Slashdot Mirror
Water Shortages Could Affect 5 Billion People By 2050, UNESCO Warns (theguardian.com)
About 3.6 billion people are estimated to be living in areas with a potential for water scarcity for at least one month per year, and this number could rise to as many as 5.7 billion people by 2050, according to a report published by UNESCO [PDF]. From a report: The comprehensive annual study warns of conflict and civilisational threats unless actions are taken to reduce the stress on rivers, lakes, aquifers, wetlands and reservoirs. The World Water Development Report -- released in drought-hit BrasÃlia -- says positive change is possible, particularly in the key agricultural sector, but only if there is a move towards nature-based solutions that rely more on soil and trees than steel and concrete.
"For too long, the world has turned first to human-built, or 'grey', infrastructure to improve water management. In doing so, it has often brushed aside traditional and indigenous knowledge that embraces greener approaches," says Gilbert Houngbo, the chair of UN Water, in the preface of the 100-page assessment. "In the face of accelerated consumption, increasing environmental degradation and the multi-faceted impacts of climate change, we clearly need new ways of manage competing demands on our freshwater resources."
"For too long, the world has turned first to human-built, or 'grey', infrastructure to improve water management. In doing so, it has often brushed aside traditional and indigenous knowledge that embraces greener approaches," says Gilbert Houngbo, the chair of UN Water, in the preface of the 100-page assessment. "In the face of accelerated consumption, increasing environmental degradation and the multi-faceted impacts of climate change, we clearly need new ways of manage competing demands on our freshwater resources."
What indigenous knowledge is there for managing water? Typically they would just move to another water source if their main one disappeared. Is there some magic tree and soil combination that creates water? My guess is Gilbert Houngbo is one of those African "leaders" who also believes in many crazy things.
Dismissed as bullshit alarmist crap
May be alarmist, but certainly the cracks in the water infrastructure of large cities are showing...
Melbourne, Australia
Mexico City, Mexico
Cape Town, South Africa
Sao Paulo, Brazil
Jakarta, Indonesia
Certainly, we aren't running out of fresh water as a species. However, the fresh water isn't where the people are, and the infrastructure planning to adjust for fluctuations in historical rainfall patterns is lagging greatly.
The problems are likely technically solvable, but may be so expensive that they will serve displace populations (negative growth in mega cities). I don't think 5B people will die of thirst by 2050, but I can certainly imagine that 5B people wouldn't live where they might have been if it weren't for water issues.
Every single one of those can be traced back to overpopulation. The impact of population growth on per capita recoverable rainfall is far greater than global warming. There's three likely ways forward. Mass migration (globalist preferred option). Asia and Africa needs stop shitting out so many children (least likely). Mass die offs (most likely). Regardless of global warming.
That is the thing Slashdotters don't understand: things don't happen by magic. There isn't some sudden "breakthrough" where you can make desalinated water without a relatively expensive process. No one is going to suddenly create something to save the planet. That only happens in movies.
I am an engineer, but this is not my area of expertise. However, someone should try to honestly answer your questions. The problem that you are getting at is "entropy." It is much easier to burn fuel, emit CO2, and allow it to mix into the atmosphere, than it is to separate it back out and capture it.
Entropy is a thermodynamics term that relates to the amount of "disorder." It is the scrambled egg problem. It is far easier to break the egg and scramble it (add disorder) than to unscramble it and reassemble it (decrease disorder).
Even if one can solve the problem of separating out CO2, "reverse-combust[ing]" it requires energy (and almost certainly more than was put in originally).
There is a similar answer related to desalination (easier to add salt to water than to separate the two). There are people working on making desalination better, but it is still an energy intensive process.
However, you could do your part and support caring about the environment, making it clear to your elected representatives that you do, and voting for the more environmentally friendly candidate.
Don't worry about it. By that time, Nestle will be selling water to your kids. Just get filthy rich and everything will be fine.