Look, there are fresh water issues looming no doubt. And it will cause socio-economic shifts. But the chicken little tone there should be put in a little bit of context.
#7 It seems like the middle part of the United States experiences a major drought almost every single year now. Last year, "the drought of 2011" virtually brought Texas agriculture to a standstill. More than 80 percent of the state of Texas experienced "exceptional drought" conditions at some point, and it was estimated that about 30 percent of the wheat fields in Texas were lost. Agricultural losses from the drought were estimated to be $3 billion in the state of Texas alone.
Take the preceding for example. Okay, it's been bad alot in Texas, and by the tone of the article, REAL bad recently. Did you notice? Really, did you have trouble getting something because of availability or cost?
Here's the dirty little secret. The world has the capacity to produce "too much" food. At least economically speaking. Many, if not most, countries find it necessary to institute all manner of laws from subsidies to tarrifs to prop up their domestic food production. If they didn't, they'd be swamped with food from other countries. The US has been taking huge amounts of land out of production because it isn't "needed" economically speaking. Yes, there is "world hunger". But world hunger, sad to say, is an ECONOMIC problem, not an agricultural problem. No one will transport food to people who can't pay for it. And it won't be a "cash crop" in a country filled with people who can't buy it.
Now, that's not to say that there isn't a problem here. For one, regardless of what's going on in the plains states, the price of food has been rising generally. Meat and dairy are prime examples. But a big part of that is increasing demand in countries like China. China can't produce all the corn they need, so they are importing it. Sugar and corn are being used to produce fuel elsewhere. And as expensive as you might think food is here, a big part of the "Arab Spring" was driven by food prices in those countries. In the US the typical family might spend 7 - 10% of their budget on food. In many middle eastern countries, that can be more like 30%. The price of fundamental staples like rice and flour were going up fast over there. And if we lose our ability to produce enough wheat here, we'll be in economic competition for the same materials.
The article touches on some good topics. We are using fresh water faster than we should, for things we shouldn't. But the article did little to discuss that, and what we could do to change, and change quickly. Industrialized food production will have to respond to water challenges, mostly by using less. That means better irrigation, and LESS irrigation. The price of fresh water will rise. We have to stop polluting water that could otherwise be used. That means better agricultural practices, and INDUSTRIAL practices.
African-american slavery caused a huge waste of labor in the production of agricultural products in the southern US. It distorted everything, including the price of land, and the price of crops, not to mention WHAT crops were produced. It was all out of whack with demand, not to mention advances in technology. When slavery ended, it didn't spell the end of the industries in the south, is meant the ALTERATION to more efficient methods, crops, and industries. Water will be similar. There is an abject waste of water in the world. There is rampant pollution, over irrigation, and inappropriate crop choices for locations and ecostructures. The trends mentioned in the article will cause these faults to be addressed. The "soft landing" described in the article will have to be exactly that. Steady changes in our economic and industrial realities to face the coming changes.
But we're not all gonna starve. We may even end up eating "better". Prolly gonna pay for it though.
= new reply since forum marked as read
