Going beyond dangerous

This is possibly one of the best, clearest and easiest to understand no bullshit explanations of global warming I've come ever come across - the situation as is, where we are heading, implications and the immense time pressure we are under to make a change in time.

Professor Kevin Anderson - Climate Change: Going Beyond Dangerous

View another webinar from DFID

Go pour yourself a very stiff drink (yes you will need it) and press play. Watch it to the very end (he does offer a scintilla of hope).
I try to remain hopeful, even in the face of this kind of thing. I try.

The world needs to act. Now.

You too will

end.

Money will not save you
Power will not save you

Your opinions will not safeguard you

Climate on a planetary scale will make no exceptions.

You who lied, misrepresented, twisted, leaned, pushed, forced, influenced, did everything you could to muddy the waters. You and your line won't be exempted. You too, will end.



So it goes.

Durban, a washout

Not that anything really constructive was ever expected to come from Durban, but I had hoped for more than this. Truth be said, the sense of let-down is not as large as Copenhagen, back then I was simply stunned. But realistically, the outcome in Durban is a kind of insanity. These are all informed people who understand the odds and dangers, they have no excuse.

Well, that's it, then. At least Kyoto gets stretched a bit further. And it seems, the best we can hope for, now, is an agreement with legally binding limits around 2015 to take effect no earlier than 2020. This ensures that we are locked into the high end of the climate change spectrum. We should be happy with this????

This is not something I want at all, but I'm now hoping for this list to happen as soon as possible. Really. Sooner rather than later. It's awful to be hoping for catastrophe but I really don't see anything else having an effect. Perhaps a number of whammys, one right after the other, will get people riled enough to demand action without shredding the fabric of our civil society too much. The best outcome would be one where there is so much pressure worldwide, that politicians simply must act, but not so much that it leads to anarchy, chaos and political rigor mortis.

Waiting till 2015/2020 (and that's assuming we don't build in another five to ten years procrastination and nitpicking the details) locks this planet into am ecology where we humans and most current species simply won't be able to survive. That's unacceptable.

I think the odds of this working out just fine, went down astronomically.
I'm 53, I won't see the worst of it. I sometimes watch the neighborhood kids as they run around and play outside, and my heart aches for them. I would not wish any of this on them. I'm sure their parents -were they to fully understand the danger- don't either.

Alarmists?

or very worried scientists?

Fragile

That thin, thin layer is all that keeps us alive.



Earth | Time Lapse View from Space, Fly Over | NASA, ISS from Michael König on Vimeo.

The big blue, it's too big to be affected by humans?

Don't we wish!

This is how ocean acidification works.


It's the lag time that's the elephant in the room... and that's why the climate scientists are so adamant to get serious steps underway NOW while the effects are hardly noticeable yet, because once the effects really start showing, it's too late to use the brakes.
It's the lag time that's the true killer. As the people in the article are noticing now. And we are already locked in for another 50-some years of increasing emissions. We are already locked in to that, over and above what they are experiencing now.

I wish these kinds of articles ended up on the front pages of newspapers. It's that important.

The biologist, the oil industry and the drowned polar bears

These three really don't mix. With the ice and permafrost melting, the area becomes increasingly attractive to the oil industry and then, strange shit happens.

Five years after publishing what amounts to little more than a scientific note (peer reviewed and administratively approved), one of the scientists who wrote it, is getting hammered.
This complaint has been filed on his behalf by PEER. It looks like a witch hunt, it walks  like a witch hunt, it smells  like a witch hunt (and meanwhile, the projects he's working on -he's one of the main researchers in the field of arctic biology- screech to a halt and become worthless.

Criminal investigators.... you really should read this complaint. it contains some transcripts of the interviews from the investigation. Mind boggling. And this is done with American tax money.
(soon nobody will want to do the research any more)

This article - a scientific note - was published in 2006 by Gleason & Monnett. Both received so much flak from their own department over this, that Gleason decided to up and leave for a lower pay scale elsewhere, So he could work without being harassed. It's a long read but really, everyone should take the time to read through this transcript of the interview investigators had with Gleason.

It's a prime example of ideology in action, bending facts to your own version of events.


Some newspaper articles; key quotes from the second article:

Monnett is overseeing several scientific studies that would affect decisions on permits for oil and gas development, according to PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. The group filed a misconduct complaint today against government officials on Monnett’s behalf.

The state of Alaska filed a lawsuit claiming the polar-bear decision would limit resource development and the economy.
A federal judge rejected that challenge last month. The agency’s listing “represents a reasoned exercise” of its discretion based on the facts and the available science in 2008 when it made the determination, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in Washington wrote in a 116-page ruling.

President Barack Obama created an interagency working group led by the Interior Department to oversee oil and natural-gas exploration in Alaska. The group will coordinate permit decisions and environmental reviews for onshore and offshore projects, including Royal Dutch Shell Plc (RDSA)’s plan to drill in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas.
“As we go into this period, this critical window where permits are going to be decided, you’ll do it without the benefit” of Monnett’s work

It's not a good time to be a biologist or climatologist or any kind of scientist even remotely connected with climate science!!

Unimaginable!

That the rich upwelling biomass producing areas of the oceans will ever be empty... of the life we need to survive. Empty, no I don't think it ever will be. There will still be food so there will still be organisms that make use of the food to grow and flourish. But it won't be the creatures we have seen all these generations that grow in that rich broth, this is becoming a hostile world for them. Instead, other animals better equipped to survive these conditions, will take over and evolve.

It's evolution on a grand scale. I played the computer game once. What a shame that the human life is too short to see the changes fluctuate over time, perhaps that would change the mindset of most short-term thinkers.

Interesting times.

Planning tweede kerncentrale in Nederland gaat door

Planning tweede kerncentrale in Nederland gaat door | nu.nl/binnenland | Het laatste nieuws het eerst op nu.nl

Tja.

Global Warming.

CO2 steeds omhoog.

Zeespiegel gaat onherroepelijk omhoog...

Lijkt me dan niet zo logisch om een kerncentrale hier te bouwen, toch???

Naar mijn idee zou het verstandig zijn om de oude centrale te sluiten en af te breken. De boel opruimen.

Ik denk dat je met de getijdeverschillen veel meer success hebt dan met kernenergie - en zeker wel op deze plaats!!!

I'm not scared of dying

It's a given - it will happen some day. Some vital body part will stop functioning and I will cease to exist. It bums me out, yes. I feel vaguely wronged that I probably won't be around to see two suns in the sky. Or what happens to humankind, what happens to life in general on this planet and -if there still is life capable of planning and executing a planetary escape- what will happen when our sun dies and swallows up this beautiful planet of ours. And of course on a personal level, I wonder what will happen to my own line - what will be the end result of all my ancestors' brave survival and reproduction? Will it die out, or carry on?
(Selfishly, of course, I hope it will go on and produce wondrous human beings in an endless progression)

That does not worry me, aside from a hope that my end will be painless.

No, what worries me, is this: Europe's ageing population problem. I am supremely pissed that we are in this situation! After all, it's not a surprise: governments and financial people have known all along that this was coming. All these old people did not just fall out of the sky! As for "we are all getting older", I say nonsense. My forefathers often lived up to hundred and beyond (strong stock from Zeeland, Gouda and Rotterdam), as did many others from those days. So this is nothing new. No, this is a result of a world war skewing European demographics and everyone in politics knew about it, or should have - Sociology and Actuarial sciences are not new! We had many golden years where there was more money than people knew what to do with. Where were our prudent politicians, storing up for the lean years? They were enriching themselves and not planning further than the next election cycle!! Dammit, this is what politicians should be doing: planning for a continuous healthy and secure state! They fell down on the job, and they still are falling down on the job.

Because:

Intersecting this wrinkly nightmare, comes the down slope of peak oil. Energy is about to become very expensive. We could have been okay, had there been prudent planning (sound familiar?). Again, our gas reserves were squandered in the times of plenty as if they would never run out, instead of following a sensible, conservative (NO not the political party!!) policy that would have had us all living good lives while at the same time investing in future energy security. Well, our gas reserves are running out now. We are in for dark, difficult times because of this. Our past and current politicians did not live up to their responsibilities (and won't face the consequences either).

Then, as if the above is not enough, there is climate change. In this, politics of denial are useless - the laws of physics will trump them any time. Especially in this low-lying country, this water sodden piece of earth, living close to the lowest point of the Netherlands and next to Europe's biggest port, I'm vulnerable.

Finally, world demographics, and food production. This is where a rock meets a hard place with no room in between. Especially when increasing energy needs will continue to usurp food production.

The intersection of these four issues is what creates a true survival bomb. Pity the small children of today, they will inherit it all. I think if a person is young and healthy and relatively financially well off, they should be okay. But when you are old(er) like me and perhaps with health issues, and not financially well off...??? No, we won't be okay, not even close. I certainly won't be okay in my old days. My only option will be to become a burden on my son, without any means of making things better for myself. What a bitter pill after a lifetime of hard work!

The combination of all this scares me. For myself, for the the world.

So, what can YOU do?

...about climate change, that is.

I have been thinking on this a lot, lately. When I tell people how bad the situation is and how imperative it is to act now, and fast, they clearly feel overwhelmed when they realise the enormous scope of this issue:

You may feel like walking away from it ("let someone else figure it out, this is too big for me"). This is entirely understandable. Climate change IS too big for people, as individuals. And yet, the only way of fixing this is by starting on the individual level and building out from there.

So:

• It's important on a personal level to watch what you eat: where is it from, how many miles did it travel to get here, how was it produced.
• It's important to isolate your home well so you need less cooling/warming.
• It's important to reduce your use of electricity by buying equipment that are not energy hogs, and yes, also by changing your lightbulbs.
• It's important to think about your use of fossil fuels and try to find ways of reducing use of this energy source. Examples: drive a more economical car, change your driving style, think about combining trips, work from home whenever possible, etc.
• It's important to recycle whenever you can and choose durable products.
• It's important to consume less, to contract your world.

...and so on.
All the above is not only sensible for the climate but will pad your wallet too!


I think it's vitally important to know what actually is going on in the world of science, especially in the meeting place between science and government. That means you have to broadly understand the science and more importantly, recognise the disinformation on climate change that's being spread thick and wide.
I recommend subscribing to this youtube channel: not only is he really good at explaining and debunking, he's funny as hell too.


Whatever you personally do, won't make a dent in the problem. This is true. In fact, even if your entire town/village/city starts being as green as broccoli tomorrow, it won't change global CO2 levels in any way you'd notice.

BUT


It is so very important that you look past that and get involved in your local community anyhow. If enough people do this (believe me, it's contagious), you can help create a movement countrywide, that will have the clout to change things.
ASK the candidates at the local elections what their stand is on global warming, and what measures they will be taking to ensure lower carbon emissions in your community. Ask visibly, publicly, often.
Get involved in various local activities, groups, and bring up carbon emissions, climate change whenever appropriate.
Make sure people understand the issue, and also understand the urgency and importance.
Help this spread, from one group to the next, one community to the next. Who knows, public service and politics may even become cool again!


I would suggest you also take this attitude right up the political food chain. Yes: the more local, the more you will have direct influence. Going higher up, the influence of an individual is lessened considerably but is not gone!! Emails, phone calls, letters, these all help influence opinion of politicians that represent you. If you don't bother, almost the only voices they will hear are from industry leaders and lobbyists whose interests are not your own. You can get other constituents to act too, to call, write letters, speak out (especially if you already are active, locally). Write to your president, ask him to act. All this costs you very little in time or money - so why not just do it?

(Oh, and by the way, whatever you can do to get rid of fools such as this man and his ilk, would be good too. The tea party caucus has 52 members: that's insane!! These should be outer fringes people, they seem to be becoming mainstream!)


Join an organisation that works to get CO2 down, such as 350.org.
Make a BIG voice, together. It's not even necessary to do anything other than add your weight to the numbers already joined up. Simply give them the clout to lean on countries and their leaders, to tackle this issue effectively. Stop the lip service and demand action.


Oh yes. And every chance you get, plant a tree!



(I've written this for the USA situation but it really translates perfectly well everywhere else)

Climate change

The Club of Rome report The Limits to Growth was published in 1972. I didn't read it back then, I was pretty much oblivious of what was happening and what would happen in future. I was still in school in South Africa, in standard 7. It was not mentioned in the papers, not discussed in class.

I graduated high school in 1975, still oblivious of population growth, the finite nature of resources and climate change. I knew indiscriminate DDT use had probably obliterated my beloved chameleons but other than that, I was clueless. In those days in South Africa, any kind of conservationist stance was seen as wimpy, naive and immature, laughable, so environmentally minded people did not stand front and centre with their opinions.

I left South Africa for the Netherlands in 1985 - a very densely populated country. I became aware quite quickly of environmental issues such as acid rain, pollution of air water and ground. Still, this was low-key, not mainstream news. I became more aware of things environmental but still did not realise the gravity of the situation.

Then, I entered university and studied biology. It seemed like a massive wave of information hitting me from all sides at once and all of it negative. Acid rain, ground contamination, water drenched it agricultural effluent (poisons and nutrients) etc etc... and the Club of Rome report. I read it and walked about in shock for about a year or so, reading furiously and informing myself as fast as I could.

After the shock wore off I was at first very angry at myself for being so blind for so long. Then I became quite missionary about spreading the message and probably made a real pest of myself! One environmental scandal followed another without leaving people room to breathe. This relentless avalanche eventually resulted in the public at large turning off the panic switch. The breathless reactions became ...."meh", another environmental scandal.

Time went by and it became pretty clear that we humans were changing our environment on a global scale. I got my degree and carried on with my life, trying to keep my footprint small and my own people (community) informed. Alarmist, fear mongerer, drama queen etc was an often heard response. This did not make me give up, I just tried to find other, more effective methods of spreading information on environmental issues. Some listened, most just shrugged and went on. At some point I understood that talking about problems without offering solutions will end up with the same reaction time after time. And, there were very few solutions on an individual scale... the problem was global, the solution simply had to be global too.

The IPCC published their first report in 1990 to a deafening and indifferent silence. Two, three and four followed with the contents increasingly alarming and the tone increasingly alarmed. I discovered the Internet around that time and developed my voice in online forums etc. At first, I came across the same indifference except where I was preaching to the converted (which at first was exhilarating!): there I was, finally being heard.... until I realised that while it was definitely pleasant to have my ego stroked, it was also getting me absolutely nowhere. When you talk about a problem that's unsolvable unless a massive and painful (let's be honest about it) lifestyle change takes place sooner rather than later, people tend to switch off.

By the time Kyoto came along I understood the issues and was in full agreement with it. In fact, it just didn't go far enough for me! Years went by and by and by without ratification in the big countries, and everything that could possibly be perverted, was. I was becoming profoundly depressed, then I would rally and fight on the good fight again. Increasingly I felt as if I was simply a witness, an informed, powerless witness of a disaster happening in slow motion.

Over the years I tried fear, persuasion, pretty words and pictures, tons of proof, kumbaya and every other approach out there. Up till recently, people were stubbornly unconvinced about it even being possible that little old you or I could influence climate on a planetary scale. These days, the realisation is slowly dawning for some. Others remain firmly in denial and will probably hold that position till the day they die.

Today we have CO2 levels around 390 ppm while 350 ppm is considered the upper safe limit by leading climate scientists. We have a variety of other issues affecting global climate, like methane releases into the atmosphere, ocean acidification, steep phytoplankton decrease, etc. Kyoto dies in 2012 and there is nothing to replace it other than "voluntary" targets that are greenspun beyond belief. N.O.T.H.I.N.G. Copenhagen was a shocking failure and since then, a stunned inaction prevails. Some leading scientist like James Hansen are doing all they can in a world currently in the grip of a financial crisis of shocking magnitude that leaves no room for talk of CO2 reduction. The TV, night after night, broadcasts fluff and fun. Substantive reporting and seriously researched documentaries are absent from such public forums and consequently, climate change simply doesn't make it into the mainstream social discourse.

My mind has given up even as my heart still refuses to accept the reality: that we would act like blind bacteria growing profusely on a rich medium till we poison ourselves out of existence. A small corner of my mind is still in denial that climate change is happening at all and a huge part of my mind cannot conceive that we have the knowledge and know-how to get out of the hole we are digging for ourselves... but, collectively, won't.

ExxonMobil spent ~ $25 million since 1998 to fund climate denier groups

They promised they would stop doing this in 2007. They haven't stopped at all, though: last year they gave 1.5 million dollars to climate denier groups - funding much of the still ongoing Climategate frenzy (yes all scientists and scientific organisations have since been cleared by a number of independent investigations) ...which erupted so conveniently right before the climate talks in Copenhagen that the process was utterly derailed and ended in failure.

No wonder the public is confused about climate change, there has been a sustained, well funded campaign of deliberate disinformation poured over their heads. And on the other side, underfunded, under siege climate scientists (who by definition are not very good at PR and campaigning). It's an uneven fight, it's an unfair fight. And the victims are us, the planet and all that lives on it. All for higher profits for a select few.

I get so mad that this is allowed at all - this has nothing to do with free speech. If you yell fire in a packed movie house and people die as they get trampled in the rush, that's going to get you before a judge. Why is this different? Because the time scale is larger and most of the dead are in countries far away, where they are poor and without influence?

I think ExxonMobil's behaviour is criminal. If a corporation is a person in the eyes of the law, perhaps it's time they were treated as one.


Found this on desmogblog, the Times article is subscription only.

SWELTER!!!

Dear heavens, it is HOT. and HUMID.
Even the thunderstorms don't cool things noticeably.

I'm not a tropical heat kind of person, I do much better in cooler climes.
I love summer up to 30C, then things go downhill fast.

My poor garden is reeling. Nothing is growing to production yet, except for the one broccoli plant (harvested, yum) and a few heads of salad. My courgettes refused to grow in the cold, then peeped up when it got warm and are now stunned by the heat, standing still. The gem squash, same thing. The fig tree, thank heaven for fig trees, is producing abundantly.

The hottest May on record.

Over here in the Netherlands we may be cooler than most of the summer world because of (relatively) local weather patterns, but most of the rest of the globe is cooking!

Some quotes from a NOAA article on this matter:

The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Highlights – May 2010
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for May was the warmest on record, at 1.24°F (0.69°C) above the 20th century average of 58.6°F (14.8°C).
The global land surface temperature for May was 1.87°F (1.04°C) above the 20th century average of 52.0°F (11.1°C) — the warmest on record.
The May worldwide ocean temperature was the second warmest on record, behind 1998. The temperature anomaly was 0.99°F (0.55°C) above the 20th century average of 61.3°F (16.3°C).
Warm temperatures were present over most of the globe’s land areas. The warmest temperature anomalies occurred in eastern North America, eastern Brazil, Eastern Europe, southern Asia, eastern Russia, and equatorial Africa. The Chinese province of Yunnan had its warmest May since 1951. Numerous locations in Ontario, Canada had their warmest May on record.
Anomalously cool conditions were present across western North America, northern Argentina, interior Asia, and Western Europe. Germany had its coolest May since 1991 and its 12th coolest May on record.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Highlights – March-May 2010
The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the March-May season was 58.0°F (14.4°C), which is the warmest such period on record and 1.31°F (0.73°C) above the 20th century average of 56.7°F (13.7°C).
The worldwide land surface temperature for March-May was 2.20°F (1.22°C) above the 20th century average of 46.4 °F (8.1°C) — the warmest on record.
The worldwide ocean surface temperature was 0.99°F (0.55°C) above the 20th century average of 61.0°F (16.1°C) and the second warmest March-May on record, behind 1998.
Very warm temperatures were present across eastern and northern North America, northern Africa, Eastern Europe, southern Asia, and parts of Australia. Tasmania tied its warmest March-May period on record. The Northeastern U.S. also had its warmest March-May period on record. Conversely, cool temperatures enveloped the western U.S. and eastern Asia.
Western Europe was particularly dry for its spring season. For the United Kingdom, it was the driest spring since 1984, and the twelfth driest since the UK record began in 1910.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



The CO2 levels are heading up, up and up. 350 ppm is considered the upper safe limit we could comfortably live with on this planet... but we passed that point long ago and don't look to be hitting a u-turn anytime soon.

I think our direction's pretty clear now. Still, there are enough fanatics irl and online wanting to have their cake and eat it too. I think we need to start ignoring them, stop giving them a platform to spout their nonsense. Their misinformation has been debunked time and again and yet again, enough of that! Our energy needs to go in a different direction.

What are we going to do?!?! Part of me wants to throw my hands up and say fuck that, I give up. Another part of me is looking at my (adult) son, at the children of my family and friends, and I simply can't give up. We just cannot leave them the world in this state.

It's too late to stop the change but maybe it will be possible to put the brakes on and make it survivable, at least. Maybe we can still make plans for coping with the changes.

We need to accept that really serious changes are coming and within our lifetime. We need to start thinking, talking, acting adaptation. And we need to act on this on a global scale. And we truly need to halt the upward trend of carbon emissions for this to have a snowball's chance in hell.

We need to understand this issue down to the bones, and we need to develop a sense of urgency.
Because it is urgent.

Why, if there's global warming, is it so damn cold?

A
few
very
good (simple)
links (difficult),
explaining the how and why.

I wonder if Trafigura can be prosecuted

...for murder?
Or, the individuals working for Trafigura who are responsible for this - I really do wonder.

If not, they damn well should be, in my very humble opinion.

I hope some justice will prevail even if the victims have been suddenly compensated when it became evident the truth was coming out (liberally tossing out threats and legal actions to muzzle the news organisations who were publishing the proof):

Trafigura said the deal – for an undisclosed amount – was likely to be acceptable to most if not all of the claimants. It was based on an acceptance that the company had no liability for the most serious deaths and injuries alleged in the dumping scandal. Trafigura says it is the world's third-biggest private oil trader, and declared a $440m profit last year. Its 200 traders are reported to receive annual bonuses of up to $1m each.
source

Even in these cynical times, this behaviour is totally beyond anything a civil society should tolerate.
I hope there are criminal prosecutions of the individuals concerned!

Wassende water

He he, iemand staat op en zegt het hardop!
Was wel tijd geworden. Of het iets oplevert, denk het niet.
De angel zit -zoals zo vaak- in het staart. Zo kunnen ze het weer afdoen als "weer een hysterische geitenwollensokkentypje".
Zo gaat het toch altijd?

De nieuwste wetenschappelijke inzichten laten zien, dat de zeespiegel niet over honderd jaar, maar waarschijnlijk al binnen dertig jaar zes meter is gestegen. Het is zeer urgent dat Nederland zich praktisch voorbereidt op klimaatverandering.

Dat zegt hoogleraar Klimaatverandering, water en veiligheid Pier Vellinga donderdag in zijn intreerede aan de Wageningen Universiteit.

Volgens Vellinga is de situatie kritieker dan de meeste mensen denken.

"De wereld komt maar langzaam in actie, een sterke sturing vanuit de overheid is noodzakelijk. Nederland is toe aan een nieuwe relatie tussen land en water", aldus de hoogleraar, die tevens voorzitter is van de stichting Natuur en Milieu.
bron

Opluchting

Onbeschrijfelijke opluchting!!!

Het kabinet wil snel werk maken van het advies van de Deltacommissie voor een veiliger Nederland tegen het wassende water.
bron

Het zal nog zwaar tegenvallen en waarschijlijk wordt een zooi uitgehold waar je niet goed van word, maar een begin is er en de politieke wil is er, uiteindelijk!


Het rapport is hier te downloaden.
Ook een film op de site die het toelicht:
http://www.deltacommissie.com/film

Water changes in Spain

This is how the climate changes, small sneaky changes till it's a political crisis.
There is nothing temporary about this. We'd better take off the tinted eye glasses and look properly at the reality.
It's not going to go away

On May 15, a tanker ship from Marseilles will pull into a specially equipped dock in Barcelona's busy port, connect to a new pipeline, and discharge a liquid cargo essential to the running of the city. The ship will not, however, be carrying oil or petroleum. It is the first of many shipments of drinking water that form part of a program to slake the thirst of this drought-plagued city. Other proposals, such as a controversial plan to divert water from the Ebro river, have pitted the Catalan capital against farmers and other cities, in a mild foretaste of the water-wars that some have darkly predicted will afflict major regions of the planet in the coming years.

Spain is in the grip of its worst drought in a century as a result of climate change — this year's total rainfall, for example, has been 40% lower than average for the equivalent period, and the country's reservoirs are, on average, only 30% full. The reservoirs serving Barcelona are only 20% full, and without significant rainfall, supplies of drinking water will likely run dry by October. "We're in crisis," says Joan Armengol, professor of ecology at the University of Barcelona. "And you can't leave 5.5 million people in crisis. The government has to take the bull by the horns."

Emergency measures being taken by local authorities range from turning off Barcelona's beach showers to building a desalination plant that will be completed in 2009. Shipping in water is a stopgap measure to fend off the pressure on the city's supplies of this summer's thirst. The Catalan water agency has contracted 10 vessels for the next six months to ferry water from the French port of Marseilles and from the Spanish regions of Tarragona and Andalusia. The boats are expected to deliver some 92 million cubic feet of water each month, at a total cost of $68 million.

But channeling water from elsewhere in Spain to Barcelona raises political tensions in an increasingly thirsty country. The supply ferried by boat from Tarragona, for example, will come from newly dug wells that risk salinating local aquifers, provoking concern among that region's farmers. Members of the Peasants' Union, an agricultural syndicate, protested on Sunday against the deliveries by parking about 100 tractors in the center of the region beneath a banner reading, "The fields of Tarragona don't have a drop to spare." Even the farmers to the north of the city are suffering from the city's all-consuming thirst. "Already, some farmers in the Ter area are prohibited from irrigating because the water is needed for Barcelona," says Peasants' Union spokesman Felip Domenech. "This diversion could cause entire harvests to fail."

Ground Zero of Spain's new water wars, however, may be Barcelona's planned diversion of the Ebro, Spain's largest river, which is expected to be completed in October. The Socialist government of recently reelected Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero plans to build a pipeline alongside the highway to transport diverted Ebro water north to Barcelona. But when he was first elected in 2004, Zapatero's government overturned a similar plan, hatched by the conservative Popular Party (PP), to divert water south to Valencia. The fact that Barcelona's government is Socialist, while Valencia is ruled by the PP, has fed suspicions of political favoritism. "The government has humiliated us," said Francisco Camps, president of the Valencia region and a PP member.

Murcia, another conservative-governed coastal region that would have benefited from the original diversion, is also outraged. "Barcelona is a major metropolis, and their economy depends on a steady water supply, so it is completely logical and necessary that they have this diversion," says Antonio Cerda, city councilman for agriculture and water. "But Murcia is one of the most important agricultural regions of Spain. We need the water diversion for our economy. It's only fair that we have one too."

So heated is the debate that the Zapatero government has refused to even describe the Ebro pipeline to Barcelona as a diversion, calling it instead a "temporary solution," or, if pressed, a "mini-diversion".

"It's totally political, and could have been avoided," says Professor Armengol. "Instead, it's become a war between territories."

The Barcelona-bound boatloads of very expensive water are a means to ease that tension a bit. "It's a provisional solution," admits Barcelona mayor Jordi Hereu. "But it makes me calmer about our chances for avoiding an emergency." Maybe so. But it also points out how much more money and political energy will have to be expended to manage the distribution of an increasingly scarce resource. And the difficulties keeping the population hydrated in a politically tranquil Mediterranean democracy like Spain augur poorly for the drier and more desperate regions of the world.


* Find this article at:
* http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1739621,00.html

This is not even close to the developing situation in parts of the world where many of the poorest most vulnerable people live.
Where the change of climate and water availability will be even more severe.

Think it has nothing to do with you? It does.
These people will be showing up on your doorsteps, and on ours, as climate refugees.
Around the same time we will be feeling the pinch ourselves.
How much milk of human kindness will we show to these refugees, you think?
I don't think much at all.

I live in a water rich country and most people here don't really understand the problem. But i grew up in South Africa; I lived through drought and water rationing. I know.

I really worry about this.