5 ms·

Do nations go to war over water?

22 points by robg 18y ago

stratomorph 18y ago
Interesting. I had never thought about the implicit assumptions behind the term "water wars". I figured that just because I couldn't think of a significant example off the top of my head, I wasn't thinking hard enough. I am confused by their figures, though. "If they were to be self-sufficient in food, they would need ten billion cubic metres of water per year. As it is, they have only about one-third of that: enough to grow 15-20% of their food." Ten billion would grow 100%, but a third of the water grows no more than a fifth of the food? It shouldn't be that some of the current water supply goes to other uses; a couple of sentences later is a note that domestic and industrial uses should find rainfall alone to be enough. How would tripling the amount of water available allow them to increase domestic food production by five or six times?
- lhorie 18y ago
  >> How would tripling the amount of water available allow them to increase domestic food production by five or six times? I believe they can reuse water in irrigation systems. I'm not particularly shocked that "water wars" aren't common: no one really wants to be the nation that thrives by denying their neighbours basic resources for human survival.
Zev 18y ago
No. For the most part, it isn't scarce yet. But, if there was to be a water war, Lake Baikal in Russia would be near the top of my list of "bodies of water to fight over." It's the largest freshwater lake, near(ish) to the Russian border, and with ~24,000 cubic kilometers of water, it has 20% of the world's surface freshwater that's drinkable.
- jwilliams 18y ago
  No. For the most part, it isn't scarce yet. Sorry, this isn't true - water is an issue in numerous regions of the world.
  - Zev 18y ago
    With the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa or areas recently devastated by a natural disaster* Other parts of the world lack water, but not due to the lack of freshwater sources. Just the lack of technology to access or purify what was once clean water that they have. But even so, there still aren't wars with countries that have water over water in the areas where the lack of water is a major issue. Over other things, yes. But not water.
    - jwilliams 18y ago
      Other parts of the world lack water, but not due to the lack of freshwater sources. I live, and have lived in numerous places that have a lack of water. Water restrictions are commonplace in Australia - most major cities are facing the real prospect of running out of water. In many cities you can't water your lawn, wash your car, fill your pool, etc, etc. Some smaller town and regions are already in total crisis. When I mention the Murray-Darling Basin in my other comment - that's a big issue. The federal government basically had to step in and take over the control of water from the states. This might not sound like a lot, but it was a big deal, one of the biggest uses of federal muscle in Australia's history. Even in the UK and New Zealand -- which you'd imagine as having a lot of water -- have issues with water infrastructure and population. I've heard the Bay Area is also facing the prospect of water restrictions... If you do a search on "water restrictions" it doesn't look like this issue is unique: http://www.google.com/search?q=water+restrictions&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://www.google.com/search?q=water+restrictions&ie=utf... Technologies such as desalination don't necessarily solve the issue. It's simply not economic or feasible in most parts of the world. Australia is already heavily invested in water saving technologies - low flow showerheads, low volume toilets, grey-water, rainwater tanks. There are large areas of Australia that have had their ground water massively overused - causing massive issues with salination (in some places you literally have salt forming on the ground). The fresh water sources in these regions is totally collapsing. Sorry to go on about it. But where I live, water is a real issue. I can completely imagine it becoming an issue great enough for a country to war over.
      - 18y ago
aristus 18y ago
There are lots of conflicts over water, and sometimes violence. Mexico and the US fought over the Rio Grande for 70-odd years. I think we don't fight full-scale wars because rivers are hundreds of miles long. You can't defend a river like you would an oil field. It forces people to get along.
- Zev 18y ago
  Could you point out some historical examples of fighting over the Rio Grande please? I can't think of any real war or major fighting that happened strictly because we wanted to control the Rio Grande to gain water. Maybe you mean fighting along the Rio Grande, during the Manifest Destiny era? But that took place because we wanted land. The Rio Grande just happened to fall on land we wanted. That it is a large body of water was largely irrelevant.
  - aristus 18y ago
    "I can't think of any real war or major fighting that happened strictly because..." That's the point. :) You don't fight over the river per se because it's impossible. They fought over all the land right up to the river. Presumably the riverfront on the other side is just as valuable, and total control over its water would make it more so. So why not take both sides? Because the land immediately after the river is indefensible. It's indefensible because your back is to a river. You can fight and win a war over land but you can't normally take a river. You don't even think about it. Thus you don't "fight a war" over it, even though the land you say you're really fighting for would be useless without it.
sachinag 18y ago
We might, but it'd be short-lived. The gating factor to desalination is the cost of energy. Massive conflict or war by decently-wealthy actors will spur development of more efficient desalination techniques as the money invested and the money to be made from such an innovation would be insane. (Desalination plant or tens of thousands of troops? Easy call.)
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
aswanson 18y ago
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/opinion/edchellany.php http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/opinion/edchellany.ph...
vorador 18y ago
The real question is not "do" but "when".
- raintrees 18y ago
  If water wars become an eventuality, will that then extend to breathable air, as well? Basically, almost any finite resource, right?
plaes 18y ago
Yes, Israel - Palestina conflict seems also be a bit about water... Although there might be some other issues as well.
10ren 18y ago
Summary: By importing a year's worth of food for one person, you save the 1,000 cubic metres of water per year that would be required to grow it. Thus, you import 1,000 cubic metres of virtual water (perspective: you only drink 1 cubic metre pa). Lesson 1: you need a cool pitch to sell your thesis/product. my publishers pointed out that predicting an absence of war over water would not sell. Lesson 2: not every cool thesis/product has a market.
10ren 18y ago
But why are oil and water treated differently? After all, serious interruptions of food (virtual water) would also stop highly developed economies in their tracks. It seems a crucial test for his thesis, but he doesn't clearly address it. Is it just that trade in oil is more easily controlled because (1) it has few sources, and (2) the economy of a country that sells food is itself hugely dependent on those sales? (that is, symbiosis is the best foreign policy?)

22 points by robg 18y ago

Interesting. I had never thought about the implicit assumptions behind the term "water wars". I figured that just because I couldn't think of a significant example off the top of my head, I wasn't thinking hard enough. I am confused by their figures, though. "If they were to be self-sufficient in food, they would need ten billion cubic metres of water per year. As it is, they have only about one-third of that: enough to grow 15-20% of their food." Ten billion would grow 100%, but a third of the water grows no more than a fifth of the food? It shouldn't be that some of the current water supply goes to other uses; a couple of sentences later is a note that domestic and industrial uses should find rainfall alone to be enough. How would tripling the amount of water available allow them to increase domestic food production by five or six times?

lhorie 18y ago
>> How would tripling the amount of water available allow them to increase domestic food production by five or six times? I believe they can reuse water in irrigation systems. I'm not particularly shocked that "water wars" aren't common: no one really wants to be the nation that thrives by denying their neighbours basic resources for human survival.

Zev 18y ago

No. For the most part, it isn't scarce yet. But, if there was to be a water war, Lake Baikal in Russia would be near the top of my list of "bodies of water to fight over." It's the largest freshwater lake, near(ish) to the Russian border, and with ~24,000 cubic kilometers of water, it has 20% of the world's surface freshwater that's drinkable.

jwilliams 18y ago
No. For the most part, it isn't scarce yet. Sorry, this isn't true - water is an issue in numerous regions of the world.
- Zev 18y ago
  With the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa or areas recently devastated by a natural disaster* Other parts of the world lack water, but not due to the lack of freshwater sources. Just the lack of technology to access or purify what was once clean water that they have. But even so, there still aren't wars with countries that have water over water in the areas where the lack of water is a major issue. Over other things, yes. But not water.
  - jwilliams 18y ago
    Other parts of the world lack water, but not due to the lack of freshwater sources. I live, and have lived in numerous places that have a lack of water. Water restrictions are commonplace in Australia - most major cities are facing the real prospect of running out of water. In many cities you can't water your lawn, wash your car, fill your pool, etc, etc. Some smaller town and regions are already in total crisis. When I mention the Murray-Darling Basin in my other comment - that's a big issue. The federal government basically had to step in and take over the control of water from the states. This might not sound like a lot, but it was a big deal, one of the biggest uses of federal muscle in Australia's history. Even in the UK and New Zealand -- which you'd imagine as having a lot of water -- have issues with water infrastructure and population. I've heard the Bay Area is also facing the prospect of water restrictions... If you do a search on "water restrictions" it doesn't look like this issue is unique: http://www.google.com/search?q=water+restrictions&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a http://www.google.com/search?q=water+restrictions&ie=utf... Technologies such as desalination don't necessarily solve the issue. It's simply not economic or feasible in most parts of the world. Australia is already heavily invested in water saving technologies - low flow showerheads, low volume toilets, grey-water, rainwater tanks. There are large areas of Australia that have had their ground water massively overused - causing massive issues with salination (in some places you literally have salt forming on the ground). The fresh water sources in these regions is totally collapsing. Sorry to go on about it. But where I live, water is a real issue. I can completely imagine it becoming an issue great enough for a country to war over.
    - 18y ago

aristus 18y ago

There are lots of conflicts over water, and sometimes violence. Mexico and the US fought over the Rio Grande for 70-odd years. I think we don't fight full-scale wars because rivers are hundreds of miles long. You can't defend a river like you would an oil field. It forces people to get along.

Zev 18y ago
Could you point out some historical examples of fighting over the Rio Grande please? I can't think of any real war or major fighting that happened strictly because we wanted to control the Rio Grande to gain water. Maybe you mean fighting along the Rio Grande, during the Manifest Destiny era? But that took place because we wanted land. The Rio Grande just happened to fall on land we wanted. That it is a large body of water was largely irrelevant.
- aristus 18y ago
  "I can't think of any real war or major fighting that happened strictly because..." That's the point. :) You don't fight over the river per se because it's impossible. They fought over all the land right up to the river. Presumably the riverfront on the other side is just as valuable, and total control over its water would make it more so. So why not take both sides? Because the land immediately after the river is indefensible. It's indefensible because your back is to a river. You can fight and win a war over land but you can't normally take a river. You don't even think about it. Thus you don't "fight a war" over it, even though the land you say you're really fighting for would be useless without it.

sachinag 18y ago

We might, but it'd be short-lived. The gating factor to desalination is the cost of energy. Massive conflict or war by decently-wealthy actors will spur development of more efficient desalination techniques as the money invested and the money to be made from such an innovation would be insane. (Desalination plant or tens of thousands of troops? Easy call.)

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]

aswanson 18y ago

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/opinion/edchellany.php http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/26/opinion/edchellany.ph...

vorador 18y ago

The real question is not "do" but "when".

raintrees 18y ago
If water wars become an eventuality, will that then extend to breathable air, as well? Basically, almost any finite resource, right?

plaes 18y ago

Yes, Israel - Palestina conflict seems also be a bit about water... Although there might be some other issues as well.

10ren 18y ago

Summary: By importing a year's worth of food for one person, you save the 1,000 cubic metres of water per year that would be required to grow it. Thus, you import 1,000 cubic metres of virtual water (perspective: you only drink 1 cubic metre pa). Lesson 1: you need a cool pitch to sell your thesis/product. my publishers pointed out that predicting an absence of war over water would not sell. Lesson 2: not every cool thesis/product has a market.

10ren 18y ago

But why are oil and water treated differently? After all, serious interruptions of food (virtual water) would also stop highly developed economies in their tracks. It seems a crucial test for his thesis, but he doesn't clearly address it. Is it just that trade in oil is more easily controlled because (1) it has few sources, and (2) the economy of a country that sells food is itself hugely dependent on those sales? (that is, symbiosis is the best foreign policy?)