News and Commentary for 11/17/07

The U.S. Congress has passed the U.S.-Peru Free Trade Agreement. Among the provisions: removal of duties on some 80% of U.S. exports to Peru, including subsidized cotton, corn and wheat (which will drive more Peruvian farmers off the land); expanded rights to drill in the Peruvian Amazon (which is why Occidental Petroleum, for example, has been lobbying hard for the FTA); and the greater opening of Peru's urban commercial sectors to foreign competition (hence the enthusiasm of Wal-Mart, Citibank, and others).

Brazil may purchase a nuclear submarine to "protect" the massive offshore oil reserves recently discovered at Tupi.

Speaking of nukes, the always-perceptive Azmi Bishara has written a good op-ed piece on Hiroshima and the Machiavellian logic of U.S. elites.

A massive cyclone hit Bangladesh on Thursday, killing a reported 1,100 people. Some 650,000 coastal villagers have fled to shelters, and 150 fishing trawlers are unaccounted for. The cyclone caused the power system in much of Bangladesh to collapse, leaving millions without power. This also led to a disruption in piped water supplies, as pumps could not be started.

The water problems in Bangladesh are a reminder of the complex supply chains and interdependencies that make urban life possible. The water crisis in Atlanta is another such reminder.

Climate Change and Water Wars

Tom Engelhardt's points out in this article that severe droughts are simultaneously afflicting the southern and midwestern U.S., North Africa, southeastern Europe, Mexico and Australia. Speculating about the possibility of mass migrations and resource conflicts over water in the U.S., he asks why the topic of water security--and what will happen if drought conditions take hold in major cities like Atlanta--is rarely broached in the U.S. media.

The IPCC impact assessments suggest that, even by conservative projections, there will be reductions in crop production in the most populous rural areas on the planet over the next few decades. But we have no reason to believe in convervative projections: U.S. carbon emissions are not only growing, their rate of growth is accelerating, and is predicted to continue to accelerate.

While there may actually be a boost in food production in parts of the U.S. due to climate change, in much of the farm belt food production will decrease. The IPCC 4th Assesment Report predicts:

"By mid-century, annual average river runoff and water availability are projected to increase by 10-40% at high latitudes and in some wet tropical areas, and decrease by 10-30% over some dry regions at mid-latitudes and in the dry tropics, some of which are presently water-stressed areas. [...] Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions. At lower latitudes, especially seasonally dry and tropical regions, crop productivity is projected to decrease for even small local temperature increases (1-2°C), which would increase the risk of hunger. Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1-3°C, but above this it is projected to decrease. [...] Increases in the frequency of droughts and floods are projected to
affect local crop production negatively, especially in subsistence sectors at low latitudes."

Two things need to be noted here: 1) these "subsistence sectors in low latitudes" include the most densely populated parts of coastal Asia, Africa and Latin America; and 2) increases of 1-2°C (under which "crop productivity is projected to decrease" in these regions) are at the low end of moderate IPCC predictions for temperature increases. So a fall in crop productivity in most of the world, most dangerously in the bread baskets of the southern hemisphere, is virtually assured. And this despite the fact that, at current growth rates, world population is expected to "crest" at 9 billion by 2050 . Unequivocally, then, anyone who advocates "business as usual" is advocating mass death.

Unfortunately, in a culture where possessive individualism is exalted by all-pervasive private and state propoganda as the highest collective aim, action on climate change might require its effects being "brought home" to the global north through drought and wildfires. As long there is a perceived geographical split between the greatest per capita carbon emitters and the greatest victims of climate change, it is likely that popular pressures will remain weak.