Diminishing Marginal Utility

Source: Mother Jones

Click image for full size:

Click image for full size

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 10:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: The Oil Drum

Posted by Prof. Goose on September 26, 2007 - 10:00am

I have intentionally paraphrased this wonderful Christmas song because it has much to say about the future after peak oil which I am now ready to say has already happened. As energy declines, we will indeed go to our grandmother's house--one without electricity and running water, sewer or septic and deep, mechanically pumped water wells. At least that was MY grandmother's house. She lived on the Kansas prairies of the 1890s. In the 1960s I asked my grandmother what the greatest invention of her life had been. She said electricity because before they had lights, everyone went to bed shortly after sun down because it was simply too dark to do to much. There was no air conditioning, so the summers were very hot. In the winter, trips to the outhouse were cold (and brutally awakening if during the middle of the night). While she had wood where she lived, about 100 miles west of her home, people had to burn dung as is done in Tibet today. See the picture below of the dung plastered against the house. When one wants to cook, one retrieves a patty.

Without cheap energy, we go back to my grandmother's house or one quite like it...

Yes, folks, peak oil is here, that thing that politicians don't speak of; that event which cornucopians (those who believe that we will not run out of energy) believe is a fraud or misunderstanding is here. The cornucopians believe we are wrong because many have predicted that we would run out of energy before and have been wrong. What they lacked was the 20-20 that hindsight gives one. Today, we can see the peak behind us.

First, how do we recognize when peak oil is about to happen or has happened? The first thing is that it always comes with a gradual decline in production. Steep changes in production curves are due to political or economic decisions. Let's look at Saudi production from 2001 to the present. (NB: Click all graphics throughout this post to expand them to full size.)

The first thing we notice is that it is declining from January 2001 to January 2002. That is the recession resulting from the collapse of the tech stock bubble, causing a worldwide reduction in oil demand. The world then began to recover. In January, 2003 political events in Venezuela shut in that country's oil. We find this

"January 12, 2003: OPEC held its 123rd meeting to review oil markets in Vienna, Austria. OPEC decided to raise its production quotas from 23 million barrels per day to 24.5 million barrels per day, effective February 1, 2003, in order to ensure adequate supplies of crude in response to the oil supply shortfall in Venezuela" http://www.eia.doe.gov/cabs/opec.html

This was a short-lived, very steep increase in production, followed a couple of months later by a nearly equivalent sharp drop in production. This is not a sign of peak oil; it is a sign of political manipulation of production. The next thing we notice is the sharp rise in production in April, 2004. This was due to the rise of price above $40/bbl, a level which OPEC had previously thought would cause a recession. They opened the taps to try to damp down the price. What they didn't count on was that China's and India's consumption had taken off like a rocket because of their economic growth. The price continued to rise, showing that scarcity of oil had come.

After a year and a half of all out production, we see the first signs of decline, normal natural decline in the Saudi production. The plateau of production is followed by a gradual decline in output. One might be tempted to say that the decline in production was due to declining prices, but this isn't true for the period from Oct. 2005 until July 2006. The price rose but the production declined. The gradualistic tail on Saudi production is what an oil field decline looks like.

Just as I was finishing writing this page, I saw this report.

Nicosia, Sept 8: Saudi Aramco in its Annual Review 2006 said that last year the company's crude oil production declined by 1.7 percent, while exports declined by 3.1 percent, compared with the previous year.

Crude oil production in 2006 averaged 8.9 million barrels of oil a day (b/d) and exports 6.9 million b/d. (http://www.dailyindia.com/show/172345.php/Saudi-Aramco-reports-oil-outpu... ) To me, the interesting thing about this is that with a 3.1 decrease in exports, this means that there is a reduction of 266,000 barrels per day available to the rest of the world. Production doesn't really matter to the rest of the world. Only exports matter. If the Saudi's used all of their oil, there would be nothing left for us to use. This data confirms that their exports are decreasing faster than their production is decreasing.

Let's take another example, the United Kingdom.

From 1995 until 1999, the UK production was a plateau. But in mid-1999, the monthly production began to gradually decline. I moved to the UK in August 2001, looked at the curves and told a colleague and fine geologist, Steve Daines, that the UK had peaked production. He disagreed. We made a bet for a lunch that at the end of 2000, the UK would produce no more than 130,000 tonnes of oil. I took below that figure, he took above. Instead of a lunch, he and his wife had me and my wife over for a wonderful Malaysian dinner cooked by his beautiful Malay wife. We ate that meal with gusto along with a Turkish couple, that they knew. The sad thing was that the UK production decline has continued even into this year. When I left the UK, I told one young geologist that if she wanted to have a career in the oil business, she was going to have to leave the UK. While that day hasn't come for her yet, it will. No one will pay geologists to manage fields that aren't producing. The above curve is what peak oil looks like for a country--a plateau followed by a gradual decline that is inexorable.

Now that we know what peak oil looks like, lets look at the current global production of both black oil (crude) and Total Liquids (crude plus condensate--a liquid that comes out of natural gas wells which is usually clear).

What we see here is that following the post-911 recession, there is the ramp up of production to supply the increasing demand from China and India. By late 2004, the rate of increase in world crude production (blue curve) slowed, reaching a peak of 74.3 million barrels per day in May 2004, marked by an arrow. The trend from that time has been down, gradually I would admit, but down none the less.

So, why do I call this the peak of world crude production? Isn't it possible that new production will come on line and lift that number above the 74.3 million bbl/day? Possible, barely, probable, no. Why? All the world's biggest fields are in decline, and they produce a large percentage of the world's oil. We saw Saudi Arabia's production, and that represents 10% of world oil. So, we know that 10% of the world's oil in in decline. But the Saudi's are the second largest producer. Russia, the largest producer of oil, is, at best, flat in production now. The U.S. is the third largest producer of oil (something that surprises everyone) and we have been declining in oil production for 30 years. These three countries account for 28% of the world's production, all in decline.

Mexico has the 3rd largest oil field and that one field represents 2/3 of its crude production. It is in decline, plummeting 20% last year. The UK, Norway, Indonesia, Oman and China are all in production declines. The only places on earth that are undergoing significant increases in crude production are Angola, Kazakhstan and Brazil. Kazakhstan will always be limited to the size of the pipeline it has available. Pipelines have fixed capacity.

Given all this, it is hard to see how the future is going to bring forth vast new quantities of daily production.

Another objection: Above I said that peak oil was a plateau followed by a decline. Could we be in the plateau of world production? Yes, that is certainly possible but for the reasons I list above, the current levels of production simply can't be maintained. Annually, the world loses 5 million bbl/day of productive capacity. The curve above shows that we are not adding to world productivity rates even 5 million bbl/day per year of productive capacity since 2005, which would have keep us absolutely flat.

Now, one other thing makes me think that this is the peak of world crude production. The price response in relation to the supply. Usually if price is going to bring forth new supplies from OPEC (who supposedly has all these vast untapped oil fields just waiting to be turned on), it would happen in sharp steps. The Saudi's have not increased production since late 2004 or early 2005. Yet, because the price has gone up from that time, if they had the oil, they could have made lots and lots of money. But they don't seem to be able to take additional advantage of the oil price. In spite of high prices, indeed, increasing prices, no one on earth seems to have the excess capacity sell more oil into this rising price environment. Given the past history of cheating on the part of the OPEC members, the lack of new supplies coming to market must say something important about its availability

Another interesting feature is the total liquids curve (the red curve). This is both black oil plus the clear condensate from natural gas wells. This curve also seems to have peaked, but peaked a year later, in July 2006. Thus, we are 2 years out from peak crude oil, but only one year out from a probable peak liquids.

What are the implications?

The most important thing we need to know is the rate of decline, which of course, we don't know and won't know for a while. We can delimit it a bit. a 1 million bbl/day decline from May 2005 until May 2007 represents approximately a .75% decline per year. Hardly something to worry about right? The first year of UK decline was only about .5%. The second year of decline was 9%, but then, the UK is a much smaller place than the world, so it is unrealistic to expect the world to follow precisely the UK pattern of decline. We can expect the world crude production to decline much faster in the next few years than it is right now. How fast remains to be seen, but even a 5% decline will mean that in 10 years we will be producing only 60% of what we do today! Instead of having 85 million barrels per day of total liquids, we would only have access to 50 million barrels per day.

Driving

Clearly that kind of restriction in oil supply means that either mass transit must come to America as it is in China, or we must only go to work 3 days per week. In 10 years, having only 60% of the oil we have today means 40% less driving for everyone. Going to work only 3 days per week, would mean the destruction of the economy. Most jobs can't be handled across the internet. How does one do the job of grocery store stocker by telecommuting? Even today though, the relatively mild oil prices we have experienced have altered the driving habits of the American public. I sent this chart to a friend last summer. The chart shows the change in mileage driven on US highways from last year. If we drive more this year than last year, the number will be positive; if we drive less, then the number is negative. As you can see, the response to the rise in the price of oil (green curve) has been that for the first time in 27 years Americans are driving less than the previous year. The last time this happened was during the Iranian hostage crisis!

Expect more of this in the future.

Another implication is that automakers shouldn't make gas guzzlers. Those old enough to remember the Iranian hostage crisis, when everyone had to take turns getting gasoline on alternate days, knows a bit of what it will feel like. Back then, people stopped buying big cars. The V8 went out of style in the 1970s; it was too expensive. I expect the Hummer will meet a similar fate.

Suburban sprawl won't work

American cities will need to restructure to be more like European cities, where one can walk to the stores. In Aberdeen, Scotland, most Aberdonians shopped daily because they had tiny refrigerators. But that didn't matter, if they forgot something, they could walk to the store in about the same time it takes me to drive to the store here.

Flying

Flying will become like it was when I was a child--the province of the rich. I did not get on a commercial jet until I was 25 years old. My children grew up with flying and have seen far more of the world than I have at an equivalent age. But, as oil prices rise, fuel costs will bury many airlines. As far as I know, I own no airline stocks either directly or indirectly through mutual funds. They are not going to have a growing clientele as energy costs go up. We have already seen one of the impacts of the energy costs to this sector. Years ago, I was speaking with my wife's brother-in-law who used to work with Boeing. Boeing had made the choice to go energy efficient with their planes, while Airbus had decided to go BIG. I told my wife's brother-in-law that Boeing had made the correct choice. This is from a Business Week web site:

"Instead, the show could highlight a growing list of woes at the company, based in Toulouse, France. On June 1, Airbus acknowledged that the first deliveries of the A380 will be delayed up to six months, from mid-2006 until early 2007, due to unspecified production difficulties. Then Emirates airlines, which had been expected to announce a big order for the A350 at the air show, said it was not ready to make a decision. Airbus sales chief John J. Leahy, who said earlier that he might announce more than 100 orders for the A350 in Paris, now says big orders could come "a week or two after."

Has Airbus lost its mojo? The past few months have been rough. Boeing, after trailing Airbus on orders for the past three years, has racked up 255 orders as of the end of May, compared with only 196 for Airbus. Even more worrisome, Boeing's new 787, which boasts better fuel efficiency thanks to lightweight composite materials and next-generation engine design, is proving a hit with airlines. They have placed orders and commitments for 266 of the jets, while Airbus has yet to announce a major deal for the competing A350. Meanwhile, the A380's order book has been stuck at 154 since last year." Why Airbus is Losing Altitude," June 20, 2005, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_25/b3938069_mz054.htm

And a more recent news source notes that Boeing has won 706 orders for its Dreamliner while Airbuss has only 154 for the A350. Energy is king in the airline industry, even if a government run airplane manufacturer thinks they can change the laws, both of the land and of physics.

Food

One percent of world energy use goes to fertilizers. High energy prices will affect fertilizer use. Indeed, we can see that now. This is a plot of inflation adjusted oil price divided by 100 (so it will fit on the same chart) with the barrels of oil equivalent energy of fertilizer applied per acre of wheat. One can see that when oil prices are high, fertilizer use is low; and vice versa.

Few city people know that an acre of wheat has 1.3 million wheat plants--a density hard to achieve if one is throwing seed by hand. Corn is sown at 30,000 plants per acre. Such densities require mechanical sowers. To sow corn at these densities by hand would require 42 hours (5 seconds per seed). This kind of puts into perspective the utility of energy for our tractors. If the price of oil goes up, there will be fewer bushels per acre because of the combined effects of less mechanization and less fertilizer. Now clearly for a while efficiencies will help. People will figure out how to apply fertilizer more effectively; but eventually not having fertilizer will come into play.

I am fond of citing a little known fact I got from a Walter Youngquist article. Mechanization allows a farmer to spend 4 hours per acre and produce 160 bushels of corn per acre. Back in the 19th century, it was 500 hours per acre an 30 bushels of corn per acre. This of course brings an interesting conundrum to those expecting corn-based ethanol to fuel the world. Without petroleum-based fertilizers, there won't be enough corn to feed us much less fuel the world. A five fold drop in corn yields would leave many in the world starving.

It is unlikely that we will be able to have air-shipped strawberries from Argentina in the winter, so food will once again become seasonal, like it was in my childhood before globalization.

Water

Water and food are entirely linked. Without water, many crops won't grow, but we also need water to drink. A few weeks back the Wall Street Journal gave a couple of interesting facts about farming in India.

"Since the 1990s, India has been a major net exporter of rice, shipping nearly 4.5 million tons last year.
"But annual yield increases began to slow over the past decade. Farmers cranked up fertilizer and water use, draining the water table. Many began planting two crops a year, taxing the soil. Punjabi area officials discouraged farmers from planting two crops and in some places outlawed it, but many farmers ignored them."
"I'm doing mischief against the government,' concedes Kanwar Singh, a second rice crop recently on a stretch of flooded land near the northern India city of Karnal. He says he now has to pump water from 300 feet below the surface, compared with 70 feet 10 years ago." 'In a year or two, maybe it will be finished,' he says." Patrick Barta, "Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time," Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday July 28-29, 2007, p. A10

and

"Lakhbir Singh, 35, this year planted aerobic rice for the first time. He says his costs have tripled over the past decade. His well was about 60 feet deep 10 years ago; now, it's down to 450 feet, and he has to use a special submersible engine to help haul the water to surface. The health of his soil has deteriorated, so he's using more fertilizer." Patrick Barta, "Feeding Billions, A Grain at a Time," Wall Street Journal, Saturday/Sunday July 28-29, 2007, p.A10

One simply MUST have energy to pull that water up from depths of 300 to 450 feet. Without it, there will be no water. Which raises the question, what will these poor guys do when the electricity isn't there to run their pumps?

But this isn't a problem for poor Indian farmers. When the electricity is off, the water pumps, which pump water out of deep wells will not be running. That means that agricultural irrigation will be interrupted. That means that city water supplies won't flow either. Both wells and surface water systems require electricity to move the water from source to your favorite drinking fountain.

Energy source

Another implication is that coal will have to play a larger role in the US energy budget over the near term. We can use coal to make diesel, electricity and thus mitigate, for a while, the coming problems. Coal can be used to manufacture fertilizer and avoid the problems (for a while) cited immediately above. We will use coal or our economy will not function. We will simply have to lose our aversion to coal and the CO2 it produces. I have asked many greens this question: If it comes to a choice between your child freezing in the dark or burning coal, which would you choose. I have yet find one so pure to their principles that they tell me they would let their kid freeze in the dark of a winter night. They all will burn coal to keep warm. Having lived in a society (China) where coal is the major source of energy, the smog is almost unbearable. There were days I could taste the sulfur in my mouth as I walked to work in Beijing. But we are no different than they. Their choice is also one of burn oil or have no heat in the winter or cooked food. The only alternative would be to chop down all the trees (which has almost been done in wide areas of China).

Yesterday there was an article in the Wall Street Journal talking about the coming electricity problems for Texas. Due to the success of the Greens at stopping TXU from building coal-fired power plants, in 3-4 years, Texas will probably start having similar problems to those California is having. California, and now Texas, stupidly decided that we would rather freeze in the dark rather than burn coal. We get 60% of our electricity from fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas! The decisions we make today will have immense impacts on your ability to go to work (how is your computer going to function without electricity? Do you really want to be able to drink water from the fountain on your 27th story office? Won't you just love walking those 27 stories each morning to get to work, which will put you in great shape if you don't have a heart attack during that first month of climbing). I suppose deodorant sales will increase in such a situation.

Conclusion

I will finish with personal story from my life overseas. When I lived in the UK, I saw what happens when the oil is shut off. In Sept 2000, the lorry drivers blockaded the refineries. My wife and I were brand new in the UK and driving back from a play in Aberdeen one night, we saw huge lines at the petrol stations. We wondered what was going on, but we drove on home not wanting to be in such long lines anyway. Unfortunately, those people in line, knew that the refineries had been blockaded, I didn't. By the time we realized it, the petrol was gone. That led to many interesting experiences. In one week, the food on the store shelves was gone. By two weeks, police and fire and ambulance were having trouble responding. Farmers were about to have to slaughter chickens because they couldn't get feed after only 2.5 weeks. Construction sites shut down. I learned through that experience that a society has about 3 weeks after the oil is shut off. Food ceases to moveinto the cities.

How can economic growth continue if each day into the future we have less energy than we had the day before??? This is a historic moment in human history. For the first time in 10,000 years, we have less energy than we had yesterday. And that will continue into the foreseeable future.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 05:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: AP Special Correspondent

By CHARLES J. HANLEY, AP Special Correspondent
Sat Dec 9, 1:12 PM ET

JINJA, Uganda - At Jinja pier the rusty red hull of a Lake Victoria freighter sat barely afloat in water just six feet deep — and dropping. "The scientists have to explain this," said ship's engineer Gabriel Maziku.

Across the bay, at a fish packing plant, fishermen had to wade ashore with their Nile perch in flat-bottomed boats, and heave the silvery catch up to a jetty that soon may be on dry land and out of reach entirely. Looking on, plant manager Ravee Ramanujam wondered about what's to come.

"Such a large body of water, dropping so fast," he said.

At 27,000 square miles, the size of Ireland, Victoria is the greatest of Africa's Great Lakes — the biggest freshwater body after Lake Superior. And it has dropped fast, at least six feet in the past three years, and by as much as a half-inch a day this year before November rains stabilized things.

The outflow through two hydroelectric dams at Jinja is part of the problem — a tiny part, says the Uganda government, or half the problem, say environmentalists. But much of what is happening to Victoria and other lakes across the heart of Africa is attributable to years of drought and rising temperatures, conditions that starve the lakes of inflowing water and evaporate more of the water they have.

An extreme example lies 1,500 miles northwest of here, deeper in the drought zone, where Lake Chad, once the world's sixth-largest, has shrunk to 2 percent of its 1960s size. And the African map abounds with other, less startling examples, from Lake Turkana in northern Kenya, getting half the inflow it once did, to the great Lake Tanganyika south of here, whose level dropped over five feet in five years.

"All these lakes are extremely sensitive to climate change," the U.N. Environment Program warned in a global water assessment two years ago.

Now, in a yet unpublished report obtained by The Associated Press, an international consulting firm advises the Ugandan government that supercomputer models of global-warming scenarios for Lake Victoria "raise alarming concerns" about its future and that of the Nile River, which begins its 4,100-mile northward journey here at Jinja.

The report, by U.S.-based Water Resources and Energy Management International, says rising temperatures may evaporate up to half the lake's normal inflow from rainfall and rivers, with "severe consequences for the lake and its ability to meet the region's water resources needs."

A further dramatic drop in Victoria's water levels might even turn off this spigot for the Nile, a lifeline for more than 100 million Egyptians, Sudanese and others.

"People talk about the snows of Kilimanjaro," said Aris P. Georgakakos, the study's chief author, speaking of that African mountain's melting glaciers. "We have something much bigger to worry about, and that's Lake Victoria."

Each troubled lake is a complex story.

Lake Chad's near-disappearance, for example, stems in part from overuse of its source waters for irrigation. Deforestation around Lake Victoria, shared by Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania, makes the area a less efficient rain "catchment" for the lake, and overfishing and pollution are damaging its $400-million-a-year fishing industry. Kenya's Rift Valley lakes, some just a few feet deep, have always fluctuated in size, even drying up with drought.

But African leaders say things are different this time, because long-term climate change may eclipse other factors.

"These cycles, when they've happened, they haven't happened under the circumstances pertaining now — the global warming, overpopulation, degradation," said Maria Mutagamba, Uganda's water and environment minister.

African temperatures rose an average 1 degree Fahrenheit in the 20th century — matching the global average — and even more in the past few decades in such places as Lake Tanganyika, climatologists say. If greenhouse gases continue to build in the atmosphere, temperatures may be several degrees warmer by this century's end.

At Lake Victoria's receding shoreline, a place of scavenging storks, weedy expanses of water hyacinth, fishing boats derelict on dried lake bed, people see what's happening but don't understand why.

"In just a few years, the lake pulled back from there, maybe 60 meters (200 feet)," said fisherman Patrick Sewagude, 24, pointing to old high-water marks at Ssese Beach, near Kampala, Uganda's capital.

Someone had planted a few rows of corn on the exposed lake bed. Grass was taking over elsewhere. "It's tough. The fish have gone way out. You pull up stones in your nets," Sewagude said.

Back in Jinja, 40 miles east of Kampala, researchers at the Lake Victoria Fisheries Organization said falling water levels are the latest blow to the dying biology of Lake Victoria, where pollution has helped kill off scores of unique species of tropical fish in recent decades. Now tilapia, once a prime food fish, are declining because their inshore breeding grounds are vanishing.

"People for many years haven't seen such a sudden change in the lake level," said the fisheries office's Richard Ogutu-Ohwayo, a biologist on the lake for 35 years. "Right now it's very difficult to say what will happen. It's a grim scenario, of worldwide climate change."

Around the lake shore, everyone has his own theories.

"The water's too hot, and the fish are going deeper, beneath the nets," said Modi Kafeel Ahmed, a Jinja fish processor. But the lake has been overfished, too, he said. "If it goes like this another five years, the lake will be empty of fish."

For 30 million people living in its basin, Lake Victoria is a vital source — of livelihoods and food, of water, of transportation, of electric power.

Almost 200 miles across the lake from here, Tanzanian authorities have reduced water supplies to the city of Mwanza because an intake pipe was left high and dry. The same is happening in Uganda, where German engineer Erhard Schulte is pushing work crews to finish refitting Entebbe's city water plant, extending its intake pipe 1,000 feet farther out into the lake.

"The old Britisher who designed the original plant never expected the lake would drop this way," Schulte told a visitor.

Perhaps the worst impact is on power supplies. Tanzanian factories have shut down because the rivers powering hydroelectric dams, and replenishing Lake Victoria, are running dry. Kampala, a city of more than 1 million, has endured hours-long blackouts daily.

Uganda's two big hydro dams, side by side on the Victoria Nile, the lake's only outlet, are victims and — some say — prime suspects in the crisis.

In 2003, facing growing Ugandan demand for electricity, the Nalubaale and Kiira dams produced a peak 265 megawatts of power. In the process, their operators began overshooting long-standing formulas regulating flow of water out of the lake, an independent hydrologist later concluded.

That outside study, cited by environmentalists, contends 55 percent of the lake-level drop since 2003 is traceable to excessive outflow. But the dams' private operators and Ugandan officials strongly dispute that.

Paul Mubiru, Ugandan energy commissioner, says the dams have had a "negligible" impact on Lake Victoria, and points to Lake Tanganyika's similar fall in levels — with no dams involved.

Earlier this year, the operators announced they were reducing the dam outflows, "but our observations show that even with the reduced outflow, the water loss is still on the increase," Mutagamba, the water minister, told the AP.

Falling lake levels, meantime, mean lower "head" pressure at the dams. Their output has dropped to 120 megawatts, pushing Uganda deeper into economic crisis.

It is such unanticipated ripple effects — from abrupt environmental change — that underlie the warnings worldwide about global warming. Scientists find another unexpected example in Lake Tanganyika, where they say warmer surface waters may be depleting fish stocks.

Many African lakes go unvisited by scientists, but what is known is troubling enough, says veteran researcher Robert E. Hecky, of Canada's University of Waterloo. "It is some of the most imperative data we have, that global climate change can be affecting these African water bodies," he said.

A "very comprehensive, very realistic" study of Lake Victoria is needed, preferably conducted by U.N. specialists, said Frank Muramuzi, the head of Uganda's leading environmental organization.

"Businesses are standing still, not working. Fishermen can't get enough fish. We do not have enough water supplies," Muramuzi said. "Rains alone won't bring back the lake levels, because there would still be climate change, a lot of heat, evaporation. It's reached a point where people don't know what to do."

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 09:48 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source: Yahoo News, AFP

by Emmanuel Angleys
Fri Sep 22, 4:05 PM ET

MEGEVE, France (AFP) - Mountain water resources are under threat from global warming and increased usage of the precious resource by ski resorts, scientists warned at a conference in the French Alps.

"Mountains concentrate an important chunk of precipitation. All the great rivers of the world take their source from them. They are the planet's water castles," said Jean-Francois Donzier, director general of the International Office for Water.

The United Nations forecast an increase in global temperatures of 1.4-5.8 degrees Celsius (34.5-42.4 degrees Fahrenheit), and implications for mountain water resources could be massive, the experts warned at the four-day conference in the French ski resort of Megeve.

The effects are already evident in the reduction in size of glaciers, with close to half of those in France forecast to disappear by the end of the century, according to Pierre Etchevers from the French weather office.

"We add eight to 10 meters (26 to 33 feet) of ladder every year to get to the Mer de Glace (glacier) in Chamonix," said Martial Saddier from the French Association of Mountain Water.

And a reduction in the volume of snow has been noted over the past 20 years, as well as a shortening of the period when snow falls, threatening the future of ski resorts below 1,800 metres and prompting the increased usage of snow cannons, machines turning water in snow which is then sprayed onto the pistes.

For ski resorts, the recourse to man-made snow has obvious economic advantages, attracting more and more visitors and extending the season -- despite complaints from purists.

Resorts now want to "guarantee that everyone who comes to the mountains has the possibility to ski from December to March/April," said Jean-Claude Domenego, head of the French Alpine Club.

But both the increase in the number of winter sports tourists and the greater recourse to snow machines have also added to pressure on mountain water resources, depleting resources and leaving less for other human uses such as agricultural irrigation downstream and hydro-electric power stations.

As a result around 20 artificial water reservoirs are being constructed in the Alps, said Alain Marnezy, professor at University of Savoie, including one for 400,000 cubic metres (14 million cubic feet) at Grand Bornand.

With mountains covering around a third of Europe's surface, there were also calls for greater support from
European Union authorities.

The scientists also discussed the European directive aiming for a "good ecological state" of Europe's water by 2015, although there were differences over the definition of such a term.

"No one is in agreement on the definition of a good ecological state of water," said Jean-Marie Wauthier, international director at the water ministry in the Walloon region of Belgium.

There has to be a distinction between the biological state, characterised by a minimum presence of animal and plant life, and a good chemical state, meaning a lack of pollutants in the water, Wauthier said.

Further difficulties are created by the fact that many of Europe's rivers flow through more than one country, making cooperation between states imperative. The Danube, for example, flows through 18 countries.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 08:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Source - Yahoo News

BEIJING (AFP) - Southwest China is experiencing a serious drought, with 2.39 million people facing a shortage of drinking water, state media have said.

The dry spell has descended over Sichuan province, which is located only a few hundred kilometers (miles) from Guizhou region which is currently soaked in torrential rains.

Xinhua news agency said 53 counties were hit by drought in spring, followed by 113 counties during the summer months, affecting not just large numbers of people but also more than three million head of livestock.

By the end of last month, over 60 percent of small-scale irrigation systems in the drought-stricken areas had dried up, resulting in total crop failure on 120,000 hectares (300,000 acres) of farmland, Xinhua said.

Posted by Hugo Albert Orwell at 11:43 PM | Permalink