Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2 New Reports Indicate China’s Water and Soil May Be Too Far Gone to Support a Growing Economy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:09 PM
Original message
2 New Reports Indicate China’s Water and Soil May Be Too Far Gone to Support a Growing Economy
2 New Reports Indicate China’s Water and Soil May Be Too Far Gone to Support a Growing Economy

Two new reports – one from the Chinese government, the other based on criteria developed by the United Nations – should be enough to scare every government, economist and investor in the world about the future of the Chinese economy, currently the one global bright spot.

The underlying question raised by these reports is this: How can a nation’s economy grow when its soil is rapidly eroding and its water is rapidly becoming so polluted that it isn’t just unsafe to drink. It’s even unsafe for fishing, farming and factory use.

In short, how can a nation’s economy grow when its ecosystems appear on the verge of collapse?

As reported late last month by Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency, “A three-year investigation reveals almost 40% of China’s territory, or 3,569,200 square kilometers of land, suffers from soil erosion.” Reuters news agency put it this way: “Over a third of China’s land is being scoured by serious erosion that is putting crops and water supply at risk, a nationwide three-year survey has found.” The survey reportedly was carried out by China’s bio-environment security research team.

Separately, Britain’s Telegraph newspaper ran a story late last month headlined, “Yellow River too polluted to drink.” Datelined Shanghai, the story began: “The Yellow River, which provides drinking water to millions of people in northern China, is now so badly polluted that 85% of it is unsafe for drinking. China’s heavy industries have tipped so much waste into the river that enormous stretches of it, amounting to over a third of its entire length, cannot be used at all anymore, either for drinking, fishing, farming or even factory use, according to criteria used by the United Nations Environmental Program.”

These are stunning statistics that literally stab at the heart of the world’s biggest, most populous country and the nation whose economy is desperately being counted on by a recession-savaged world.

But as much as the credit crisis has undermined economic growth elsewhere, an environmental crisis looks increasingly likely to do the same to China’s economy. Everything you need to know about Beijing’s continuing failure to come to grips with its eco-crisis can be found in a quote deep in the Telegraph story from a spokesman for the Yellow River Conservation Committee. “I wish that a harmony could be achieved between development, utilization and protection of the river someday.”

China’s water and soil woes appear to have now reached the point at which food and water shortages leading to a health crisis could be possible at any moment, leading in turn to a reduction in GDP at the exact wrong time.

Anyone who doesn't think humanity is on the edge of a precipice raise your hand. Anyone besides kristopher, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
NMDemDist2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. I chose to be childless for a reason
and I made that decision in the 70s.

things don't look a bit better now, everywhere I look things are worse.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Same here.
I think I made the decision just after I read "Limits to Growth".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJCher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. Me three
Made the decision at age 22.

Never regretted it.



Cher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
silverojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 12:23 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Me four.
I actually wanted to adopt a child (a "rescue child", as it were), until illness prevented me from doing so. But from first grade onward, I knew I would never have children. And so it has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. Me five
I'm still relatively young, and male, so I still might, but not as things are currently going. I just feel that it would be unfair of me to bring a new life into a world that is in all likelihood, dying. I too may consider adoption at some point, but for now it's all I can do to stay afloat myself. I hope to see positive changes in the future, but the realist in me says that is unlikely. :cry:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stuntcat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 08:00 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. me six
I pity the children I see and I can't understand or even trust the people who keep having them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
3. GROWTH IS BAD......its a NO NO.....STABLE is GOOD...SUSTAINABLE IS GOOD
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Stable is good - but at what level?
If we're in overshoot, simply stopping our growth isn't enough.

And we are in overshoot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #5
13. For comfort reasons....the Worlds Pop should be anywhere between
4 billion to 5 billion

The energy from solar, wind, nukes, hydro, and bio mass should be enough for us to let go of fossil fuels except for essential uses..and still maintain a high level of living.

as it is...we can go up to 9 billion or so if we produce enough food to sustain but only as a temp level....we can lower our pop withour draconian measures by attrition...

If we plan...we can implement...if we don't...we run the risk of FAMINE
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I disagree
I think the world population should be around 1 billion, maybe 2 billion tops. That will allow the earth to begin to heal from all of our damage, and lessen the strains on her limited resources. Well, once China, India, Pakistan, and Russia finish nuking the hell out of each other over water, well be down to around 3 billion or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. If there is a nuke war....consider the book ON THE BEACH neville shultz Movie Ava Gardner Greg Peck?
I concur...1 billion would be nicer than our present 7 billion....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Better yet, try "A Canticle for Liebowitz" by Walter Miller Jr.
It's one of the classics of science fiction literature, and a remarkable study in human nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. The 2000 remake with Armand Assante was pretty good, too
Some of the details (the phantom telegraph key, for instance) were a little old; for the remake, they used a solar-powered laptop computer.

The remake also showed a little of what radiation sickness was like: vomiting, diarrhea, weakness.

The acting was not quite as good as Stanley Kramer's version, but it was excellent on its own.

BUT ... I don't think there will be a nuclear war on that kind of scale, not at least for 50-75 years. It would take a renewed, multi-decade arms race. The threats we now face are coming in the next two or three decades. Famine and mass migrations will do that kind of destructive work.

It's still possible to avoid that kind of world trauma, but it's going to be difficult. And even then, we'll still have to reduce the stress on the world's resources.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. Wow, I didn't even know there was a movie version . . .
Edited on Wed Dec-10-08 08:52 PM by hatrack
Available on video, one assumes?

I really need to get out more!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. It's on VHS and DVD
Edited on Wed Dec-10-08 09:25 PM by Pigwidgeon
Edit: I found that it's currently available through Amazon.

I got http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0219224/">a copy of it transcoded from videotape-source PAL to NTSC and then into an AVI file. The same copy seems to be the one that's on P2P (ED2K). The visual quality kind of sucks, but it's watchable, and it's on cable TV every year or three. I'm sure the next time it runs, someone will have the presence of mind to record it via DVR or TiVo.

It's available through Amazon in http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=B00004WI5P">%20B00004T9VD&tag=imdb-adbox|VHS and http://www.amazon.com/Beach-Armand-Assante/dp/B0007N1JNM/ref=pd_rhf_f_t_cs_2">DVD formats. (The badly-munged URL should work fine.)

Kramer's version is available on DVD, too.

Threads is currently only available as a "Region 2" DVD, but it's supposedly due out, restored, in DVD and Blu-Ray soon. (Make sure you get your Wellbutrin refilled first.)

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Given our high degree of cleverness as a species,
Edited on Wed Dec-10-08 07:44 PM by GliderGuider
My pick for "maximum sustainable human population" is probably half a billion. Unfortunately, the more time we spend over that sustainable number (i.e. in overshoot as we are now), the lower it drops. If we don't die back to one billion by the end of the century, our long-term sustainable number probably goes down to 250 million or less.

We can't reduce our impact voluntarily (i.e. as a matter of will), it's not in the nature of our organism. Our cleverness inevitably causes us to over-exploit our ecological niche, which is why our great cleverness will ultimately lead to a low sustainable population.

On edit: re-joined split infinitive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Check this out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

We have allowed ourselves to be deluded in avoiding reality...with dire consequences
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
25. Our world is remarkably resilient
Take the case of whitetails in the upper midwest. As the predators were all killed off and driven out, the whitetail population exploded. Everyone thought it was great, lotsa bucks fer da yoopers, don'cha kno? Yoo betcha, eh.

And then dear started eating everything. Starving. Spontaneously aborting. The deer population plumetted to the point where protections were actually put up to keep deer from going extinct locally. The landscape was a bunch of well-chwed trees, stumps and the like. Within two years the plants managed to come back - thinner than before. And with them came the whitetails - at a population level that could be maintained by human hunting.

We'e the whitetails. We're simply more resourceful. The level of sustainable human population will come after a very large die-off of our species. It definitely won't be pretty, but the transformation at Chernobyl shows us that the removal of humans results in a rapid and exponential return of natural flora and fauna - newtonian physics applied to ecology, "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" - destroy one human, and all the resources that human had been using will be reclaimed.

Right now the world's biggest problem is that birth rates are so far above death rates. Once all those gnarly diseases start getting resistant to our drugs though... I imagine that could be quickly reversed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #25
28. The Mother Earth will survive...Mankind is in Question...we leave nothing for our children do we?
Cept for debt that is.

we leave a spoiled Earth.....and a poorer legacy...

Our children will someday wonder how to melt iron, make steel. all the tools and knowledge will fast disappear should we have a catastrophic event with following famine to produce anarchy..
we will be back to stones soon enough....forget cell phones and computers....we won't have the resources nor the knowledge...

We face extinction even now....

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-11-08 02:42 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Heh... No, I doubt our children will wonder how to smelt iron
In fact I wager that in the forseeable future - four, maybe five generations - pretty much all of the accessable sources of iron and aluminum will have been gathered and used. Oh yes, we'll live that long, it'll be a pretty sorry state for folks.

Of course, this is assuming the oil we use to power industrial-level smelting holds out that long. Who knows, there may yet be untapped sources of iron for later generations to discover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:19 PM
Response to Original message
4. I am reading a facinating book
called "Collapse, How societies choose to Fail or Succeed" by Jared Diamond.

Fantastic so far.....Diamond explores past socities that failed and then he looks at the past societies that survived.


He also looks at Modern Societies that are successful or on the brink of failure.

He has a 5 point frame work that he applies to each society
1. Environmental Damage
2. Climate Change
3. Hostile Neighbors
4. Friendly Trade Partners
5. Societies response to it's environmental problems (which always proves significant)

DU Non Fiction group recommended the book. They have been right on with the recommendations.

China's response to it's envrionmental woes could very well doom the country.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Good for you -- that's one of the good ones, all right.
If you're ready for others in a similar vein, try Joseph Tainter's "The Collapse of Complex Societies" and William Catton's absolute fundamental classic, "Overshoot".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Thanks for the recommendations.
I will add the books to my book list, which is very long by the way.:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
panader0 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. I'm gonna rec this because I think that China is such a major player.
They own most of our debt, yet when our stock market tanked, so did theirs, showing me that inspite of owning our debt, they are also vulnerable. This post points to an unavoidable truth. The environment and the burgeoning population make China just like us.
We're all bozos on this bus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. The Future Fair -- a fair for all, and no fair to anybody.
Prescient bunch of dopers weren't they?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Elwood P Dowd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
11. Mercy, Mercy Me
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
quidam56 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-08 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. China regulates US
In Appalachia, ( coal country usa ) the schools are so old and outdated these kids can't even use the latest technology because there's inadequate power supply. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Wise County Coal is shipped out of here by the tons and mountain valley fills after decapitating our home so we can go to walmart and buy cheap toxic crap !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Systematic Chaos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
15. I'll bet 3 solar pool heaters,
9 d:freak:i:hurts:p:hi:s:bounce:h:headbang:i:grr:t e:nuke:mot:woohoo:ico:rofl:ns,
(((14 nonsense parentheticals))),
and 27 tons of kea treats,
that we're screwn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. As I've been saying for awhile, the Chinese are on their way towards self-extermination.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Chinese population drop precipitously within the next 20-30 years. But to be honest, that'll probably better for the environment long term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hogwyld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. I think if the Chinese are faced with partial extinction
or otherwise, wouldn't it be more accurate that they migrate to other parts of the world? Whether they die in China due to ecological disaster or in a war with another country for a place to live, I imagine they'll at least go down fighting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
opihimoimoi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-08 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. Read an old book...about 12 years old....WHO WILL FEED CHINA
it predicts what is happening to her

awesome book....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nihil Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-11-08 05:58 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. That's a Work-In-Progress as we speak ...
> wouldn't it be more accurate that they migrate to other parts of the world?

Of course, depending on the rate of change, this might mean that the remaining
native Chinese will end up fighting migrated ethnic Chinese as one tries to
expand into the other ...
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 05:45 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC