UN: 70 Percent of World Could Be in Drought by 2025

Source: AFP

UN: 70 percent of world could be in drought by 2025

By Agence France-Presse
Saturday, October 3rd, 2009 -- 5:37 pm
Share on Facebook Stumble This!

BUENOS AIRES — Drought could parch close to 70 percent of the planet's soil by 2025 unless countries implement policies to slow desertification, a senior United Nations official has warned.

"If we cannot find a solution to this problem... in 2025, close to 70 percent could be affected," Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, said Friday.

Drought currently affects at least 41 percent of the planet and environmental degradation has caused it to spike by 15 to 25 percent since 1990, according to a global climate report.

"There will not be global security without food security" in dry regions, Gnacadja said at the start of the ninth UN conference on the convention in the Argentine capital.

Read more: http://rawstory.com/2009/10/un-70-percent-of-world-could-be-in-drought-by-2025

I think eventually we will be the state people will want to be in.

with 36"+ precip/year, one of the country's, or world's, better pure water aquifers underneath, and a long coastline, I guess I'll risk freezing to death and stay put. Although I'm not looking forward to the coming water wars. Frankly, they've already been underway here for a while, with Nestle suing village after village claiming the legal right to pump out our water to sell and profit from. After all, every time they open a new Poland Springs plant, they reward us with a few minimum wage jobs. :grr:

it'll be nice to be in the catbird seat for once.

and michigan especially is just surrounded by the fresh stuff.

too snobbish.

Try this one, and click the message board link:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=PHO

while I was at the Yahoo link, I found this:

Forget Peak Oil, the Real Crisis is Peak Water:

Freshwater shortages in the wrong places could have calamitous consequences to those regions, worldwide commodity prices, the economic future of nations with water shortages, and possible war. Regional water scarcity means water usage exceeds the annual natural replenishment from the water cycle. The impact of water scarcity can be far reaching. It can lead to food shortages, famine, and starvation. Many nations, regions and states have mismanaged their water resources, and they'll have to suffer the long-term consequences.


http://www.minyanville.com/articles/peak-water-quinn-minyanville/index/a/24276/from/yahoo

It's sitting on the largest freshwater aquifer in South America.

I'd direct them to the little farm my sis has started with her husband, but it's across the continent from us. I've been mulling it over for the past several years -- meanwhile, my son followed his job to Las Vegas.

Hekate

Aside from having watched Circque du Soleil's "O" there once, the only thing Las Vegas has for me is my son. He's been there 4 years now-- doing well at his job, found a girlfriend, etc. I don't want him to *live* on a farm, I just want him to be able to get there if he needs to.

Hekate

It can be done, but not by corporations or big, top-down government projects. It requires government helping people to help plants grow where they live, plants that are adapted to the area. For a good video presentation of such a project, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4SYM8JsDg4

and becomes impossible as population increases. Water problems have been growing under the radar for many years, and (though it sounds Malthusian) its hard not to see the SHTF in the medium term.

I wish there were some respect for China's One Child policy, instead of pressure to repeal it. I wish the whole sane world would adopt a one child policy, and lead us into a world without so much certainty of hunger, thirst, poverty, misery, crime, destitution, despair, slavery...

can't handle the truth when it comes to the issue of population. They'll say "It's a distribution problem, not a population issue" "humans can have no real impact on the earth" (seriously; I read that here)."So you want to kill all the people to save the dolphins, right?" "Reproduction is a human right! How DARE you say that my four children face an uncertain future-or no future at all!" etc. etc. etc. It's the elephant in the room that most refuse to see.

A flame suit isn't necessary when every counter argument is crap. I read a pile of articles this week about one species after another headed for extinction, and spent some time talking to the kids about it - they know they are growing up in the midst of a mass extinction event, which will show up as serious in the fossil record as the asteroid that wiped out much of life on earth at the end of the Mezozoic. Only this time its just us.

Flame away...

:shrug:

If you left it up to God and didn't intervene with modern medicine, most of us would have died long ago. So much for religious prohibitions on birth control. It's idiocy not to use birth control.

:)

The rest of us are also welcome to enact measures designed to discourage people from having a ridiculously unnecessary number of children, like, say, taxes.

The elephant in the room is antibiotics. Lets not forget that less than a century ago, mortality during child-birth was about 50%. Maybe that is the way it should be.

Learn it and learn it well. Start disabusing people of the bizarre and silly notion that it means they are going to be put to death to make room for others.

There are too many people on the planet. Zero population growth is the only way.

but most people don't take the simplest step to reducing population. :)

By not making excuses for people who have a ridiculously unsustainable number of children.

They are doing just fine. I do think that an elimination of any child tax credit should be enacted though.

We'd need to start colonizing other planets in order to avoid droughts, famines, and the inevitable wars, and we don't possess anything near that level of technology yet.

I wonder how soon though.

One encouraging thing I read (and can't find the link to right now) was by a British scientist, who calculated that simply by going to a One Child policy and limiting immigration, the island could return to a pre-industrial population within a century and a half.

That is - simple and benign policies can effectively address the problem, without having to invoke war, famine, pestilence, deathcamps, etc. Its not that kind of problem - yet.

how you plan to enforce such a policy or avoid its side effects.

enforcement is local and often lax. Largely, it is limited to financial penalties, and relies more on societal pressure based upon a realistic view of the impact of population growth on the nation,but it has been effective.

Or that was true until recently. And not that a thousand gross exceptions and violations of civil liberties were not also involved - or that the policies were not used for bad purposes...but you should get the idea. An effective policy limited to education and fiscal penalty can be effective. That sort of thing (on the education and societal pressure side) is inherently local and flexible to local conditions.

That is the most humane way to deal with poverty and hunger.

Just ban antibiotics.

Practicing birth control doesn't involve a human being having to die to keep population under control.

Can't say the same for lack of antibiotics. Were you serious, or tongue in cheek?

Birth control is a choice so you'd still have plenty of people choosing not to take it. It is doubtful that it would make much of a dent in the population. Banning anti-biotics on the other hand would be much more effective.

combat overpopulation.

Now they want to ban antibiotics.

The mind . . . it boggles.

Unless you want to MANDATE birth control then it will be ineffective.

18 kids is a bit much, it's completely unsustainable for everyone to do so, and IMO people who have such a staggering amount of children in this country deserve to pay more in taxes.

"Unless you want to MANDATE birth control then it will be ineffective."

That's why I prefer a tax - it discourages people from producing more children than the Earth can handle, yet they are welcome to have 18 kids and pay the tax if they want.

The rich will ALWAYS find a way around the Tax system, Bush only made it easier.

..which would help to eliminate that problem.

Like, for example, removing the tax-exempt status from churches. Taxing offshore accounts of US citizens and companies that operate in the US. And so on.

That was one of the things I liked a lot about John Kerry's platform in 2004. I just hope Obama gets around to it.

Because people who don't want to think will always be perfectly happy to let some demagogue preacher with an agenda do their thinking for them.

Shall we explore that option as well?

Eliminating antibiotics would be just letting nature take its course.

women who are allowed an education will on average have fewer children. There is some convincing argument that simply by educating women, or the girls of the next generation, a society changes in a way that makes it overall more intelligent, rational, and egalitarian. And then its growth moderates to a more sane and sustainable level.

was a product of the one child policy in China. she was about 23 years old. she agreed with the policy. anyway. I agree, Mother Earth has a huge population problem.

..'cause they're doing their part to keep the human population down." --(Having a mind-blank: can't remember if that was from Bill Hicks or Doug Stanhope)

Just as we need to curb global warming. It is a simple fact. How you go about doing it is the key question. but it must happen for the survival of the planet.

But I have a feeling the Earth will control its own population without our interference.

I'd rather use that ounce of prevention than see entire populations wiped out.

Sadly, the people who use the most birth control tend to be a lot smarter than, say, the Duggars with their 18 kids, or "Jon & Kate Plus 8".

They are the ones making millions of dollars.

And just because you can do something does not mean that you should.

I've always said he's more the bumbling fool than evil genius, but there are two camps on that.

Pay a visit to Scottsdale, Arizona, and you'll see plenty of rich people with no intelligence whatsoever.

"I've always said he's more the bumbling fool than evil genius,"

In that case, you just proved my point.

if you rule out lottery winners and family inheritance. Whether its street smarts or whatever. I'm amazed at some of my friends who have become wealthy through their own small businesses.

Something tells me Britney Spears doesn't manage her finances every year.

You'd be surprised at the number of people who become wealthy through either luck or dubious behavior.

I stand by what I said - being rich requires no intelligence whatsoever.

Of course there's no end to counter-examples, but wealth in general belongs to the wealthy, who tend to intermarry and pass it down. So intelligence isn't such a factor.

for adopting a child. Both help the world immensely.

would we start taxing people who had too little children? :shrug:

And I was referring mainly to the Duggars and their ilk, who have 18 children - which we can all agree is completely unnecessary, not to mention unsustainable.

Anything more than 5 kids these days is damn near impossible to justify. We don't have the same infant mortality rate we used to have.

Given how many people out there are either ignorant or apathetic about birth control, I don't think we'll have the problem of the birth rate falling "too low" anytime in our lifetimes.

But please, let me know when the world population is in danger of falling from too few people having kids. :eyes:

if you make the "right" choices? If you can support 18 kids, then I say go for it. Its your body.

Also, you are talking about tax penalties and not tax credits.

"So its only pro-choice..
if you make the "right" choices?"

This makes no sense whatsoever.

"If you can support 18 kids, then I say go for it. Its your body."

Do you ever ask yourself "How would it be if everyone did that?" Maybe you should.

The point is not whether the Duggars can support their 18 kids.

The point is that the Earth simply cannot support a lifestyle where everyone lives like that.

We have limited resources on this planet, or didn't you know that?

If everyone who could support 18 kids had 18 kids, there would be worldwide droughts and starvation already.

But I guess if you prefer short-term gain and long-term pain, that's your decision.

"Also, you are talking about tax penalties and not tax credits."

Actually I was talking about both.

I have no problem with taxing people who have that many children, particularly since the alternative involves fighting over a dwindling amount of resources down the road.

have then you are eliminating their choice. Its not really a hard concept. I am actually all for having parents apply for licenses to determine whether they can actually care for children.

As I've said, people are welcome to have 5, 10, 15, 25, or even 50 kids if they can do it.

I just think that given our impending overpopulation problems, people who make this choice should also have to pay more in taxes, since they are invariably using an exponentially greater amount of the Earth's already dwindling resources.

You still haven't answered my question.

How would it be if everyone who could have 18 kids did have 18 kids?

I think if you can support 18 kids, then I really can't tell you or make you not have them. I have no problem with your tax idea though. The problem is that the problem really doesn't lie in the industrialized world so I don't know how you'd tax other countries, maybe tariffs or economic sanctions?

"I have no problem with your tax idea though."

Thank you for finally saying that.

"The problem is that the problem really doesn't lie in the industrialized world so I don't know how you'd tax other countries, maybe tariffs or economic sanctions?"

True. Although I think as other countries face this problem, their leaders will be more amenable to such taxation policies.

Tariffs and economic sanctions would probably have some effect, but definitely wouldn't be popular.

It's not a bad one, to say the least.

Just don't tell the Duggars. They want more reality show specials on that cable network erroneously named "TLC".

as long as you accept that the choice may be made for you.

By all means, have 18 kids if that's what floats your boat.

I just think you should have to pay more in taxes for the choice you made 18 times over, a choice which is detrimental and destructive to everyone else on this planet we all share.

What are you, hardcore Catholic? Do you think condoms are evil or something? :eyes:

then aren't you supplying more into the system? I would be more for just eliminating the current tax benefits for having children.

These 18 future adults could stay unemployed, move out of the country, work in a tax-exempt church (which is actually very likely in the Duggar family), earn money under the table, cheat on tax forms or do any number of things that will get them out of paying taxes.

"I would be more for just eliminating the current tax benefits for having children."

Finally, something we can agree on.

I think I'd take odds on that though. :)

As another DUer mentioned above, the rich almost always find a way to get out of paying their fair share of taxes.

That applies to the USA and most of Europe. Without immigration they might even be losing population. It's the third world where the overpopulation problem is.

how exactly do you enforce it? Also, how do you avoid its nasty side effects?

that there will be enough radical governmental policy shifts in enough places around the globe to address overpopulation before extrinsic factors like disease, food shortages or ecological failures of one sort or another come into play. The Prisoner's Dilemma game theory applies, and the fear of being stuck with the sucker's payoff may prevent most nations from taking unilateral action on the issue.

As far as I can tell, there are not enough global resources or remaining ecological free balance to enrich the globe sufficiently for a universal benign demographic transition to occur.

If we are already in overshoot then simply stabilizing human population and activity at their present levels will not prevent eventual problems.

I really don't think governments will be able to grasp this nettle. The political price is too high and our civilization is not structured to encourage reversals of growth. So if we want to get out of the way of the Four Horsemen, it's up to us as individuals.

The only thing I can see that might mitigate the actions of Mother Nature (in the guise of the Four Horsemen) would be a global shift in individual awareness that allows people to recognize the problem and make personal decisions to address it. Such decisions might, for example, include the widespread embracing of voluntary childlessness and voluntary radical reduction of consumption. It's a long shot because it would require what amounts to a global transformation of individual consciousness, values and worldview. The only reason I give it credence is that there is published evidence that says this shift is already underway, for example in Paul Hawken's book "Blessed Unrest".

I've already taken the necessary personal steps, being child-free and vasectomized, as well as haven radically reduced my consumption.

Each of us who takes a step in that direction, no matter how small, becomes part of the solution instead of part of the problem.

:grr:

thursdays after 4Pm and before 10Am, which makes a LOT of sense!

We're gonna need them.. and the water features on them.. for gardens. In the near future.

It's amazing, ain't it? A game, and it takes up 30% of the water use in the little desert town where we winter. Any attempt to lessen that brings aggressive response from the monied class. Agriculture takes up 60%, and people are actually talking about cutting that severely. Nothing about cutting golf.

I don't hate golf or golfers. It's just that the water is just not there.

But people here should realize that you can't turn a desert into something it's not.

In New England, where I'm from, the golf courses don't require any extra water, because Mother Nature gives them enough.

It's amazing, ain't it? A game, and it takes up 30% of the water use in the little desert town where we winter. Any attempt to lessen that brings aggressive response from the monied class. Agriculture takes up 60%, and people are actually talking about cutting that severely. Nothing about cutting golf.

I agree completely, but I can see the other side of the argument, in a horribly twisted sort of way.

The rich golfers here in Phoenix are mostly older people, and they probably figure they're going to die soon anyway, so why should they care about drought problems 15 years from now?

I know that's the mentality behind the low property taxes here - "My kids are out of school, why should I pay for some other kid's education?" - which in turn, guts the schools and makes for a depressingly stupid population.

I wish I had that kind of cash . Kind of like the snowbirds that used to feee NY for Florida for the entire winter when I live there.

We're retired... limited income. A lot of folks buy trailers or smallish motorhomes and just park out in the desert, too. Free, or nearly so.

You ought to see Quartzite AZ... thousands of them, as far as the eye can see.

We figure we use less resources driving down and living where it's warm, than staying in the cold using more fuel.

If the freakin' birds head south for the winter, why not the retirees?