Building the new order Entry 17

You already know that I try to make each entry independent of the previous one, but that I have a common thread: I seek to deduce how the new world order is going to be organized after everything that is happening.

My new context selection.

I usually begin my entries with this “new context” heading in which I summarize the most relevant of what has happened since the previous entry regarding the evolution of the new order. My selection today is as follows:

It is almost old (because it has been a while since I have written latest entry), but what has happened between Israel and Iran is very important. They have been attacking each other, and the matter has been very close to escalate to very serious positions. At the present time, it seems that they have decided to lower the level of risk after demonstrating that they can do a lot of damage to each other. The matter remains “dormant”.

International support for Israel is weakening, as is support for Netanyahu at home. In the USA, social pressure in favor of Palestine is beginning to be strong. Especially in the universities (news here). In addition, the international criminal court is considering issuing arrest warrants against Netanyahu and many other high-ranking Israeli officials (news here). It is yet another battle between the West and BRICS+.

Putin has made a new recruitment of 150,000 Russians (news here). That means, both that he has suffered many deaths, and that he is betting heavily on continuing the attack. Also, that he is not overly afraid of social rejection. In the meantime, it is a fact that Russia is making progress in its positions, and that Ukraine is short of weapons, waiting for the help of the West. Help that has been promised, but with increasing indifference. This does not look like good news for Ukraine.

Inditex (Zara) is reopening its stores in Ukraine (news here). Given the seriousness of the brand, and its ability to access information, it may be a sign that they know that the war is ending soon and want to convey the idea that they were not upstarts waiting until the end.

The London Metal Exchange has banned trading in Russian metals (news here). China is buying them. The “iron curtain” between the blocs is evident.

*****

Water and climate change.

These are two closely interrelated issues. Issues that, if they change their balance, will certainly influence the new world order, even if the cause does not come from the pandemic, nor from the economic and geopolitical crises. They should therefore be taken into consideration for this study. However, it is very difficult to know the areas that will be harmed or benefited by changes in the balances (and the time frame in which this will occur). So I can make nothing more than guesses. I make them below.

Water.

We have all noticed that lately it has been raining differently than usual, both in the amounts of precipitation and in the dates when it rains (the dates´ issue is very worrying).

What has not been demonstrated, although it is intuited, is that this will continue to be the case in the coming years. One option is that it is a consequence of an existing climate change. Another option is that it is a casual exception within the usual norm.

What has been demonstrated is that rainfall always follows an eleven-year cycle. This is not strange if we take into account that the behavior of our sun also has an eleven-year cycle, and if we remember that everything that happens on Earth (climate included) is based on the way in which the sun’s energy reaches us. For those who want to go deeper into solar cycles, there is a lot of data here.

By the way, it should not sound strange that these 11-year solar cycles affect more issues than rains. Of course, rains affect harvests, and harvests affect famines, which in turn affect government instabilities and wars. These harvests also affect the economy of the agricultural sector, which, in turn, affects the financial sector.

In the end, it will turn out that everything has its cause in the sun. I already dealt with this subject towards the end of entry 7 of my previous series. There I exposed the very interesting book by Samuel Benner published in the 19th century, where, without expressly saying that the cause is the sun, the author identified a repeated sequence in the economic cycles based on his observations. And they were very close to the cycles of the sun. He also made a table of forecasts of the future, and he was quite accurate.

Returning to water, even if there were a shortage due to climate change, it is clear that what we have is a problem of management of the resource (water). The fact is that we have been managing it for a long time as if it were an abundant resource, which is not advisable.

We have made many investments to be able to supply water where it is needed, and in the quality of the water required: dams, water transfers, pipelines, drinking water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, desalination plants, wells, …

But we have worked much less than desirable on optimization to reduce consumption and transport losses, as well as to maximize reuse.

Let’s look at some data referring to Spain:

Drinking water consumption per inhabitant per day: 248 liters in urban water networks. Source: AEAS, which is a very solvent association in the field (full report here).

ANR: unregistered water, or water losses in pipelines and unmetered (and unbilled) consumption: 23%.

Amount of water reused: 8.1 %.

The first question to ask is whether we really need 248 liters of drinking water per person per day. I believe that few people drink more than 3 liters of water per day. The rest does not need to be drinkable. Does the water in the lavatory have to be drinkable? and the water used to clean the streets? should we clean the streets with water, or would it be better to sweep them? is it acceptable to irrigate crops by methods other than drip irrigation in places with a water deficit? and the design of parks and gardens with plant species that require a lot of water? and many more questions of the same style.

To compare with much better optimized systems, such as Israel’s, it is enough to know that 85% of the water is reused there, i.e. almost all of it. They use water for two purposes, so half the water is needed at source. In addition, they monitor losses much better and optimize uses (there is almost no irrigation other than drip irrigation, for example).

In Spain there is an average rainfall per hydrological cycle of 640 mm, and in Israel it is 200 mm. Despite these differences, there are no water-related quality of life problems in Israel. Therefore, we can do much better, even if climate change gives us less water.

In short, the water problem is a problem of investment in optimization infrastructures, not of availability of the resource.

However, it may happen that this investment is so large that it is more worthwhile to think about migrating to a place where there is plenty of water without incurring such expenses.

On the other hand, looking at the water issue from another approach, Luis del Rivero (an important Spanish engineer and businessman) has recently written a great article exposing the way in which water can be put to another use without reducing the usual uses. That is, it could be a third use (if, in addition, we do like Israel). It focuses on greatly expanding what has always been done with what are called “reversible reservoirs”, to use them as energy storage “batteries”, much needed with renewable energies. You can read the article here.

All of the above is in reference to what is called urban water. That is, water that passes through the city’s distribution systems after purification. This includes, in addition to the water consumed in homes, industrial water in the city, and urban irrigation water. It does not include directly collected agricultural irrigation (data on agricultural water in Spain can be found here).

There is also a debate about the origin of the water we use. Most of it comes from rainfall, which reaches the rivers, and which we manage with dams and pipelines to the places of consumption. But we can also use groundwater (through wells and boreholes), or seawater (through desalination).

Water catchment in Spain. Source: AEAS

Regarding groundwater, we have to take into account that aquifers recharge at a slow rate. If we extract water from there at a higher rate than the recharge rate, we reach the overexploitation of the aquifer, which means that we have to make the well deeper, and that, if we continue, one day the aquifer will be depleted. Therefore, a serious and technical management of the matter must be carried out, which is possible with technological advances. It is not enough to complain about the prohibition of some wells; what we have to do is to collaborate with the regulator to provide him with constant data on the depth of the water table, as well as on the quantities of water extracted at any given moment, and to demonstrate reliably that the well will not be used when there is overexploitation, i.e., groundwater could be used to a great extent, avoiding overexploitation.

The fear that the regulators have is that the well users will cheat them and extract more water than they should. It is a fear justified by the facts (here you can see a map of the parts of Spain with current overexploitation of aquifers, … and it is not pleasant). But today’s technology facilitates control. A proper cooperation of the users (stimulated with sanctions) would help a lot.

However, groundwater is always an available resource in the event of occasional surface water shortages.

Regarding desalination, the first thing to say is that the amount of sea water is almost infinite compared to what we use in our cities and fields. Therefore, in theory, all problems could be solved. But, evidently, things are not that easy. The first drawback is that desalination is expensive, although there are already technologies that are making it cheaper. The second drawback, which is not minor, is that desalination is fine if the desalinated water is to be consumed near the sea. On the other hand, if it is to be consumed far away, there is the high cost of pumping and piping (e.g., to take it from Valencia to Madrid would mean 350 km of piping, as well as raising it 700 m above sea level in Madrid). In addition, there is a third disadvantage, which is the contamination of the sea by brines (which are the salts that we have removed from the sea water). The latter is a technically solvable drawback, but it is not cheap.

Based on the above, if we want to address water management in a place where the climate is changing in a direction of less water availability, we must act in several ways:

As for the quantity of water (which are dams, pipelines, wells, and desalination plants), we must invest in infrastructure, but also in reuse, optimization, loss control, and in educating society not to consume more than necessary. Education that can come to imposition by regulators, for example, of the migration of crops that consume too much water to other places where there is availability.

Regarding water quality (drinking water treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants, and also desalination plants, and, fundamentally, the separative networks), we must avoid overinvestment in providing water of too high a quality for uses that do not require it (drinking water in the lavatory, as an example), as well as providing the minimum quality required for each use.

All this is possible with existing technologies, and with good management, even if water availability drops by more than 50%. However, it is neither convenient nor cheap. And, it seems that in Spain (and in many other places) we are going to have to make an effort to do it according to a very recommendable article I have found (although long), where the following map on future forecasts of water availability is provided.

If the map forecasts are true, comparing them with the blocks of countries I have been talking about in these entries, it turns out that the so-called West is going to have a bad time (only Canada, Germany, and the Nordic countries, which are not the ones with the most millions of inhabitants, are spared). On the contrary, the BRICS+ bloc is doing much better, with Russia, Brazil, and a large part of Africa without problems.

This conclusion about water in country blocs, applied to urban supplies, does not generate more need than the above said: we must invest in spending less water, and reusing more. Where it is not sufficiently provided, there will be future emigration due to water scarcity.

The application to agricultural irrigation water is much more serious. What is not improved by optimized irrigation (drip or similar), implies the loss of these crops. With this, what I said in entries 15 and 16 on agriculture is very nuanced. There we conclude that, for now, the West is doing well. However, when water is scarce, the situation may be reversed.

Therefore, we must remember what has been said so many times: the next wars will be over water. Both in the countries, for access to fresh water, and in the seas, for the control of maritime traffic.

Climate change.

I have said several times in previous entries that the name “climate change” is misnamed. There has always been climate change on Earth. We are well aware of glaciations, mass extinctions (there are more than that of the dinosaurs), changes in magnetism, … Some of these changes have been gradual, such as glaciations, and others sudden, such as the dinosaur meteorite, or the great volcanic eruptions.

Climate change is normal, and the best thing to do is to adapt to whatever happens. This is much easier when climate change is gradual than when it is sudden.

And this is independent of whether or not the cause of climate change is unrelated to human activity. This is a question that has yet to be fully demonstrated, although it seems to be so. In any case, even if humanity did not exist, the Earth would exist, … and it would have climate change.

It is a completely different matter if we have enough technology (and sense) to force the Earth not to change the climate. It is something like saying to the Earth: “you want it to happen, but I won’t let you, because I like today’s climate better”. Or, to put it another way: “climate the Earth”. That is what those who talk about “stopping climate change” are doing, even if they are not aware of it. And for the record, I say that having dedicated twelve years of my professional life to environmental engineering, that is, I am not a denialist, far from it.

Of course, we have to accept that, if we undertake the task of climate control, the necessary investments are brutal, and so are the changes in our habits. What is fashionable now about CO2 is only one of the attempts, and it is not clear that it is sufficient, nor that it is well oriented. Although it is clear that it is the current fashion.

On the other hand, if we do not succeed in slowing down climate change, it is not clear how and when it will affect each region.

Both to try to avoid climate change, and to protect ourselves and adapt to it if it does occur, the best thing we can do is to carry out a great deal of research. And, there are so many subjects to research (many more than CO2 in the atmosphere), that the effort is great. Supporting and respecting science is the best we can do.

There is not enough space in this entry (or in a book) to describe all the possible causes of climate change, with the alternatives for human action to avoid it or to protect ourselves. What I will try to do is to cite some of them in an almost schematic way, so that we can get an idea.

As I said, sudden climate change is much more dangerous than gradual climate change, so I will talk about that case first, and then the gradual one.

Meteorites: this is the example of the extinction of the dinosaurs. If a meteorite falls to Earth large enough that everything that comes out of its crater clouds the atmosphere for a considerable time, there will be climate change. This has happened in the past, and may happen again (thank God, with a small probability).

The protection in this case is the surveillance of the sky by astronomers, and the development of rockets with nuclear bombs that can destroy the meteorite before impact. Both of these capabilities are almost achieved, so if the risk is delayed for a few years, it will be a solved issue. In fact, successful tests have recently been made with the DART spacecraft (news here).

For what I am trying to analyze in these entries on the geographic impact on specific areas, it is impossible for now to know which meteorite is the dangerous one, much less the area where it will fall. However, when the case approaches, science will be able to anticipate calculations to identify the place of impact, perhaps a few days in advance, or, after improvements in the forecasts, a few months. In other words, there may be time to flee.

Large volcanic eruptions: small volcanoes, with their eruption, do a lot of damage in the vicinity, but do not generate climate change in large regions. Medium-sized eruptions can wipe out cities, as in the case of Pompeii, and cloud the sky over large areas. But really big eruptions can affect the climate globally.

Among the great eruptions, the so-called Minoan eruption, which occurred on the island of Santorini (formerly called Tera), is famous. It is thought to have been the cause of the end of the Minoan civilization. It is even related to the myth of Atlantis, and to that of the universal Flood. What is a fact is that there are records of climatic changes in China on those dates, as well as that in the United States samples of it have been seen on trees. An interesting summary can be seen in wikipedia.

For the purpose of these entries in terms of identifying the areas of greatest danger, science does allow us to know them, but we do not know (yet) how to “slow down” the volcano, nor precisely identify the time of the eruption more than a few days in advance (enough time to evacuate).

As I have said that it is possible to flee in time, but that there will be great losses in case of eruption, it follows that in those areas it is possible to live, but it is not advisable to make large investments.

The following map identifies the highest risk areas (see the full article here).

Ocean currents: This is not such a sudden change, but it is very important. The fact is that, in the oceans, there are sea currents that work almost like conveyor belts of heat and salinity. They are well studied and it is known that their influence on climate is enormous. One of them is called AMOC, which is the Atlantic Ocean Current. It is known that AMOC changed direction 20,000 years ago, and that it generated global climate change (news here). It is also known that the current current is decreasing its intensity, and it is predicted that there will be another change in dates that are discussed between 2050 and the 22nd century (info here). It seems that the consequence would be the freezing of the northern hemisphere and the warming of the southern hemisphere.

With current scientific knowledge, it is not clear how to stop this change, but it is known that preventing the Arctic from melting helps, so CO2 controlling would also help.

If the change ends up happening in AMOC, in what we call the West (which is mostly to the north), we can already prepare for more cold. In my opinion, this is the most worrisome issue when talking about climate change. There is little talk about it, but we should go deeper into science about it.

Greenhouse gases (the CO2 thing): This is what is being talked about so much now. For this reason, it is not necessary to go into depth here. Suffice it to say that it is true that these gases can produce climate change, but that there are other possible causes, such as those I have cited above and others that have been left out. The United Nations provides a basic summary of the greenhouse effect here.

The great oxygenation: As a curiosity, we must mention that one of the great historical climatic changes, which was on the verge of extinction of what was then on Earth, is called the “great oxygenation”. It occurred 2,000 million years ago, when oxygen increased in the atmosphere. It is well reported here. At that time, oxygen was more of a concern than CO2. Which reminds us that change is constant (even without humankind).

Conclusions on climate change.

As I said above, climate change is most likely (and natural) to occur. Fortunately, it is unlikely to be of the sudden and global type, as it will either be localized (volcanoes), or we will have tools to prevent it (meteors).

The more or less gradual changes (ocean currents and greenhouse gases) give us time to try to avoid them, which is what I have called “climate the Earth”, i.e. not letting it do what it wants. The other option is to accept them and adapt to other living conditions (or emigrate).

It is not possible (at least for me) to know which countries will be affected in one way or another by climate change exactly, so I cannot make forecasts about the consequences in blocs of countries.

What can be said is the irony that, if it is true that climate change is a consequence of human activity, it is because of the part of humanity that industrialized earlier (the West). And, the solutions that are being proposed now prevent the other countries from being able to obtain the benefits that the West obtained. In other words, we want them not to do what we did. We must recognize that this is a colonial mentality.

*****

Readings that have interested me.

In the process of writing this entry I have come across many issues of other subjects. I would like to share the following:

Regarding polarization in the different countries, the graph provided by Mike Mastroyiannis is very interesting. It is a pity about Spain’s position, but, given the situation here, it may be true.

Antonio Turiel writes a very accurate article in his blog about the way we face the energy model and climate change. He relates it to the capitalist system. I like what he says from a scientific point of view. I have more doubts about his political approaches, but I recommend reading it (you can see it here).

It seems that the position of gold as an exchange currency between blocs of countries is strengthened. They explain it well here. Bad news for the dollar.

Zerohedge does a good comparative power analysis between the West and BRICS+ here. It has a lot of very good graphs. The summary is that the West is losing. I really like the final sentence, where he says: “people under pressure, especially politicians, tend to make big mistakes”.

The folks at visualcapitalist provide the graph of the rising cost of US debt in interest (here). It has already reached a “trillion” a year.

China has discovered large oil reserves that may shift the balance in its favor (news here). Again, bad news for the West.

*****

This is as far as I go for today. If there are no other developments, I believe that in the next entry I will begin to discuss the conclusions of this series, before ending it.

As always, I welcome comments on my email: pgonzalez@ie3.org