the bit about nearby taps and water fountains (municipal water), which served to drive home the actual point I was making in my first comment: how ridiculous people look when they bitch about gas prices even as they regularly buy bottled water at a higher rate, often using "convenience" as an excuse for laziness or unwillingness to prepare ahead of time.
("Convenience" excludes things like airport security or nightclubs which prevent you bringing along your own water or reusable bottle, or can't refill it. Obviously there's other valid reasons to use disposable water bottles, e.g. natural disaster aid)
As you've clearly demonstrated, including that disclaimer also would've detracted and distracted from the actual point I was making. The comparison was deliberately restricted to drinking water, since I look down on habitual use of disposable water bottles for "convenience" sake and was calling people out on that. Per your sig, that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it.
Re:Welp by AK+Marc · 2013-02-14 06:49 · Score: 1

Yes, the anti-human environmentalists come out. If we killed all humans, the world would be better off. Well, I meant everyone but me. If you really believed what you said about overpopulation, you'd just kill yourself, right? Oh, it's not you that's overpopualted, it's all those people in Asia. All those people that don't look like you should kill themselves and send their resources to you to use.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Welp by ahodgson · 2013-02-15 11:37 · Score: 2

I'm not really an environmentalist and I never said anything like that. I simply stated the fact that overpopulation is straining water resources. I don't need their resources; I live in Canada - we have more water than we know what to do with.

Mideast Water Shortage by gpronger · 2013-02-13 06:06 · Score: 5, Interesting

It would be nice to think that a regional water shortage would pull these countries together to solve a mutual problem.

And I've recently been in the market for the London Bridge; have one for sale?

Re:Mideast Water Shortage by NevarMore · 2013-02-13 06:11 · Score: 4, Funny

And I've recently been in the market for the London Bridge; have one for sale?
My fair lady, I did have one on the market but it has fallen down, fallen down.
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by cod3r_ · 2013-02-13 06:54 · Score: 1

Hilarious! Sad though. If the middle east came together as one (like we refer to them as) they could seriously do some good.
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by RabidReindeer · 2013-02-13 07:37 · Score: 1

It would be nice to think that a regional water shortage would pull these countries together to solve a mutual problem.
And I've recently been in the market for the London Bridge; have one for sale?
Funny you should mention that. I think there's one in the Arizona desert.
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by thomasw_lrd · 2013-02-13 08:32 · Score: 1

Like they did before the Crusaders started bothering them. I wish the Middle East would go back to the way they were during the Feudal period of the West. They sold books on the street corners, while the richest king in the West had a few measly volumes at most. They were performing surgeries, while the West still thought salamanders were born from fire. I wish the Catholic church of the time had never invented the crusades. I wonder if we would have half the problems we have now.

--
21st Century Renaissance Man
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 09:58 · Score: 0

Actually, It was bought, broken down into individual bricks, shipped there and then rebuilt. Don't think they'd be willing to sell it though.
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-02-13 10:35 · Score: 3

I wish the Catholic church of the time had never invented the crusades. I wonder if we would have half the problems we have now.
If not for the Crusades, the knowledge accumulated in the Muslim world might never have percolated to Europe.
It should also be noted that the downfall of that educated, scientifically oriented Muslim world was NOT European Crusaders, but a Muslim conqueror - Tamerlane (more properly, Timur the Lame).
You ought to remember him - he's the guy who destroyed Persia, killed everyone there who could read or write, that sort of thing.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 10:47 · Score: 1

There was also this Genghis Khan dude who rolled right into Baghdad and sacked the joint; that didn't help either.
Re:Mideast Water Shortage by Ol+Olsoc · 2013-02-13 13:19 · Score: 1

It would be nice to think that a regional water shortage would pull these countries together to solve a mutual problem.
Of course they will, they'll come together and try to kill each other for the water.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.

Bring in the Prophets and Sons of Gods by ixarux · 2013-02-13 06:06 · Score: 2, Funny

Someone needs to convert all that oil into water. Now THAT would be a miracle!

Re:Bring in the Prophets and Sons of Gods by magarity · 2013-02-13 06:29 · Score: 1

That's a terrible idea. Leave the oil as oil, please. Water is much more important to basic survival needs than oil. Oil is about $98 per barrel so that should put water easily around $750 per barrel, This should take care of the mideast trade deficit in short order and the silliness of sheiks riding around in private A380's.
Re:Bring in the Prophets and Sons of Gods by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:32 · Score: 1

That's actually very easy. When you burn oil, water is one of the major exhaust products.
Re:Bring in the Prophets and Sons of Gods by rrohbeck · 2013-02-13 11:06 · Score: 1

That's exactly what they do. Drill deeper and pump harder. Or even desalinate, oil-powered of course.
Which will make the Middle East all that more interesting over the next 20 years. Saudi Arabia is projected to use all its remaining oil production to support its booming population some time during the 2020s, by 2030 the latest.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:Bring in the Prophets and Sons of Gods by sChatwin · 2013-02-13 14:12 · Score: 1

It's called burning it. If we do it efficiently, oil becomes water and CO2. but... oh dear, there seems ot be a problem with CO2... ahh well, nevermind!

Serious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:06 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Water is a vital ingredient in beer!

Re:Serious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:34 · Score: 1

Water shortage?! Quick! Convert all the wine to water!.
Re:Serious by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 10:18 · Score: 0

Water shortage?! Quick! Convert all the wine to water!.
Cheers! Bottoms up.

Tell the Middle Easterners to by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:07 · Score: 0

reduce their population. Problem solved.

People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by eldavojohn · 2013-02-13 06:07 · Score: 5, Informative

Yeah, I know it sounds stupid but Saddam Hussein drained 7,700 sq miles just to try to flush out people during the first gulf war. Before that the British had tried to drain all that fresh water out of there to stop the breeding of mosquitoes. Which, in the near future, is going to be looked back upon with disgust.

I don't think people yet understand or truly appreciate how much destruction they can bring to ecosystems. I wish conservation was given more respect than treating advocates like tree hugging hippies that have no clue about industry and economy. The area between these two rivers was once so lush and full of life that it was thought to be the origin of the Garden of Eden myth.

--
My work here is dung.

Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:15 · Score: -1

I wish conservation was given more respect than treating advocates like tree hugging hippies that have no clue about industry and economy.
"Advocates" get 100% of the respect they deserve - none. This is because said "advocates" are tools of people like the aforementioned British and Saddams of the world.
If you want respect, you might want to try to prove you are worthy of any.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:17 · Score: 0

I wish conservation was given more respect than treating advocates like tree hugging hippies that have no clue about industry and economy.
This depends on those advocates for conservation. You can't be a "tree hugging hippie [with] no clue about industry and [economics]", and then plead with everyone to respect you anyway.
Conservation can be important. So pick your battles, avoid radicalism, and state your case with careful regard for the interests of everyone else.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:21 · Score: 1

Your statement makes absofuckinglutely no sense. People who are pro conservation are tools of those who destroy ecosystems and care nothing for conservation?
Do you even read what you write before you hit submit?
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Kreigaffe · 2013-02-13 06:24 · Score: 2

Teddy Roosevelt was a real O.C. (yeah, original conservationist. i just did that).
I challenge anyone to call him a tree-hugging hippy.
He will haunt your dreams. Possibly hunt them as well. Not a situation I want to be in.

--
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Darkness404 · 2013-02-13 06:25 · Score: 0

There is a big difference between conservation and tree-huggers, namely who benefits from their policies. Conservation puts people first, tree-huggers put "the earth" first. For example, when faced with a dilemma of either eradicating a species or facing an epidemic of disease caused by that species, a conservationist would wipe out the pest while a tree-hugger would not.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by 0123456 · 2013-02-13 06:29 · Score: 1

For example, when faced with a dilemma of either eradicating a species or facing an epidemic of disease caused by that species, a conservationist would wipe out the pest while a tree-hugger would not.
Mosquitoes are people too!
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:30 · Score: 5, Informative

There is a big difference between conservation and tree-huggers, namely who benefits from their policies. Conservation puts people first, tree-huggers put "the earth" first. For example, when faced with a dilemma of either eradicating a species or facing an epidemic of disease caused by that species, a conservationist would wipe out the pest while a tree-hugger would not.
Imaginary scenarios that have never happened are always brought up to bash "tree huggers." The reality, however, is that if you express any concern for wildlife or the unregulated and unmonitored growth of damaging industries like drilling, people write you off by labeling you a tree-hugger.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Very rarely is human life at stake. 99.9% of the time it is someone worried about not being able to make another buck.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:41 · Score: 0

You can't be a "tree hugging hippie [with] no clue about industry and [economics]",
Whatever that means.
What usually happens is this:
Tree hugging hippies: "You're destroying the ecosystem and eventually it will harm humans.
Business men: "The costs outweigh the benefits i.e. It hurts our profits. "
Of course business people are so shortsighted, they never seem to see the businesses that are ecologically intelligent thrive and end up with a HIGHER margin - ex. The whole Organic food movement, hybrid vehicles, alternative energy, there's more but I have a life to get to.
And to head off the non-sequitur Ad hominem attacks that you people love:
I'm rubber and I fucked your wife.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Darkness404 · 2013-02-13 06:52 · Score: 2

There are lots of examples from "tree huggers" putting the environment above people.

For example, just look at "tree spiking" where a piece of metal or ceramic is hammered in a tree, when the tree is cut down the spike can easily hurt or kill someone when a saw hits the spike.

Or just look at the numerous fire-bombings that have happened due to environmental groups.

The core philosophy behind them is that preserving "the earth" is more important than preserving man.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:13 · Score: 1

Because for every intelligent, reasoned environmentalist, there are about a hundred idiots who are dumb enough to pay extra for "organic sea salt" at Whole Foods, and since this is the mental image that most people have, it colors their first impression with any self-described conservationist.
You know, kind of like how for every erudite, reasoned, Buckley-esque political conservative there are at least a hundred senile teapers ranting about "keep yer govment hands off my Medicare!". Same deal.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-13 07:14 · Score: 2

You realize this is a tiny lunatic fringe and that no government has come close to touching "tree hugger" philosophy with a 30-foot pole, right?

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:49 · Score: 0

Ah. No True Scotsman!
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by quacking+duck · 2013-02-13 07:57 · Score: 3, Funny

For example, when faced with a dilemma of either eradicating a species or facing an epidemic of disease caused by that species, a conservationist would wipe out the pest while a tree-hugger would not.
Mosquitoes are people too!
You're confusing mosquitoes with mega-corporations. Understandable mistake though, they're both blood-sucking parasites...
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by HiThere · 2013-02-13 08:05 · Score: 3, Informative

That's an insightfully humorous comment.
Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was the essentially the founder of the conservation movement (along with John Muir, Ansel Adams, etc.). And he was a big game hunter. He created the national park system. But he also believed that only the rich would have an opportunity to enjoy them. He was consistently favoring certain wealthy interests. (I believe he also founded the FDA after his son got poisoned by some bad food.) And he founded "Trust Busting". But he chose his battles carefully, and didn't offend his core supporter...except that he didn't hold enough support so that when he ran for re-election he had to create a new political party, the Bull Moose Party, to promote him. (This didn't work. He had popular support, but the Democrats and the Republicans both held the levers of power in different places. The design of the system intentionally renders third parties ineffective. That's why a plurality is sufficient to elect a candidate. If a majority were required, it would be a different story.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by aceboomblain · 2013-02-13 08:28 · Score: 2

I agree that ecologically intelligent business can out last competitors who are not, but your examples counter your point.
Hybrid vehicles do not have a higher margin, nor will they. The cost to manufacture them greatly outweighs the perceived benefits; and most importantly, the materials required to produce them are much more scarce than the oil used to produce gasoline. And these materials are definitely not renewable.
The material problem also applies to alternative energy. The solar panels and wind turbines require materials that are not available on a scale that would allow those sources of energy to ever meet our current needs, let alone future needs. Oil is abundant compared to what we need to make efficient solar panels and wind turbines.
These are things that the "tree huggers" have been fooled into becoming proponents of, even though the ecological damage that would result would be much worse than the pursuit of oil if we ever tried to scale those up to actually meet our energy needs.
The worse part of this is that reasonable alternatives like natural gas cars is taking a back seat to what the tree huggers imagine we should do. Granted, NG will run out someday too, but it would buy us a whole lot of time and decrease our dependance on foreign oil. The good news is that some ecologically intelligent companies aren't waiting for the political winds to change and are already using NG in their fleet cars.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:10 · Score: 0

Before that the British had tried to drain all that fresh water out of there to stop the breeding of mosquitoes. Which, in the near future, is going to be looked back upon with disgust.
Not really, it did replenish itself, but when it's full it's full. The problem is only when you're using it quicker than it replenishes. What the British did has no effect now. Hussein may be another matter, depending on whether it had time to refill or not.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by amorsen · 2013-02-13 11:23 · Score: 2

The solar panels and wind turbines require materials that are not available on a scale that would allow those sources of energy to ever meet our current needs, let alone future needs.
This is simply not true. I have no idea where you are getting it from.
A wind turbine is simply a bunch of fibre glass, a gear, and a generator. Fibre glass is abundant, gears just require rather commonly available metals, and the generator is often a standard electromagnetic generator. You can win a few percent extra power and possibly save on the gear by going to permanent magnets, but 5% at the margin isn't going to determine whether we can meet the energy needs of the world -- and the "rare earths" needed for permanent magnets are not actually very rare.
Solar cells are made from a myriad of materials. Some of those will scale almost unlimited, some likely won't.
However, your views luckily do not matter. Wind power is now cost competitive in South America without subsidies, even if fossil fuels do not have to pay for any of the damage they cause. In just a few years that will be true in much larger parts of the world. Simple economics will kill off coal-fired power plants.

--
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by drinkypoo · 2013-02-13 16:45 · Score: 1

I don't think people yet understand or truly appreciate how much destruction they can bring to ecosystems.
I was just watching a documentary which involved a trip to Jordan and shaking my head earlier this evening. People who don't believe humans can trash climates are goddamned dumb.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Muad'Dave · 2013-02-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Except that those tree-hugging hypocrites still drive cars and take advantage of every benefit of modern life while smugly denouncing the very same lifestyle they're accustomed to.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by painandgreed · 2013-02-14 05:53 · Score: 1

But he chose his battles carefully, and didn't offend his core supporter...except that he didn't hold enough support so that when he ran for re-election he had to create a new political party, the Bull Moose Party, to promote him.
"Our aim is not to do away with corporations; on the contrary, these big aggregations are an inevitable development of modern industrialism, and the effort to destroy them would be futile unless accomplished in ways that would work the utmost mischief to the entire body politic. We can do nothing of good in the way of regulating and supervising these corporations until we fix clearly in our minds that we are not attacking the corporations, but endeavoring to do away with any evil in them. We are not hostile to them; we are merely determined that they shall be so handled as to subserve the public good. We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth."
State of the Union address (2 December 1902).
As for the election, he had already served two terms and turned over the Presidency and leadership of the Republican party to Taft. He later decided he didn't like Taft's policies and tried to come back from retirement but essentially was going against the standing President he had turned the party over to with the second most powerful guy in the Republican party being the one he worked against in supporting Taft. It was hardly a case of losing support as he evidently had enough to form a new party and affect the election.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by painandgreed · 2013-02-14 05:58 · Score: 1

For example, just look at "tree spiking" where a piece of metal or ceramic is hammered in a tree, when the tree is cut down the spike can easily hurt or kill someone when a saw hits the spike.

Usually the case in tree spiking is to mark the tree as being spiked in hopes that they will not cut down the tree out of fear they can not find all the spikes. The goal is to try and keep them from cutting the tree, not hurting people or machinery. Not to say that there isn't attempts to sabotage men and machines but this is usually done against the material that is on site rather than by tree spiking. Again, the usual purpose is to stop the logging of old growth forest before they go to the mill.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by riverat1 · 2013-02-14 11:46 · Score: 1

The core philosophy behind them is that preserving "the earth" is more important than preserving man.
You can't preserve man without preserving the Earth since we are completely and utterly dependent on the services the Earth system provides.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by riverat1 · 2013-02-14 11:48 · Score: 1

Maybe they're not so much hypocrites as it is you projecting the statements of a few extremists onto anyone who has concerns about the environment.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Muad'Dave · 2013-02-15 02:03 · Score: 1

It's not their statements, it's their actions. One of the so-called green movement front men, Al Gore, despite all of his whining about global warming, has been called out as a hypocrite by more than a few people.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by riverat1 · 2013-02-15 19:33 · Score: 1

I've never found Al Gore all that hypocritical. He buys carbon credits* for his travel, has renewable energy installed at his homes. I believe he's donated the money from the sale of Current TV to a nonprofit that advocates for global warming. I don't believe he's ever said you have to reduce your standard of living that much, just change it somewhat. I've never heard him be unrealistic about the time it will take us to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, plenty of time to transform the energy system to a new paradigm.
* Yes, I'm pretty cynical about the value of carbon credits too but he puts his money where his mouth is.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Uberbah · 2013-02-20 11:04 · Score: 1

Al Gore, despite all of his whining about global warming, has been called out as a hypocrite

That old debunked right wing crap? Why didn't you start off with that, so we'd know just how much credibility you have.
Re:People Forget About Iraq's Marshes by Uberbah · 2013-02-20 11:09 · Score: 1

For example, just look at "tree spiking"
Do you have an example that doesn't suck? Tree spiking is about preventing the trees from being stripmined for profit in the first place, not hurting people.

So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:10 · Score: 0

Extracting energy requires clean water.

Everything and everybody needs clean fresh water.

Basically, no matter what we do, we will always be on a negative slope in terms of water conservation.

Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.

Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by X0563511 · 2013-02-13 06:20 · Score: 1

Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.
Too bad. Drink or die.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by JeanCroix · 2013-02-13 06:29 · Score: 3, Funny

Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.
Call it Brawndo(TM) and they won't be able to drink enough of it.
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by onkelonkel · 2013-02-13 06:39 · Score: 1

Obligatory. "The laws of probability show that for every glass of water you drink, at least one molecule has passed through the bladder of Oliver Cromwell."

--
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by Githaron · 2013-02-13 06:41 · Score: 2

Extracting energy requires clean water.
Everything and everybody needs clean fresh water.
Basically, no matter what we do, we will always be on a negative slope in terms of water conservation.
Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.

Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.
Almost all water is recycled. I am actually curious what percentage of the water the average person drinks came from bodily fluids of another human being of the past or present.
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Have no more than 2 kids, encourage your neighbors to do the same, eventually the availability of resources will magically increase.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by Golddess · 2013-02-13 07:52 · Score: 2

Also, lord knows that people will not want to drink recycled water.
Which is funny, given that we're already drinking recycled dinosaur urine. Plus many people drink urine directly. It's called beer.

And no, that is not a stab at American beer producers. Alcohol == yeast urine.

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by HiThere · 2013-02-13 08:09 · Score: 1

You've never heard of "Black Diamond bottled water"? (Well, probably not, it is or was a minor company.) It sells/sold recycled water from a sewage plant at premium prices.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 10:06 · Score: 0

That isn't going to work. My neighborhood isn't even rounding error compared to all the nigger's and paky's who have 20 children each.
Re:So, no matter what we do, we are screwed by sChatwin · 2013-02-13 14:17 · Score: 1

I remember a boast from the Thames Water Board a number of years agao that "every drop of the Thames has been drunk 7 times by the time is gets to the sea". Makes most Americans I know cringe at the thought. Maybe advertising hyperbole, but we do drink recycled water all the time

Fracking trades water for energy by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:10 · Score: 0

I sure know I often need a fresh drink or two after a good fracking.

dstate is full of shit by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:10 · Score: 1

The link in dstate's addendum already contradicts the sentence it's used in. The Golan Heights tributaries provide less than 20% of the freshwater used in Israel, and the original source is no longer functional. Moreover, Isreal recently completed a huge desalination plant, which provides a massive amount of freshwater (almost to the point of export). This winter, the Sea of Galilee nearly reached full levels, something that hasn't happened in over 20 years.

Not to mention that he linked to a footnote source on wikipedia. Not exactly a reliable source of information.

Israel is almost completely desalination provided by Sun · 2013-02-13 06:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Quite a bit of Israel's water consumption is already either from desalination (domestic) or recycled (agriculture) water. It created quite a spike in the water prices, but otherwise greatly increased Israel's water reserves (the Kineret, as well as a couple of big underground reservoirs, one of them shared with the Palestinians).

Shachar

Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:12 · Score: -1, Troll

It's common knowledge that nobody over there bathes.

Re:Not a big deal by X0563511 · 2013-02-13 06:22 · Score: 1

You don't need potable water to bathe.

--
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:03 · Score: 0

It's common knowledge that nobody over there bathes.

That's a peculiar stereotype to arise about a people whose majority religion commands them to wash five times daily (Muslims can't do the obligatory prayers unless they do ablutions first).
Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:20 · Score: 0

Their feet, hands and face. Just enough that they think they are clean. Butts, not so much.
Re:Not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:28 · Score: 0

Their feet, hands and face. Just enough that they think they are clean. Butts, not so much.
Stop being an ass sniffer then and you won't have to smell their ass. Besides, you probably use "toilet paper" to clean your ass with instead of water like the rest of the world does. That's sort of like washing the dishes by scraping over a crusty plate with a paper towel and saying it's clean.

Where were you when the water wars began? by concealment · 2013-02-13 06:13 · Score: 2

We knew we'd reach this point inevitably. Earth is finite, and humanity keeps reproducing.

Now we've hit the point where resources are limited. By the rules of nature, this means we're going to fight it out and someone's going to hoard the resources. They will then outreproduce others and replace them.

A game changer could be a nanofilter that desalinates water, but that could make the problem worse. If every nation on earth was able to keep overpopulating, the resulting land clashes could be catastrophic.

In the meantime, take careful notice of where you are. You want to be able to tell your grandchildren (or fellow Mars base refugees) where you were when the water wars began.

In other words... (NRSFW)

Re:Where were you when the water wars began? by AK+Marc · 2013-02-13 06:33 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Someone elsewhere asked why conservationists are looked down upon, but I think we've managed to find the answer. The idiots who jump on the issue with the "it's about population" responses. It always comes across as stupid, inane, or eugenitics. Not to mention it's internally inconsistent, unless you see it as a justification of mass murder.

Now we've hit the point where resources are limited. A game changer could be a nanofilter that desalinates water, but that could make the problem worse.

OMG, we are all going to die from the Water Wars. Well, unless someone solves the problem, in which case the delay will make it worse. We should have a good war in the middle east now to help control population. Better still, lets just kill enough of them that the issue goes away.

The worst thing is that when China and India start WWIII, idiots like you will claim you were right all along and that the issue was water rights from Himalayan runoff, even if that wasn't related to the political issues.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Where were you when the water wars began? by Hoi+Polloi · 2013-02-13 06:40 · Score: 0

No one will address the human population issue. Everyone is scared (except China) of having to enforce limits on people's sex organs. Instead they will let it go until things collapse, like a person ignoring their diet until they have a heart attack then they go to their doctor demanding to be fixed.
I can't get excited by any conservation tech or effort because I know population increases will erase any gains.

--
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Re:Where were you when the water wars began? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-02-13 07:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

You do realize that much of the world has fallen below replacement rates by the simple expedient of making people wealthy enough that they can choose whether to extrude yet another baby or not?
China has been trying to avoid the messy demographic squeeze that occurs in the intervening period(since improvements in standard of living usually slash child mortality before they slash fertility rates, you end up with ~1 generation of unsupportable boom children); but the evidence is overwhelming that people actually don't like keeping up the uterine-clown-car act once they have an option.
Re:Where were you when the water wars began? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:06 · Score: 0

>You do realize that much of the world has fallen below replacement rates
Do you have some kind of a point to make? So the burn rate isn't increasing, big fucking deal. We're still not remotely at a break even point for water consumption so, guess what, there's still a huge problem.
Re:Where were you when the water wars began? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:31 · Score: 0

The 1790s called. Tom Malthus wants his prediction back.
Re:Where were you when the water wars began? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 12:57 · Score: 0

And people wonder why the government wants to disarm them.
All you people who aren't armed will be seriously SOL.

Nobody will care by benjfowler · 2013-02-13 06:15 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Nobody will care, since it'll only be illiterate poor brown people dying of thirst and hunger and they're a dime a dozen. If it were white people, things would be a lot different. /s

At the end of the day, it's merely self interest, coupled with the ability to maintain those interests, which matters. Such is the world that soulless neoliberalism has wrought.

Re:Nobody will care by HiThere · 2013-02-13 08:17 · Score: 1

I think you misunderstand. Most people won't care if it doesn't obviously effect themselves, their family, or their close friends. A few additional people will care if it affects others that they see frequently. Lots of people will care briefly if they see it on the news, but not be moved to action. A very few people will care enough about distant strangers to act to help them.
Race barely comes into it, though admittedly it's easier to empathize with someone who looks more like the face you see in the mirror. And that affects the proportions in EACH of the above categories.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

A History of Water Diplomacy in the Middle East by ixarux · 2013-02-13 06:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Ok. Seriously. There is a problem, but there are solutions too. Water conflicts have been around for a long time now in the Middle East since the beginning of civilization tiself.
4500 years ago, the control of irrigation canals vital to survival was the source of conflict between the states of Umma and Lagash in the ancient Middle East. 2700 years ago, Assurbanipal, King of Assyria from 669 to 626 B.C., seized control of wells as part of his strategic warfare against Arabia. In the modern era, the Jordan River Basin has been the scene of a wide variety of water disputes. In the 1960s, Syria tried to divert the headwaters of the Jordan away from Israel, leading to air strikes against the diversion facilities. The 1967 war in the Middle East resulted in Israel winning control of all of the headwaters of the Jordan as well as the groundwater of the West Bank. In these cases, water was certainly an important factor in both pre- and post-1967 border disputes.
But contrast this to cases in Africa, like the Okavango delta (the world's largest inland delta) which through a negotiation by Angola, Botswana and Namibia has received a fresh lease of life. I think the key is how likely countries are to negotiate rather than go to war. The current Middle East does not seem like a place where cooperation can or will replace conflict.

Re:A History of Water Diplomacy in the Middle East by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:08 · Score: 0

Ok. Seriously. There is a problem, but there are solutions too.
There is only one solution, everything else is only borrowing time: STOP HAVING SO MANY FUCKING KIDS. Until that happens, shit ain't going to get better. The best we'll be able to do is delay the inevitable.
Re:A History of Water Diplomacy in the Middle East by Uberbah · 2013-02-20 06:38 · Score: 1

There is only one solution, everything else is only borrowing time: STOP HAVING SO MANY FUCKING KIDS.
One sliiiight detail left out of your storyline: not everyone consumes resources at the same rate. Yeah, it's great that your lawn growing, pool owning suburban Arizonan ass self and your wife had a single child. But you're using the same amount of resources as a hundred people living in Africa.

Fracking? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:19 · Score: 0

What's the fracking problem?

pull these countries together by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Just like our shortage of oil has pulled the west together.

Re:Israel is almost completely desalination provid by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-02-13 06:23 · Score: 1

Exactly. It's all there in desalinization. This is just a little more expensive currently.

Like electricity to the home, in 100 years politicians will be taxing it.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Our water for your oil. by ewieling · 2013-02-13 06:23 · Score: 1

Dear Middle East, we are happy to trade you our water for your oil. -- The Western World

--
I really shouldn't have used someone else's email address for this account.

Re:Our water for your oil. by chad.koehler · 2013-02-13 06:37 · Score: 1

That may be a bit short-sighted.
Re:Our water for your oil. by HiThere · 2013-02-13 08:28 · Score: 1

It wouldn't be shortsighted, but it also wouldn't make economic sense. Transportation costs for water would be excessive. Europe or Russia might manage it via a pipeline, I guess, but it would need to be around 500 times the size of an oil pipeline. The problem is extending it far enough to reach the areas where there is a great surplus of water. A secondary problem, since the best place to collect the water is at the mouths of rivers, is processing it to remove pollutants.
All in all, desalinization is probably cheaper. Especially in areas where there is lots of heat available from "solar power". (It's heat that is wanted, so no conversion to electrical power is needed...or only a minimal amount to run the controls.) And you probably need to use glass rather than plastic, because plastic degrades too rapidly under direct sunlight. But I'm seen solar powered glass kilns that create glass from sand, although I must admit that it was the work of an artist rather than a manufacturer.

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Our water for your oil. by ahodgson · 2013-02-13 10:27 · Score: 1

We already do it! Exporting food basically is exporting water.
Re:Our water for your oil. by HiThere · 2013-02-14 04:57 · Score: 1

You pay the same amount for food as for water? Per unit weight?
Sorry, but while lunar colonists would be right to make that equivalence, water being the necessity in shortest supply within the ecosystem, on Earth that equivalence doesn't make sense. At least not if you live near an ocean or river, no matter HOW polluted. In most places it's cheaper to distill a pound of water than to buy a pound of wheat. In the other places you can do the equivalent via freezing (though the process is a bit more complex, being less efficient/step and so requiring multiple steps). Where this isn't true, the reason is political, not technical. (OK, it doesn't apply in the middle of a desert. But it applies at the boundaries of the desert. And few people live in the heart of a desert without having already made preparations *expecting* water to be difficult to come by. Still, falling groundwater levels can be expected to cause oasises to dry up.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.

Where's Waldo by ThatsNotPudding · 2013-02-13 06:23 · Score: 1

Earlier in the year, while pointing out several areas across the globe suffering significant droughts, the other person asked: "Well, where is it all going?" I had no ready answer. I guess the oceans? Though I thought the sea level rises were due mainly to ice melt (even more water!), not increased rainfall and runoff.

Re:Where's Waldo by plover · 2013-02-13 06:49 · Score: 4, Informative

Weather patterns carry evaporated water off the oceans and over land, where it can fall as rain or snow. If the rain falls on the ocean, or on the shore running back into the sea, it doesn't replenish inland reservoirs. If a winter is very mild, less polar water will be frozen in place, meaning the snowmelt won't be enough to keep the rivers full all summer. The evaporation process is also the natural desalinization process, making rainwater the most critical supplier of freshwater. That's why droughts and global patterns like El Niño and El Niña so important.
The overall amount of water on the planet is (mostly) constant, bet the amount of accessible freshwater is a tiny fraction of it, and is highly dependent on the weather and the rate of consumption.

--
John
Re:Where's Waldo by jvkjvk · 2013-02-13 08:28 · Score: 1

I thought we learned that the overall water content of the planet is steadily increasing due to gravitational attraction of the planet sucking in comets water deposits and the like. Sure in a few hundred years it's not much, and I don't imagine water mining the asteroids or capturing comets technologically.
Re:Where's Waldo by plover · 2013-02-13 09:47 · Score: 1

The overall content varies. Some water is sequestered (living objects, glaciers, snowcaps, lakes and reservoirs, fracking, etc) and some water is destroyed (chemical processes, contamination), but overall it doesn't change much. Adding more overall water to the planet would be very hard, and isn't important. Being able to use more of the water we have is. The simplest approach is desalinization, but desalinization takes energy. It's much cheaper to use natural sources, like rainwater, where solar power provided all the energy for free. But that leaves us at the mercies of the weather, and we're at the point where droughts are severe enough to impact life.

--
John
Re:Where's Waldo by rrohbeck · 2013-02-13 11:14 · Score: 1

There's also significant flooding so it's mostly the distribution of precipitation that's changed.
Sea level rise is part ice melt and part thermal expansion of the warming water.

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it

The main reason I'm against fracking by Grayhand · 2013-02-13 06:26 · Score: 2

Even ten years ago it was getting obvious that the main problem we'll face this century isn't energy it's water. People worry about cheap energy but cheap or even availibility of food should be the bigger concern. In the US we won't face a lack of water but it'll get expensive and food prices are likely to double and could triple or more in adjusted dollars. If you're spending a $100 a week what happens when that's $200 or $300? Some families I'm sure the number is already $200 or more a week. They'll face $400 to $600 food bills. That's $1,600 to $2,400 a month. It'll equal or exceed their mortgage. That was mostly from droughts and higher chemical prices. If the water used to irrigate those crops is polluted then the prices could be much higher. We can simply spend more of our cash on food. The third world will starve.

Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by dkleinsc · 2013-02-13 06:39 · Score: 1

In the US we won't face a lack of water but it'll get expensive and food prices are likely to double and could triple or more in adjusted dollars.
There have been areas of the US that have had to face water shortages already, actually: Los Angeles periodically has to ban watering of front lawns, for example. It's kind of interesting living where I do, less than 5 miles away from the world's largest supply of fresh water anywhere: there have been numerous attempts to convince the various governments that have access to it to divert as much of it as possible in various directions, thankfully none of them successful. Generally speaking, liberals want to protect the water for environmental reasons, while conservatives want to protect the water so that businesses that need the water will relocate to the area.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Darkness404 · 2013-02-13 06:41 · Score: 2

Except that cheap energy = cheap food. If you look at the logistics of farming in America, unless you are a factory farm and use hundreds and thousands of acres of land, you simply cannot profitably produce (much) food. Energy is needed to provide the power to run tractors and combines, energy is needed to ship the food. We are healthier today than we were in 1813 partially because we can have a wide variety of foods in our diet. If you lived in a non-tropical area 200 years ago, you couldn't eat tropical fruits. If you lived in an area where apples could grow and oranges couldn't you ate apples and not oranges. You had only a handful of different ingredients to get all their nutrients from, if something didn't grow during that time of year or the crops failed, you didn't eat that. Just look at the malnutrition that faced countries with a single staple food (such as Ireland). Today though, even though its the dead of winter in Minnesota, I can still go out to my local grocery store and pick up a fresh pineapple.

When it comes to water, we've got a nearly infinite water reserve called the ocean and desalination is quite feasible already and will more than likely become more and more refined as time goes on. We might have to pay a bit more for water than right now (although if we encouraged competition with water companies that could be lessened) but I don't see some gigantic water-less apocalypse happening anytime soon. Just build a couple more desalination plants and the problem will solve itself.

And when it comes to the third world, the problem is mostly government. When governments stop fighting wars and stop the theft of their people, agriculture can truly start taking off, but with the current climate in many of the starving places of coming into an "enemy" village, burning its crops and killing its men of course you are going to have hunger.

--
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:46 · Score: 0

The problem of water is related to the problem of energy......if we have enough cheap energy, we can purify the water from the ocean and ship it to deserts. We can create moisture farms.
Plentiful cheap energy makes everything else in the world easier.
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Bigby · 2013-02-13 06:58 · Score: 1

Except as the price of food increases, more people want to make food to get in on the profit train. You will literally see an increase in farms around the world. Same for water. As it gets more expensive, mechanisms to clean the water become not only feasible but profitable. Then supply increases.
Now if you are talking about there being no arable land or water literally escapes our atmosphere; that is a different story.
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:01 · Score: 0

If fracking continues, we may be able to have exploding cherries to throw at people so we wouldn't need those seed like fire works. Think of the fun.
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by gl4ss · 2013-02-13 07:13 · Score: 2

look, the problem with water isn't that there wouldn't be enough of it.
the problem is that all the good fresh water is elsewhere from where you'd need it(well, plenty of places where you need it have plenty but for some reason people insist on living on dry patches of desert that have been rape farmed for thousands of years..).
water wars are local. in middle east they're limited to middle east. it's not like they're going to invade greenland for the water or some shit like that, they'll just go upstream of some river and try to get control that area and if they have control then re-route the water to their fields. and since they've been warring already non-stop when the fuck did the water wars start? 1949? 1929? 1915?
(oh and if you have energy you can purify or create water...)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 08:15 · Score: 0

The Tampa area has had shortages for something like 20 years straight.... Water is going to be a serious issue in this country in no time at all.. There are just to many people on this planet period..
http://www.tampagov.net/dept_water/information_resources/Water_Use_Restrictions.asp
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by lennier · 2013-02-13 08:32 · Score: 1

Some families I'm sure the number is already $200 or more a week. They'll face $400 to $600 food bills. That's $1,600 to $2,400 a month. It'll equal or exceed their mortgage.
So the invisible hand of the market will respond by moving investment from old, tired, mortgages to a whole new and exciting class of debt to all these families so they can meet their monthly food and water bills. And then even more debt to meet the interest payments on the other ones.
There is nothing that could possibly go wrong with this scenario.
Growth forever!

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by lennier · 2013-02-13 09:26 · Score: 1

while conservatives want to protect the water so that businesses that need the water will relocate to the area.
That's interesting - in New Zealand, our political conservatives in the national government removed an entire province's democratic right to vote because our regional councillors were refusing to allow businesses to extract our water fast enough. (To turn into into milk solids for export + cow poo in our streams.) And the same government is encouraging fracking, also against the express wishes of local residents, which is likely to add a whole new source of pollution to our water.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 09:37 · Score: 0

You like near Lake Baikal in Siberia?
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Kaenneth · 2013-02-13 10:22 · Score: 1

Can't water my lawn due to a 'water shortage', is a "First World Problem" if I ever heard one.
Re:The main reason I'm against fracking by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 08:49 · Score: 0

Water is energy if you have enough energy. Now oil is a poor choice of energy source but if you can drop energy costs by an order of magnitude then water becomes a much smaller problem.

What I want to know by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:32 · Score: 0

What I want to know is why, in 2013, my fucking easy cheese still has that nasty hard cheese plug in the nozzle after its first use. Can we not solve this fucking problem?!?!

Re:What I want to know by mcarp · 2013-02-13 06:52 · Score: 1

We HAVE solved it my dear fellow geek. Eat the whole can. There are no second uses.
Re:What I want to know by GameboyRMH · 2013-02-13 07:21 · Score: 1

The cheese at the end of the nozzle is exposed to air and dries out. Sealing the end of the cheese nozzle might help.

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Re:What I want to know by HornWumpus · 2013-02-13 07:25 · Score: 1

Screw eating it. Hook it up to an IV. Perhaps mixed with bacon grease.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Pulling Together by andersh · 2013-02-13 06:38 · Score: 2

It would be nice to think that a regional water shortage would pull these countries together to solve a mutual problem.

Oh, you mean like the GCC? :) Now, it's a long way from finished, but it's what you asked for.

The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, also known as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is a political and economic union of the Arab states bordering the Persian Gulf and located on or near the Arabian Peninsula, namely Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Jordan and Morocco have been invited to join the council.

On 6 March 2012, the six members of the GCC announced that the Gulf Cooperation Council would be evolving from a regional bloc to a confederation, in possible response to Arab democratic unrest and increased Iranian influence in the region.

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

Re:Pulling Together by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:09 · Score: 0

Do any of those places have any beef with each other anyway? The conflicts, not counting internal conflicts, are just India/Pakistan and Israel/Everybody Else, did I miss anything?
Re:Pulling Together by Hognoxious · 2013-02-13 09:44 · Score: 2

Do any of those places have any beef with each other anyway?

They thought so, but it came from Ireland & Romania and it turned out to be 60% horse and 30% pork.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."

Middle East lacks water? GOOD!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:42 · Score: -1

Now we have those bastards where we want them. It's time for them to decide what's more important: water or Islam?

"Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:42 · Score: 0

if you haven't read it, you should.

The key reason the Moon has to revolt is that they realize that shipping grain down to the Earth really means sending water on a one way trip. Luckily, North America and other countries are all part of the same ecosystem on Earth, but the original article's point of shrinking the Ogalla aquifer by exporting grain is the exact same point as in Heinlein's novel from the 60's.

water is and will continue to be cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:44 · Score: 1, Informative

I understand that for poor (3rd world)people, and for wasteful agriculture, the cost of water is a big deal and should be managed, but the _actual cost_ of desalinated water is ridiculously low for a first world country, and will never be an issue. According to wikipedia (I'm lazy), as of 2005, it was 0.2 cents (US) per gallon. I pay at least an order of magnitude more than that right now in the US, getting water from Lake Michigan - clearly the "cost of the water" is mostly things other than "making" clean water - presumably it's the infrastructure for moving it around, and oversight / corruption. My monthly water bill is over $30, and I don't use the 500 gallons a day that my $30/month should buy - and I'm guessing processing Lake Michigan water is 1-2 orders of magnitude less expensive than desalination.

Now if you want cheap corn and beef and certain consumer goods (paper for example), then if water gets more expensive, agriculture and industry will have to quit wasting it - but they will, because it won't be cheap anymore. Funny how changing the price does that. Oh wait, no it isn't funny, it's basic economics - when something is nearly or actually free, people use it without a thought.

How you make it "not free" when anyone can put in a well and pump until the aquifers are empty is a different, mostly political issue. Presumably a tax on the sale of things that require water for their production would be the simplest, but there are smarter people than me who can figure that part out.

Re:water is and will continue to be cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 08:10 · Score: 0

You pay $.40 / gallon for water?
Anyone ever clue you into the the shiny, chrome things next to the sink? You don't have to buy water in a plastic bottle.

Hmmm.... by 3seas · 2013-02-13 06:44 · Score: 1

Remove oil and what fills the void?.... could it be ground water?

Re:Hmmm.... by lennier · 2013-02-13 09:33 · Score: 1

Remove oil and what fills the void?.... could it be ground water?
And mud, and fracking fluid... mmm tasty.

--
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC

Re:Israel is almost completely desalination provid by phayes · 2013-02-13 06:45 · Score: 1

The submitter "dstates" has presented the results of study as being essentially Israel vs the rest of the region. This is coming from his bias & not the study itself as the video is centered on the Tigris/Euphates basin (Turkey/Syria/Iraq) where the loss of water reserves is much more severe.

Because you see, a Palestinian suffering from thirst is apparently somehow worse than an Iraqi...

--
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue

Well this is certainly a good argument against.. by 3seas · 2013-02-13 06:48 · Score: 1

HHO powered vehicles...

Taboo. by concealment · 2013-02-13 06:50 · Score: 0

No one will address the human population issue. Everyone is scared (except China) of having to enforce limits on people's sex organs. Instead they will let it go until things collapse, like a person ignoring their diet until they have a heart attack then they go to their doctor demanding to be fixed.

We have invented modern taboos, such as any restriction on any person wanting to do anything in any place at any time is bad, and not only is it bad, but it's literally Hitler.

China isn't fooled, and so they're not only limiting population, but using eugenics to improve the abilities of their population.

It's going to be interesting when the next war comes about. Chinese supermen versus the obese sofa-bound citizens of Western liberal democracies.

I can't get excited by any conservation tech or effort because I know population increases will erase any gains.

Generally I agree. The exception might be spaceflight cheap enough to displace most of our population to Mars.

Re:Taboo. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:55 · Score: 0

Unless they figure out how to make their "supermen" radiation-proof, I suspect it won't make much of a difference as far as the outcome is concerned.

Ice Pirates by Stele · 2013-02-13 06:53 · Score: 4, Funny

I watched the documentary "Ice Pirates" back in the 80s. It shows a far future without much water, and people turning to piracy to get it. I bet they never knew how quickly we'd be getting to that point.

Oh and Bruce Vilanch.

Re:Ice Pirates by Dan+East · 2013-02-13 10:39 · Score: 1

"80s Ice Pirates documentary", and this was modded interesting? Obviously this one went right over a few people's heads.

--
Better known as 318230.
Re:Ice Pirates by hairyfish · 2013-02-13 16:33 · Score: 1

Are you sure that wasn't Water World?
Re:Ice Pirates by Sabathius · 2013-02-14 03:48 · Score: 1

Along with the Space Herpes. Just Sayin'

Israel recycles! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:55 · Score: -1

Just FYI:

In a normal, non-drought year, Israel gets seven billion cubic meters of precipitation. However, only about a quarter is collected in the aquifers or above-ground reservoirs and the Kinneret. The rest is either lost to evaporation or as surface run-off into the sea.
Two thirds of Israel’s land mass qualifies as desert (defined by annual rainfall levels below 10”). The Galilee in the north receives about 35” of rain a year and Tel Aviv about 20”, while Eilat gets only 1”. So, 2/3 of the rain in Israel falls on only 1/3 of its land mass.
Measures to Curb Consumption
In 2009 and 2010, household water consumption decreased to the lowest levels in 20 years, due to an aggressive public relations campaign as well as economic penalties.
Average bi-monthly water bill for a family of four in a major city:
Nov-Dec 2008 – NIS 308.4 - $88.11
Nov-Dec 2009 – NIS 1,189.4 - $339.82 (drought tax = NIS 680 - $194.28)
Nov-Dec 2010 – NIS 796.6 - $227.60
Non-conventional water resources: desalination and wastewater recycling
Israel’s main concern is its capacity to supply water for household use.
Domestic consumption makes up 38% of total water usage in Israel.
Israel currently supplies just under 50% of household water needs with desalinated water produced in three different facilities. Its goal is to construct a few more plants and supply all household needs by 2020.
The agriculture sector in Israel accounts for 56% of the country’s total water usage. The Water Authority aims to reduce the agriculture sector’s use of potable water so it can be saved for domestic consumption.
Where will the water for agriculture come from? High-quality purified wastewater.
Israel recycles 75% of its effluents—the highest rate in the world. Spain comes in second at 13%. Even still, vast amounts of treated water are lost to the sea simply because there are not enough reservoirs to store the water. Israel’s goal is to utilize 95% of treated wastewater by 2020, making continued reservoir construction vital.

3 minutes, 3 days, 3 weeks ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:55 · Score: 2, Funny

You can live without oxygen for 3 minutes, on average, if not a bit longer.

You can live without water for 3 days, depending on the environment.

You can live without food for 3 weeks, but in the case of Americans more like 3 months.

You can live without gasoline forever.

Now, can any of you bright people guess the order of importance of the above resources ?

Re:Israel is almost completely desalination provid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:56 · Score: 0

so they can stop raping Jordan??

He;s jus trolling by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 06:57 · Score: -1

I';m not the GP. Whatever man.

You know, sometimes, I get so pissed off at shit that I need troll. Just to strike out at someone - without doing harm and what better way than as an AC on /. .

I need a release. I try talking to poeple but they insist on giving advice when none was asked for - I'll ask when I want it from folks that I believe who are qualified to give it - thankyouverymuch.

I can see why the GP is so pissed off - and I'm a bleeding heart Environmentalist who thinks that mussels in the Gulf trump golf course in Atlanta - lest of all lawns in suburbia.

But that's just me and the GP probably hates my fucking guts.

No worries. Hate away. I hate him too. We're even.p/>Between us, there maybe a rational outcome. Hopefully.

Everyone else is too apathetic.

It's us noisy obnoxious two-bit opinionated assholes who make changes ....

Suck it rational person!

Soylent green by codepigeon · 2013-02-13 07:00 · Score: 1

I wonder how much water is now being stored in the increased population of humans and domesticated animals.

Using wikipedia articles on average water in a human body and world population growth you get about 40billion liters of water being stored in humans in the year 1800, up to 280billion liters being stored in humans in the year 2012. A more indepth study would be interesting.

Re:Soylent green by riverat1 · 2013-02-14 12:54 · Score: 1

The oceans contain about 1.3 × 10^21 liters so a few hundred billion liters here or there isn't much of a difference. (100 billion liters = 1 X 10^11, ten orders of magnitude below the oceans volume.)

Cheap energy = cheaper water by phorm · 2013-02-13 07:10 · Score: 2

For desalination and filtering plants, it seems one of the bigger obstacles is energy. So if we had cheap (renewable) energy, we could also have more abundant potable water .

evolution by WillgasM · 2013-02-13 07:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Let's hurry up and evolve to live off salt water. Go forth, and have sex with sweaty people.

Re:Israel is almost completely desalination provid by acoustix · 2013-02-13 07:16 · Score: 1

Like electricity to the home, in 100 years politicians will be taxing it.

Actually, it already is basically taxed - at least in the US. Most of the water systems are municipal operated. Call it a fee or a tax...the money is going to the government at some level.

--
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson

Power and Influence by andersh · 2013-02-13 07:26 · Score: 2

Any beef with each other? Did you miss anything? Yes, absolutely! :)

There's certainly the external threat from Iran, and the Shi'a population in many of the countries are less than happy with their Sunni rulers. Did I mention Iran? They're quite protective of Shi'as; be it during the recent uprising in Bahrain or the current war in Yemen [on Saudi Arabia's border]. There's always the threat of homegrown terrorists who wish to establish a theocratic state (Sunni). Saudi Arabia has been battling its own extremists for years now. Iraq already attacked Kuwait once and wanted to move on Saudi Arabia. Today Iraq is mostly a threat because of instability.

However you seem to have missed the real point of the GCC's plan; to come together and create a confederation for economic and social development. They're not banding together because of threats - they're planning ahead. How long will the oil last? What do they live off afterwards? They have to develop their economies, industries, educate and train the population and be less reliant on foreign workers [from Asia and the West].

As for India and Pakistan, that's not their problem as those are Asian countries. Israel is obviously not loved by the GCC countries.

fracking water by schneidafunk · 2013-02-13 07:36 · Score: 1

Does fracking require fresh water? Why not use salt water / dirty water.

--
Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75. -Benjamin Franklin

Re:fracking water by IndustrialComplex · 2013-02-13 08:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Because the people would complain that the wells of some poor person 100 miles from where they live whom they never met were being contaminated with salt water now too.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj

Nuclear warfare. by concealment · 2013-02-13 07:36 · Score: 1

I'm assuming you're referring to nuclear warfare here; if wrong, please correct.

Unless they figure out how to make their "supermen" radiation-proof, I suspect it won't make much of a difference as far as the outcome is concerned.

I don't know if any nation at this point intends to use its nukes except if (a) someone else launches first or (b) it is invaded and the invaders are winning.

It's too unstable to use except as a final act.

The Same Idea by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 07:48 · Score: 0

The core philosophy behind them is that preserving "the earth" is more important than preserving man.

Wrong. The core philosophy is that those two concepts are one and the same.

Not surprising....he's a hunter by tacokill · 2013-02-13 08:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Teddy was an avid hunter. Hunters are, without question, the most conservation minded people I know. I realize it's common to think of them as the big bad hunters killing animals but anyone who knows anything about hunting understands it is much much more than that. Teddy understood that well.

Modern day tree huggers? Not so much....

Re:Not surprising....he's a hunter by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 11:06 · Score: 0

I realize it's common to think of them as the big bad hunters killing animals but anyone who knows anything about hunting understands it is much much more than that.
And what would that "much much more" consist of? You can't construct a rational argument that can discredit the notion that any human being that actually enjoys killing other animals is sane or well-adjusted. Hunting has nothing to do with conservation other than being a convenient source of fees and taxes.
Re:Not surprising....he's a hunter by hairyfish · 2013-02-13 16:32 · Score: 1

You need to see a doco by Louis Theroux about game hunters in South Africa (sorry can't remember details). Spoiler alert - It starts off portraying these guys as jerks who slaughter innocent animals, but ends up that the only reason many species still exist in South Africa is because of the Game Hunters who breed them for hunting. Some species are now no longer endangered because of the game hunting farms that sprung up to cater for the global hunting market. Capitalism 1, Hippies 0.
Re:Not surprising....he's a hunter by Uberbah · 2013-02-20 12:21 · Score: 1

So...you go from rebutting a stereotype (hunters don't care about environment) to making one (environmentalists don't care about the environment)?
Huh, interesting.
Re:Not surprising....he's a hunter by tacokill · 2013-02-22 08:49 · Score: 1

No, not interesting at all. Modern day enviros are don't care about the environment. The environment is simply a means to an end for their main goal: political power.

Huge difference.
Re:Not surprising....he's a hunter by Uberbah · 2013-02-22 10:37 · Score: 1

So, yes, you are answering a stereotype with a hippie punching drivel stereotype.
Good to know!

less water by arnodf · 2013-02-13 08:37 · Score: 1

Fracking trades water for energy, and lack of water limits fracking in many parts of th world.

So what we need is less water!

Oh oh.... by hesaigo999ca · 2013-02-13 08:41 · Score: 1

Here come the zombie creating virus we are all now preparing for .....
We have been warned by Hollywood countless times, yet our greed still pushes us to go out there and bring back
things that are not from here.... mmmmm... wonder what sort of DNA might be encased inside the meteor that
some scientist could bring back to life.....

Trade by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 08:58 · Score: 0

We will ship them one gallon of water for every fifty gallons of sweet crude oil they ship us. Or maybe we can just save a lot of trouble and let the mid-east dry out and blow away.
Do I get an inkling that Israel will claim that water is a national defense issue and usurp more land?

Re:Israel is almost completely desalination provid by timeOday · 2013-02-13 09:51 · Score: 2

Well, not really. Israel imports substantial quantities of grain (approximately 80% of local consumption) What does that have to do with water? Grain trade is essentially a trade of water, in concentrated form. Growing wheat, for example, takes 584 lbs of water per lb of crop produced (it might even be worse, since I'm not sure if that is the entire wheat plant or just the grain). So importing 1 lb of wheat equates to importing about 600 lb of water. Maybe we think "water" means drinking water or taking showers, but that is a minuscule fraction of overall usage.

ooooh by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-13 14:40 · Score: 0

So this is an anti-fracking post. I was wondering what the subtext was.

The Turkish Dams by DABANSHEE · 2013-02-13 14:44 · Score: 2

The Turks have built numerous dams on the Euphrates 'n Tigris & their tributaries & are diverting a significant percentage of their waters that traditionally flowed through to Syria & Iraq.

In some cases this could be considered an act of war.

Re:The Turkish Dams by Muad'Dave · 2013-02-14 05:19 · Score: 1

The Turks have built numerous dams on the Euphrates 'n Tigris & their tributaries & are diverting a significant percentage of their waters that traditionally flowed through to Syria & Iraq.
That's nobody's business but the Turks'.

--
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.

It's the Turks by DABANSHEE · 2013-02-13 14:45 · Score: 1

The Turks have built numerous dams on the Euphrates 'n Tigris & their tributaries & are diverting a significant percentage of their waters that traditionally flowed through to Syria & Iraq.

In some cases this could be considered an act of war.

actually in regards new infrastructure... by DABANSHEE · 2013-02-13 14:53 · Score: 1

Just this month new wind-farm energy dropped in cost to the point that it's now cheaper per kilowatt hour than new coal fired electricity generation. BTW that includes taking into account issues related to storage & peak loads.

Israelis are water wasters by DABANSHEE · 2013-02-13 15:00 · Score: 2

The fact is that the 500 000 Israeli settlers in their colonial outposts in the occupied West Bank use about ten times the water that the millions of Palestinians do in the West Bank. Fact is it's the gardens, farms, pastures, groves & orchids of West Bank Palestinians that are the most efficient Water wise - they have no choice, the Israeli settlers steal 95% of their water.

Hello! by ApplePy · 2013-02-13 18:53 · Score: 1

What the fuck? We're not running out of water. What we don't have is storage.

(Speaking for the US here, but) the civil engineers have, for decades, engineered every city to make water RUN OFF as fast as possible, downhill.

Then we wonder why the Mississippi and the Ohio and the Missouri fucking flood every year.

But it's fucking ILLEGAL up here in Colorado, where the water falls highest, to dig a wee pond to hold some, or even to put a rain barrel at the bottom of your downspout.

This isn't a science problem, it's a political problem. Oh, and hey, watch this! We stop so much water running back to the ocean... we check those rising sea levels!

There's oceans full of water that evaporate into fresh water and fall on the land... but only so much falls in a year. Hold the water ON THE LAND. This is a fuckin' no-brainer, people. Get out the bulldozers, build ponds, cut swales, trap the water.

--
That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.

[Future Conflicts] - Water vs. Gold by Johan+Welin · 2013-02-14 02:51 · Score: 1

At the rate of lacking water accessibility we should consider the obvious need that people have: *) Water Yes, one simple thing - water. Should we deprecate gold as being the finite value of things and replace it with water? /J # # #

Looking at the math by concealment · 2013-02-14 03:14 · Score: 1

You do realize that much of the world has fallen below replacement rates by the simple expedient of making people wealthy enough that they can choose whether to extrude yet another baby or not?

We're at seven billion people now. Do you think that number is going to go down?

Here's where he got the argument by concealment · 2013-02-14 03:29 · Score: 2

So the burn rate isn't increasing, big fucking deal. We're still not remotely at a break even point for water consumption so, guess what, there's still a huge problem.

I agree with you.

Here's what fuzzy is parroting:

Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.
Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called “demographic transition.”
“For hundreds of thousands of years,” explains Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University, “in order for humanity to survive things like epidemics and wars and famine, birthrates had to be very high.” Eventually, thanks to technology, death rates started to fall in Europe and in North America, and the population size soared. In time, though, birthrates fell as well, and the population leveled out. The same pattern has repeated in countries around the world. Demographic transition, Sanderson says, “is a shift between two very different long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.” Not only is the pattern well-documented, it’s well under way: Already, more than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate. - Slate.com

This argument, which is not proven science, suggests the following: as technology and wealth improve likelihood of survival, people tend to have fewer children. That which technology does not do, birth control will also.

The main evidence for this, in this article's view, is that in fewer than half of the nations on earth, population growth has declined, and it took us as a whole longer to add the 7th billionth person than it has to add the previous billion.

The article is shoddy science for a number of reasons.

First, the nations that are declining in population tend to be the wealthier ones or ones aided by immigration in becoming so. Related to that is that the nations which are dropping in birth rate are importing large immigrant populations.

Second, the delay in adding the seventh billion may have very little significance. A few tragedies or droughts, some instability or disease, and a delay can happen. That's even assuming our estimates are right, since we're estimating that seven billion and when it occurred.

Finally, the article ignores the path of history. The poorer tend to outproduce the wealthier, which tends to make wealthy nations poorer and less stable, which tends to increase the birth rate as well.

Further, many of our magic cures like antibiotics are no longer guaranteed barriers to disease. In addition, many diseases are mutating. Life expectancy rates of a modern nature may be a blip on the radar.

As you noted, we're already at a stressing point. We don't need to look much farther than the collapse of fish stocks to see that we're trying to feed too many people.

The Slate article is suspect for another reason: Slate tends to pump out these feelgood articles every year or so encouraging us not to think about any problem that contradicts popular notions of fre

*You* may think it's funny but by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 07:19 · Score: 0

It was interesting to me that the Roman Catholics' next pope is supposed to be the last one according to the prophecy by St. Malachy. Now, I see the Euphrates river is drying up.

Rev. 16:12 Then the sixth angel poured out his bowl on the great river Euphrates, and its water was dried up, so that the way of the kings from the east might be prepared.

Re:Israel is almost completely desalination provid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-02-14 13:41 · Score: 0

so they can stop raping Jordan??

Ah yes, your deep interest and breadth of knowledge of the subject are overpowering.
"The Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace serves as an excellent example of how value can be created and trust can be enhanced. It also demonstrates how innovative technologies and a collaborative administration can not only facilitate problem solving but also introduce important means for enhancing sustainable solutions that are acceptable to all sides. ...
Technological and scientific creativity facilitated the section of the treaty dealing with water (Annex II). The treaty specifies that Israel may extract twelve million cubic meters (MCM) of water during the summer and thirteen MCM in the winter from the Yarmouk River. In exchange, Jordan is allowed to “store” twenty MCM of its water in Lake Tiberias in Israel during the winter. Israel agreed to help Jordan find additional water using desalination technology. This dovetailed nicely with Israel’s long-term desalination program. (In fact, in its recently released National Water Plan, Israel stated that it intends to meet 70 percent of its water needs through desalination by 2040). ...
Escaping the trap of zero-sum thinking means recognizing that water is not a fixed resource. When water is conserved or used more efficiently, it is as if more water were added to the supply side of the equation. Since the 1950s, Israel has worked to develop new technologies, such as drip irrigation, that use much less water than traditional methods. Jordan and Israel have both worked to improve their water infrastructure so less is lost to leakage and evaporation. Both Israel and Jordan also reclaim wastewater for agriculture and desalinate seawater. These methods formed an important part of the 1994 peace treaty, where Israel received groundwater rights in exchange for increasing the supply of desalinated water that it could share with Jordan. ...
Because Jordan has highly seasonal flows and no water storage capacity, the Jordanians needed a system that allowed them to transfer water into Israel’s Lake Tiberias in the winter. They had to be able to count on Israel to release that water back to Jordan during the summer. Because the Jordanians believed that the treaty would be honored, they now have the water they need during the summer. Thus, more water was not actually created through this storage-and-release commitment, but the arrangement allowed more effective use of the available supply. If negotiators from different countries can focus on ways of increasing their “virtual” water supplies through cooperation, then they are not as likely to get bogged down in disputes over who gets how much of a limited supply."
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/water-diplomacy

People Are Confident by anguirus.x · 2013-02-14 21:57 · Score: 1

In being able to drink the ocean long before freshwater supplies dry up.

I got 40 inches of rain last year by vandamme · 2013-02-16 13:24 · Score: 1

...about a million gallons. Tasty, too; I drink it.
Let's trade for some oil, gold, whatever.

klasik mobilya by mobilya · 2013-02-19 21:49 · Score: 1

klasik mobilyada dünya'nn önemli üreticilerinden www.zebranomobilya.com.tr yi mutlaka ziyaret etmelisiniz.

Slashdot Mirror

NASA: Huge Freshwater Loss In the Middle East

228 comments