Richard Heinberg - Earth’s limits: Why growth won’t return - water

[phantom power]

Limits to freshwater could restrict economic growth by impacting society in four primary ways: (1) by increasing mortality and general misery as increasing numbers of people find difficulty filling basic and essential human needs related to drinking, bathing, and cooking; (2) by reducing agricultural output from currently irrigated farmland; (3) by compromising mining and manufacturing processes that require water as an input; and (4) by reducing energy production that requires water. As water becomes scarce, attempts to avert any one of these four impacts will likely make matters worse with regard to at least one of the other three.

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-03-04/earth%E2%80%99s-limits-why-growth-won%E2%80%99t-return-water

[Gregorian]

1. I find this statement really bothering-

"As water becomes scarce".

The amount of water is the same. It hasn't changed. Not to change the subject, but why do people always focus on the symptom? We aren't running out of water. Water isn't scarce.

So what is happening? What is the real problem? Why not address that, instead of the symptom?

I think this is crucial to the survival of the specie. Let's be honest and talk about the problem, even if it's so difficult for everyone to do so.

[daninthemoon]

2. the problem is fresh potable water. we are facing a huge shortage

worldwide. remember atlanta a few years ago?

[felix_numinous]

3. The issue, like all resources, is about distribution-

yet In the case of water, we are becoming short of CLEAN water. As long as our groundwater is becoming tainted as it is being used by agribusiness, animal farms and under-regulated corporations, the scarcity of fresh water will make it a commodity.

[Gregorian]

4. I can buy that.

I'm ashamed to say I hadn't even thought about water being unusable. I missed the point here. It still points to the same thing though. We're unable to support this many people. At least with the demands we are putting on the system. It will never be that we can provide lumber for this many. Nor use chemicals to manufacture, without some fantastic new way of reviving the water that is used to flush chemicals away.

It's a mess. All driven by population and use. Use would change if population were smaller. We can't all fish from streams, even if they did have fish like they used to. We can't all eat without petro farming. That is debatable, but we have evidence that it isn't the case that organic farming can sustain us all.

[txlibdem]

5. Want a graphic example? How about burning kitchen faucets

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRZ4LQSonXA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev-GY_uS2fI

[bananas]

6. Organic farming can sustain us all

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

Various studies find that versus conventional agriculture, organic crops yielded 91%, or 95-100%, along with 50% lower expenditure on fertilizer and energy, and 97% less pesticides, or 100% for corn and soybean, consuming less energy and zero pesticides ...

A 2007 study compiling research from 293 different comparisons into a single study to assess the overall efficiency of the two agricultural systems has concluded that

"...organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current human population, and potentially an even larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base."

[CRH]

7. Potable water being sacrificed for energy production, ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html?bl

The results of the study soon to be released and its effects on regulation of the oil and gas industry should be interesting.

Should we sacrifice potable water for our natural gas supply? Economy, mobility, heating, and industry in juxtaposition to potable water resources. No winners here.