World Water Day: Urban Challenges and Opportunities

Half of the world's people now live in cities, according to the United Nations, and within two decades, nearly 60 percent of the population -- 5 billion people -- will be urban dwellers.

Developing countries feel the growth most directly, but even cities like Philadelphia are showing signs of population growth.

While cities are considered by many to be the most environmentally benign habitat for human beings, urban population growth brings challenges. Among those challenges are increasing stresses on water availability, access, and sanitation.

Cities are hard to sustain without reliable access to safe drinking water and adequate sanitation. Yet even in the industrial world, urban water and waste service infrastructure is not up to the challenge.

Scarcity of usable water around the world is leading to further challenges and economic constraints, according to William Brennan of Summit Global Management, a San Diego-based investment firm that specializes in water.

"The continued industrialization of emerging markets, growing global agricultural demand, and rising energy inputs are unstoppable trends that are all converging at a historic rate, making the water demand curve further accelerate," Brennan wrote to me recently.

Yet, with such challenges also come opportunities, especially where recycling and reuse and treatment of water and wastes are concerned.

In the US, start-up companies like Liberty Hydrologic Systems, BlackGold Biofuels, Cardinal Resources, and ET Water are coming up with innovative solutions to deal with treatment, filtration, and waste; while large utilities such as AquaAmerica and American Water tackle the infrastructure for drinking water and wastewater services.

Internationally, organizations such as charity:water and the Global Water Challenge are addressing clean, safe drinking water, and sanitation issues in developing nations. (Here is a comprehensive list of water related organizations: H20.)

"Good urban water management is complex and requires not only water and wastewater infrastructure, but also pollution control and flood prevention," as the organizers of World Water Day point out. "It requires coordination across many sectors and between different local authorities and changes in governance that lead to more sustainable and equitable use of the urban water resources."

It also requires innovative solutions and new ways of thinking about how we use, reuse, conserve, and treat our water.

One day each year hardly seems adequate to raising the awareness of water issues around the world, but it's a start.  As our cities expand and stresses to water supplies increase, it will become clear as...well...water that we need to pay more attention to this most precious resource.


NOTE: Join me and Dr. Paul Bowen of Coca-Cola, Larry Levine of NRDC, and Richard Murphy of Fortune for a webinar today at 1PM ET as we discuss water challenges and opportunities: Cities and the Global Water Crisis.

Cancun in November? To Dive, but not to COP

View from Club Akumal, Mexico

Sure I'd love to be in Cancun this week, as the chill winds of November blow into December. But I'd go for the diving rather than the hot air of another conference of the parties on climate change.

I just don't think anything will come of more meetings on how to stop climate change.

The Economist agrees with me it would appear from the cover story in this week's issue.

"In the wake of the Copenhagen summit, there is a growing acceptance that the effort to avert serious climate change has run out of steam," the editors write before suggesting that we may be better focused on adapting to the inevitable changes that are already set in motion.

"Since the beginning of time, creatures have adapted to changes in their environment. Unfortunately, such adaptation has always meant large numbers of deaths. Evolution works that way," the Economist asserts. "But humankind is luckier than most species. It has the advantage of being able to think ahead, and to prepare for the changes to come. That's what needs to happen now."

Indeed, that is what we've been suggesting for some time here at The Green Skeptic, and we see adaptation as one of the three key focus areas, along with increases in energy efficiency and R&D into energy innovations that will help us deal with the changes that may come.

It is, as the Economist suggests, "the craziest experiment mankind has ever conducted. Maybe in the long run it will be brought under control. For the foreseeable future, though, the mercury will continue to rise, and the human race must live with the problem as best it can."

But first we need to stop focusing on solutions that will not work and meetings that only lead to more meetings. We need to shift our focus to pragmatic solutions by doing what we do best as a species: adapt and innovate.

Related articles

• Factbox: U.N. climate talks seek to avoid hype in Cancun (reuters.com)
• "Should Americans fear the upcoming climate conference in Cancun?" and related posts (illinoisreview.typepad.com)
• MarketWatch First Take: Hot but not bothered at Cancun climate summit (marketwatch.com)
• Cancun may go Copenhagen way - Times of India (news.google.com)
• Putting the 'CAN' in Cancun (besuperbadger.wordpress.com)
• Watch the COP16 United Nations Climate talks in Cancun LIVE (greenfudge.org)

World Water Day: Stand Up for Water and Sanitation?

Today, March 22, 2010, is World Water Day, an attempt to raise awareness about the importance of clean water and the thousands of people who still do not have access to clean, healthy water resources.

World Water Day is an initiative that grew out of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro.  Each year, it has a different sanctioned theme, determined by the UN Water Group.  This year's theme is "Clean Water for a Healthy World."

Clean water scarcity is a serious situation affecting more than 2.5 billion people.  Lack of access to clean water and basic sanitation leads to more deaths among children than malaria, HIV/AIDS and TB combined, according to the UN. 

In addition 4000 children under the age of five die every day from preventable water-related illnesses such as diarrhoea, typhoid, cholera and dysentery.

Serious stuff and in need of attention.  It's hard to believe that in the 21st century some parts of the world are without simple sanitation and access to water.  World Water Day is an attempt to shed light on this problem.

In one of the sillier actions associated with the "celebration" this year, a coalition led by the group End Water Poverty, along with Freshwater Action Network, and the IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre has organized a Guinness World Record attempt to form the world's largest toilet queue.

To participate, you need to gather at least 25 people and have them wait on line to use the bathroom in a public place from 10 minutes up to 24 hours.

What seems like a joke from the days of Monty Python is actually a "serious" attempt to capture the imaginations of the caring public and the World Record.  (And you wonder why I'm a skeptic!)

(Did you know there was a record for longest toilet waiting line? The current record for an individual queue stands at over 868 people, according to organizars.)

Remember: don't cut in line and wash your hands after you go.
 

Global Yawning: De Boer Resigns; Should UN Get Out of Climate Biz?

The UN's top climate change official, Yvo de Boer, says he will leave his post after four years, reportedly to take a consulting position with KPMG, according the BBC News this morning.

He will vacate the position at the end of June, only 5 months before 193 countries will get together again for another shot at a climate deal.

But after the failure of Copenhagen, lingering questions surrounding the UN IPPC and its head Dr. Rajendra Pauchauri, along with other scandals making headlines involving alledged scientific data manipulations and other shenanigans, is it time for the UN to get out of the business of climate change?

Wouldn't it be better to put the collective resources spent by the 193 countries involved in climate talks into a massive R&D fund to help catalyze investments in the technologies needed to address the issue?

Is Mr. de Boer himself sending a message by heading to the private sector to focus on climate and sutainability issues?

IPCC's Pachauri Must Resign

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The Times of London reports this morning that the head of the UN's International Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, was told that the IPCC assertion that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to take actions to correct it.

Dr. Pachauri, who played a lead role at the recent Copenhagen climate summit where he called for drastic cuts in carbon emissions, corrected the error last week after coming under media scrutiny.

Apparently, Dr. Pachauri told The Times as recently as January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days.

The Times reports "He said: 'I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.'"

When pressed in that original interview, he insisted that he hadn't heard about the mistake prior to Copenhagen.

"However," the Times reports, "a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error. He said that Dr Pachauri had replied: 'I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.'"

Dr. Pachauri, who now claims that he was preoccupied with a number of events surrounding the summit and that he inadvertently failed to mention the error, has been accused of potential conflicts of interest surrounding carbon emissions reductions and from "using the error to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds," according to the Times.

Late last year, there was additional controversy generated around data used in the IPCC report and elsewhere when emails were discovered between climate scientists that raised questions about potential manipulation of data and climate modeling projections.

This latest controversy further erodes Dr. Pachauri's credibility at a time when public opinion about global warming continues to slip.

It is time for Dr. Pacahuri to resign as head of IPCC and for a full investigation and review of the IPCC reports.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Indian glaciologist criticised by IPCC chief joins calls for resignation (guardian.co.uk)
• Notes From a Quasi-Scandal: IPCC Chair Says He Won't Step Down + Glacier Error Not Politically Motivated (treehugger.com)
• Can Climate Forecasts Still Be Trusted? (abcnews.go.com)
• Canadian scientist says UN's global warming panel 'crossing the line' (canada.com)
• UK's top scientist urges care in presenting results of climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• UN climate control panel chief refuses to quit (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• I will not go, says climate chief (news.bbc.co.uk)
• IPCC Sucker Punches Itself, Again (thegreenskeptic.com)

REDD Ain't the New Black: 10 Concerns About Paying Countries for Forest Protection

Image via Wikipedia

I was asked the other day why I think the UN's Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries (REDD) is a flawed, if not bad idea.

Here are 10 concerns I have about the REDD scheme:

1.) I've said it before, but will say it again: Entrusting governments to protect their forests in light of competing interests of growth, feeding hungry, and poverty reduction is very risky.

2.) We can't ensure that forest protection won't lead to shutting out the interests of local people and lining the pockets of corrupt government officials, corporations, or even NGOs. Better to trust the local community to manage their forest assets -- or at the very least, make sure they have a seat at the table.

3.) Underdeveloped monitoring and accounting could lead to unscrupulous speculation and gaming the system. How can we protect against the Bernie Madoff of the carbon market or the Enron of global forest protection? (And don't forget organized crime: Interpol, the world's leading policing agency, raised concerns in early October that chances were very high criminal gangs could take advantage of REDD schemes, according to an article in the Guardian.)

4.) We need to raise standards of living by valuing and maintaining natural capital not converting it and not, necessarily, setting it aside. And we need to ensure that the local communities have more influence and power over how their resources are managed for the multiple uses they require for access to pathways out of poverty.

5.) Right now REDD is only about reducing emissions: the money goes to those nations with high rates of deforestation. This could lead to perverse incentives or unintended consequences. If a nation has a low deforestation rate, they can't participate. What's to stop them from thinking, "Hey, if I accelerate my deforestation rate, I'll get paid to stop..."

6.) We need market mechanisms to drive protection. People won't protect it if there is no money in it, especially when cutting it down pays. We need to put a dollar value on the services forests provide: watershed protection, stabilizing soils, flood protection, as well as generating rainfall, storing carbon, and moderating the climate. What is that worth? Nicholas Stern suggested a $15B market value – that's a pittance compared to global insurance business of $3T -- a relatively cheap insurance policy.

7.) Could creating forest bonds, insurance products or user-fee water funds be tied to the ecosystem services provided by forests, ensuring that such things as agricultural productivity or water supplies linked to rainfall coming out of forests? (Some conservation groups have tried this, such as The Nature Conservancy's Water Funds in Ecuador.)

8.) We need an investment grading system for countries that participate in schemes like REDD: Those with good governance, clear land title law, and high forest protection receive AAA rating; those with high levels of corruption, conflict, and high deforestation are relegated to subprime. (This has been suggested by others, but I don't think it has been implemented.)

9.) I've said this before, too: Philanthropy and government taxes are not going to be able to protect the world's forest assets – you need viable market mechanisms and the will to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the people who depend upon the forests.

10.) The solutions must be market-based: If someone is getting paid $5 to cut down a tree, you're going to have to pay him $6 to leave it there; if you can pay him $10 to not cut and make some money off a related product or service, even better. We need to figure out how to make that happen and ensure there are proper financial incentives for the 1.6B people who depend upon forests for water, food, and livelihoods.

To date, rich countries have put up $52M to establish nine UN-sanctioned REDD pilot schemes in Asia, Latin America, and Africa -- and private schemes are forming through a consortia of banks, conservation groups, and other businesses.

I just don't think handing out what essentially amounts to aid to developing countries is the right solution. I do hope the Copenhagen delegates consider the unintended consequences of their bold actions. (Remember the food vs. fuel issue created by jumping on the ethanol bandwagon!)

REDD ain't the new black, at least not to this green skeptic.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Fraud menaces UN forest scheme (guardian.co.uk)
• Redd: Forests at the frontline of tackling climate change (guardian.co.uk)
• Proposal could revolutionize value of forests (cnn.com)
• Paying to save trees: Last gasp for the forest (innovationtoronto.com)
• Prepare for a Copenhagen compromise (guardian.co.uk)

Environment: U.N. Expert Calls Food Crisis "a silent tsunami"

CNN reports that a U.N. expert calls the current global food crisis "a silent tsunami."

"Those battling global warming by promoting biofuels may unintentionally be adding to skyrocketing world food prices, creating what one expert calls 'a silent tsunami' in developing nations.

"Josette Sheeran, the U.N. World Food Program executive director, illustrates the food ration for children.

"The rising prices are 'threatening to plunge more than 100 million people on every continent into hunger,' Josette Sheeran, executive director of the United Nations' World Food Program, said on the agency's Web site Tuesday.

"Sheeran is one of the experts attending a Food summit hosted Tuesday by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, aimed at determining ways to boost food supplies and identify deterrents. Also attending the meeting are scientists and representatives from the European Union and Africa.

"On the Web site, Sheeran said the increase in food prices is 'a silent tsunami that respects no borders.'

"'The world's misery index is rising ... as soaring food and fuel prices roll through the lives of the most vulnerable,' she said Friday.

"The crisis is forcing the organization to look for cuts in aid to some of its recipients, she said.

"Soaring food prices have triggered violence in some developing countries, and biofuels are bearing at least part of the blame."

Read the full article: Food Crisis

Read the Economist cover story on the issue: Silent Tsunami

World Water Day: No Drop Left Behind

Water is one of the most precious resources on Earth. Clean drinking water is essential to human life -- but only 10 percent of global water use is for human consumption.

The other 90 percent is used for a combination of direct inputs to industry, agriculture, transportation, recreation, producing hydropower and cooling nuclear power plants, and sustaining the ecosystems upon which we depend.

Over the last century, according to the United Nations, water use increased sixfold, twice as fast as the population rate.

The increase has led to water shortages around the globe. Experts from the International Water Management Institute now estimate that by 2025 over three quarters of the people on Earth will be affected by water scarcity.

Today, 40 percent of people globally (@ 2.8 billion) deal with some degree of water scarcity. Whether physical shortage or issue of access, shortages are increasing demand and competition for water. (Darfur is the poster example for what conflicts can arise from the perfect storm of water scarcity.)

March 22nd is World Water Day,a UN General Assembly designation to call attention to the issue of water scarcity and push for more sustainable management of the resource.

Clearly, global water use patterns are not sustainable. Some scientists claim that current water use rates will lead to such a shortage that there may not be enough water to produce the food needed by the world in 2050.

Not to mention the potential collapse of important ecosystems and the corresponding benefits, which may have a cascading effect on people and economies.

Integrated water resources management may help the situation, as some propose, but it is clear that we need a better method for calculating the true value of our fresh water resources.

The bottom line: No longer can we assume that past abundance of water is a guarantee for our future water returns.