Posted on 08/24/2004 6:53:31 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
Governments may have to persuade people to eat less meat because of increasing demands on water supplies, according to agricultural scientists investigating how the world can best feed itself.
They say countries with little water may choose not to grow crops but trade in "virtual water", importing food from countries which have large amounts of water to save their supplies for domestic or high-value uses.
With about 840 million people in the world undernourished, and a further 2 billion expected to be born within 20 years, finding water to grow food will be one of the greatest challenges facing governments.
Currently up to 90% of all managed water is used to grow food.
"There will be enough food for everyone on average in 20 years' time, but unless we change the way that we grow it, there will be a lot more malnourished people," said Dr David Molden, principal scientist with the International Water Management Institute (IWMI), which is part-funded by the British government and is investigating global options for feeding growing populations.
"The bottom line is that groundwater levels are plummeting and our rivers are already overstressed, yet there is a lot of complacency about the future," the IWMI report says.
"Western diets, which depend largely on meat, are already putting great pressures on the environment. Meat-eaters consume the equivalent of about 5,000 litres [1,100 gallons] of water a day compared to the 1,000-2,000 litres used by people on vegetarian diets in developing countries. All that water has to come from somewhere."
The consensus emerging among scientists is that it will be almost impossible to feed future generations the typical diet eaten in western Europe and North America without destroying the environment.
A meat and vegetable diet, which most people move to when economically possible, requires more water than crops such as wheat and maize. On average, it takes 1,790 litres of water to grow 1kg of wheat compared with 9,680 litres of water for 1kg of beef.
In its report, the IWMI says it it unlikely people will change their eating habits because of concerns about water supplies. "And in many sub-Saharan countries, where the pressure on water will increase most rapidly in the next 20 years, people actually need to be eating more, not less," the report says.
Anders Berntell, the director of the International Water Institute, based in Stockholm, said: "The world's future water supply is a problem that's ... greater than we've begun to realise.
"We've got to reduce the amount of water we devote to growing food. The world is simply running out of water."
Research suggests that up to 24% more water will be needed to grow the world's food in 20 years, but many of the fastest-growing countries are unable to devote more water to agriculture without sacrificing ecosystems which may be important for providing water or fish.
The option of increased world trade in virtual water seems logical, the scientists say, but they recognise that it depends on countries having the money to import their food. "The question remains whether the countries that will be hardest hit by water scarcity will be able to afford virtual water," the report says.
The best options for feeding the world, it says, are a combination of hi-tech and traditional water conservation methods. Improved crop varieties, better tillage methods and more precise irrigation could reduce water consumption and improve yields.
Drought-resistant seeds, water harvesting schemes and small-plot technologies such as treadle pumps [simple foot pumps] all have the potential to boost yields by 100%, the report says.
The scientists did not examine the use of GM foods which have been hailed by some companies as the way to avoid big food shortages.
"Even without GM foods, in many parts of the world there is the potential to increase water productivity. Even without them there is hope," one of the report's authors said.
Another option considered is that of farmers using more urban waste water for irrigation. It is estimated that up to 10% of the world's population now eat food produced using waste water from towns and cities.
Cities are predicted to use 150% more water within 20 years, which will be both a problem and an opportunity.
"This means more waste water but also less fresh water available for agriculture. In the future, using waste water may not be a choice but a necessity", the report says.
The authors say western governments need to change their policies: "Agricultural subsidies keep world commodity prices low in poor countries and discourage farmers from investing [in water-saving technologies] because they will not get a return on their investments.
"Land and water rights are also needed so people will invest in long-term improvements."
Thirty years ago, weren't they predicting mass starvation by the turn of the millenium?
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM STEAK washed down with a big glass of water. That's livin'!!!
Spread freedom, spread propserity, attaboy Dubya, 50 million and counting.
If memory serves, nothing new here: in Middle Ages the nobility used to hunt, and to keep poultry yards and dovecotes, while peasants were forbidden to do so. So the nobles ate meat, at least occasionally, while peasants (unless poachers) did not.
Who gives a crap about "developing countries"? I sure don't. Another hamburger please.
When all you've got is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail. Desalinization, insects, soylent green - problem solved.
What? No worries about the gases killing the Ozone by all those bean eaters?
I'm not, and I will drink the water!
Huh? You know when I drink water, I only keep it a little while and then I give it back. it does not disappear from the earth. My understanding is that the number of H2O molecules in existence does not lessen just because I have a drink of water.
Thirty years ago, weren't they predicting mass starvation by the turn of the millenium?
 |
Actually, I think we were all supposed to be drowned by melting polar ice caps while we were starving to death after depleting the world's supply of fossil fuel after we killed our loved ones with second-hand smoke somewhere around 1974. |
How about those water-drinkers? I blame THEM!
This is virtually a water world, an ocean planet. Somehow I suspect natural market forces will find a solution to these challenges without government(s) having to tell us what to eat.
"The world is simply running out of water."
Women and Minorities Hardest Hit.
Except for the water part - You know what W.C. Fields said about water? "Never touch the stuff, fish f**k in it"
Could virtual water be the same as pollution credits? Something noexistent that we get a lot of fools to trade.
Currently up to 90% of all managed water is used to grow food.That's a little low, it's actually around 91 per cent. ;') Trickle irrigation systems (Israel excels at this, although they also have become net importers of water through purchases of fruit from outside the country), and commonsense measures such as covering irrigation canals (like those in California, and in Egypt) to prevent evaporative losses before the water reaches the place where the water will be used is a necessity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.