Rivers
around the world are drying up because people are over pumping aquifers, over
irrigating, and not using water sustainably. Most people know that all
countries are dependent on water for basic human survival. In the book When the Rivers Run Dry by Fred Pearce,
readers learn that water is even more important economically because it is the
source of agricultural success and therefore economic success for many
countries. With rivers losing water at an alarming rate, something needs to be
done to control water usage. Liberal theorists would argue that we are in a
position of anarchy, so each state is trying to achieve its own success and
trying to make absolute economic gains. However, since states are
interdependent, each state that would be affected by a change should be
involved in the decision making process.
The
concept of interdependence relies heavily on trade between countries and their
economic success. Nearly all forms of trade involve “virtual water.” This
concept, explained in Pearce’s book, refers to the amount of water that’s used
to develop any good. For example, about 2,650 gallons of water is required to
grow one pound of coffee. Every country imports and exports virtual water
through its goods, but with if water runs out, trade will cease to exist, and
each country would fall into mayhem. Liberals in response should recognize the
mutual vulnerability and create a meeting with environmental professionals from
each country in question. Since many of the driest places grow the thirstiest
crops so more water is getting used than is needed. A possible solution would
be to reconsider where crops are grown in order to conserve water. This would
affect many states because if too many states grow the same crop, there will be
a surplus and a drop in the economy, but if too few grow a crop, there will be
a shortage and a rise in price. Liberals can use self-interest for their own
economy to make the world better by forming a panel of states to act as a
governing body due to the natural anarchy that exists in the political world.
Each
country is working selfishly for its own success, and furthermore, villages and
cities within a state compete against each other for water access. Each state
is focused on its own economic success, resulting in often forgetting that we
are using up our only sources of water. There is no over arching power to
regulate water access and usage. However, anarchy does not doom us to conflict.
Rather, they can involve other actors such as environmental institutions to
take part. Liberals believe that goals are not fixed. So if a general goal is
to solve the water problem, the specifics can be manipulated as circumstances
change. The primary goal should be to make sure that we don’t run out of water
in aquifers and reservoirs. Reconsidering the usage of dams, for example, would
change the how much water flows to downstream villages, which often lack the
required water to produce a sufficient harvest.
Liberals
should be concerned with the river water and making sure that it remains an
accessible resource that state’s can stay in a state of peace and security.
Maybe it is more accurate to say that the theory of liberalism would predict that such a treat is possible as opposed to saying that liberals need to convene this meeting...
ReplyDeleteEither way, why do you think such treaties do not exist? You mention selfish behavior but I want to push you a bit further. Are you a realist who thinks that such treaties are not possible? If not, what are the barriers to overcome for such a treaty? Could it even be something to do with state identity or commonly held norms?
Environmental treaties do exist, and they go into specific aspects of the environment such as atmosphere, marine life, freshwater, nature, and more. Perhaps I misspoke. Liberals can indeed predict that a treaty focused on rivers either globally or in a concentrated area would exist because so many other environmental treaties exist already.
DeleteA realist might think that these treaties are not possible because they would upset the balance of power by changing historically established norms. However, an agreement between countries to secure river water could influence water distribution, therefore changing economic power and enhancing or inhibiting security.
When making a treaty concerning this topic, it is important to think of all the factors: who it will benefit and who it will hurt and in what ways. How the agreement influences the people, economy, trade, and security is important to note. For example, Pakistan is heavily dependent on the Indus River. The river waters 90% of the country’s crops and produces half its electricity. The salt build-up in the river affects the soil, so measures can be taken to reduce the build up, but scientists would have to first make sure that it won’t negatively influence Pakistan’s output.
I see your point here, but I'm going to reply as a realist might. However, I think there are many underlying issues that would hinder the creation of a possible treaty. I would take the realist stance and say these treaties are not possible. States will always put their own citizens needs first before they are willing to share with others. Also, have you looked into the drought issues in California or Wichita Falls in Texas? A couple years ago in Wichita Falls there was a drought that caused the city to create bans and rationing zones. Due to the lack of rain there, debt and infrastructure bills rose in the city which caused utility companies to raise taxes. The increase in the marginal cost of water for this city due to the unexpected change in weather habits. Therefore, I do not think a "water problem" is that easy to fix due to the fact that even outside environmental institutions can not control rainfall.
ReplyDeleteIt's true that a "water problem" is not easy to fix. However, measures can and should be taken to address the issue that rivers are drying up and making a global impact, and to start the ball rolling towards achievable changes.
DeleteThe drought in California and Texas has severely influenced the economy, as you mentioned. A recent example of something Los Angeles has done to combat the lack of water is to produce "shade balls." These black plastic balls cover the surface of the Los Angeles reservoir to try to prevent evaporation and algae growth. The shade balls are comparatively much less expensive than other evaporation-prevention options such as tarps and metal coverings. Examples like this show that small changes can be made to aid the problem despite the fact that rainfall and other environmental factors are uncontrollable.
I really enjoyed reading this post and I think this is a very creative topic! I honestly had no idea that it requires that much water just to grow one pound of coffee, and it really puts into perspective just how much water we all use without even realizing it. I think you're very right that this issue should be handled globally, and more of an impact can be made globally through trade and cooperation in specifying where it is best to grow crops.
ReplyDeleteI also definitely want to check out When The Rivers Run Dry.