Likely Water Futures? What is really likely to happen.

Hello Everyone!

For decades we've all heard many, many things about how water shortages may change our lives. From the annals of "Whole Earth" to science fiction from conversations in some fairly conservative workplaces and student hangouts rumors are rife.

And these common ideas range from things that in fact have strong historical precedents ranging from ancient times to living memory to ideas to extremely improbable scenarios. And some of the extreme improbabilities include things such as Fremen Stillsuits as portrayed in Frank Herbert's Dune, laws forbidding people from bathing or showering more than once a week without a doctor's permission, or an earth completely without trees as was portrayed in "Soylent Green" and "Silent Running".

And having talked to people about water for a long time, I've realized that most people have extremely confused if not scizophrenic ideas about what is realistically likely to result from water shortages. Just like some people will say they expect a nuclear war within ten years with a shrug and complain bitterly (at the age of 19) that social security won't be ready when they are old, or suggest that horses and buggies are a more likely solution to global warming, while driving an SUV, inconsistencies about water are often equally confused.

But while global warming and nuclear weapons are fairly new in the human experience, issues involving water are age old. And we have many annals of history and over a century of engineering to call upon. And here I will list some scenarios that I consider either nearly certain, probable or at least a distinct possibility.

Nearly Certain:

1. Political conflict over water: Conflicts between privatization of water resources versus keeping it largely a public resource. Also there is likely to be some level of conflict between encourage conservation (ei through price) versus considering adequate water a human right.

2. Certain things will become scarcer and thus more expensive: The most obvious item on this list would be meat especially beef and to a lesser extent pork. Constraints on greenhouse gases could drive up the prices of meat even further. Other food items this could extend to could include fish, dairy, eggs, sugar, and beer. Paper, metal, and most textiles are also likely to be affected. Which may mean that people-even middle class people in developed countries-may end up owning fewer clothes and that disposable paper and cotton products might become less prevalent for reasons other than environmental consciousness. It's not impossible that even medical establishments and will end up using a lot more reusable/sterlizable/autoclavable items and a lot fewer disposable ones. (Same with trends may occur in laboratories.)

3. Water issues will become a major deciding factor in what biofuels and renewable energy sources the world can pursue and how much can be produced.-
In this scenario biomass gasification, carbon recycling, low water bioforming (turning waste biomass, sewer sludge, manure, or trash into fuel), and some types of algae fuels are likely to have low water demand or even water benefits, while other options such as corn ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, or even hydrogen are likely to be the "losers" because they have immense water demands.

4. Sewer water is likely to be recycled for municipal uses or at least for recharge into aquifers that are used for drinking.-
That's right the controversial "toilet to tap". It's almost certainly a part of YOUR future if you are not old enough to remember WWII and are not at risk for dying young. But don't worry. Sewage has been getting into human drinking water for millenia. The only difference now, is that it will be required to be very thoroughly cleaned and tested first.

5. Attempts to deal with this problem could include attempts to rework the economic system in such a manner than avoiding recessions/depressions and keeping people employed are no longer dependent on "infinite growth". One of the dangers of these efforts being done in an incomplete way, could be the creation of a long term "welfare class" as has largely been the case in Thatcher/post-Thatcher Britain.

6. Several African countries on the White and Blue Nile (which feed into the main thing) are probably at some time going to demand back the water rights which they lost under British Colonialism, most of which now goes to Egypt and the Middle East-with Israel getting an especially favorable cut.

7. Water's cultural meanings which have declined somewhat to the realm of religious rituals (ei baptism) in the modern world, are very likely to revive and take on modern/post-modern forms. Watershed museums, maritime museums, and tours for local water related infrastructure (damns, treatment plants, hatcheries, groundwater recharge stations) will probably become as basic in terms of public places as local zoos and art museums.

Highly Probable:

1. Governments may have a harder and harder time funding water related projects: There is a strong chance that the science of maintaining water related infrastructure may become more and more high tech, and politicians even the better fiscal times may argue that the technologies are an "alternative" to spending money on the more labor intense projects that involve actually digging up and replacing old pipes. And usually that will work for only so long in the real world. And in fact, the longer the "shovel ready" infrastructure projects" are put off the worse they are likely to get.

2. Citizens around the world may be induced, encouraged, or conscripted to work on water conserving projects: This could include shoring up river banks, planting trees, repairing quarezes in some parts of the world, flood proofing certain by creating artificial ridges and trenches, planting grasses and creating various structures to stop beach erosion and so on. Related projects could include ways to help extract carbon from the atmosphere.
Obviously societies with an existing history of conscription are more likely to choose that as a mechanism. Societies that have a more extensive history of using civil society, tax breaks, or other "carrots" are more likely to use those. In some countries where the military does things such as emergency rescue, fighting forest fires, and such, the military may be called upon to do those things which could have the effect of making it as an institution even more politically powerful than is already the case, and/or of changing it's primary functions. Time will tell.

3. The global number of refugees is likely to increase. In addition to global warming water related shortages and disasters is likely to displaced large number of people on both an international and intranational basis. The political conflicts associated with this could cover a several blogs, books, and papers.

4. Efforts to fight forest fires may be dramatically downsized and perhaps restricted to those which threaten human life.

5. National and International (ei The UN's Millenium Development Goals) to deal with problems such as poverty, could be undermined.

6. Public pools might end up replacing private pools, lawns and golf courses in California and Arizona might have to either be done with extremely drought hardy forms of grass, or become a thing of the past.

7. Heavy political pressures on nations such as Canada and Brazil to "hand over" there large supplies of fresh water to their neighbours. Also within nations there are likely to be issues between the Great Lakes States versus the "thirsty west" in the United States, or differences between the watery south and dry north parts of China-where water is drying up fast and scientists aren't sure why.

Distinct Possibilities-

1. Water for bathing and toilets may end up going through a separate infrastructure from water used for drinking, cooking, and washing dishes-This is likely to be expensive in terms of building infrastructure-if bottled water is not the choice for drinking, cooking, and washing dishes.

2. Rationing-The obvious items for rationing would be domestic water uses, but other possibilities could include energy rationing. Possibly including a system where tap water, hot water, or electricity for uses beyond basic lighting might not be available at all hours of the day. Often energy for water heating was banned for a month or so in the summer in much of Russia during the Soviet era. Or I've been told by some Indians that in some parts of India that watching television was banned at times when electricity was scarce for more basic (usually industrial) needs. It is possible with the smart grid, desired by President Obama, and increasingly technical water metering that similar restrictions would become possible in a modern American and (with similar technology) Western European context. That there could be limits on what times you might be able to take a hot bath, do laundry, or use a clothes dryer.
Other candidates for more "old fashioned" types of rationing could include things such as beef, paper, metal products, fuel (bio or petro), toilet paper, detergents and soaps, or even certain types of clothing.
To any right-wingers who might be reading this blog, I am not referring to a rationing of health care. (Sorry to disappoint.)

3. Public places in much of the developed world might end up looking more worn than most modern Westerners are used to.-Which if you think of it has been the norm throughout human history and certainly in many poorer countries today. However, it might an inevitable result of less water to simply hose down streets and alleyways, and governments more burdened by spending money on water and energy infrastructure. Furthermore, the standards of sanitation that most people in the developed world take for granted could become more precarious.

4. Some parts of the world may experience depopulation and mass emigration. Some at risk places could include areas such as Palestine, part of West China, and regions of East Africa and the Arabian peninsula. And the long term effects of this would be hard to predict in terms of how it would affect global, national, and local politics of various countries, as well as the cultures of both the countries receiving the immigrants and the countries they left behind.

That's all for tonight. In the future I will attempt posts on some of the more unlikely developments that have been raised or discussed regarding global water issues, as well as those that I would consider either impossible or counterproductive. Other possible topics could include some more "out there" but potentially realistic possibilities.

And furthermore, I strongly encourage my readers to write some of the scenarios that they have heard, and I will be happy to provide my take as to whether or not it is a likely scenario. Possibly if it has historical precedents, and whether or not it would likely work. I look forward to hearing some of your ideas and some of the things you have heard, and am eager for more reader participation.

Say Goodnight Readers!

What Just Ain't So

“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.” - Mark Twain
I thought this was an appropriate quote to start this post with. After all, we can think of many examples of this in the world. How people were so sure that communism would create a "domino effect" if it got a foothold in Southeast Asia, that Canada is a perfect example of socialized medicine, that Jesus Christ would support a massive buildup of nuclear arms and cutting down every tree on the planet, and so on.

But both left and right, have very similar misconceptions about American voters. That pundits, editors, political theorists, authors, organizers, and more would paint the same picture where the Democrats were supported by a bunch of affluent New York Times Reading, Volvo Driving, Latte Drinking, Sushi Eating, Body Piercing, flakes on the coast with their so called "60's values". While the Republican party is supported by hardworking, beer drinking, church-going, country music listening Blue collar real Americans with more "traditional values". It has been said time and time again that the Democratic party has lost its status as the workingman's party and is now the party of effete and snobby wine and cheese liberals, flaky Hollywood stars, and liberal academics who are just out of touch with ordinary people. And of course, different theories have brought different ways of assigning blame. Some argue that the Democrats who foolishly alienated the left with their reckless embrace of frivolous causes such as feminism, secularism, starving children in Bosnia, gay rights, and global warming, along with their irresponsible embrace of 60's values, their opposition to the Vietnam War, and their absolute blatant snobbery and abandonment of labor unions.
Others insist that it was the rise of fundamentalism that turned people "against their economic interests. Or blamed racism and the Civil Rights movements. Some insisted that the left simply didn't have a very good communication strategy and that the Republicans had some magic secret on how to win people. Linguist George Lakoff insisted that this magic formula was in the way Republicans used language. Thomas Frank insisted that it was because voters prefer emotional engagement over logic and David Western claimed that most people just didn't like it when politicians claimed to be helping them.

But what if it was all wrong? What if Blue Collar republicans are in the minority outside a few specific demographics such as Mormons, ultra-fundamentalists, and a few occupational groups?

Sounds difficult to believe doesn't? After all, we being hearing it repeatedly for over a decade. But statistician Andrew Gelman reports his finding about the American voter in his famous book "Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State", where among other conclusions he finds that the chances of voting Republican increases with income among nearly all demographic in the US. He also found that most of the Blue State vs. Red State differences existed among the upper 50% as far as income is concerned. That much ballyhooed phenomena such as the "God, guns, and gays" vote and "losing the white working class" were at best regional phenomena and at worst utter myths. Also he found that American patterns of money, church attendance, and regional difference weren't entirely unique when compared to other countries.

Of course, my point here isn't to spend this post reiterating Gelman's book. Because here presents the basic information along with answers to some very thoughtful questions here:

Click to See Gelman's Presentation.

To me what the stark contrast between what most people and many analysts of American voting patterns believe, versus the reality outlines to me is the lack of hypothesis testings in terms of political strategy. To a large extent political strategies are hashed out in theory but the quality of data or examples used is extremely poor in quality, and in fact often meaningless or misleading.

Another thing that I take from this example is how conventional wisdom, often based on a number of statements from well placed people can just take on a life of it's own and how after decades of having been said enough times can ossify into something that "everyone knows" to be "just common sense", with very few opportunities for sweet reason or new information to get any kind of a fair hearing.

Other examples of what people are so sure they know but just ain't so abound. One example is the idea that most members of the supposedly brave self-sacrificing "GI Generation" ardently supported the Vietnam War, while their supposedly spoiled rotten Baby Boomer offspring opposed the war. But the reality wasn't quite like that according to polls taken at the time. Also people tend to assume that the better educated and more affluent were more likely to oppose the war than those with a high school education at most. This also was not the case.

Another things that people "are so sure they know" involve African American opinions regarding issues such as the environment. One common assumption is the idea that most blacks are either unconcerned with the environment or only concerned about from an "environmental justice" angle. However, this also seems to be more often assumed than demonstrated. (I remember when this article was first presented, sitting with a bunch of graduate school friends and being the only person in the group who wasn't either extremely surprised nor had trouble believing the conclusions.)

But wait a minute you might say? Why are you using so many statistics to prove your point while quoting a man who was once known to have said that the three kinds of lies were "lies, damned lies, and statistics"?

And that would be a good question. The truth is that statistics ARE often used a means of deception, and are easy to use in intellectually dishonest ways if the presenters means to do so.

In fact, I would highly recommend a book that was written in the 50's, called "How To Lie With Statistics". Despite it's somewhat dated use of language and reference to The Kinsey Report on Women being discussed as a big current and shocking news item, the ideas and content is absolutely timeless, straightforward and brilliantly presented.

While I have presented several statistical references and expressed the opinion, that Andrew Gelman is an honest and impecable statistician, I'd also encourage you not to take my word for it. Examine the fact yourself. But don't make skepticism a reason to fall back into the assumption that "If everyone believes it there must be some kernel of truth." Question the conventional wisdom.

But above remember that the larger of this post is the paucity of hypothesis testing in dealing with voters. Do we really know from hard data rather than theorizing what the most effective strategies truly are? Do we know what the most effective ways of organizing groups that have low voter turnout rates, but also low sympathy with conservative views.

I would submit that we know very little about that, and so does the right. And we know less still about how to influence opinions on certain issues. Do different types of speeches and pamphlets appeal to different demographics, different personality types, and so on? One the whole the information is largely speculative and unproven. And it's obvious that many of the speculations are based upon ossified forms of conventional wisdom if not out and out stereotyping.

Say Goodnight Readers!

In Defense of Food Science

Hello Everyone!

I've noticed that there has been a lot of scapegoating of modern nutritional science and food science lately. According to many authors such as Michael Pollan the mere idea of trying to create "new fangled" food is unecological, unethical and doomed to bring about bad health. According to Pollan one should buy a "high quality" multi-vitamin, but when it comes to edible foods one should only select items that one's "great grandmother would recognize as food".

Now I don't know what Pollan's background is, and who his great grandmothers were. My great-grandmothers were Irish immigrants. Do I plan to keep eating things that they would never recognize as food? Skippy yes!! I eat loads of things that I'm confident would be completely foreign to a 19th century Irishwoman. For that matter my mother claims to have been in college when she first tried pizza, as was I when I found out that kefir was in fact sold in America-not just Russia where I first encountered it.

Another thing I remember learning first as a college student is that to people in much of Northwest Europe and the American colonies tomatoes (aka "Love Apples") were widely believed to be poisoning and one attempt to assassinate George Washington involved putting one in his soup. In fact, one elderly professor I had in college in the 90's told stories of his mother giving tomatoes to an old lady on his street, after which she asked "Are you trying to poison me?"

But without getting too much into all the horrors of 19th century food from beer as a caloric staple and hard liquor served to small children at breakfast to stories of food hygeine in those days, I'd like to ask with all do respect to our great-grandparents whether there really is any such things as "traditional" food wisdom and whether it is really something that is "threatened" by modern science.

It may be true that some inventions of the modern food industry such as monoculture crops, high fructose corn syrup, spam, or pink Nestle's Quik are genuine monstrosities. But does that mean that all food science and nutritional science is worthless?

For one thing our methods of having food available that are not in season have gone from drying, to canning, to freezing, to now freeze drying. All of which have represented improvements in nutritional quality, taste, and aesthetics. And without these technologies the only alternatives involve either eating only what is in season locally, and/or relying on transported food. Food fortification has come under a lot of attack at by people like Michael Pollan, however many nutritionists are actually arguing for an increase in fortification. For example many argue that level of vitamin D should be increased because of widespread deficiency of vitamin D. While food fortification is not a cure all for nutritional deficiencies, the criticism that it is somehow coming at the expense of more "natural" eating habits or is corporate in nature is by and large misplaced.
Because originally food fortification was designed to be inexpensive and accessible to poor people. It was not meant to "replace" fruits, vegetables, or homemade foods.
For that matter it doesn't necessarily require a multinational corporation to do food fortification. With appropriate supplies even a very small food related plant could do it.

One can actually find books from the 1960's with detailed instructions on how to fortify certain foods at the "commune level". And for that matter it is completely possible for the businesses that sell all the related supplies to operate at a relatively local level. So the idea that the concept of food fortification is a harbinger of corporate rule of the food supply simply isn't supported by some obvious facts. What it really does is give people options.

Nor does Pollan's idea of a "tyranny of nutritionism" stand up to scrutiny. For example he blamed "nutritionism" for the fact that many food with high fructose corn syrup were labeled as containing various nutrients and antioxidents, while the produce section remained unadorned. Can the man not distinguish between science and marketing? Does he not realize that we have nutritional science and food science to thank for the fact that people know-at least intellectually-that fruits and vegetables are important instead of simply seeing them as "poor people's food" as was often the perception in many places as recently as the 19th century? Or that it was cutting edge science that is now showing that HFCS actually is different from table sugar? Apparently he doesn't.

Perhaps one of the reasons for the new foodie movement is that anytime concern for the environment is high (such as during the debate over global warming) concern over the nature of the food supply inevitably follows. On another level, people have seen a lot of recent food scares such as the melamine from China, E.coli, and more is not a fix. And eating mostly foods that greatgrandmothers would recognize, which would include a lot of meat, potatoes, white bread, and coffee or tea filled with sugar for a high percentage of folks in the US, clearly won't solve anything. Nor does the anti-food science crowd understand that once upon a time the things they worship such as sourdough bread, kefir, red wine, dried fish, tofu, liquamen, and more were "newfangled inventions".

Nor will doing away with items such as fortified food, peanut butter, or our ability to can and freeze dry food, be a good idea for a world that may potentially face a good deal of famine, refugee crisises, disaster, water issues, and more.

Of course, there are some very legitimate issues associated with controversial innovations such as GMOs particularly loss of genetic diversity in crops. But the answer is not to get rid of crop science but to ask some very serious questions about where the priorities have been involving the research money. And that's something I'm sure many of the so-called "crunchy cons" would never want to waste time with.

Say Goodnight Readers!

Slavery, National Founders, and Pacts with the Devil

After this week's horrible disaster in Haiti there has been an outpouring of humanitarian aid from around the world. There have also been some incredibly lunkheaded comments made by idiots such as Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.

Most notable in my mind is that Pat Robertson would attribute the disaster to his claim that Founder of Haiti made a pact with the devil to escape French rule. The first question of course, is whether or not Robertson can give even the vaguest information about Haiti's rebellion against the French, let alone its complex relationship with the French Revolution.

Also it raises the question of the whole idea of making a pact with the devil or something evil. For that could apply to many founders of the US Constitution. In a way, the inclusion of slavery into the Constituion was an equally, err, Faustian bargain. Largely it was made because many of the Southern states would refuse to side with the revolutionaries against England, unless their peculiar institution was not touched.

Of course, many people today will try to rationalize slavery with various explanations such as the fact that it existed in most societies until recently, that slaves weren't necessarily worse off materially than a lot of free men and women. Of course, some of these claims were probably true (ei that the average Irish immigrant in the mid 19th century US was much poorer, hungrier, and than the average slave), but they are also immaterial. To rely on material conditions alone to to judge the evils of slavery is to write of any concept of human dignity entirely, not to mention that little thing known as "liberty"-supposedly a core principle of this country.

But more importantly still was the fact that connections to the Middle Passage were in and of themselves something of a deal with the devil. If slavery was a great moral evil, than the horrors of the Transatlantic Slave Trade were a pervasive corrupting influence on almost everything they touched.

The abolitionists of the time understood that, even if modern cynicism tends to portray them as a bunch of old time "bleeding hearts". They knew better than most modern anti-racism activists seem to acknowledge that freedom of speech was almost dead in the South, and that democracy was undermined in the whole country as a result of that "peculiar institution". Whether or not, slavery could have been ended without the Civil War is still a matter of controversy among very qualified historians.

But one thing is certain. Both Haiti and the US are countries that have in their own ways paid especially dearly for the problem of slavery. Haiti through it's extremely violent struggle for independence and the US through a very bloody Civil War.

And in that sense Robertson has made his own deal with the Devil in the sense that he cannot accept that it is possible for a nation to suffer any misfortune whether it was 9/11 or the earthquake in Haiti without somehow deserving it. As a result he has to lie, find blame, and show a complete lack of compassion when something like this happens.

Say Goodnight Readers!