A New World Order?

Forums: Philosophy, Philosophy Of Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

The G8 summit struggled to make some progress on a climate change policy for the industrialized world. What they came up with was a policy statement that basically said we don't want the world to burn up and we think it would be nice if we trimmed our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. These aspirational goals are, of course, so much pap but, then again, it wasn't realistic that the G8 would come up with anything tangible, certainly not with the global warming summit in Copenhagen coming up in December.

There is division within the G8, plenty of it. But there's a lot of dissent swiirling around it from the emerging economies too. We say to them, "you too." They say to us, "you first." Both sides have some pretty legitimate arguments but both sides are also straining reality and that could really impede any meaningful, global climate change agreement.

The BRIC countries, the emerging economic giants of Brazil, India, China and (to a considerably lesser extent) Russia are grousing an awful lot at the Western proposals. They're suspicious that what the West is really after is a deal that gives it perpetual economic dominance - over them.

They all frame their dissent somewhat differently. Brazil argues that it doesn't want to be a second class people. They want to move up to the top ranks with the rest of us. India says it's unfair to expect them to rein in the development their country needs while their per capita emissions are a small fraction of the West's. Russia, which sees its wealth in its reserves of oil and gas, is utterly paranoid about talk of shifting away from a carbon economy. China is the most reticent of the bunch but is rumoured to be working on a side deal with the US.

There is no small irony in the fact that three of the BRIC states - India, China and Brazil - stand to be very heavily impacted by global warming. India and China are already facing a Tsunami-size freshwater nightmare. The Himalayan glaciers are in headlong retreat, jeopardizing both countries' agricultural rivers. India is rapidly depleting its groundwater stocks while China is beset by enormous problems from surface water pollution.

It's hard to see how this can unfold. India, China and Brazil are all so vulnerable to climate change. How can they possibly dig their heels in on this issue?

We know they aspire to elevate their peoples' standard of living but, in a world where we've already exceeded the renewal rate of every essential resource, they can only raise their standard of living slightly if we lower ours a great deal. I believe it was UN Secretary General Ban who said some time ago that, to bring India and China up to a North American standard of living, would require another two and a half Earths worth of resources.

What do you think? Do we need to make room at the banquet table for these new upstarts and settle for less ourselves? Do we try to get them into an effective carbon emissions agreement and, if so, on what terms? Do we call their bluff and wait them out?

Something has to give here and it'll likely come sooner rather than later. How do you see this playing out? Do we accept a new world order or is it better to just settle for the old one in ashes?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,028 • Replies: 53

No top replies

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;76116 wrote:

We know they aspire to elevate their peoples' standard of living but, in a world where we've already exceeded the renewal rate of every essential resource, they can only raise their standard of living slightly if we lower ours a great deal. I believe it was UN Secretary General Ban who said some time ago that, to bring India and China up to a North American standard of living, would require another two and a half Earths worth of resources.

I think what is happening and will continue to happen in the foreseeable future, is a re-evaluation of what is considered a quality standard of living. For the last two decades it has been defined as consumption. I think that people cannot afford consumption anymore (at least for the foreseeable future), so everyone will learn to live with less consumption. I see this as economically unavoidable. Maintaining an obese state requires an enormous amount of energy, and I think people are exhausted - and out of money. Now the problem is, what will everyone do, if people stop consuming in such an obese manner. Good question?

Rich

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

The father of the climate change debate, 90-year old Brit, James Lovelock, writes of the need for sustainable retreat. We'll have to learn to live more simply, to accept less. A dear friend has actually gone back to university to study sustainability. She sees a coming need for companies and individuals to get advice on how to exist sustainably, getting smaller while giving up as little quality as necessary, ideally none. I think we often blindly go for high-consumption assets and activities and, in the process, simply overlook low-consumption alternatives that are every bit as effective and enjoyable.

But it's hard to see these simple changes being enough to satisfy the emerging economies. They seem unwilling to grasp that the 1960s are gone, the days of economic alchemy have passed for good.

What do we do? Do we try to find some common ground or, recognizing that time is not on their side, do we wait and let nature run its course? This gets into the do unto others business and I'm sorry but I don't think we're willing to accept that.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;76123 wrote:

The father of the climate change debate, 90-year old Brit, James Lovelock, writes of the need for sustainable retreat. We'll have to learn to live more simply, to accept less. A dear friend has actually gone back to university to study sustainability. She sees a coming need for companies and individuals to get advice on how to exist sustainably, getting smaller while giving up as little quality as necessary, ideally none. I think we often blindly go for high-consumption assets and activities and, in the process, simply overlook low-consumption alternatives that are every bit as effective and enjoyable.

But it's hard to see these simple changes being enough to satisfy the emerging economies. They seem unwilling to grasp that the 1960s are gone, the days of economic alchemy have passed for good.

What do we do? Do we try to find some common ground or, recognizing that time is not on their side, do we wait and let nature run its course? This gets into the do unto others business and I'm sorry but I don't think we're willing to accept that.

Hello Rob, If you will excuse me I am going to get "out there" for a minute and do a little ranting. IMO, no nation can fathom giving up or coming to realize their "economic" potential based on that in which they base their economics on. Everyone wants to be "rich, fat and sassy". That's the way it has always been among those who are in power and those who want to be, especially to those who are under that mesmerizing influence who are "in control".

Yes, there needs to be global cooperation and a new definition of "supply and demand" vs "needs and supply" not predicated on an insane objective economic system. That which allows the distribution and sharing of resources cannot be dependent on anything that can be deemed in "short supply" but abundant and benevolently controlled by a consortium of all who inhabit this planet, not necessarily those who "rule it". It is a time for the meeting of the minds irrevelant of what "costs" are involved. We can do that on a global scale only and the "king of the hill" has got to go. There is no such thing. We desperately need to become a 'mutual admiration society'. There is no other way, IMO.

I have been talking about this from day one. When the people of this Earth do not have to worry about their basic needs, I think all will be surprised at how well the mind will function in reaching those answers that will allow us to unify as we share those resources the Earth has to offer, natural, new, human using abundance rather than rarity to base our values on.

I have tired my best to define "heaven" and "hell" in "realistic" terms. Now I wll bring another 'religious' term into the mix; Purgatory, and I feel, IMO, we are in it as we speak. Purgatory, simply put, is a time for cleansing and purification. Forget about all else, for that is religious conjecture based on those interpretations that got us here in the first place as we conveniently put that condition in the hands of "the unknown" after death. It is as real as the nose on my face. So is heaven and unfortunately so is hell.

How many world wars are we to experience before we finally come to the realization that we must unite and cooperate with each other. It's all there in our past clearly illustrating what "separation" causes whether it be ethnic, religious, economic or intellectual. When you combine all these on the table and critically communicate as to what is best for all, we will solve all our problems. This is a no brainer as far as I am concerned.

We can not longer depend on what we can "afford" to. That has been the catalyst that has been the impetus behind all our misery. All of it as we will once and for all reach the horrifying results that says we can't afford to live on this planet. What utter nonsense.

How to speak in a language that will jerk those in power to come to their senses is beyond me but the expertise is out there that will develop that speech. The days of "what's in it for me" are over. We can not longer look at it from that perspective, and I honeslty think if done right, all can benefit and little will be sacrificed, if any. (opulence will completely disappear from our language) Reeling back in now.

I know this is hard to imagine, but it is not imagination; it is real. I have racked my brain trying to reach a comfortable equillibrium using our current economic structure and it can't be done. There are always winnier and losers as we match wits to determine who comes out on top. What a joke. When we devise a system in which we concentrate on developing winners across the board, then we will inch our way toward that heaven we are here to create. No losers. As long as we put more emphasis on the "I" than the "we", the steeper the "slippery slope" becomes. We have been through several dark ages, let's not go though another one; though I think we are on the brink of "lights out" unless we truly begin to cooperate together. IMMHO. :detective:

William

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Hi William. I have your point. What isn't in "short supply" today? I've come to understand that, when clean, safe freshwater falls into short supply - and that's certainly the case today in much of the world - pretty much everything is in short supply or soon will be.

Sure, some say we're just a decade away from Peak Oil but it's been two decades since we exhausted our renewable freshwater resource. Water is how we feed ourselves and world grain stocks have fallen precipitously. Water is life.

The wealthy nations are now beginning to prey on the people of the poorer nations. Asian and Middle Eastern nations are using their wealth to buy up the best farmland in southwestern Africa even in countries where there already exist food shortages for the indigenous population. This is beginning to spread to southeast Asia.

Britain exhausted it's annual food supply on Easter Sunday this year. That was the day on which it was calculated Britons had consumed as much as their nation can produce in a year. What that means is that they have to get the remaining three-quarters of their annual needs from abroad and in a world facing sharp declines in agricultural production that's going to put British wealth in competition with Third World poverty. Do we not expect some sort of backlash from that?

The ascendancy of the new economic powers, particularly India and China, can't help but hasten the arrival of Peak Oil. But, as oil declines in supply and increases in price, what is the obvious alternative? Of course it's coal.

If we're going to find a way to live in relative harmony with the emerging economies and the Third World we'll need to find solutions to their freshwater problems and our mutual energy problems.

Our governments need to build popular awareness and, through that, consensus. Last month, Britain's environment secretary released a report reviewing the minimum global warming Britons can expect through to 2080. The report was released not to alarm but to inform the public, generate discussion and facilitate planning and preparation for conditions that can be reasonably expected. It allows the public to look, not just to what Britain might be like in 2080 but also what may be coming by 2030 and 2050.

In North America our governments aren't doing that for us. I think that's an act of outright betrayal, a breach of trust. At the moment the denialists have done a pretty good job and studies show that many Americans don't see climate change as a tangible threat warranting government intervention. I think only government has the means at its disposal and the credibility to shift that attitude, to get people thinking and talking. And, when they come to understand and accept the problems they need to prepare for, I think it will be that much easier to acknowledge the even greater difficulties faced by less advantaged nations and their peoples. So long as we don't think we're all in the same boat, the powerful will have less incentive to accommodate the rest of the world.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;76153 wrote:

Britain exhausted it's annual food supply on Easter Sunday this year. That was the day on which it was calculated Britons had consumed as much as their nation can produce in a year.

This sounds like an interesting read. Can you provide a link or something to the source of this information?

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Thanks Rob,

I can't help but believe much of the rhetoric comes from those who are "comfortable" amid the chaos. Who those are can only be distinguish by their incessant protest to malign global cooperation espousing erroneous rationalizations that serve as justifiable maladies of the developing (third world) countries, yet exploit their plight at every level. The United States itself being one of the worse abusers and the powers that control it. It is the inhuman food chain and turns man into predators as we continue to maintain survival of the fittest as we will all end up eking to survive.

Perhaps it is destined to get a hell of a lot worse before we finally "see the light. You and I talked about the problem of salt accumulation due to desalination. That should be a priority in the meeting of the minds as to how to convert it, dispose of it or find a good use for it due to the break down of it elemental configuration and finding good uses for sodium and cloride that will beneift all?

I lived for a brief time in the "High Desert" of California in which there were laws that prevented individuals from watering their lawns and hydro sodding. It was not because there were water shortages, it was because it humidified the air and created rain of which was an anathema to those who lived their. As a matter of a fact, I have even seen 'rock' lawns "painted green" as a substitute. My god, how hysterically obscene. There is nothing "pristine" about a desert landscape. Not in my opinion. We can "create" rain. I do believe we do have that technology. It is the serendipity of resources as we use wisely one resource to insure it continuance. (like perpetual motion). Yet we are hamstrung "financially" to develop such technology.

Every day I was there the common mantra among it's it's inhabitants was "Oh, what a beautiful day", Humph! They had no idea of what a beautiful day was in that they were eat up with "sunshine" and persistantly had to reinforce that illusion. Hell, when I was a kid we looked forward to rainy days and played in the cleansing, refreshing event. Which, I think, is where I coined the phrase, "for what good is a golden fountain if no water flows through it". At least, I think I was the first to use it. Of course I might have unwittingly plagerized it. Ha. I don't know?

I would like to think we are at the very cusp of learning what we can really do once we devote critical thought to it and that will take minds much greater than mine to accomplish. They are out there. I have to believe that.

That's why I arrived at these forums of the young and gifted to share my "ancient" old codger thoughts, knowing what a task it would be to offer a change in the reality we created. They are the architects that will lay the ground work that will build that future I have many times referred to as that heaven we were designed to create.

Are we past the point of no return? I like to think not. Not yet, anyway or I don't think I would be here. Please don't ask me what that means as I am still trying to comes to grips with what that could imply. Perhaps I am a 'universal probe' of sorts here to experience and report through a communication connection far more complex than anyone can possibly imagine, even me. I do sleep well, though and I arise ever day looking forward to what that day has in store for me. I have often dreamed of what this reality would be if all did the same. :a-ok:

William

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

TickTock

This is an excerpt from an article published in The Guardian on 11 April of this year:

The recession may have slowed consumption but the New Economics Foundation (Nef) says we are now drawing deep on the cropland, pasture, forests and fisheries of other countries.

The research also shows that by tomorrow the country will have used the levels of resources it should consume in an entire year if it were to be ecologically self-sufficient.

Andrew Simms, Nef's policy director, said: "We are consuming more and more, and as our ecosystems become more stressed the day in the year on which we effectively go beyond our environmental means, and move into ecological debt, is moving ever earlier in the year. In 1961 it was 9 July, but this year it falls on Easter Sunday."

The UK's ecological debt and reliance on the rest of the world are revealed in our dependence on imports of food and energy, says Nef: "National food self-sufficiency is in long term decline, and we are increasingly dependent on imports at precisely the time when the guarantee of the rest of the world ability to provide for us is weakening."

Here is their web site: nef, the new economics foundation

I hope that helps.

Cheers

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

"And, when they come to understand and accept the problems they need to prepare for, I think it will be that much easier to acknowledge the even greater difficulties faced by less advantaged nations and their peoples. So long as we don't think we're all in the same boat, the powerful will have less incentive to accommodate the rest of the world.".................RDRDRD1

the issue is exactly that, we ARE all in the same boat and if we dont fix it we all go under. it isnt a question of letting the third world catch up or taking care of the interests of developed nations first (whichever world it is we imagine that we live in). we have only one planet.

i personally am very happy to see the alliance of China, India and Brazil because western powers refuse to listen to anyone else, and the only hope for the rest of us is to join together and become a stronger voice. the global environment has been out of balance for too long.

there also needs to be done something about the anti-globalization propaganda that is being spread over here. (unless it is based on truth of course! but i think even if it is, it would only be via intent and does not necessarily have to be fulfilled). people here are complaining the west wants to impose their values and lifestyle on them while they are joining in a ratrace to emulate western society in its worst aspects as a matter of their own choice. both sides are not listening yet. until they do even if a perfect plan is devised, it wont work.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;76183 wrote:

"And, when they come to understand and accept the problems they need to prepare for, I think it will be that much easier to acknowledge the even greater difficulties faced by less advantaged nations and their peoples. So long as we don't think we're all in the same boat, the powerful will have less incentive to accommodate the rest of the world.".................RDRDRD1

the issue is exactly that, we ARE all in the same boat and if we dont fix it we all go under. it isnt a question of letting the third world catch up or taking care of the interests of developed nations first (whichever world it is we imagine that we live in). we have only one planet.

i personally am very happy to see the alliance of China, India and Brazil because western powers refuse to listen to anyone else, and the only hope for the rest of us is to join together and become a stronger voice. the global environment has been out of balance for too long.

there also needs to be done something about the anti-globalization propaganda that is being spread over here. (unless it is based on truth of course! but i think even if it is, it would only be via intent and does not necessarily have to be fulfilled). people here are complaining the west wants to impose their values and lifestyle on them while they are joining in a ratrace to emulate western society in its worst aspects as a matter of their own choice. both sides are not listening yet. until they do even if a perfect plan is devised, it wont work.

Thanks Salima. For that language to have an effect; trust, a much harder goal must be established. Once that trust is established the language will come easy as both participate in anyway they can to keep that boat afloat using the mental, environmental, physical and natural resources that will be adaquately compensated from that inexhaustable economic fund what ever that might be.

William

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

No matter how we view it, Salima, globalization is on its way out. It always did depend on cheap oil allowing affordable shipping of goods and materials from every corner of the world. Much of our society has been built around access to ready quantities of affordable fossil fuels, something that cannot last.

In my province, a progressive online paper started the "100-mile diet" challenge. The idea is to restrict yourself to products grown or raised within 100-miles of your home. Logic suggests that, as more consumers created a market for local foodstuffs, growers would have incentive to offer a greater selection of products, encouraging more local consumers and on and on and on.

When I go to my supermarket the produce shelves routinely have vegetables and fruit trucked all the way up from Mexico or beyond. Surely that can't be sustained in the years to come.

As an aside, many Westerners and especially Americans seem to believe that capitalism and democracy are somehow conjoined. Only now are we seeing the proof that capitalism, in fact, prefers a co-operative totalitarian state to a complicated, regulated and often haphazard democracy. Environmental, labour and social problems can be ironed out much more easily in China than, say, Britain or France.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;76204 wrote:

No matter how we view it, Salima, globalization is on its way out. It always did depend on cheap oil allowing affordable shipping of goods and materials from every corner of the world. Much of our society has been built around access to ready quantities of affordable fossil fuels, something that cannot last.

In my province, a progressive online paper started the "100-mile diet" challenge. The idea is to restrict yourself to products grown or raised within 100-miles of your home. Logic suggests that, as more consumers created a market for local foodstuffs, growers would have incentive to offer a greater selection of products, encouraging more local consumers and on and on and on.

i guess i define globalization a different way. to me it only means a relaxing of boundaries between governments, more of a universal way of looking at things as opposed to a selfish isolationist outlook. co-operation etc...why cant we build a new model built on that instead? (dont ask me how)

as far as food goes, i just buy and eat what is cheapest without compromising the balance in my diet, and eat as little as possible. seems to me to be the most sensible thing to do. (but i am human and there are times i binge on chocolate cream biscuits) i am a non-consumer in the sense that if it isnt going to last as long as i am i dont buy it-which is easy for me because i am not going to last that much longer.

consumerism is a habit more than anything else i think, and if people are raised in an environment where there is no constant fear of shortage maybe they will have more of a ho-hum attitude about collecting baggage.

i have to laugh at some of the commercials-cell phones are really big here, i dont know about america any more-but there is a commercial running on tv (i dont have a tv, but i see it now and then at other folks' homes) that states "It's not just a phone-it's who we are." Laughing

my god, do some people really think they ARE their mobile?

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

Thanks, Rich.

What I think is crucial in your response is the word "affordable"; a term that has insinuated itself in all our thoughts and deductive reasoning. I think there is, as far as food and nutrition goes, a great deal of merit in your "100 mile diet" idea. That does not necessarily mean "all food", just that which has a short shelf life that can be organically grown and farmed. I think we are a long way from establishing the perfect diet; nevertheless I think we will when we investigate what that food is that can be globalized without losing it's nutritional value after we cut it, take it from the tree, harvest it from the ground and so forth. There are those food stuffs that have long shelf life such as rice, wheat, corn, sugar and others that can be shipped across the world. Then again the word "afforablility" crops up. Isolationism and immobilization is not an answer, but a consequence, IMO. Yes, we are becoming immobilized as we seem to have all we need; the television, the bed, the refrigerator and the toilet. What more can a person truly ask for? Hmmm? What is sad, is there are those in the world who can only dream of such amenities. But one thing is for sure, even the poorest have a television set somewhere in their range that's tells them what they need or want, illustrating a programmed rendition of the world instilling a sense of security in that, for those who view it, they are not a part of it. Hence the proliferation of those tragic events the happen to innocent people. Of course in this conclusion, I speak form what is broadcast in America, as I am not familiar of how this instrument is used in other countries. The one thing I left out of those essentials we have been programmed to 'think' we need, is FRESH WATER; the most essential of all our resources and of which we take the most for granted. Without it, nothing is possible.

It is rather comical to me the use of the smiles of optimism when we observe a "commerical" that is choreographed to instill the "spending" of money and the joy it brings; and the solemn forboding nature that it engenders as to the condition of the world alluding to 'stuff' and the purchase of it will 'make you happier and cure that foreboding helplessness it created. Very sneaky, and deceptively brilliant all at the same time.

As I extensively traveled arcross America, I began to realize the "forked tongue" of television as it was not a true depiction of what was truly America. Not even close. yet everywhere I went, people were "glued" to it. What's wrong with this picture? Hmmm? Talk about addiction. Somewhere in my consciousness, the term "get a life" cropped up and I concluded television is that life for many people living vicariously through it's choreographed images of what life is all about. How so utterly sad.

Excuse me for getting off topic, but it's hard to stay on one limb, when it's is so apparent to me how so many erroneous conclusions are interconnected with each other that perpetuate the chaos. Mobilization is the answer once costs are not associated with it, IMO. We must get away from that. How? Now that is a great topic of discussion! But getting people out from under it's hex, is the hard part. It is truly the virus of humankind and we all, to some degree or another are infected with it.

William

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;76239 wrote:

i have to laugh at some of the commercials-cell phones are really big here, i dont know about america any more-but there is a commercial running on tv (i dont have a tv, but i see it now and then at other folks' homes) that states "It's not just a phone-it's who we are."
my god, do some people really think they ARE their mobile?

Pythagorean started a thread in General Discussion called, "Is American Excess Now Realizing its Limits?" which points out some of the follies of commercialization. I, too, scratch my head and wonder when I see a commercial that claims my life will be better if I buy a cell phone, a new television set or a particular brand of cereal. Certainly commercialization walks hand in hand with excessive consumption, but I wonder at the mentality of such advertising. If our lives need to be made better via whatever product that we're suckered into buying, then maybe we ought to take a closer look at the excess-is-better lives that are consuming us, as much as it is consuming the world we live in. Buying what I don't need doesn't make me better, it just makes me fatter.

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

As the largest developing country in the world, actually the attitude of mainland Chinese government towards the problem of Global Warming (it seems that the quality of environment is far more valuable than human rights in CCP's eyes... =,="). In 1994 China launch the "Agenda of 21 century" declaring the policies for sustainable development, including the problem of Global Warming, which is the first official agenda for sustainable development in the World. Having 1.3 billion population and 9.6 million kilometers square area, during the recent years China is affected by Gobal Warming directly. In Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macao, for example, numbers of typhoon attack per year increase. The low percentage of natural vegetation in some mainland area, for example Hua Bei, due to the increase of temperature, drought increase. This year during the Spring, the water in the downstream of the yellow river totally cut off for weeks, leading to the increasing price of wheat suddenly.

Of course, we have to admit that China emit the most greenhouse gas, but we should notice that: who emit them actually? Actually, they are mainly emit by those American, Japanese, French and German factories in China! To achieve the reduction of greenhouse gas emission, firstly the Chinese government need to convice those foreign enterprises. That's why the Chinese official talks a lot but do a little, as the enterprises... you can imagine.

1 Reply

@patriarch,

patriarch;76296 wrote:

Of course, we have to admit that China emit the most greenhouse gas, but we should notice that: who emit them actually? Actually, they are mainly emit by those American, Japanese, French and German factories in China! To achieve the reduction of greenhouse gas emission, firstly the Chinese government need to convice those foreign enterprises. That's why the Chinese official talks a lot but do a little, as the enterprises... you can imagine.

good point-india too is romancing foreign enterprises for short term monetary gain and at their own expense. some people try to resist such as what happened at nandigram and there is so much bloodshed, bad feelings, distrust carried over in the aftermath. while the factories may have to concede they lost a battle, they simply find a new location and rebuild.

unfortunately i think it comes down to opposing groups that each have their own agendas and neither are for the overall common good. extremists have the loudest voices while the silent sane majority does little. i fault myself as well, so if there is something i can do other than voicing my opinion, i wish i knew what it was.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;76308 wrote:

....i fault myself as well, so if there is something i can do other than voicing my opinion, i wish i knew what it was.

That's all we can do for the time being and you, IMO are doing a splendid job. Please continue, as will I. :a-ok:

Thanks,
William

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

Excellent. Now that we have Salima from India and Patriarch from China we might be able to discuss the combined effects of globalization and climate change on these giant emerging economies.

How is the freshwater issue perceived by your governments and your people? I read a UN report several months ago that stated each human needs 20-litres of clean, freshwater per day for cooking, drinking and personal hygiene. Agriculture, of course, requires vast amounts of freshwater and the more intensive the agriculture ("green revolution") the more intensive the irrigation required. Then there's your burgeoning industrial sectors. Most industries consume water rapaciously and many, unless they're strictly regulated, repay their taking by discharging dangerous pollution into the waterways.

Water of course is not only food, it is life itself. Both nations are reliant on meltwaters from the Himalayan glaciers which are said to be in headlong retreat. China seems beset by drought in the north and, from what we read, many of its rivers are now too contaminated for human consumption.

India seems to face a host of freshwater problems. The Himalayan glaciers is one. Over the past month scientists have detected the formation of a new el Nino in in the Pacific that they're now calling El Nino Modoki, the Japanese word meaning "similar but different" because this one is showing warming in the central Pacific as well. Ordinarily El Nino disrupts rainfall to places such as Australia and India.

Last month America's excellent National Public Radio ran a feature on India's "Green Revolution" that pointed out a looming threat to India's food supply. Here is an excerpt:

When India's government launched the Green Revolution more than 40 years ago, it pressured farmers to grow only high-yield wheat, rice and cotton instead of their traditional mix of crops.

The new miracle seeds could produce far bigger yields than farmers had ever seen, but they came with a catch: The thirsty crops needed much more water than natural rainfall could provide, so farmers had to dig wells and irrigate with groundwater.

The system worked well for years, but government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year.

...Another side effect of the groundwater crisis is evident at the edge of the fields - thin straggly rows of wheat and a whitish powder scattered across the soil.

The white substance is salt residue. Drilling deep wells to find fresh water often taps brackish underground pools, and the salty water poisons the crops.

"The salt causes root injuries," Palwinder says. "The root cannot take the nutrients from the soil."

...In the village of Chotia Khurd, farmers agree that the Green Revolution used to work miracles for many of them. But now, it's like financial quicksand.

Studies show that their intensive farming methods, which government policies subsidize, are destroying the soil. The high-yield crops gobble up nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorous, iron and manganese, making the soil anemic.

The farmers say they must use three times as much fertilizer as they used to, to produce the same amount of crops - yet another drain on their finances.

...Some leading officials in the farming industry wonder when this house of cards might collapse.

I question how such heavily populated nations can hope to develop as economic superpowers when their water resources are in such jeopardy. Global warming is not going to help. Yet China is said to be bringing a new, coal-fueled power plant every day. Is this not the mega-state equivalent of a fatal addiction?

The only good aspect of this Himalayan glacier problem is that, so far at least, neither China nor India has attempted to interfere with the other's headwaters. It remains to be seen whether India will be able to resist poaching Himalayan waters that flow into Pakistan.

Do you think your nations face any risk of social upheaval leading to collapse in the next thirty years? Some speculate that India could face a rather abrupt failure in agricultural regions that could render it unable to feed 250-million of its people. How would the state be able to maintain order in the face of that?

It seems to me that globalization is doomed not only by Peak Oil but also by the environmental ramifications it brings to the emerging economies. It's like trying to smash that square peg into that round hole.

---------- Post added 07-10-2009 at 10:42 AM ----------

One other point, Salima, is that, yes, people have indeed come to define themselves by their possessions. A great example comes to mind - the Harley Davidson motorcycle. In Canada and the United States, Harleys are literally everywhere. The company freely asserts that getting one of their motorcycles isn't just getting a bike, it's acquiring a way of life. Harley riders, who might very well be lawyers or accountants of milquetoasts, dress up to look like outlaw bikers, real badasses. Many of them actually adopt that persona as though they bought it when they got the motorcycle.

I owned a Harley for a while but I had to get rid of it because I flatly refused to be defined by the vehicle I was riding. It came to bother me enough that I simply stopped riding altogether. Then I replaced it with a BMW and found that my love of motorcycling had been reborn. And yes, riding or driving anything does wear on my conscience.

1 Reply

@RDRDRD1,

RDRDRD1;76369 wrote:

I owned a Harley for a while but I had to get rid of it because I flatly refused to be defined by the vehicle I was riding. It came to bother me enough that I simply stopped riding altogether. Then I replaced it with a BMW and found that my love of motorcycling had been reborn.

Yes, the BMW riders are a whole different breed.

RDRDRD1;76369 wrote:

And yes, riding or driving anything does wear on my conscience.

Why?

0 Replies

@RDRDRD1,

I don't know if there is a BMW breed. The company builds an eclectic array of machines - dirt bikes, dual sports, sport bikes, two types of touring bikes and an adventure touring machine. Other than the badge on the tank, we're all a bit different.

Why does it wear on my conscience? Because it is fossil-fuel powered. I mainly use it as an all-season alternative to the family car. Big as it is it's still half again more fuel efficient than our small car and three to four times as fuel efficient as the big sport utility vehicle I came oh so close to buying several years ago.

I live in a small, seaside town that's miles from anywhere. Public transit is all but non-existant. So, when I have to shop it usually entails driving about 20-miles. I wait until I have several errands to run and use the bike (rain or shine). The three pannier cases can actually hold a lot of cargo.

I try to be frugal in my lifestyle. I live in what, by North American standards would be considered a small bungalow. It's small but wonderfully comfortable. I try to be careful with my electricity consumption. I've done a few upgrades to the house such as new, high-flow casement windows that allow me to use the evening ocean breezes to keep the place cool even on the hottest days. The house itself is extremely well insulated which saves a lot of energy during the winter.

In denying myself a few things I once enjoyed I'm finding that I really don't miss them that much. I once cherished semi-annual tropical vacations entailing 6 to 15-hour flights. I don't miss them at all any more. I have the Pacific on my doorstep. It may not be hospitable nine months of the year but that still leaves the other three.

1 Reply

A New World Order?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know