A catastrophic water shortage could prove an even bigger threat to mankind this century than soaring food prices and the relentless exhaustion of energy reserves, according to a panel of global experts at the Goldman Sachs “Top Five Risks” conference.
Nicholas (Lord) Stern, author of the Government’s Stern Review on the economics of climate change, warned that underground aquifers could run dry at the same time as melting glaciers play havoc with fresh supplies of usable water.
“The glaciers on the Himalayas are retreating, and they are the sponge that holds the water back in the rainy season. We’re facing the risk of extreme run-off, with water running straight into the Bay of Bengal and taking a lot of topsoil with it,” he said.
“A few hundred square miles of the Himalayas are the source for all the major rivers of Asia - the Ganges, the Yellow River, the Yangtze - where 3bn people live. That’s almost half the world’s population,” he said.
# California faces water rationing due to drought
# Will climate change destroy us this century? I doubt it
# More of Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
Lord Stern, the World Bank’s former chief economist, said governments had been slow to accept the awful truth that usable water is running out. Fresh rainfall is not enough to refill the underground water tables.
“Water is not a renewable resource. People have been mining it without restraint because it has not been priced properly,” he said.
Farming makes up 70pc of global water demand. Fresh water for irrigation is never returned to underground basins. Most is lost through leaks and evaporation.
A Goldman Sachs report said water was the “petroleum for the next century”, offering huge rewards for investors who know how to play the infrastructure boom. The US alone needs up to $1,000bn (£500bn) in new piping and waste water plants by 2020.
“Demand for water continues to escalate at unsustainable rates. At the risk of being alarmist, we see parallels with Malthusian economics. Globally, water consumption is doubling every 20 years. By 2025, it is estimated that about one third of the global population will not have access to adequate drinking water,” it said.
China faces an acute challenge. It makes up 21pc of humanity but controls just 7pc of the water supply. The water basin in parts of northern China is falling by one meter a year due to overpumping. In Heibei province the aquifer fell three meters last year. An increasing number of rivers are running dry.
Disputes over cross-border water basins have already prompted Egypt to threaten military action against any country that draws water off the Nile without agreement.
The shift to an animal protein diet across Asia has added to the strain. It takes 15 cubic metres of water on average to produce 1kg of beef, compared to six for poultry, and 1.5 for corn.
Goldman Sachs advises investors to focus on the high-tech end of the world’s $425bn water industry. But beware the consumer “backlash” against bottled water, now viewed as an eco-hostile waste of fuel.
It is eyeing companies that produce or service filtration equipment (which can now extract anything from caffeine to animal growth hormones by using nanotechnologies), ultraviolet disinfection, desalination technology using membranes, automated water meters and specialist niches in water reuse.It is difficult to find a “pure play” on water equities. GE is a market leader in the field, but the sector makes up just 2pc of its colossal turnover.
The revenue share of the world’s top water companies that comes from the sector is Veolia (34pc), Suez (16pc), Ferrovial (20pc), Sabesp (100pc), Severn Trent (100pc), RWE (23pc), ITT Corp (32pc) and Pentair (75pc).
Goldman Sachs said the best option is to spread investments across a basket of small “potential takeout candidates” such as Badger Meter, Calgon Carbon, Clarcor, Pentair, Pall, Instituform, Hyflux, Tetra Tech, Acqua America and Watts Water.
Stanford professor Donald Kennedy said global climate change was now setting off a self-feeding spiral. “We’ve got droughts combined with a psychotic excess of rainfall,” he said.
“There are 800m people in the world who are ‘food insecure’. They can’t grow enough food, or can’t afford to buy it. This is a seismic shift in the global economy.”
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Silver-colored metal dental fillings contain mercury that may cause health problems in pregnant women, children and fetuses, the Food and Drug Administration said on Wednesday after settling a related lawsuit.
As part of the settlement with several consumer advocacy groups, the FDA agreed to alert consumers about the potential risks on its website and to issue a more specific rule next year for fillings that contain mercury, FDA spokeswoman Peper Long said.
Millions of Americans have the fillings, or amalgams, to patch cavities in their teeth.
“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses,” the FDA said in a notice on its Web site.
“Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner,” the agency said.
The FDA said it did not recommend that people who currently have mercury fillings get them removed.
The FDA must issue the new rules in July 2009, Long said.
Such a rule could impact makers of metal fillings, which include Dentsply International Inc and Danaher Corp unit Kerr.
The new rule will give the agency “special controls (that) can provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the product,” Long said.
The lawsuit settlement was reached on Monday with several advocacy groups, including Moms Against Mercury, which had sought to have mercury fillings removed from the U.S. market.
While the FDA previously said various studies showed no harm from mercury fillings, some consumer groups contend the fillings can trigger a range of health problems such as multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s disease. In 2006, an FDA advisory panel of outside experts said most people would not be harmed by them, but said the agency needed more information.
Mercury has been linked to brain and kidney damage at certain levels. Amalgams contain half mercury and half a combination of other metals.
Charles Brown, a lawyer for one of the groups called Consumers for Dental Choice, said the agency’s move represented an about-face. “Gone, gone, gone are all of FDA’s claims that no science exists that amalgam is unsafe,” he said in a statement.
J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. analyst Ipsita Smolinski said the FDA is not likely to outright ban the fillings next year but will probably call for restrictions.
“We do believe that the agency will ask for the label to indicate that mercury is an ingredient in the filling, and that special populations should be exempt from such fillings, such as: nursing women, pregnant women, young children, and immunocompromised individuals,” Smolinski wrote in a research note on Wednesday.
Fewer patients have been opting for mercury fillings in recent years, instead choosing lighter options such as tooth-colored resin composites.
Only 30 percent of fillings given to patients were mercury-filled ones as of 2003, according to the American Dental Association (ADA). Other options include glass cement and porcelain as well as other metals such as gold, but they cost more and are less durable, the group has said.
“In our society growing food yourself has become the most radical of acts. It is truly the only effective protest; one that can - and will - overturn the corporate powers that be.”
This is an hour long must-see video in which the author of Seeds of Deception outlines FDA deception and how this deception promotes GMO and hides the health consequences. Thanks Ron, for sharing this!
After viewing this video and posting it, I went back to check the link. The video is now “not available” on Google Video. While searching for an alternate site, I ran across this:
This video contains the same information as the deleted video. View it before it disappears.
Here is a link to the replacement video on another server:
Why is America so brainwashed by the corporate media? Why do we care more about American Idol and sports games than being poisoned with mercury in our vaccinations and sodium fluoride in our water supply? America needs to wake up and get the facts about our chemical manipulation before it’s too late.
Let’s imagine a world without warnings, or guides and a universe filled with safe products and do good business’ whose sole ambition is not profitability but the betterment of mankind. O.K now that we finished our little journey into la al land we can now ask ourselves and our dear friends at the EPA if they were lost in la la land when deciding to distribute pesticide labels electronically, in lieu of traditional labeling. Yes - you read it right. The EPA is planning on pulling all labels off pesticides, including instructions for proper use. The move clearly is raising more than a few eye brows. Are pesticide companies trying to save all the trees used for labels? What possible “do good spin” can they put on this absurd decision?
“Benefits from using this system will include faster access to new pesticide uses, quicker implementation of protective measures for public health and the environment, improved compliance with label directions, and lower costs for industry and EPA,” the agency said May 12 in a statement on its pesticides website. Well, we believe the last part. The utterly absurd system will rely on users to contact either the pesticide labeling website or a toll-free telephone number to obtain the detailed-use instructions that previously were attached to pesticide containers, EPA said. So let me just get this straight - their method of protecting public health is by removing labels off toxic chemicals and asking consumers to call toll free numbers or access web site? Huh? Are they installing phones and access to the web at every retail location? What am I missing here?
According to Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, “EPA knows historically from its label improvement program that it has a difficult time getting people to read labels. Instead of further removing labels from the consumer’s sight, EPA should be enhancing label information and design to ensure better disclosure of product hazards so that consumers can make better decisions regarding pesticide product purchase and use.”
This past Fall the EPA said in its presentation on electronic labeling that it “may replace the Directions for Use on the physical container,” but that the “container label would still have all FIFRA mandated elements, e.g. product name, registration number, net contents, and ingredients (I am guessing without a dictionary enclosed). ” The enforcement of the new system as described last fall involved a number of steps, including that “users would need to have a copy of the labeling from the website at the time of application” and “labeling would be good for a specified duration of time (e.g. six months) from the date of ‘printing.’” Cumbersome, inconvenient, unrealistic and clearly not serving the best interests or safety of the consumer - the EPA misses the mark yet again.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has slipped a controversial ingredient into the $770 million aid package it recently proposed to ease the world food crisis, adding language that would promote the use of genetically modified crops in food-deprived countries.
The value of genetically modified, or bio-engineered, food is an intensely disputed issue in the U.S. and in Europe, where many countries have banned foods made from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs.
Proponents say that GMO crops can result in higher yields from plants that are hardier in harsh climates, like those found in hungry African nations.
“We certainly think that it is established fact that a number of bio-engineered crops have shown themselves to increase yields through their drought resistance and pest resistance,” said Dan Price, a food aid expert on the White House’s National Security Council.
Problems anticipated
Opponents of GMO crops say they can cause unforeseen medical problems. They also contend that the administration’s plan is aimed at helping American agribusinesses.
“This is a hot topic now with the food crisis,” said Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association. “I think it’s pretty obvious at this point that genetically engineered crops-they may do a number of things, but they don’t increase yields. There are no commercialized crops that are designed to deal with the climate crisis.”
President George W. Bush proposed the food package two weeks ago as aid groups and the UN World Food Program pressed Western governments to provide additional funds to bridge the gap caused by rising food prices. The aid must win congressional approval.
It would direct the U.S. Agency for International Development to spend $150 million of the total aid package on development farming, which would include the use of GMO crops.
The U.S. is the UN food program’s largest donor, providing nearly half the help the group receives from governments. It gave about $1.1 billion to the WFP in both 2006 and 2007. The WFP provided $2.6 billion in aid in 2006.
In April, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested at a Peace Corps conference that “we need to look again at some of the issues concerning technology and food production. I know that GMOs are not popular around the world, but there are places that drought-resistant crops should be a part of the answer.”
Some aid organizations agree that it is time to consider GMO crops.
“I think it’s good, that it should be part of the package,” said Mark Rosegrant, an environment and technology specialist with the International Food Policy Research Institute. “It shouldn’t be the only thing in the package. It is now showing quite a bit of potential in starting to address some of the long-term stresses, drought and heat.”
But Noah Zerbe, an assistant professor of government and politics at Humboldt State University in California, said that GMO crops might not be appropriate for developing countries.
“You get fantastic yields if you’re able to apply fertilizer and water at the right times, and herbicides to go along with that,” Zerbe said. “Unfortunately, most African farmers, they can’t afford these inputs.”
Africa ambivalent
The U.S. tried to introduce GMO crops to Africa in 2002, with mixed results. European Union opposition was part of the reason that several African nations that year balked at an offer of U.S. aid that included corn, some of which was genetically modified.
In a severe drought, Zambia rejected the U.S. aid altogether. Several other countries accepted the U.S. corn, but only after it was milled.
The NSC’s Price said the administration is working to persuade European nations to lift their objection to the use of GMO crops in Africa. Rosegrant of the research institute said that, given current food shortages, new bio-safety measures could resolve such problems.
“There’s evidence that those fears tend to be overblown,” Rosegrant said
Genetic privacy, parent consent and individual self-determination rights are at
stake with the U.S. Senate’s recent passage of S. 1858, the ‘Newborn Screening
Saves Lives Act of 2007.’ This paper outlines five key issues of concern. Overview
If enacted, S.1858 will nationalize the
genetic testing of all newborn children—and
indirectly their families. The bill and its U.S.
House companion bill, H.R. 3825, will:
• Establish a national list of genetic
conditions for which newborns and
children are to be tested.
• Establish protocols for the linking
and sharing of genetic test results
nationwide.
• Build surveillance systems for
tracking the health status and health
outcomes of individuals diagnosed
at birth with a genetic defect or trait.
• Use the newborn screening program
as an opportunity for government
agencies to identify, list, and study
“secondary conditions” of
individuals and their families.
• Subject citizens to genetic research
without their knowledge or consent.
Newborn screening is “the first program of
populationwide genetic testing.”1 Yet this
legislation does not require informed parent
consent for testing, surveillance, or research.
Babies are newborn citizens. Each one of the
4,000,000 children born each year in the
United States has all the constitutional rights
of fully-grown citizens. Eventually, these
children become voting adults.
The U.S. Senate passed S. 1858 on
December 13, 2007. An anonymous—said
to be unanimous—voice vote was taken.
The Senate bill awaits action in the U.S.
House, along with the House bill, H.R.
3825. (CCHC Appendix A and B) This analysis
examines H.R. 3825 IH (as Introduced in the
House), the House version of the Senate bill.
Around 300 women rural residents in Brazil burst into a property owned by the US company Monsanto and destroyed a plant nursery and crops containing genetically modified corn, their organization said.
The women were protesting what they saw as environmental damage by the crops.
They trashed the plants within 30 minutes and left before police arrived at the site in the southern state of Sao Paulo, a member of the Landless Workers’ Movement, Igor Foride, told AFP.
The Brazilian government had “caved in to pressure from agrobusinesses” by recently allowing tinkered crops to be grown in the country, he said.
In Brasilia, a protest by another 400 women from an umbrella group, Via Campesina (the Rural Way), was held in front of the Swiss embassy against Syngenta, a Swiss company that is selling genetically modified seeds in Brazil.
The demonstrators called attention to an October 2007 incident in which private guards working for Syngenta killed a protester taking part in an occupation of land owned by the company.
Via Campesina said in a statement that “no scientific studies exist that guarantee that genetically modified crops won’t have negative effects on human health and on nature.”
It added that on Tuesday, another 900 of its members had entered a property owned by the Swedish-Finnish paper giant Stora Enso and ripped out non-modified eucalyptus saplings they claimed were illegally planted.
“… it is of utmost importance that an equilibrium be established between the world’s total population and the capacity of ’spaceship earth’…” - RIO: Reshaping the International Order, 1976 (p124)
The establishment of a World Food Authority to control the food supply of the world is a major goal of The Club of Rome’s RIO report. This issue is intertwined with exaggerated fears of environmental collapse and the elite’s obsession with population control.
The Club of Rome is a premiere think tank composed of approximately 100 members including leading scientists, philosophers, political advisors, former politicians and many other influential bureaucrats and technocrats. This series of articles describes the major conclusions of the 1976 book Rio: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome [1] coordinated by Nobel Laureate Jan Tinbergen. The RIO report “addresses the following question: what new international order should be recommended to the world’s statesmen and social groups so as to meet, to the extent practically and realistically possible, the urgent needs of today’s population and the probable needs of future generations?”
Part 1 of this series gives an overview of the proposed new international order described by the RIO report as “humanistic socialism”. This includes: collective neighbourhood armies, a fully planned world economy, global free trade, public international enterprises, proposed changes in consumption patterns among other topics. Changes to the financial system including international taxation and the creation of a World Treasury, World Central Bank and World Currency are examined in part 2. Part 3 addresses the redefinition of sovereignty from “territorial sovereignty” to “functional sovereignty” as well as the use of the concept of the “common heritage of mankind” to gain international control of not just the oceans, atmosphere and outer space but also all material and non-material resources. Part 4 discusses the generation of public opinion and the use of white coated propagandists.
The Environmental Scare
From RIO: Reshaping the International Order:
“History has frequently shown that people, in times of crisis and once convinced of the necessity for change, are prepared to accept policies which demand changes in their behaviour so as to help secure better lives for themselves and their children.” - 110
The threat of environmental catastrophe to further the population control agenda is nothing new and continues to this day with the manmade global warming scare. Back in the 1970’s the Club of Rome was not shy at using the environmental catastrophe card to push for population control. Below are some examples from RIO: Reshaping the International Order:
“Moreover, it has been estimated that by 1985 all land surfaces, except those so cold or at such high altitudes as to be incompatible with human habitation or exploration, will have been occupied and utilized by man.” - 89
“Although not yet proven, climatologists are being forced to conclude that our planet has in recent times passed through a period which may well have been optimal as far as food production is concerned. They believe that future decades may well be characterized by extremes - hot and cold, wet and dry - without necessarily a change in average temperature. (4)” - 90
The endnote used to back up this claim is given below:
“(4) There is certainly sufficient evidence for this concern: the Asian monsoons were unsatisfactory for three successive years between 1972-1974; severe droughts in the Sahel and other parts of Africa and the Great Plains area of the United States and Canada in 1974; an unexpected late frost in Brazil in 1975 which may have destroyed as much as 60 per cent of its 1976 coffee crop. The growing season of the best grain producing areas in the Soviet Union is now believed to [be] about a week shorter than it was in the 1950’s; an even more pronounced shift appears to have taken place in the United Kingdom.” - 97
Do these types of arguments sound familiar?
“Much effort has been made in the past ten years, in some industrialized countries, to bring the disadvantage facing many Third World countries to the attention of large numbers of people. If it has met with only limited success, it is probably because it has failed to bring out the concept of interdependence of countries and issues. More attention must in future be focused on information and education on how our planet functions and on the ’survival fact’ that the claim of the whole is wider and deeper than the claim of any of its parts. There is also a fundamental need to develop a broadly educated political class which is capable of understanding science and the broad implications, possibilities and dangers of technological advance, and which can harness technological advance for constructive social purposes.” - 111
Population Control and The World Food Authority
“… these threats [of food shortage] might well be exacerbated by increasing population pressures and deteriorating climatological conditions.” - 135
“Population control policies carry the important indirect consequence of restricting the supply of unskilled labour, thereby raising its price.” - 73
“If the world is to be liberated from the continual nightmares of hunger and malnutrition, these and the various measures proposed by the FAO [Food and Agricultural Organization] Worlds Food Conference should be implemented to the full and call for the creation of the World Food Authority, with extensive and real powers; or, as a second best, the World Food Council proposed by the World Food Conference.” - 138
“internationally owned and internationally managed [food] buffer stocks…” - 226
“the question of introducing meat rationing should be seriously considered [for developed countries].” - 227
Food as a Weapon
The incredible power that would be accomplished from a massive concentration of food stocks under the control of a single agency did not escape the authors of this report to the Club of Rome. The reigning food situation in the world was dominated by the great dependence of many countries on the North American breadbasket. This gave the Americans a considerable amount of power over their dependent countries.
“the American Secretary for Agriculture who has observed: “Food is a weapon. It is one of the principal tools in our negotiating kit” ” - 29
The further centralization of food stocks under a single international power would only increase the abuse of food supplies not decrease it. This, quite naturally, is the point. The result of this control is well described by Bertrand Russell (who strongly supported this idea) in his 1952 book The Impact of Science of Society [2]:
“To deal with this problem [increasing population and decreasing food supplies] it will be necessary to find ways of preventing an increase in world population. If this is to be done otherwise than by wars, pestilence, and famines, it will demand a powerful international authority. This authority should deal out the world’s food to the various nations in proportion to their population at the time of the establishment of the authority. If any nation subsequently increased its population it should not on that account receive any more food. The motive for not increasing population would therefore be very compelling. What method of preventing an increase might be preferred should be left to each state to decide.” - 124
Conclusion
The final article in this series deals with a variety of issues including global solidarity, regional unions, legal changes and a standing United Nations Peace Force.
[1] Quotes from Jan Tinbergen, RIO: Reshaping the International Order: A Report to the Club of Rome (1976). ISBN 0-525-04340-3
[2] Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN 0-415-10906-X
Let’s imagine a world without warnings, or guides and a universe filled with safe products and do good business’ whose sole ambition is not profitability but the betterment of mankind. O.K now that we finished our little journey into la al land we can now ask ourselves and our dear friends at the EPA if they were lost in la la land when deciding to distribute pesticide labels electronically, in lieu of traditional labeling. Yes - you read it right. The EPA is planning on pulling all labels off pesticides, including instructions for proper use. The move clearly is raising more than a few eye brows. Are pesticide companies trying to save all the trees used for labels? What possible “do good spin” can they put on this absurd decision?
