Invitation to a Conversation

An article in Science News from September describes how increased use of irrigation in northern India is depleting aquifers over a huge area -- home to one in every ten people on the planet. (And think about why it's so important for China to control the Tibetan Plateau, the source for this water and most of SE Asia's, one in every six people on the planet.)


Use of irrigation in this area was ramped up starting in the '60s, as part of the "green revolution." The goals of the revolution were admirable: produce more food to keep people from starving. But sometimes the actions we take, with the best of intentions, yield unintended consequences, if you'll pardon what has become a cliche.


In every action, some of the consequences can't be foreseen; that's part of life. The damnable part is when the negative consequences are visible, and nothing is done.


And, of course, it's not just northern India. Stories in the past few days have drawn attention to Yemen, Kenya, and China. A quick Google brought up a continuously updated map of current drought conditions in the US, which shows that every West Coast watershed is in drought conditions, It is interesting that the huge dead zone off the coast of Oregon and Washington is not thought to be the result of the reduced fesh-water inflow (partly because lower flow means fewer contaminants washed to sea). The primary cause is large-scale changes in wind patterns. Which is due to climate change. Which is due to ....


Of all the many chains of consequence that we have to deal with, those involving water may be the most important. If you want to track the ecological threat to human culture you can probably concentrate on water troubles. And soon you realize that is about the ways we use water for things (many of them necessary) other than drinking.


A study on the Human Appropriation of the World's Fresh Water Supply hits some of the high points:

• The planet is largely water -- but only seven one-thousandths is available for human use
• As the population has grown for tens of thousands of years people have used more water, and contaminated more water, but the water supply remains the same
• About 65% of water humans use is for agricultural irrigation and is returned to the system mostly contaminated

And, the point that really got me interested, the thing that made me want to write this, a point backed up with daunting numbers and graphs:

• The evidence is that over the last 40 years we have found more efficient ways to use water -- the increase has been much less than increases in population.

Efficiency is higher in some regions than others, which means there are still opportunities to reduce consumption. "We" are learning something.


No matter what the skeptics believe, humans do have an effect on their surroundings. It's not a sin; it's a fact. The sin comes when we don't accept responsibility for our actions and choose to ignore our legacy. And we are learning that we can learn. 


We may not be perfect-able, but we are absolutely improve-able.


If we're going to start somewhere, we might as well start close to home -- 

• What is the water picture in my area in terms of sources, storage, distribution and usage tracking (and every part of the US has dealt with drought and water-supply issues these past 10 years)?
• And what is being done to deal with current threats, like a three- or four-year drought (let alone long-term climate change issues)?

I think of this in terms of starting a conversation with the people around us, a conversation could change the larger meme that sets the environment in opposition to near-term prosperity. "Choose the environment and you're out of a job." Of course, get enough people out a job in the next few months and things might change. But the conversation needs to change.

At this point I get to a place where I can only be skeptical. I'm not a cynic -- I have a great faith in individual humans. Groups ... not so much. But I have to start questioning the "call to action" tone of my last paragraph and that "absolutely improve-able" shot. I don't want to be seen as unrealistic about the odds for change, for more evidence of intelligence and for more long-term, humanistic thinking.

So you tell me. Take a second and write a brief comment below -- basically , answer the question:

"Is change possible"

"Yes"    or    "No".

If you wish to elaborate, please do. This is a chance to start one of those conversations, and now is as good a time as any to start.