It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Major River Basins Have Enough Water to Sustainably Double Food Production in the Coming Decades

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Major River Basins Have Enough Water to Sustainably Double Food Production in the Coming Decades


www.sciencedaily.com

While water-related conflicts and shortages abound throughout the rapidly changing societies of Africa, Asia and Latin America, there is clearly sufficient water to sustain food, energy, industrial and environmental needs during the 21st century, according to two special issues of the peer-reviewed journal, Water International (Volume 35, Issue 5 and Volume 36, Issue 1), released September 26 at the XIV World Water Congress.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:10 PM
link   
With all due respect to the plethora of doomsayers in the global community, herein lies another thorn in your side....

It seems I had been repeatedly encountering articles and statements from the environmentally overzealous that wished to intimate we were headed for a conflict of global proportions over water....

Yeah..., um... no.


The report from the Challenge Program on Water and Food (CPWF) of the CGIAR finds that the "sleeping giant" of water challenges is not scarcity, but the inefficient use and inequitable distribution of the massive amounts of water that flow through the breadbaskets of key river basins such as the Nile, Ganges, Andes, Yellow, Niger and Volta.

"Water scarcity is not affecting our ability to grow enough food today," said Alain Vidal, director of the CPWF. "Yes, there is scarcity in certain areas, but our findings show that the problem overall is a failure to make efficient and fair use of the water available in these river basins. This is ultimately a political challenge, not a resource concern."


The key words here, as I have repeatedly argues, are "inefficient," "inequitable," and "unfair." The crisis of the "political" globalists is that the unsustainable nature of things they keep trying to ram down our throats has more to do with the overriding assumption that "they" get to remain doing things as "they do" (which is to say where "they" and their associates remain the primary profiteers.)


The findings also present a picture of the increasingly political role of water management in addressing these competing needs, especially in dealing with the most pressing problem facing humanity today: doubling food production in the developing world to feed a surging population, which, globally, is expected to expand from seven to 9.5 billion people by 2050.


So... even the study points towards a key element of the problem springing from the "political" managers of the issue, rather than our need for water.

I suspect that a sober analysis of many other such issues like "carbon emissions" might point to the same culprits, assuming the captains of industry would allow that to be appropriately recognized.... they want to 'buy' the right to emit whatever... and have you and I pay for it.



www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I think the problem is that whilst there is enough water, it's not necessarily in the right places nor is it always well managed.

Same with food or indeed any other resource. Us rich have more than we could ever need whist others are dying even as I write this because they have none. Although in India/Pakistan and SE Asia they are, unfortunately, dying because they have too much water,

What we need is a world government, a new world order, if you will, to handle global distribution better and more fairly



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
I think the problem is that whilst there is enough water, it's not necessarily in the right places nor is it always well managed.

Same with food or indeed any other resource. Us rich have more than we could ever need whist others are dying even as I write this because they have none. Although in India/Pakistan and SE Asia they are, unfortunately, dying because they have too much water,

What we need is a world government, a new world order, if you will, to handle global distribution better and more fairly


It is not the water that is in the wrong place... it is the people. Every environment has a 'load-bearing' capacity that humans have arrogantly sought to adjust artificially; and are panic-stricken when they discover there are consequences for that manipulation.

The advent of chemical living and the paradigm of chemical nutrition from industry has brought us to the point of imbalance. Of course, since these mega-transnational-corporations have all bought, stolen, or cajoled their way into the governance structure, the 'managers' serve them, not the people.

We do not, in my opinion, require global governance. We require a more educated and well-informed civilization that can recognize abuse and exploitation when they see it... problem is, there's little profit in that.
edit on 26-9-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 



Seriously? How would a new world order fix anything when each country can't even handle their own affairs?

Water is not the problem, people are the problem with their greed, selfishness, and control. Don't you think that it's time people took a stand and did what they NEED to do rather than what they are TOLD to do?

GRRRRRR I have so much to say about all of this.... will add a little at a time LOL



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes, you're right. Too many people living in the wrong places. So do we move Karachi to Canada?

reply to post by freespirit1
 


So how will you get the people of Canada where there is loads of good farmland to accept that everyone from Karachi should move there?




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes, you're right. Too many people living in the wrong places. So do we move Karachi to Canada?

reply to post by freespirit1
 


So how will you get the people of Canada where there is loads of good farmland to accept that everyone from Karachi should move there?






Ummmmm I'm not sure what you are talking about???????? I never said anything about moving anyone anywhere.......



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Obviously, they are looking at data that ignores the current draught situation in my part of Texas and future possibilities that such will continue if not get worse. The five "highland lakes" are dwindling away to keep the river through Austin flowing on to the rice farmers down by Houston and other users with adequate supplies. That water is controlled by the LCRA which is the Lower Colorado River Authority (not to be confused with the other Colorade River through the Grand Canyon). The mandate of that authority is to supply water for commercial use, recreation use was a secondary feature. This summer again, pleasure boating is greatly reduced, dangerous on banned entirely on the lakes. Not being a boater, I can live with that. But if the lakes get drawn down too far, water quality will suffer for those cities and towns that draw their drinking water from the river. Certainly, if worse comes to worse, the commercial interests will have to give way to the cities requirements. And that is just the current situation here now. What about in the future if it gets worse?

Given that the Amazon river carries a large percentage of the world's fresh water to the sea, what are we to assume about the commercialization (farms) along it that will be needed along it where its forests now cover? I guess that could supply the increased supply required for food production, but maybe this type of thinking is assbackwards?

I have not read that report, but I distrust it from my personal angle.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Yes, you're right. Too many people living in the wrong places. So do we move Karachi to Canada?


Fair enough.. if that is the perspective we are to take, then tell me... when a city grows to a size larger than the locality can support, who suffers the loss of resources to accommodate their desire to live in a city?

Equity is the key here. The problem is simple. Industry, commerce, mercantilism, and the all-pervasive gambling investment and speculators are making decisions "for us" by being appointed to and being part of the governance structure. Of course their best solution is "everybody do what I say" (global governance) which completely quashes any hope of unchallenged local sovereignty.

I don't subscribe to the idea that you tell the starving it's their own fault for living in a place with little water or food. But I do subscribe tot he idea that just because there are millions to be made in industrial and capital ventures people should starve and thirst as if they were an "externality" and thus "not the problem" of the exploiters - who necessarily exacerbate, if not cause the problem more than any other single human factor.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
..... The five "highland lakes" are dwindling away to keep the river through Austin flowing on to the rice farmers down by Houston and other users with adequate supplies. That water is controlled by the LCRA which is the Lower Colorado River Authority (not to be confused with the other Colorade River through the Grand Canyon). The mandate of that authority is to supply water for commercial use, recreation use was a secondary feature. ....


But the problem is that the lakes are being drained for other places, right? Those lakes are being exploited for other purposes than "being lakes"...

I am sorry for your areas difficulties, it is a bad thing to want for water. But it is people who are calling the shots... and I assure you that these "authorities" are state level "quasi-governmental" agencies filled with political appointees who make themselves accessible to Big Aggro, and elected officials over the local communities. Their benevolence is MUCH more suspect than the scientists who are trying to tell the community we have to stop thinking politically, and start thinking scientifically. You can't fractionalize the issue of water management; it is not a negotiable need that can or should be subject to political expedience or profit motives.

Do read the report. Then you can decide to not trust it.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


It is only going to get worse, in my opinion. Too many chiefs, no Indians left. While I live in a prime farmland area, it makes me sad to see the river water being manipulated, polluted, and misused. (Everything is on irrigation here from the Columbia River) The control of who gets what water makes me absolutely disgusted.

You can't even dig your own wells here anymore- they have made it too costly to even consider, even though there is a ton of groundwater. Too many regulations, permits, inspections, usage fees etc....



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Major River Basins are where cities, municipalities dump their sewage. Sewage containing medicine your body passed and didn't absorb.

You can't use that for irrigation. Many heavy metals/toxins from industrial run off.

Plus some Environmental Group would get a court order to keep you from using it for irrigation because of some snail, crab, fish, or bird would have it's habitat destroyed.

America's River Basins WERE the most polluted in the WORLD. Now China's ahead of us, we're only #2 now.

Plus you have nuclear reactors relying on River Basins to be at a set level. Need cooling water. Lowering the River for irrigation threatens the Nuclear Reactors water supply.

The MidWest has had the worst drought ever recorded. Forcing them to pump water from the water table every year. Every year they lower the water table +3 feet. That water will never come back.


The Hydraulic Fracking in New England to get Natural Gas is destroying the water tables there. And the RIVERS are bubbling from fractures in the Earth sending natural gas up into the river.

Eventually the Rivers/Lakes/Ponds in New England may.....disappear. The Hydraulic Fracking for natural gas may fracture the earth and those water resources will...go deep into the Earth and disappear.


I'll dance a jig when New York City doesn't have a water supply anymore. They did it to themselves.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Mark my words, either that water will be used to flood us out or it will just disappear. Mark my words.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartisblack
Mark my words, either that water will be used to flood us out or it will just disappear. Mark my words.


I am sure you are right..... it will probably disappear for awhile then come back BAM to flood. It is because they want total control, and what better way to get it???



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 



Here it is a HUGE basin, and they do use it for irrigation. We are also down river from a nuclear plant. They "say" that there is very low risk here, but WOW do I see a lot of cases of thyroidism and cancer.


And I do believe they dump sewage in the river after it has been "treated." It is a very Gross place to go, I won't even eat fish out of it anymore.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Is there a link to the actual study available? I'd like to know what they are talking about, specifically. The OP article is quite vague (NOT a fan of 'science daily')

Well, if what they are saying is that they need to build massive irrigation canals to distribute water to regions that have depleted their reservoirs, or are experiencing extended, extreme droughts, then they are basically fudging the numbers.

LOTS of water in place and NONE in another still averages out, on paper. But for the people in a flood and the other in a drought, it doesnt quite make the same balance.

But, yeah, sure, believe everything is just fine, nothing to see here,




While Africa has the biggest potential to increase food production, researchers identified large areas of arable land in Asia and Latin America where production is at least 10 percent below its potential. For example, in the Indus and Ganges, researchers found 23 percent of rice systems are producing about half of what they could sustainably yield.


So what are the methods they are recommending to increase yields? GMO's More fertilizers? The article doesnt say.
edit on 26-9-2011 by ARealandTrueAmerican because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by freespirit1


You can't even dig your own wells here anymore- they have made it too costly to even consider, even though there is a ton of groundwater. Too many regulations, permits, inspections, usage fees etc....



I think limiting people digging wells can be a very reasonable approach. Wells do not always replenish immediately, some take decades to replenish. Wells are not just the water under your land, they are often massive aquifers that cover vast regions. So, your drawing water that is under lots of different property.

N. America has had the benefit of unrestricted resource use for centuries, and look at what we have done in that short time.

Replensihing it necessary.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by freespirit1
 


You move the people to the water or the water to the people. Most people live in regions where there is insufficient water. What do you suggest we do?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by ARealandTrueAmerican
NOT a fan of 'science daily'


It's the most reliable science news source on the internet - unless you can offer a better option? I know some people don't like it for obvious reasons - it's dull and mundane and relies on facts and silly stuff like that. Perhaps your prefer Sorcha Fal?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by freespirit1
 


You move the people to the water or the water to the people. Most people live in regions where there is insufficient water. What do you suggest we do?


What would you do to survive?

I make no suggestions about what people should or shouldn't do, that's why we have free will. I do NOT think that the government should tell us where to go or what to do though.

It's up to you to survive on your own, not depend on someone else to tell you what to do.




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join