Number 35

"The supreme reality of our time...is the vulnerability of this planet." - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Today marks the 50-year anniversary of the death of one of our nation's greatest leaders - President John F. Kennedy.  As a political idol of mine, I have studied President Kennedy from his time in the U.S. Congress to his last days in the Oval Office.  Disturbed by the social and political conundrum at the time, he pushed for change; tired of the racial inequalities and segregation, he pushed for civil rights; discontent with education in the United States, he sought reform from pre-school to post-college.  Unbeknownst to many, President Kennedy was also a progressive environmental thinker and made decisions that would forever change environmental policy in the United States.  

It is reported that President Kennedy was influenced by environmental legend Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.  As a result, he formed a committee to research and investigate the impacts of pesticide use on the environment and human health.  The committee's report was highly critical of the pesticide and chemical industries and weak government regulations.  This decision by President Kennedy, and the results of the committee, laid the groundwork for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (1970) and the ban of DDT (1972).   

Kennedy also advocated for clean air, a stance that his brother - Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy - spoke passionately about during his presidential campaign.  The president acknowledged that all we have is Earth and that we all breathe the same air.  

Kennedy envisioned an energy policy that decreased our dependence on oil and replaced it with zero-emissions atomic energy - a relatively new concept at the time.  By using nuclear power, he was answering the concerns of conservation and environmental impacts: 

"There are two points on conservation that have come home to me in the last 2 days. One is the necessity for us to protect what we already have, what nature gave to us, and use it well, not to waste water or land, to set aside land and water, recreation, wilderness, and all the rest now so that it will be available to those who come in the future. That is the traditional concept of conservation, and it still has a major part in the national life of the United States. 

But the other part of conservation is the newer part, and that is to use science and technology to achieve significant breakthroughs as we are doing today, and in that way to conserve the resources which 10 or 20 or 30 years ago may have been wholly unknown. So we use nuclear power for peaceful purposes and power."

He sought to implement the Rural Area's Development Program that would expand access to electricity, increase the use of resources and improve the economy.  Harping on conservationism, Kennedy planned on comprehensive dam projects and the use of the natural resources such as wildlife, water and land to fuel the economy--no pun intended.  In a speech at the University of North Dakota, where he would lay out this plan to develop America's rural communities, President Kennedy stated:

"We are seeking, in short, true parity of opportunity; but it will not come overnight.  To achieve it will require a new impetus in electrification development, new starts in our multipurpose dam programs, and new greater use of our land, water, timber, and wildlife resources."

Kennedy also established the Youth Conservation Corps and the Peace Corps, two organizations that have had profound impacts on the protection and restoration of the environment both at home and abroad.  The Youth Conservation Corps, a branch of the National Park Service, allows young citizens to partake in outdoor activities, enjoy America's wilderness, become education on conservation and environmental issues and participate in NPS projects.  The Peace Corps has rapidly expanded into an organization that improves the lives of others in every corner of the globe. Corps members help create sustainable communities, tackle water quality issues and educate citizens of other countries on how to maintain a clean and healthy environment. 

As an avid sailor, Kennedy understood the human connection with the sea and offered a deep thought as to why we strive to protect it at the Australian Ambassador's Dinner for the America's Cup Crews:

"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it's because in addition to the fact that the sea changes, and the light changes, and ships change, it's because we all came from the sea.  And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears.  We are tied to the ocean.  And when we go back to the sea - whether it is to sail or to watch it - we are going back from whence we came."

Much of what we have today - the agencies, the programs, the ideas and the promise of a future - is because of President Kennedy.  His legacy has been instilled in the generations that were fortunate enough to witness his greatness, and those that came after his time.  I am proof of that; many environmentalists are proof of that.  His predecessors, Republican and Democrat alike, praise him for his progressive thinking fueled by his youth and unique persona - which dubbed his presidency "Camelot."  However, as President Kennedy noted, the vulnerability of Earth and of its many ecosystems, is one of our greatest challenges.  We mustn’t fail to protect future generations, just as JFK made it his goal to protect the unborn.  Failure is not an option.  

I leave you with one last thought of President Kennedy's that summarizes the hope of environmentalists and my generation:

“I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.”

GOP Congressman Chastises Park Ranger in DC "The Park Service Should Be Ashamed of Themselves", the Latest Act of Lunacy

While accompanying a group of veterans to the World War II memorial in DC, knowing that it was closed due to the government shutdown, Congressman Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) chastised a park ranger for doing a job that she was forced to do because of him and his party.  In front of a large crowd, many of whom were yelling at him for his part in the shutdown, demanded that the female park ranger apologize to him and the vets for refusing them access to the memorial.  The park ranger stood her ground; she responds with a simple "I am not ashamed." 

Watch the video captured by NBC Washington and read the original report by Gawker here:

This is the most recent example of hypocrisy coming out of Washington this week.  Since the shutdown, a number of republicans have gone on record stating that those that have been furloughed - such as a number of park rangers, employees of the Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and Fish and Wildlife Service - and the closure of all national parks are simply "non-essential" employees and "non-essential" agencies and departments of our government.  Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) stated that the term shutdown is inaccurate and opted to instead label the current debacle a, "temporary partial suspension of non-essential government functions." Ironic, to say the least, considering these "non-essential functions" maintain and run 13 national parks in his home state and provide a number of jobs for Texans. They certain seem anything but "non-essential."

Yet it is these same government entities that Republican members of congress rely on in times of crisis.  The National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have had to furlough a large portion of employees as Tropical Storm Karen hones in on the Gulf Coast.  FEMA is already beginning to recall some of its furloughed employees to prepare for the storm, which may cause intense flooding and damage in areas of Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and the Florida Panhandle.  But let's not forget, these are all "non-essential government functions," right Senator Cruz? 

The events taking place on are disturbing, to say the least.  Those responsible for the shutdown are simply turning their backs on people that have voted for them, that are government employees, and that rely on the government for everyday services.  Congressman Neugebauer's remark to the park ranger at the WWII memorial epitomizes the lunacy taking place.  It is sad, but as President Obama has said time and time again, this shutdown did not have to happen.  Our national parks did not have to close.  A park ranger did not have to be publicly ridiculed by one of this nation's leaders for doing her job, a job that he and his colleagues forced her to do.  Our national security, which is currently threatened by tropical storms, drought and flooding, has no line of defense.  We are vulnerable in many aspects.  Some of those that voted for this shutdown are now attempting to play the blame game by pointing their finger at someone else, just as Congressman Neugebauer did. The dysfunction of the U.S. political system has gotten to the point where it has become embarrassing on an international level.  The U.S. has become a nation that closes the gates of war memorials on veterans of those wars, prohibits American's from enjoying and exploring nature, and most importantly, sends the employees that help maintain our nation, while our "leaders" cannot, home.  Welcome to the United States, the Land of Hypocrisy.  

865,200 Gallons of Fracked Oil Spilled onto North Dakota Farm in Pipeline Leak

The latest environmental disaster in the United States has taken place in North Dakota.  On September 29, a wheat farmer near Tioga discovered the spill while harvesting his crops.  The spill was traced to a nearby pipeline owned and operated by Tesoro Corp., an oil company based out of San Antonio, TX.  The 20-year old pipeline had a quarter-inch size hole in it.  It has been reported that over 20,600 barrels – or 865,200 gallons – of oil were spilled.  The spill is spread across 7.3 acres, nearly seven football fields. 

State environmental geologist Kris Roberts claims that the spill is fully contained and that none of the spilt oil has contaminated any underground or surface water.  Of the more than 20,000 barrels, only 1,285 have been recovered.  Roberts also noted that there is a 40-foot thick layer of natural clay underneath of the spill site that is prohibiting the oil from contaminating underground water. 

Tesoro has issued a statement for the spill and claim full responsibility.  They have estimated that the spill will cost them $4 million to clean up.  While they are investigating the cause of the hole in the pipeline, Tesoro claims, “There have been no injuries or known impacts to water, wildlife or the surrounding environment as a result of this incident.”  CEO Greg Goff stated, “Protection and care of the environment are fundamental to our core values, and we deeply regret any impact to the landowner…We will continue to work tirelessly to fully remediate the release area.” 

This spill is almost three or four times the size of the April 2013 Pegasus pipeline (owned by ExxonMobil) leak that spilled 5,000-7,000 barrels of tar sands oil into a residential Arkansas neighborhood. 

In July 2010, an Enbridge Energy pipeline ruptured in Michigan spilling anywhere from 877,000-1,000,000 gallons of diluted bitumen (tar sands oil) into the Talmadge Creek, eventually flowing into the Kalamazoo River.  The spill resulted in oil impacting over 25 miles of shoreline.  Unfortunately, thousands of gallons of oil sank in the water column and was not removed.  In March 2013, the EPA ordered Enbridge to return to the river to continue the clean-up process.  To date, it is the largest on-land oil spill in U.S. history. 
There has also been another disturbing development stemming from the state government.  State officials waited 11 days to inform the public of the spill, claiming that they originally thought the spill was smaller than it actually was.  That could certainly be a justifiable delay by the state, however many argue the state not informing the public has become business as usual for many issues.  Don Morrison, executive director of the Dakota Resource Council, believes that "There is a pattern in the current state government to not involve the public."  Kris Roberts stated that the state is not required to inform the public of any oil spills, a trait all too common in the nation's oil producing states.  North Dakota is the number two oil produce behind Texas.
The public were not the only ones left in the dark.  Brian Kalk, chairman of the North Dakota Public Services Commission - a state organization that has been regularly updated on a spill of any size, claims that the commission found out about the spill when the public did--11 days after.  Kalk says, "I'm upset that we didn't find out until yesterday." 

These spills have become a common occurrence.  These are only three of a number of oil spills that have occurred within the last few years.  It must be noted that Tesoro’s statement that there has been “no known impacts to…the surrounding environment” is simply not true.  There is still over 860,000 gallons of oil in a farmer’s wheat field, and although the state claims that everything is contained, there is reason to believe that this oil is beginning to seep into the soil.  The owner of the wheat field says that his crop had "disintegrated, you wouldn't have known it was wheat," and went on to say that he would not be able to plant crops on the land for the next few years.  In addition, in the early stages of the clean-up process, workers were the burning crude oil on the surface releasing high-amounts of toxic pollutants into the local air and atmosphere. This alone discredits Tesoro's deluded statement. 

North Dakota has been a vocal supporter of the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline.  State and federal senators and congressional representatives have vigorously lobbied the Obama administration to approve the pipeline.  If anything, the increasing incidences of pipeline oil spills should make everyone even more skeptical of the Keystone XL pipeline.  This spill certainly does not help the pipeline proponents' case that KXL would be safe and good for this country.  There is simply no way to ensure a pipeline’s safety.  The ecological impacts are already being noticed, but the long-term effects of the North Dakota spill have yet to be seen.  However, I presume that they may unfortunately resemble those of the Gulf Coast, Kalamazoo and Arkansas.  

Australia's New Government: What It Means From an Environmental Standpoint

On Saturday September 7, 2013, it was announced that Tony Abbott, a member of Australia's Liberal Party, would be the 28th Prime Minister.  The victory by the Liberals marked a new era in Australian politics. Since 2007, the government has been under control by the Labor Party where there were three changes in power within the party.  Kevin Rudd was the first PM of this era; in 2010, Julia Gillard ousted her fellow Laborer only to hold this office until the same gentleman that she replaced, Kevin Rudd, also ousted her in 2012.  This victory by the Liberals was not only a change in power at the federal level, but it now gives the Liberal Party the chance to implement values and initiatives in Australia that are vastly different than those held by the Labor Party. 

This election has raised many concerns throughout the international environmental community, particularly those in the fields of climate and biodiversity.  Before I can go any further, I believe that it is important to briefly discuss the term "liberal", referring to the Liberal Party, and this party's platform.  

In America, "liberal", referring to American politics, usually correlates to the Democratic Party.  The media portrays Democrats as liberals and even Democratic politicians refer to themselves as liberals.  However, in international politics, the term liberal actually means the exact opposite of what we attribute the word to in America and carries more "conservative" weight to it.  Ironically, the Australian Liberal Party's platform is almost idea-for-idea the same as the American Republican Party.  Taken from their website, the Liberal Party believes in a limited government; they have a large belief in private sector initiatives; and they believe "simply...in the individual freedom and free enterprise." Other phrases that stick out are "bureaucratic red tape", "burdensome taxes" and (I am not sure if they took this from the Romney campaign or if the Romney campaign borrowed this from the Liberal Party) "businesses and individuals - not government - are the true creators of wealth and employment."₁  There are clearly many similarities between the Australian Liberal Party and the American Republican Party.  This needed to be clarified in order for you, the reader, to grasp and understand the conceptual differences in terminology as it relates to international politics versus American politics.  

In the days since the election, soon-to-be Prime Minister Abbott has made it clear to the world that he is planning to completely change Australia's position on a number of issues.  Speaking with people that are Australian and/or are living in the country at the moment, Australia is currently facing a deficit crisis.  Through research, I have come across information that leads me to believe that Abbott plans to erase part of or all of this deficit through dramatic domestic and foreign spending cuts to programs that many in the nation would deem as essential to everyday life and for the wellness of the nation.  

From an environmental perspective, this is worrisome.  Australia has some of the most pristine and delicate landscape and seascape in the world.  In fact, Australia has 16 sites throughout the nation that are UNESCO Natural (environmental/cultural) World Heritage Sites.₂  Early plans by the Liberal Party seem to disregard many of these natural and national treasures in an attempt to "boost the economy" or "stimulate the private sector".  One of the first initiatives that Tony Abbott plans to tackle is the full repeal of the carbon tax that is currently in place.₃ This carbon tax, which only came into effect 14 months ago, was implemented by the Labor Party.₄  In just a short period of time, it has already had remarkable effects on Australian carbon emissions.  ABC Australia reports that "emissions from electricity have fallen by about seven percent, coal use for electricity is down by about 17 percent and renewable energy generation is up by 25 percent" as a result of the carbon tax.  This scheme has Australia on track to meet their Renewable Energy Target, which aims to have 20% of electricity coming from renewable energy by 2020.  Abbott and the Liberal Party are relying on a Direct Action program to replace the already successful carbon tax program.  Many leading Australian economists have already expressed skepticism about this program and its effectiveness.  This plan is already believed to not meet the standards required to support the widely popular and already-in-place plan of reducing emissions 20% of 2000 levels by 2020.  In fact, it seems as if Abbott has already conceded this fight as he has publically stated that his plan can meet the 5% reduction that they have targeted, much less than the publically supported and bipartisan supported 20%.  There are also estimates that under this plan, emissions will actually increase 9% rather than decrease.₁₀  

Instead of the carbon tax, this Direct Action plan gives taxpayer dollars to the polluting companies as an incentive to reduce their emissions.  This is exactly like subsidy programs in the United States.  The catch: these companies have no requirement to actually reduce their emissions, as there is no limit on pollution.  

In addition to this dramatic move by Abbott and the Liberal Party, he also plans to reduce spending on climate change action via greenhouse gas emission reductions.  Abbott has budgeted $3.2 billion AUD (Australian Dollars) to his Direct Action initiative.  He also stated that he would not spend a dime more, even if it were required to meet his 5% emissions reduction target.

Abbott is not taking his first major policy task lightly; he knows that this is an uphill battle with many obstacles.  In the current government, it would be foolish for him to take up this task as soon as he is sworn in.  The Green Party and the Labor Party, who make up the majority of the Senate, have both stated that they will defend the carbon tax at all costs.  Any attempt by Abbott to take the repeal bill to them will result in a failure.  However, should he wait until the new Senate convenes in July 2014, he may have a better chance of repealing the tax, although it is not known what the party make-up of the new Senate will be.₅  

Another obstacle that Abbott faces is the inevitable ratification of the second phase of the international carbon emissions treaty, the Kyoto Protocol.  This commitment, which was one of the last achievements of Prime Minister Rudd's tenure, calls for an international reduction of greenhouse gasses of 5%-25% by 2020 and a 2-degree warming limit in global temperatures.  

In many classes I have taken on natural resources and environmental policy, I have been repeatedly taught about the "resource curse."  This term refers to nations that are increasingly dependent on their abundant natural resources to drive their economies.  In Saudi Arabia it is oil; in Russia it is natural gas; in Australia, it is coal.  However, these nations actually have less economic growth than they all project, resulting in economic hardships for the country and its peoples.  The Australian Liberal Party has many ties to the mining and fossil fuel industry, which should come as no surprise given their less-than-appealing climate action goals and seemingly anti-environmental and pro-coal policies.  It should then be expected that the Liberal Party would support and implement policies that benefit these industries.  Abbott's ties to the industry may also explain his effort to repeal the Minerals Resource Rent Tax.₆  This policy taxes all profits that are made on the extraction of non-renewable resources.₇  

Perhaps the most notable and important ecological (marine) formation on Earth, the Great Barrier Reef, is in the crosshairs of Tony Abbott.  He has voiced support for the expansion of the nations largest coal seaport at Abbot Point.  This expansion calls for the dredging and depositing of over 3 million cubic meters of materials INSIDE of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.  At risk are turtles, dolphins, thousands of other species and, of course, the single most important marine formation on earth--The Reef.  Not only is this essential factor of marine biodiversity at risk, but lest not forget that the Great Barrier Reef is arguably Australia's largest tourist attraction brining in over $6 billion AUD each year.₈  

All of this frightening information isn't to say that the Liberal Party is the party of the bad guys and that when they ousted the Labor Party all went to Hell.  No. The Labor Party itself was no poster child for the environment either.  They too had their fair share of policies that I would deem disgraceful and irresponsible, as it relates to the environment.  As George Monbiot of The Guardian put it, "Labor’s failure to protect the natural world ensures that Abbott’s philistinism is harder to contest."₉  Constant failures on part of the national leaders to protect an essential part of the Australian economy and the Australian way of life - the environment - creates this notion in society that this - environmental degradation - may be the new norm necessary to advance Australia economically.  It is a scheme by the higher-up's--they have pulled the carpet over the eyes of the people.  Essentially, they have been able to get away with egregious acts of implementing harmful environmental policies that are aimed at benefiting special interests and removing the "green tape" (environmental regulations) that Tony Abbott claims are harming the nation.  

The social and environmental programs that have been implemented and adopted by past administrations - the Kyoto Protocol and the Carbon Tax - seem to exemplify the Australian ethos of the peoples' deep and passionate relationship with the environment.  Australians are passionate about their environment and take pride in its natural beauty, whether it is the Great Barrier Reef, the Desert's or the beautiful beaches that line the island-nation-continent.  It is for this reason that it makes sense to have a carbon tax to reduce emissions and promote renewable energy in an attempt to clean up the air and reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions that are degrading the environment.  It is for this reason that it makes sense that Australians treasure the protection of the Great Barrier Reef and the nation's abundant marine life.  It is for this reason that it does not make sense that Tony Abbott has been chosen to lead a nation that is rich in environmental and natural beauty.  

1) http://www.liberal.org.au/our-beliefs
2) http://whc.unesco.org/en/statesparties/AU/
3) http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/09/3844360.htm
4) http://www.alp.org.au/asustainableenvironment
5) http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/09/3844360.htm
6) http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/05/06/failed-mining-tax-should-be-scrapped-not-expanded
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minerals_Resource_Rent_Tax
8) http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2044585,00.html
9) http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/05/abbott-climate-change-election
10) http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/09/3844360.htm

Malaria and Climate Change in Sub-Saharan Africa

This past spring I was fortunate enough to take a two-week trip to South Africa as a part of school research on local ecology.  While there, I experienced a nation of beautiful people, exotic wildlife and picturesque landscapes.  The children would stare with a confused look on their face, a fearful stare; perhaps fearful of their futures. What struck me most, after talking to a number of people that live there, was that I was on a disease-ravaged continent.  Africa’s peoples, especially in the Sub-Saharan region, live with the well known fact that there is a more-than-good chance that they will contract AIDS, Malaria or any number of deadly diseases.  In fact, any illness is fatal for most Africans, as they do not have access to quality healthcare due to geographic and mostly economic factors. 

Upon my return to the States, I invested a lot of time into researching this subject.  I already knew that climate change would spread deadly diseases to regions that are currently not as much at risk as others.  But, I wanted to know how much worse Sub-Saharan Africa's situation would be.  Whilst AIDS is more of a socio-economic problem that is being fought on a global scale by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations, there are a number of environmentally-linked diseases that are greatly affected by changes in temperature and climate.  Malaria is one of them, and is by far the greatest threat to Sub-Saharan Africa, which is why the focus of this article will be on it.  (Note: A subsequent article about AIDS in Africa and how it can be an environmentally linked disease will be posted soon). 

Malaria is a vector disease (when the infection is carried by a transporting animal – in this case the mosquito) that is only spread by the mosquitoes of the Anopheles genus.  Oddly enough, this specific mosquito has been eradicated in the United States and other developed nations, confining them to the tropical regions of the Earth, making it an endemic disease.  It affects over 100 countries and affects more than 300 million people each year (some estimates are exponentially higher).  The reason the focus is on Africa is because 90% of the fatalities occur on the African continent.  Unfortunately, 86% of those killed are children.  In fact, one child dies every 30 seconds from malaria, totaling an average of 3,000 children each day.

Female Anopheles Mosquito

Baby Being Treated for Malaria

Clearly, there is a global epidemic present.  It was believed that malaria took over 600,000 deaths in each of the last few years.  However, in a recent study conducted by the highly reputable Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation based out of the University of Washington, we may have underestimated the number of deaths by malaria – by more than half the actual number.  The IHME estimates that over 1.2 million people die each year from malaria, again with almost all occurring in Africa.  In certain countries such as Mali, Mozambique and Burkina Faso, 170, 176 and 184 people die for every 1,000 people, respectively.  

Malaria Deaths Per 1,000 People

When I was in Africa, I was prescribed malaria pills, which I was ordered to take every day while in a malaria-infected area.  A prescription of 14 pills cost me $50.00.  Studies have shown that malaria costs Africa $12 billion dollars each year in lost GDP and that malaria can be controlled for far less.  According to UNICEF, the commonly used anti-malarial medications – which only cost a few cents each - are losing their effectiveness.  New, more costly, treatments, which cost $2.00-$2.50, are out of the realm of possibility for much of the African population.  Alternatives are proposed, though.  Mosquito nets (used while sleeping) can reduce malarial infections by 50%, yet less than 2% of African children sleep under a net.  Long-term mosquito nets, which do not need regular insecticide treatment, cost about $5.00.  That seems like nothing to us - virtually guaranteed protection for under $10.00.  Unfortunately, the average Sub-Saharan lives on less than $2.00 per day, making it nearly impossible to afford this preventative treatment, let alone supply it for an entire family.  Even if all was supplied (new anti-malarial medication and nets) by the government, foreign NGO’s or even foreign governments, the total cost to supply all of those that died in Africa would be well below the $12 billion lost in GDP, and not to mention, more than 1 million people in Africa would still be alive, and close to 1 million children would be able to have a future. 

Climate Suitability for Malarial Outbreaks

Every study that I have read addresses the issue of climate change worsening malaria in the tropic regions of the world.  As climate change progresses, Sub-Saharan temperatures will rise, and with a change in climate, mosquitoes will have larger numbers in regions where they are currently located and can even migrate to new regions where malaria isn’t as much of a threat.  The World Health Organization predicts that malaria will be the disease most exacerbated by long-term climate change.  Malarial outbreaks are in ways controlled by seasonal changes in temperature and climate.  Regions such as the Indian Ocean basin and Sub-Saharan Africa will experiences warmer temperatures and increased rainfall – the perfect scenario for increased mosquito breeding.  WHO also projects that a 2-3 degree increase in global temperatures would increase the number of people affected by malaria by 3-5% - resulting in several hundred million new malarial infections. 

According to Harvard’s School of Public Health, Africa’s current population of 1.03 billion is set to more than triple by the end of the century to 3.6-4 billion people.  Much of that growth is going to occur in the area with the highest malarial infections and deaths – Central Sub-Saharan Africa.  If current trends continue, the more than 1 million malarial deaths in Africa could exponentially increase due to climate change and future population growth; by the end of the century, the number of deaths could reach the many millions or even tens of millions if there is no drastic intervention.  But that is pure speculation at this point.

Fortunately, there has been substantial intervention in recent years.  Since 2000, there has been a 33% decrease in malaria-related deaths in WHO African nations.  Unfortunately that doesn’t change the fact that 90% of malaria deaths still occur in WHO African nations.  Perhaps the biggest breakthrough has just occurred.  Sanaria, a Maryland based biotechnology firm, has created a vaccine that has been 100% effective in each of the six administered tests.  It is much more complex than you may be thinking, and is very expensive as it is only in its trial stages.  Each of the six volunteers received five doses over six weeks and were then immune when bitten with an infected mosquito.  For now, it is impractical to begin to apply treatments to the malaria-ravaged Sub-Saharan region.  Researchers are nonetheless extremely optimistic about the future of this vaccine and the potential it holds for worldwide use.  Like all vaccinations, they are expensive and isolated for use at first, but within a few decades, diseases can be virtually eradicated from the Earth (i.e. Polio).  Perhaps in a few decades, at the height of the African population boom, this vaccination will be ready for mass production and application to the most vulnerable and affected regions of the world. 

This breakthrough does not diminish the fact that essential steps must be taken now, on an international level.  As stated earlier, for a fraction of the cost of malaria (meaning the loss in GDP), substantial prevention and assistance can be provided to those that need it the most.  Anti-malaria pills, insecticide-treated sleeping nets and other mosquito deterrents can be provided through the UN or WHO to the billions of people who are currently living in malaria regions.  Already, hundreds of billions of dollars are provided through these organizations each year.  For a few billion dollars more, literally millions of lives – mostly children – can be saved.  In addition, it is obvious that serious discussions on climate change need to take place, and on an international level.  Africa is likely to be the worlds leading economy by the end of the century.  The United States and China are already pledging billions of dollars in investments and assistance to ensure its success.  But to create a booming economy, you need workers.  Currently, the workers that would be leading that future economy are dying by the millions – the children of Africa.  The causes of malaria deaths are both socio-economic and environmental, both of which can be addressed and prevented.  It is both an imperative task and a moral duty for the worlds leading economies to intervene and assist in Africa and the other malaria zones to ensure that children have futures and nations can become integral members of the global economy.  

Africa's Future

Looking For New Writers!

Worn Trails is now looking for new writers to contribute to the website. Writers must be able to write to the standards of the website and its readers.  I am looking for new ideas and issues to be discussed while at the same time not straying from the mission of Worn Trails: to do with environmentalism, surfing, culture or traveling.  

"Worn Trails encompasses the values of environmentalism, exploration, new ideas ideas and views of the future. Here at Worn Trails, reality is brought forth; we lobby for environmental awareness and a sustainable future, and are not influenced by deniers or opponents of these values. This planet is all that we have - Worn Trails vows to protect it by educating the public." 

If you are interested, contact me via Worn Trails, Facebook, or Twitter, all of which can be accessed on the left bar on the website.  Note that I will most likely ask you to provide me with an original writing sample on any issue having to do with environmentalism, surfing, culture or traveling. I look forward to discussing potential writing opportunities at Worn Trails with you!

Water: A Human Right or an Abused Commodity

Water: A Human Right or An Abused Commodity

The day, water, sun, moon, night - I do not have to purchase these things with money.

                                                -Plautus

_________________________________________________________

If only it were that simple today. 

Water is the most essential substance on earth; it covers three-quarters of the earth's surface and also accounts for 60-75% of our body's make up (The USGS Water Science School 2013).  It comes out of our faucets for cooking, cleaning, laundry and most importantly - drinking.  Some of us see water as a commodity; others aren't so fortunate.

Many people in developed countries account for those who would consider water as a commodity. We take 10-20 minute showers - once or twice a day; we keep the faucet running while cleaning dishes and use water in our dishwashers; we do multiple loads of laundry per day; we wash our cars; we water our lawns during droughts; we use it to extract energy.  But as I said, some people - actually most - are not so lucky; millions, if not billions, of people around the world could not imagine the lives we live, and could not imagine abusing water as we do.  More recently, water has become a political tool, a scarce resource around the world, and it is quickly becoming a resource causing political and military conflicts.  

To put these last examples into realistic perspectives: the average United States family uses 176 gallons of water per day - compared to the average African family that uses 5 gallons per day (Water Facts 2013).  American's, and those living in developed nations, seem to have a sense of entitlement to water usage and water rights.  As I stated earlier, I can only assume that those living in third world nations cannot imagine having the availability to water that we have; on the contrary, if any American were forced to live in conditions such as those living in poor African nations or regions in the Middle East, Latin America and Asia, it can be argued that they would not be able to last a day without the filtered, safe water for drinking and bathing.

While putting together this topic that is ever so important to our society, I not only looked to third world populations that struggle for water, but also our own water issues here in the United States and how our water usage affects others around the world.  In addition, I plan to discuss international water policy issues that have caused tense political drama in the Middle East, Latin America and Asia.  By the end of this, I hope that you have a better understanding of water usage; how lucky we (in developed nations) are; the severity and scarcity of water all over the world; and the future of water usage and the issues that may arise with it.  I believe that we are at a very delicate point in our world, a time where the decisions of one nation or one leader can negatively impact the lives of millions in another part of the world.  Perhaps if we are not careful, we may all end up in the same boat - struggling for water and survival.

A few years ago, I became aware of the water issue in my high school environmental science class.  We were taught that, which is well supported by research, aside from the very few well-developed nations, most of the world does not have enough water to sustain life in a healthy way, or enough water to grow food to feed themselves (Courtland 2008).  Over the past decade, this has become an increasingly important topic as the world's population has his 7 billion people and it projected to hit 8 billion in 10 years, and more than 10 billion by 2100 (Kaiser 2011). 

According to the United Nations, water scarcity is defined as “the point at which the aggregate impact of all users impinges on the supply or quality of water under prevailing institutional arrangements to the extent that the demand by all sectors, including the environment, cannot be satisfied fully.” (Water Scarcity 2013).  Currently, the region of the world where water is the scarcest is in Northern Africa and the Middle East.  Extremely vulnerable regions include much of Sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia (Water Scarcity 2013).  The UN estimates that more than 700 million people in 43 nations currently suffer from water scarcity; by 2025, they project that that number will be 1.8 billion people (Water Scarcity 2013).  This is a serious issue facing our society and global population growth will directly contribute to the scarcity of water.  To fully understand this issue, this section will be broken down into regions of the world and how water scarcity affects them. 

Latin America:

            Latin America is considered to be a one region of the world where population growth will be the largest (Rose 1998).  Consequently, it is also one of the most vulnerable regions to climate change and has serious water rights and scarcity issues (Rose 1998).  Bolivia has one of the world’s lowest GDP per capita rankings (Central Intelligence Agency 2013); much of the nation suffers from poverty and the nation has become victim to a drier climate due to climate change (Water War in Bolivia 2000).  The changes in climate have cause many parts of the nation to become water scarce.  In a nation where water is privatized, meaning private companies own the rights to the water in the region, one company – Aguas del Tunari – has argued that building a pipeline from other rivers to major cities is the solution to the problem (Water War in Bolivia 2000).  The issue is that this company is making its customers, the people of Bolivia, pay for part of this project; Aguas del Tunari raised water bills 35-70% to help compensate for the costs (Water War in Bolivia 2000).  Many argue that this project will do little solve the water scarcity issue in the nation, as this project has been ongoing since 1998 with no proof of progress (Water War in Bolivia 2000). 

           

In Latin America, water scarcity not is not only due to a physical scarcity of water, but also a severe lack of safe drinking water – this is the case in Belize, one of the poorest nations on earth (Water Missions in Belize 2013).  Many in Latin America, as well as throughout the world, argue that the privatization of water has lead to a decrease in the availability and quality of water (VanOverbeke 2004).  In Mexico, one of the main reasons for water scarcity is the United States.  Mexican officials and scientists argue that the damming of the Colorado/Rio Grande River has virtually eradicated one of the nation’s main sources of water for drinking and agriculture.  Water is so scarce in parts of Mexico that soda is the main fluid consumed by adults, children, and babies (Yardley 2002).  Once the Colorado River crosses the Mexican border, the once vast Rio Grande, is no more than a trickling stream in certain areas.  In addition, the Rio Grande no longer has the ability to reach the Gulf of Mexico (Vaknin 2005).  This significant lack in water is taking a toll on Mexico’s economy, society, health status of its population and agricultural industry.  

Africa and the Middle East:

The United Nations is closely observing the intensifying situation in this region.  They believe that increasing water scarcity in Africa and the Middle East could result in widespread “water wars”, primarily between nations that share a river or a lake (Smith 1999).  The most vulnerable regions are the nations that come in contact with the Nile, Zambezi, Niger and Volta rivers, as well as the diminishing Lake Chad.  The Nile, which runs through Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan, – the latter two nations being two of the poorest on earth – is becoming a volatile case.  Egypt, where the Nile originates, will not take kindly to losing valuable water resources for their agriculture, large population and increasing economy to nations much smaller and much poorer in terms of GDP (Smith 1999).  As seen in cases throughout the world, nations that house the head of a river tend to block off and divert the river, via dams, to the point where once the river crosses into another nation, water levels are significantly reduced.  It is a domino effect; the more nations in the path of the river, and the larger need for water, the more this method is applied (i.e. more dams are built resulting in less water available for the next nation).  Many are predicting that this may happen along the Nile and the other mentioned rivers, which will result in political and even military conflicts as nations become desperate to support their peoples. 

This example, however, is already occurring just a few hundred miles East.  There is a political (for now) water war occurring between Turkey, Syria and Iraq for water resources from the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, both of which originate in Turkey.  Turkey has constructed numerous dams to divert these waters for personal consumption, energy production and to satisfy agricultural needs.  In an increasingly unstable political environment in this region, recently due to the Syrian civil war, this water war, particularly between Turkey and Syria, is worrying the international community.  In fact, NATO has already drawn up conflict scenarios in which Syria and Iraq, in a joint effort, invade Turkey for water (Jongerden 2010).  This is one of many scenarios that seem more likely to occur as this situation develops and worsens.  Vandana Shiva, a world-renowned geopolitical figure, states that Turkey claims that the nation holds absolute sovereignty over the waters since they originate within its borders.  In addition, she believes that:

“The conflict between Iraq and Turkey is expected to intensify as Turkey attempts to move with its $32 billion plan to build 22 dams on the Euphrates for the irrigation of 1.7 million hectares of land. When the two dams operate along with the Ataturk Dam, Iraq would lose 80 to 90 percent of its allotment of Euphrates water” (Shiva 2002). 

However, there seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel as Turkey has recently stated that they intend to allow for more water to flow to the lower nations due to their over estimating of how much water that they needed for this project (Fraser 2009). 

Asia

            The Mekong River is now a source of concern in Southeast Asia.  China has already constructed five massive dams along the Mekong for hydropower generation, as well as to feed the surrounding agricultural regions.  The Mekong is the main artery for Southeast Asia as it feeds Vietnam, Thailand, Laos and Cambodia with essential water that supports their agricultural industry as well as providing the nations with drinking water (Ponnudurai 2012).  Vietnamese President Truong Tan Sang believes that if this issue continues, it will not only result in a threat to the economic growth of many nations, but also a political conflict.  The dams have significantly raised water levels in China while significantly lowering them in the lower nations.  In response to the threat of water scarcity, Cambodia and Laos are proposing to build dams of their own to secure water for their people and industries (Ponnudurai 2012).  This is an example of the domino effect stated above.  There is certainty among experts that these dams will result in long-term changes in the amount of downstream nutrient-rich sediment that the Mekong transports.  The World Wildlife Foundation recently conducted a study that shows that after 5,000 years of expansion in the Mekong Delta, there is now receding occurring that is putting millions of people at risk for decreasing drinking water availability and the failure of rice production in Vietnam, which is essential to global agricultural markets (Ponnudurai 2012). 

            In conclusion, water scarcity affects almost every region of the world.  Emphasis was only placed on Latin America, Africa and Asia because these are the three regions of the world where population is expected to grow the most by the end of the century (Rose 1998).  Water has no longer become a right to everyone, as it was during Plautus’ time 2,300 years ago – it is a global market good.  As with any market good, some benefit from consumption and production while others are adversely impacted.  This cannot and should not be the case with water.  In Vandana Shiva’s Water Wars, her fourth point underpinning water democracy states, “Water must be free for sustenance needs. Since nature gives water to us free of cost, buying and selling it for profit violates our inherent right to nature's gift and denies the poor of their human rights” (VanOverbeke 2004).  Our growing global population will only result in a higher demand of water for consumption and food production.  The international community cannot allow certain nations to deprive others of water.  Laws must be established and enforced to prevent dehydration of people, land, and economies.  Lester Brown, an international environmental analyst believes:

“There will be scarcely one fourth as much fresh water per person in 2050 as there was in 1950.  With water availability per person projected to decline dramatically in many countries already facing shortages, the full social effects of future water scarcity may be the most underrated resource in the world today” (Brown et al. 1999). 

Nothing can be done to create more water for our society; we are forced to play the hand that we are dealt, as the saying goes.  It seems almost inevitable that there will be international water wars if no action is taken to allocate water to nations more equally.  Sustainable practices need to be implemented to reduce the amount of water that is needed in agriculture or manufacturing processes.  Our culture has established the idea that humans can own and manipulate the natural process.  While it may be true to an extent, we mustn’t forget that water drives all life, and it can therefore take it away.  If there is one thing that cannot be owned, it is water; for owning water results in the degradation of nature and humanity.  It is not moral, nor ethical, to deprive others of this essential element.  It will take a disaster, perhaps a famine or a war, to force the international community to take action on water policy.  For now, observance takes hold and many are suffering while others are abusing a commodity.  Water is a human right - we just don’t know it yet. 

Works Cited

Brown, Lester Russell, Gary T. Gardner, and Brian Halweil. Beyond Malthus: nineteen
             dimensions of the population challenge. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton, 1999.

Central Intelligence Agency. "CIA The World Factbook." Last modified 2013.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html.

Courtland, Rachel. "Enough water to go around? : Nature News." Nature Publishing Group : science journals, jobs, and information. http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080319/full/news.2008.678.html (accessed May 13, 2013).

Fraser, Suzan. "Turkey, Iraq And Syria Tussle Over Water Rights In Light Of Drought." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/03/turkey-iraq-and-syria-tus_n_276406.html (accessed May 13, 2013).

Jongerden, Joost. "Dams and Politics in Turkey: Utilizing Water, Developing Conflict | Joost Jongerden - Academia.edu." Academia.edu - Share research. http://www.academia.edu/278072/Dams_and_Politics_in_Turkey_Utilizing_Water_Developing_Conflict (accessed May 13, 2013).

Kaiser, Jocelyn. "10 Billion Plus: Why World Population Projections Were Too Low - ScienceInsider." Science/AAAS | News - Up to the minute news and features from Science.. http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/10-billion-plus-why-world-population.html (accessed May 13, 2013).

Ponnudurai, Parameswaran . "Water Wars Feared Over Mekong." Radio Free Asia. http://www.rfa.org/english/commentaries/east-asia-beat/mekong-09302012160353.html (accessed May 12, 2013).

Rose, Eddie. "The Population Explosion: Causes and Consequences." Yale University.

http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1998/7/98.07.02.x.html (accessed April

29, 2013).

Shiva, Vandana. "Water Wars by Vandana Shiva." Third World Traveler, third world, United States foreign policy, alternative media, travel. http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Vandana_Shiva/Water_Wars_VShiva.html (accessed May 13, 2013).

Smith, Russell. " BBC News | AFRICA | Africa's potential water wars." BBC News - Home. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/454926.stm (accessed May 13, 2013).

"The USGS Water Science School ." USGS. ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html (accessed May 13, 2013).

Vaknin, Sam. "Global Politician - The Emerging Water Wars." Global Politician: News, Interviews, Opinions and Analysis. http://www.globalpolitician.com/default.asp?2741-water-un (accessed May 13, 2013).

VanOverbeke, Dustin. "Water is Life - Water Privatization Conflicts." Academic Program Pages at Evergreen. http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/VANOVEDR/ (accessed May 13, 2013).

"Water Facts | The Water Information Program." The Water Information Program | Providing water information to the communities of Southwest Colorado. http://www.waterinfo.org/resources/water-facts (accessed May 13, 2013).

Water Missions in Belize | Give Water Give Life. "The Need | Water Missions in Belize." Last

modified 2013. http://watermissionsbelize.org/crisis.

"Water Scarcity | International Decade for Action 'Water for Life' 2005-2015." Welcome to the United Nations: It's Your World. http://www.un.org/waterforlifedecade/scarcity.shtml (accessed May 12, 2013).

"Water war in Bolivia | The Economist." The Economist - World News, Politics, Economics, Business & Finance. http://www.economist.com/node/280871 (accessed May 13, 2013).

Yardley, Jim. "Water Rights War Rages on Faltering Rio Grande - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/19/national/19RIVE.html (accessed May 13, 2013).