The following YouTube presentation is taken from the soon to be release book ‘Letters from 2030’
Leon Tolstoy once wrote – People were not inclined to take their situation with any degree of seriousness: on the contrary they became even more frivolous, as is always the case with people who see a great catastrophe approaching … they argue that it is too depressing to think of the danger since it is not in man’s power to foresee everything and avert the general march of events, and it is better therefore to shut one’s eyes to the disagreeable until it actually comes, and to think instead of what is pleasant.

An irreversible climate “tipping point” could occur within the next 20 years as a result of the release of huge quantities of organic carbon locked away as frozen plant matter in the vast permafrost region of the Arctic, scientists have found.Billions of tons of frozen leaves and roots that have lain undisturbed for thousands of years in the permanently frozen ground of the northern hemisphere are thawing out, with potentially catastrophic implications for climate change, the researchers said.

A study into the speed at which the permafrost is melting suggests that the tipping point will occur between 2020 and 2030 and will mark the point at which the Arctic turns from being a net “sink” for carbon dioxide into an overall source that will accelerate global warming, they said.

The study is the first global investigation of what will happen in a warmer world to the huge amounts of frozen plant matter that has remained undegraded in the soil since it was incorporated into the permafrost about 30,000 years ago.

It also found that by 2200 about two-thirds of the Earth’s permafrost will have melted, releasing an estimated 190 billion tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the air – about half of all the fossil fuel emissions of greenhouse gases since the start of the industrial revolution.

“Our results indicate that, as the Arctic warms up, this frozen carbon will thaw out, allowing microbial decay to resume and releasing carbon into the atmosphere,” said Kevin Schaefer of the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado.

“Our research shows that the release of carbon from permafrost will result in an irreversible climate tipping point in only 20 years… Once the frozen carbon thaws out and decays, there is no way to put it back into the permafrost,” Dr Schaefer said.

The Arctic has experienced some of the greatest climatic changes in the world over recent decades. Summer sea ice has melted back to record minimums, average temperatures have increased dramatically, and scientists have documented significant melting of the underground permafrost, from Alaska to eastern Siberia.

The rising temperatures have lengthened the growing season of the Arctic summer, which has increased plant growth and the consequent uptake of carbon dioxide. However, by around 2025 this will go into reverse and the thawing permafrost will release more carbon than is being taken up by the tundra growing above it, Dr Schaefer said.

“There are two important messages from this study. The first is that the melting permafrost can release huge amounts of carbon and, secondly, the process is irreversible on a human timescale and will affect our targets for reducing fossil fuel emissions,” he said.

“All our emission reduction strategies are designed to hit a target atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration corresponding to a target climate. If we do not account for carbon released from thawing permafrost, we will overshoot this target concentration and end up with a warmer climate than we want,” Dr Schaefer said.

Permanently frozen ground covers about a quarter of the northern hemisphere and starts about a metre below the surface, extending up to 500 metres. The top three metres contain most of the frozen plant matter, primarily grass roots caught up in the last ice age.

Source Independent UK

Economic recession has failed to curb rising emissions, undermining hope of keeping global warming to safe levels Photograph: Dave Reede/All Canada Photos/Corbis

Greenhouse gas emissions increased by a record amount last year, to the highest carbon output in history, putting hopes of holding global warming to safe levels all but out of reach, according to unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency.

The shock rise means the goal of preventing a temperature rise of more than 2 degrees Celsius – which scientists say is the threshold for potentially “dangerous climate change” – is likely to be just “a nice Utopia”, according to Fatih Birol, chief economist of the IEA. It also shows the most serious global recession for 80 years has had only a minimal effect on emissions, contrary to some predictions.

Last year, a record 30.6 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide poured into the atmosphere, mainly from burning fossil fuel – a rise of 1.6Gt on 2009, according to estimates from the IEA regarded as the gold standard for emissions data.

“I am very worried. This is the worst news on emissions,” Birol told the Guardian. “It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below 2 degrees. The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”

Professor Lord Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of the influential Stern Report into the economics of climate change for the Treasury in 2006, warned that if the pattern continued, the results would be dire. “These figures indicate that [emissions] are now close to being back on a ‘business as usual’ path. According to the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's] projections, such a path … would mean around a 50% chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100,” he said.

“Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict. That is a risk any sane person would seek to drastically reduce.”

Birol said disaster could yet be averted, if governments heed the warning. “If we have bold, decisive and urgent action, very soon, we still have a chance of succeeding,” he said.

The IEA has calculated that if the world is to escape the most damaging effects of global warming, annual energy-related emissions should be no more than 32Gt by 2020. If this year’s emissions rise by as much as they did in 2010, that limit will be exceeded nine years ahead of schedule, making it all but impossible to hold warming to a manageable degree.

Emissions from energy fell slightly between 2008 and 2009, from 29.3Gt to 29Gt, due to the financial crisis. A small rise was predicted for 2010 as economies recovered, but the scale of the increase has shocked the IEA. “I was expecting a rebound, but not such a strong one,” said Birol, who is widely regarded as one of the world’s foremost experts on energy.

John Sauven, the executive director of Greenpeace UK, said time was running out. “This news should shock the world. Yet even now politicians in each of the great powers are eyeing up extraordinary and risky ways to extract the world’s last remaining reserves of fossil fuels – even from under the melting ice of the Arctic. You don’t put out a fire with gasoline. It will now be up to us to stop them.”

Most of the rise – about three-quarters – has come from developing countries, as rapidly emerging economies have weathered the financial crisis and the recession that has gripped most of the developed world.

But he added that, while the emissions data was bad enough news, there were other factors that made it even less likely that the world would meet its greenhouse gas targets.

• About 80% of the power stations likely to be in use in 2020 are either already built or under construction, the IEA found. Most of these are fossil fuel power stations unlikely to be taken out of service early, so they will continue to pour out carbon – possibly into the mid-century. The emissions from these stations amount to about 11.2Gt, out of a total of 13.7Gt from the electricity sector. These “locked-in” emissions mean savings must be found elsewhere.

“It means the room for manoeuvre is shrinking,” warned Birol.

• Another factor that suggests emissions will continue their climb is the crisis in the nuclear power industry. Following the tsunami damage at Fukushima, Japan and Germany have called a halt to their reactor programmes, and other countries are reconsidering nuclear power.

“People may not like nuclear, but it is one of the major technologies for generating electricity without carbon dioxide,” said Birol. The gap left by scaling back the world’s nuclear ambitions is unlikely to be filled entirely by renewable energy, meaning an increased reliance on fossil fuels.

• Added to that, the United Nations-led negotiations on a new global treaty on climate change have stalled. “The significance of climate change in international policy debates is much less pronounced than it was a few years ago,” said Birol.

He urged governments to take action urgently. “This should be a wake-up call. A chance [of staying below 2 degrees] would be if we had a legally binding international agreement or major moves on clean energy technologies, energy efficiency and other technologies.”

Governments are to meet next week in Bonn for the next round of the UN talks, but little progress is expected.

Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said the global emissions figures showed that the link between rising GDP and rising emissions had not been broken. “The only people who will be surprised by this are people who have not been reading the situation properly,” he said.

Forthcoming research led by Sir David will show the west has only managed to reduce emissions by relying on imports from countries such as China.

Another telling message from the IEA’s estimates is the relatively small effect that the recession – the worst since the 1930s – had on emissions. Initially, the agency had hoped the resulting reduction in emissions could be maintained, helping to give the world a “breathing space” and set countries on a low-carbon path. The new estimates suggest that opportunity may have been missed.

Source Guardian

Press On

Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverance.

Talent will not.

Nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.

Genius will not.

Unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.

Education will not.

The world is full of educated derelicts.

Perseverance and determination alone are omnipotent.

I look at that quotation almost every week at some point, when I take up a pen to put a note onto my desk pad to remind me to do something. So it’s a constant reminder to me why I keep pushing on the issues of climate change and a safe future, despite getting nowhere.

To be totally honest I didn’t think world leaders would agree on global emissions reduction targets for the world at Copenhagen in 2009 or Cancun in 2010. I didn’t think they would because the vast majority of the world’s population don’t want them to. To reduce emissions means that you and I, and everyone else in the developed and fast developing world, will need to agree to reduce our own consumption. Even if I agree to do that, will you?

Now you are reading this most likely, because you are a person with an interest in the environment and where we are inevitably headed. But if your politicians tell you must stop buying, you must stop driving, you must stop using energy, you must reduce the amount of water you use, you must pay more so that we can fast track renewable energy, you must stop flying, you must not take that overseas holiday and you must stop asking that the world gives you more, will you support them? ……..Well?

So you voted them in and you can just as easily vote them out; if they hurt YOUR hip pocket. So will they go to these climate change conferences? Yes; and as they have done at all the conferences so far and all those that will follow on, they will agree on one thing only….. to disagree.

However with all things that took a global movement, or even a national movement to make change, perseverance and determination alone were omnipotent.

I fear though that time is fast running out for the decisions to remain in our hands on decarbonising our lives and that unless we agree to agree very soon, the shit will hit the fan.

What of the environmental movement; are we wrong to keep striving, keep fighting, keep persevering to make change, when it seems, all is against us? This is a question I don’t know the answer to. The reason I’m not sure is, that even though there is a growing awareness of the urgency we face, there is a bigger barrier we are up against. Complacency of the majority, overrides the perseverance and determination of the few. The environment movement itself has many amongst it that talk the talk, but refuse to walk the walk. Maybe you are amongst them. I wrote in the introduction to the book ZERO Greenhouse Emissions, which more than likely you haven’t bought and read, so I’ll put the excerpt here;

This book is a cautionary tale for an urgent call to arms, but also a message of hope—that with collective action, we can change our future. There is however one essential lead actor who will determine the success or failure of this book and our planet’s future: you—and without you, there will be no success or happy ending.

I was once told that although the powers that be (policy and decision makers) saw the value and importance of the message we were presenting to them, they failed to see it as significant. I was told that unless this situation were to change and the message were to move from important to significant, not much more could be expected to happen. As public and political agendas shift from one focus to another, from powerful nations to the poor and impoverished, from issues of fossil fuel/oil security to issues of terrorism, from pollution, ecosystem damage, and species extinction to climate change and global warming, from disaster and displacement to water scarcity, from rising sea levels to extreme storms to drought, we are diverted from the main serious, important and significant issue—us. The leaders of nations and industry pass on their myopic view to us. We have been preconditioned to have a preoccupation with self, and we prefer to see the issues involving others as important rather than significant.

We need not reinvent the wheel; we need to reinvent ourselves. I firmly believe man has the brilliance to solve each and every one of the many pressing, immediate, and significant challenges that are ahead. Unless we see these as self-imperatives and collectively take responsibility for our actions, they will be left up to a small band of others to solve. I doubt the solution will come from them alone. Feel no guilt for being part of the problem, but feel responsible and inspired to be part of a solution. A few great men and women may start out being the power of one, but no single great man, no single great woman, from the start of history or into the future, will make a change without collective will.

We need collective will, collective effort, and collective vision, for our collective future. You and yours. Me and mine. Them and theirs.

But it’s only your choice.

END Excerpt.

In closing this social commentary, here are some questions you may wish to answer.

Did equality for women start and finish with Emily Pankhurst?

Did segregation in South Africa finish when Mandela was imprisoned?

Did civil rights become achieved with the bill of rights?

Was slavery truly abolished with the vision of MLK?

Did the war on discrimination end with the JFK speech?

Will the fight for climate change end with Obama’s speeches?

Will the whaling stop in Antarctica when the Sea Sheppard sails?

Will the dolphin slaughter in the Cove end because we say it should?

Will the climate change because we stop protesting?

Will there be any change if we do?

Will there be any change if we don’t?

So …….Perseverance is why I am an activist

It is natural to be rattled by these observations. There is no immediately obvious reason why the rate of ice loss should not continue to increase. Indeed, the recent observations might presage even faster acceleration, perhaps involving the discharge of a substantial fraction of the 1500 mm of sea-level equivalent still stored in Pine Island Glacier and its neighbours. And we have a serious enough problem even if Pine Island Glacier simply maintains its present rate of loss.

Knowing what they know and what they don’t know, “alarmist” is therefore not a label about which glaciologists need to be embarrassed. But they also know that alarmist projections have a way of turning out to be exaggerated.

Consider the energy-balance models, that describe how the climate responds to changes in radiative forcing. The two first such models, published independently by Mikhail Budyko and William Sellers in 1969, projected that the Earth’s surface temperature would drop to tens of degrees below freezing if the output of the Sun were to decrease by only two percent. That made people sit up, and yielded a flurry of publications showing that there are plenty of ways in which the climate system moderates the severity of the negative feedback which was the basis for the original findings.

Even though they are based on measurement rather than on modelling, might our concerns about the recent behaviour of outlet glaciers in Antarctica and Greenland be similarly exaggerated? In a recent modelling study, Ian Joughin and co-authors suggest that the answer is “Probably, but not necessarily”.

The model is not quite state-of-the-art, in that it does not solve the full Stokes equation but a simpler form of the dynamical system that is appropriate for ice shelves and ice streams. The authors were obliged to handle the grounding line, where the grounded ice stream feeds into the floating ice shelf, somewhat roughly. Nevertheless the calculations allow for careful treatment of the rapid sliding at the base of the ice stream, and the implied very large rates of basal melting. And the model does a good job of reproducing the documented behaviour of Pine Island Glacier up to 2009.

Most of the ice in the Pine Island Glacier catchment is flowing very slowly indeed, at a few metres per year at most. But as it converges on the outlet of the catchment it accelerates spectacularly, and is moving at thousands of metres per year by the time it starts to float at the grounding line. Most of the speed is the result of basal sliding, so the ice stream is not unlike a rigid plug, punching its way through the much slower ice on its flanks. This peculiar setup is the core of the problem.

Joughin and his co-authors simulated responses of the glacier to a variety of scenarios that might or might not represent the next hundred years. Even the more extreme scenarios, featuring basal melting at four times the present rate, did not lead to flotation of the entire 200-kilometre length of the ice stream, as one earlier study had suggested. Nor did the model come anywhere close to an even simpler extrapolation of current behaviour, based on kinematics rather than dynamics.

Don’t breathe out yet, however. The results considered by the authors to be the most probable have Pine Island Glacier continuing to lose mass at rates comparable to the recent rates. It doesn’t continue to accelerate, but it doesn’t slow down either. The grounding line doesn’t continue to migrate inland, but the inland thinning implied by the fast flow does continue.

It would be wrong to write off this heroic but tentative modelling effort, which is an important step towards the goal of understanding Pine Island Glacier. Models like this one, and like the energy-balance models that followed up on Budyko and Sellers, are part of the learning process. They suggest that doomsday isn’t going to happen just yet. But, in short, doomsday scenarios are educational.

Source Environmental research web

Footnote – This situation and the broader picture of the grounding lines under the Pine Island Glacier and the Ross Ice Shelf are cover in the book ZERO Greenhouse Emissions – get the ebook here.

The scientific community has long agreed that our dependence on fossil fuels inflicts massive damage on the environment and our health, while warming the globe in the process. But beyond the damage these fuels cause to us now, what will happen when the world’s supply of oil runs out? In a new video series from The Nation magazine and On The Earth Productions, Bill McKibben, Noam Chomsky, Nicole Foss, Richard Heinberg and other scientists, researchers and writers explain.

Visit TheNation.com for more videos in this series

Clearly the water situation for those dependant solely on scheme water for their daily supply is unsustainable for the future.

Recently in a statement widely reported in the local press, the Water Minister Graham Jacobs said “I’m not into talking about semantics about climate change or whatever. What I’m about is the responsible management of the water resource.” This statement had come about when he was reported to have requested that the Water Corporation remove references to climate change in documents to him.

Last year the Water Corporation launched a campaign ‘Water Forever’ a 50 year strategic plan, heavily advertised. They clearly based their plan on data available at that time. Yet they also clearly didn’t get it right!

The question to be asked should be why not? As the graph shows for the period

1911 to 1974 the average is stated as 338 gigalitres (GL)

1975 to 2000 – 177 GL,

2000 to 2005 – 92.4 GL

2006 to 2010 – 57.7 GL.

Is this not a drying change for those dependant on water supplied by them?

The winter of 2010 will go down as the lowest winter rainfall on record with only 13 GL inflow into Perth’s dams which now stand at a mere 32% capacity. The Water Corporation have stated that even with a second desalination plant which they propose to build, Perth will still fall short on the required demand. They now have asked that everyone save 60 liters per person per day!

At the following ‘Perth has had its driest winter on record’ you’ll note the statement that “This year, we have had 13 gigalitres water flow into our dams – compared with the average of over 100 gigalitres each year over the past decade”

Again I find fault in their statement when looking at the average data from 2000 to 2010, (the past decade) the average would be only 75 gigalitres.

I will reproduce the remainder of their web statement.

“If next year is as bad, their simply won’t be any water left in our dams. And that could mean no water for our gardens at all. This situation is far worse than anything we could have predicted in our 50- year ‘Water Forever’ plan.

Clearly, action needs to be taken. And it needs to be taken now.

We urgently need to start ‘banking’ water for next year.

This is because even after next winter, even with a second desalination plant in full flow and our ground water plans in place, we will still need at least an additional 76 gigalitres to help avoid serious water restrictions next summer.”

Well clearly Perth’s taps will inevitable run dry – I would suggest that the Water Minister Graham Jacobs ‘responsible management of the water resource’ start taking into account CLIMATE CHANGE – it will only get far worse from here on in and the present system won’t work for those reliant on it for supply.

Further reading on this subject ‘Peak Water has come and gone’ and ‘Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink’

We are entering a new era, one of rapid and often unpredictable climate change. In fact, the new climate norm is change. The 25 warmest years on record have come since 1980. And the 10 warmest years since global recordkeeping began in 1880 have come since 1998.

The effects of rising temperature are pervasive. Higher temperatures diminish crop yields, melt the mountain glaciers that feed rivers, generate more-destructive storms, increase the severity of flooding, intensify drought, cause more-frequent and destructive wildfires, and alter ecosystems everywhere. We are altering the earth’s climate, setting in motion trends we do not always understand with consequences we cannot anticipate.

Crop-withering heat waves have lowered grain harvests in key food-producing regions in recent years. One with a profoundly direct human impact was the searing heat wave that broke temperature records across Europe in 2003. The intense heat, which contributed to the world grain harvest falling short of consumption by 90 million tons, also claimed more than 52,000 lives.

There has also been a dramatic increase in the land area affected by drought in recent decades. A team of scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research reports that the area of the globe experiencing very dry conditions expanded from less than 15 percent in the 1970s to roughly 30 percent by 2002. The scientists attribute part of the change to a rise in temperature and part to reduced precipitation, with high temperatures becoming progressively more important during the latter part of the period. A 2009 report published by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reinforces these findings. It concludes that if atmospheric CO2 climbs to 450–600 ppm, the world will face irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions of the world. The study likened the conditions to those of the U.S. Dust Bowl era of the 1930s.

The warming is caused by the accumulation of heat-trapping “greenhouse” gases and other pollutants in the atmosphere. Of the greenhouse gases, CO2 accounts for 63 percent of the recent warming trend, methane 18 percent, and nitrous oxide 6 percent, with several lesser gases accounting for the remaining 13 percent. Carbon dioxide comes mostly from electricity generation, heating, transportation, and industry. In contrast, human-caused methane and nitrous oxide emissions come largely from agriculture—methane from rice paddies and cattle and nitrous oxide from the use of nitrogenous fertilizer.

Atmospheric concentrations of CO2, the principal driver of climate change, have climbed from nearly 280 parts per million (ppm) when the Industrial Revolution began around 1760 to 387 ppm in 2009. The annual rise in atmospheric CO2 level, now one of the world’s most predictable environmental trends, results from emissions on a scale that is overwhelming nature’s capacity to absorb carbon. In 2008, some 7.9 billion tons of carbon were emitted from the burning of fossil fuels and 1.5 billion tons were emitted from deforestation, for a total of 9.4 billion tons. But since nature has been absorbing only about 5 billion tons per year in oceans, soils, and vegetation, nearly half of those emissions stay in the atmosphere, pushing up CO2 levels.

Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, is produced when organic matter is broken down under anaerobic conditions, including the decomposition of plant material in bogs, organic materials in landfills, or forage in a cow’s stomach. Methane can also be released with the thawing of permafrost, the frozen ground underlying the tundra that covers nearly 9 million square miles in the northern latitudes. All together, Arctic soils contain more carbon than currently resides in the atmosphere, which is a worry considering that permafrost is now melting in Alaska, northern Canada, and Siberia, creating lakes and releasing methane. Once they get under way, permafrost melting, the release of methane and CO2, and rising temperature create a self-reinforcing trend, what scientists call a “ positive feedback loop.” The risk is that the release of a massive amount of methane into the atmosphere from melting permafrost could simply overwhelm efforts to stabilize climate.

Another unsettling development is the effect of atmospheric brown clouds (ABCs) consisting of soot particles from burning coal, diesel fuel, or wood. These particles affect climate in three ways. First, by intercepting sunlight, they heat the upper atmosphere. Second, because they also reflect sunlight, they have a dimming effect, lowering the earth’s surface temperature. And third, if particles from these brown clouds are deposited on snow and ice, they darken the surface and accelerate melting. These effects are of particular concern in India and China, where a large ABC over the Tibetan Plateau is contributing to the melting of glaciers that supply the major rivers of Asia. Soot deposition causes earlier seasonal melting of mountain snow in ranges as different as the Himalayas of Asia and the Sierra Nevada of California, and it is also believed to be accelerating the melting of Arctic sea ice.

In contrast to CO2, which may remain in the atmosphere for a century or more, soot particles in ABCs are typically airborne for only a matter of weeks. Thus, once coal-fired power plants are closed or wood cooking stoves are replaced with solar cookers, atmospheric soot disappears rapidly.

If we continue with business as usual, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) projected rise in the earth’s average temperature of 1.1–6.4 degrees Celsius (2–11 degrees Fahrenheit) during this century seems all too possible. Unfortunately, during the several years since the IPCC study was released, both global CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have exceeded those in its worst-case scenario. With each passing year the chorus of urgency from the scientific community intensifies. Each new report indicates that we are running out of time. For instance, a landmark 2009 study by a team of scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology concluded that the effects of climate change will be twice as severe as those they projected as recently as six years prior. Instead of a likely global temperature rise of 2.4 degrees Celsius, they now see a rise exceeding 5 degrees.

Another report, this one prepared independently as a background document for the December 2009 international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, indicated that every effort should be made to hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Beyond this, dangerous climate change is considered inevitable. To hold the temperature rise to 2 degrees, the scientists note that CO2 emissions should be reduced by 60–80 percent immediately, but since this is not possible, they note that, “To limit the extent of the overshoot, emissions should peak in the near future.”

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change sponsored an analysis of some 40 scientific studies that link rising temperature with changes in ecosystems. Among the many changes reported are spring arriving nearly two weeks earlier in the United States, tree swallows nesting nine days earlier than they did 40 years ago, and a northward shift of red fox habitat that has it encroaching on the Arctic fox’s range. Inuits have been surprised by the appearance of robins, a bird they have never seen before. Indeed, there is no word in Inuit for “robin.”

Douglas Inkley, National Wildlife Federation senior science advisor, notes, “We face the prospect that the world of wildlife that we now know—and many of the places we have invested decades of work in conserving as refuges and habitats for wildlife—will cease to exist as we know them, unless we change this forecast.” Unfortunately, this observation holds true for humans as well. If we cannot quickly reduce carbon emissions, it is civilization itself that is at risk.

Adapted from Chapter 3, “Climate Change and the Energy Transition,” in Lester R. Brown, Plan B 4.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009), available online at www.earth-policy.org/books/pb4.

Additional data and information sources at http://www.earth-policy.org/.

By then, Arabs will have to survive on less than 500 cubic metres of water a year each, or below a tenth of the world average of more than 6,000 cubic metres per capita, said the report by the Arab Forum for Environment and Development (AFED).

“The Arab world is already living a water crisis that will only get worse with inaction,” the report says, adding per capita supply has plunged to only a quarter of its 1960 level.

Rapid population growth will further stress water resources. According to UN projections, the Arabs, who now number almost 360 million, will multiply to nearly 600 million by 2050.

Climate change will aggravate matters. By the end of this century, Arab countries may experience a 25 per cent drop in precipitation and a 25 per cent increase in evaporation rates, according to climate change models cited in the report.

“As a result, rain-fed agriculture will be threatened, with average yields estimated to decline by 20 per cent,” it says.

Thirteen Arab countries are among the world’s 19 most water-scarce nations. People in eight Arab countries already have to make do with less than 200 cubic metres a year each.

“Without fundamental changes in policies and practices, the situation will get worse, with drastic social, political and economic ramifications,” the AFED report says.

Conditions vary across the region, but within five years only Iraq and Sudan will pass the water scarcity test, defined as over 1,000 cubic metres a year per capita, assuming supplies from Turkey and Ethiopia still flow at current levels.

Agriculture consumes 85 per cent of Arab water use, compared with a world average of 70 per cent. Irrigation efficiency is only 30 per cent, against a world average of 45 per cent.

Groundwater is over-exploited, leading to significant declines in water tables, pollution of aquifers and seawater intrusion in coastal areas, AFED says. More than 43 per cent of wastewater is discharged raw, while only 20 per cent is reused.

The Arab world has 5 per cent of the world’s population but only 1 per cent of its renewable fresh water, so several Gulf Arab countries rely heavily on desalinated sea water — accounting for more than half the world’s desalination capacity.

GOLF COURSES IN THE DESERT

Some of the expensive desalinated water is used to irrigate low-value crops or even golf courses, the AFED report says.

Discharge from the desalination plants, which use imported, polluting technologies, makes sea water warmer and more saline.

Despite its scarcity, water is often squandered in the Arab world thanks to low prices and subsidies that disguise its cost.

“Free water is wasted water,” the report says, noting average prices charged in the region cover 35 per cent of water production costs and only 10 per cent for desalinated water.

Governments, which often focus on seeking new supplies of water, should instead concentrate on improving water management, rationalising consumption, encouraging reuse and protecting water supplies from overuse and pollution, AFED urges.

Better water management presents huge challenges in Arab countries where most public organisations serving irrigation and urban water needs “do not function properly”.

Water pricing schemes are needed to attract new investment in the sector, but that will not be enough, the report says.

“No technological or engineering solutions will be effective without the necessary policy, institutional and legal reforms.”