Probably, according to a new study reported in the New Scientist.
Possibly not according to two Israeli hydrologists in commentary on the study:
In conclusion, owing to the large differences between the simulated and the observed meteorological and hydrological values, which are large also with respect to those between the predicted and the simulated values, the experimental results cannot be trusted. This discrepancy makes the “projection that the ancient “Fertile Crescent” will disappear in this century” (in the paper’s title) questionable.
According to them the study got the hydrological model wrong. But Will Steffen’s recent report tells us that that climate models used for forecasting do not include long-term feedbacks. So it is likely that the precipitation deficit later this century has been underestimated. The Iraqis are anything but home free on this one.
As the image over the fold shows, the issue is political as much as it is climatological and hydrological.
The article containing that image suggests that the Tigris/Euphrates basin is one of at least seven in the world where major conflict over water could be anticipated. Most of the water in the system comes from Turkey, Syria and Iran, especially Turkey. These are not necessarily friendly countries. Trouble is already afoot with Turkey:
Tensions have been growing since May, when the Iraqi parliament refused to approve a new much-needed trade deal with Turkey unless it contained binding clauses on river flows. But Turkey appears in no mood to compromise. In July, it announced the final go-ahead for yet another dam, the Ilisu on the Tigris.
One of Turkey’s aims is to increase hydro power:
There are currently 172 hydroelectric dams in operation in Turkey with an overall capacity of 13,000 megawatts, which amounts to 17 percent of the country’s electricity production, according to figures from the state-run hydraulic works directorate (DSI).
A total of 148 are under construction and there are plans to build another 1,400, which would enable Turkey to triple its hydroelectric production.
Dams of course disrupt and swamp ecosystems and are disruptive socially by displacing people. Much of the focus is on the so-called GAP Project (Turkish acronym for Southeast Anatolia Regional Development Project) which when complete will see 22 dams on the Tigris and Euphrates:
That image came from Stratfor where I followed up to access the free article. Effectively, Stratfor says, Turkey now controls the water flowing into Iraq on which half their annual grain production depends.
The other half, grown from rainfall, is under threat of decreasing yields because of climate change.
The Tigris and Euphrates currently supply 88 bcm (billion cubic metres) of water, 50 bcm of which makes it to the Iraq border. Existing dams hold 100 bcm, but this will increase. Initially Turkey’s interest is in hydro power, which means the water must flow, but there are plans to hive increasing amounts off for irrigation in Turkey. Iraq thinks that their share might reduce to 43 bcm by 2015.
Iraq’s bargaining point should be oil, but Turkey only gets 9% of its supplies from Iraq. Furthermore oil exports from the Kurdish region in Iraq must depend on Turkey for a port. Stratfor sees the power relations as most unequal, heavily favouring Turkey.
In the longer term, in spite of what the Israeli commenters say the prospects for climate change don’t look good. This image from John Holdren’s slide show illustrates the drying expected later this century from the expansion of the tropics:
This image gives a rough idea, but is significantly more optimistic than a 4C scenario (pdf see Figure 2) given in a recent New Scientist article. Such an outcome would end civilisation as we know it and constitutes an unacceptable risk (see Figure 1 in the last link).
In searching for material I came upon a recent article about the Colorado River which also has problematic prospects. After a 10-year drought, with forecasts of melting ice caps and reduced precipitation to come they are better placed because present storage equals four times average annual runoff. But this is a worry:
…if climate change results in a 10 percent reduction in the Colorado River’s average stream flow as some recent studies predict, the chances of fully depleting reservoir storage will exceed 25 percent by 2057, according to the study. If climate change results in a 20 percent flow reduction, the chances of fully depleting reservoir storage will exceed one in two by 2057…
30 million people depend on the Colorado River for water. The international political situation may not be so acute, but if Mexico dries out as the modelling seems to indicate it will, there is every prospect that the border with the US will be militarised.
At the very least there will be a lot more dams built in the world in the next half century and a prospect of international tensions in a number of hot spots.
To restate the bleeding obvious our prospects will be much improved if we get serious about global warming mitigation in the next few years. If not desperate national survival strategies in hot spots may make sensible international cooperation impossible.
I hadn’t thought about the Fertile Crescent before, Brian. It looks like it’ll go the same way as all the rivers that are fed from the Himalayas.
Most of the resource wars this century will be fought over water, but I suspect that peak oil will limit any nation’s ability to project force.
Good subject,and, I don’t actually see how Australians committing themselves to local problems, will transform the problem of water supply in those countries mentioned.But,and there maybe many things Iraq can still do,and the Turks and Iranians may ponder, without losing much in doing so.That is,does the existing designs of dams adequately allow for down stream flows ,not to cause serious problems for other countries!? Does the draining of eco-systems for agricultural production have to precede along that line!? Bill Mollison and Permaculturalists and others have explored floating gardens of vegetable growing..the problem of maximum production for human purposes maybe a intellectual problem rather than a ecosystem draining problem.Atmospheric moisture needs much more worthy attention ,in terms of validation of possible usage at site,and endless attempts at configuring designs both passive and active in using this precipitation possibility.[As an example of an idea overlay, you have probably heard of by now the Baghdad Battery that some thought was used years ago to use the voltage of.It is obviously clay ceramic,a urn like thing with copper inside and an iron core pipe running up the centre of it to the urn opening.Consider the other adaption of a cooling vessel that has urn qualities too it for cooling in very dry conditions with a minimum of water use. A sort of ceramic clay Coolgardie meat safe.Scaled up somewhat and at sites where a passive need to pull down moisture..these two thought constructs may lead to a third idea being culturally highly acceptable.] Even convincing the dam building countries that getting the design right may make the difference between a good neighbour and a terrible neighbour.So what of dams and design!?I would suggest it maybe easier than what it may seem to be,and I have seen some attempts on Videos on the Net,but, I also have my untested general design thoughts.The dam wall builds up the water for the proposed irrigation and electricity supply,taking over from the normal levels of water.It is really lazy the one block of lots of concrete approach considering that one could have a series of walls that contribute to that level, and still allow quite a large down stream flow to occur.The series of walls would obviously be calculated in height along the equational values of flow and what flow can do to get the maximal head of water for electricity production,which doesn’t have to be completely dependent on a maximum head of water.There is the potential to introduce,say,oxygen as a gas,and the piping arrangements as seen in even ,say,steam trains,that maximise pressure and their gradients.The other walls of a dam,could be used for fish breeding and introduction.Australia has carp that is now used for fertiliser.So you see, if we pressed the right buttons,even AUSTRALIAN ideas scaled up and transformed maybe very useful to all those countries and avoiding the worst of human relationships.A lot can be said first on behalf of Iraqis and their needs to other countries and their present set of ideas of development without undermining their desires too,and without saying they shouldn’t.Perhaps asking to be heard in those countries first and foremost and not using any understandings to now or in the future as a means to extend the war mongering that can be practiced by those who think that must happen.The fact remains also that Israel itself has unpopular dam building ideas.
DI(NR), you’re kidding, right? The Tigris and Euphrates basin is where pre-oil force projection *started*.
Guess I’ll have to throw out my W. H. Breasted (from which, presumably, the entire English-speaking world once learnt about the Fertile Crescent.)
David, I think we shouldn’t underestimate the priority nation states will give to at least defending themselves, if not projecting power.
There is also the possibility of using rockets and nukes.
But some scenarios might not have anything to do with war as such. Turkey could just cut off the water and use it all themselves, just as the Chinese could the Mekong, India could the Ganges and Brahmaputra in relation to Bangladesh (well maybe not all of it), or India could in relation to the rivers flowing into Pakistan. If the downstream country can’t do anything about it you might expect the people downstream to try to move to where the water and food are. Or head in some other direction.
But the possibilities of food production may be quite open. Lovelock suggested that we manufacture food from the constituent chemical components to give the environment a rest while on this thread starting with wilful we had suggestions of textured vegetable protein from algae grown in vats and other seemingly wild suggestions.
We need to think a whole lot more about future food IMO.
It is amazing how many world problems can be traced back to the crazy borders the colonial powers left behind when they withdrew to Europe. For example, ask yourself how logical it was to leave Sudan as one country when the north is muslim and the south christian. Now we have another example. Before WW1 Trukey, Syria and Iraq were all one country so, in theory at least, a logical plan could have been developed for using the water. (Rann may have a different view on the advantages of being one country.)
Perhaps the world should start talking about redrawing state and national borders to take account of catchments. Problem of course when aquifers have different catchments than surface flows.
Brian, it’s quite likely that desperate govts will manufacture military-use diesel and avtur from coal, which is a frightening prospect, but ultimately self-limiting. (But not necessarily in a good way.)
Liam, there’s a limit to how far you can project a force on horseback …
Nation states based on riparian basins sounds a bit too rational, doesn’t it John D? Even a second tier of government along those lines would be too rational for Oz. And Adelaide, like Los Angeles, is actually outside the zone.
David, in yesterday’s AFR there was an article about making fuel from algae, including aviation fuel. The motivation to build and maintain military power has been the mother of many inventions in the past.
And I’m saying that invasion as such is not the only security threat.
Brian at #5
” Turkey could just cut off the water and use it all themselves, just as the Chinese could the Mekong, India could the Ganges and Brahmaputra in relation to Bangladesh (well maybe not all of it), or India could in relation to the rivers flowing into Pakistan……”
…..and Qld, Vic and NSW have done for the Murray and SA.
Sorry for the parochialism but I just couldn’t resist.
No probs, hannah’s dad. I was thinking myself that if we can’t sort things out when we are all under the same power umbrella, how much more difficult it is for different and somewhat hostile nations.
It strikes me that the Kurds wanting whatever they want when they are spread across as I understand it five countries don’t have a chance, but then they probably never did. Their aspirations will just not rate in the crush of the politics of water.
Yay let the principle of unfettered selfishness prevail and abandon all hope that the state is willing or able to intervene. What a farce!
Sounds like another argument for Turkey joining the European Union. The moral persuasion of the EU if it perceived water rights being denied those downstream could be useful.
Not really. The ghosts of Alexander the Great, Subotai, William the Conqueror, more or less all of the Crusader kings, Hernán Cortés, Pedro de Alvarado and Francisco Pizarro have illustrative stories about just how far and fast it can be done.
Anectodally, the US Marines were using horses and mules in Afghanistan as early as 2002-2003—an eye-opening contraction of history.
David Irving – with or without any relations.
I take your basic point about fighting over water. The Israelis bombed dams in Syria as far back as the early – mid 60′s.
The point of the article is an example of events that are going to keep popping up all over the world, over the next however many years, as the environment slowly crumbles – largely avoidably and unnecessarily, I think.
But I really have a problem with the promotion of “Peak oil” though – and maybe you could help set me straight. My thoughts are along 2 lines.
Firstly, I can accept that there probably has to be a finite amount of oil under the earth’s crust, with varying ease of access.
But as to the validity of the information surrounding the claims of “peak oil” I think is another matter.
In order to sell their products, most major companies happily lie through their back teeth to ensure their products return the maximum possible. Example: the lies and complete falsehoods paraded as “scientific” “evidence” that the tobacco industry has been throwing at us for decades, about the safety of their products.
Now, is it too much of a stretch to consider that the oil companies, in order to maximize their profits, would provide completely false information indicating that oil is on the way out, in order to maintain / boost their prices, gain maximum subsidies for more “exploration”, etc.
While the massive environmental devastation of our use of fossil fuels is self evident, I’m not personally committed to either side of this debate, but my mistrust of the oil companies to honestly provide us with reliable info is sufficient to make me skeptical whenever I hear of “Peak oil”.
Secondly, I don’t need any convincing that we would not be able to go to the bowsers and fill the jalopy’s fuel tank, if fuel was genuinely in short supply. It is absolutely inconceivable that any of the world’s militaries would permit you and me, to casually drive into an open servo and exchange small change for fuel if it limited or – god forbid! – prevented them from making war, wherever and whenever they choose.
I’m not suggesting that in a parliamentary democracy like ours, the military would necessarily usurp the government.
But there are many governments who would not make any bones about their determination to keep control of whatever empire they presently have. And if there was a serious limiting factor to their ability to make war – eg not being able to get their hands on the fuel to send their bombers up – then you and I wouldn’t be able to drive in a “Fill her up”.
What do you think?
PS Mate, could LP run a Saturday Salon or Lazy Sunday to try and organise some relatives for you?
Mervyn, I’m only denying one quite specific relationship.
Peak oil has happened. If it hadn’t, the oil companies would be drilling new holes in the ground and dragging the shit up as fast as they could.
Liam, you can only project force on horseback (or any other way, if it comes to that) if there is fodder and water (or equivalent) available for your horses. I’m sure you can see the problem already.
Do you know how many horses it would take to move a modern army, btw? I’m guessing more horses than there have ever been.
Mervyn @ 14, on peak oil according to the guy from the IEA “we have to leave oil before oil leaves us” and “the earlier we start, the better”.
What is peak oil?
When will it be reached?
I think he means the price is going to start to climb seriously from 2010.
And the big worry is dirty oil, ie. oil from coal and shale etc.
Well, the German army in the Second World War was about 80% horse-drawn, and lost something like 2.7 million horses during the war. Of course, they did end up losing …
Well done Brian for putting that up. Turkey’s plans are the most fraught with risk for any transboundary catchment globally, notwithstanding groundwater domains fringing the east and south of the Mediterranean. The Mekong has more water as does the Ganges, Bramaputra. With the latter two, the big shortages will come after the ice has melted …
I doubt whether the geo-politics of what is needed to manage water risks was uppermost in Bush’s mind (one thought is a party, two are a crowd), when he launched into Iraq, but the risks of water shortages as a flashpoint IMO are very high when the local politics are so unstable.
What the models are saying and Brian’s take on that is also relevant. In SE Aust, we have had a shift that exceeds the smoothed projections from the model because the real world is bumpy, not smooth. There is evidence that other parts of the world may have experienced the same thing. So the climate may have significant impacts sooner than anticipated (Later is also possible, but things aren’t pointing that way).
Liam, DI (NR)
I think you will find it just takes four horsemen.
Supply to a cavalry force is a problem, DI(NR), not an insuperable barrier to future horse warfare. In the Arab Revolt the British were able to supply Arab regular and irregular forces across thousands of kilometres. The Ottoman Empire could barely project force at all, *because* of their dependence on coal, fuel oil, parts and expertise, and industrial goods, while the force projection of their low-tech enemies was for all practical purposes unlimited.
Horses are already the vehicle of choice for some modern armies, incidentally. Look to what’s going on in Sudan: aerial pre-bombardment of outpost villages, followed by raids by irregular infantry on horseback, coordinated by text message and consumer GPS, and digitally filmed for posterity.
There’s not much I can think of more chilling that warfare inspired by Ghengis Khan and outfitted by Norinco.
Liam, Sun Tzu’s remarks on logistics are still germane.
The Golden Horde only managed to conquer so much territory because the horses and their riders foraged locally. In a warmer world, that may not be possible.
As a human being living in a country Australian paddock with the dreaded cattle beasties often rubbing themselves against the palace with the accompanying orchestral pursuits and perfumery and gravity testing physics,might I say, I think some comments here are overdone. Lets start with borders. Borders are but the extent the authority of an area allows itself to govern.A series of well intentioned tree and shrub plantings could discern those borders for all,with a productive bearingness from them.Humans can make artifacts almost out of anything today.Lets encourage borders that are productive things agreeances for purposes of good caring relationships amongst the people that call themselves this or that.Certainly there are lots of injustices,but humans are not territorial creatures alone,they like things,as much as they like events as much as they like useful knowledge.Useful knowledge is worth debating about with passion and with patience as much as concern for those who may disagree with you.Do not underestimate these countries abilities to solve problems themselves.To do less than that doesn’t seem an intelligent assessment of the problems as they exist.Take a peak at France right now with their algae problems on the beach.In comparison with all the problems besetting Iraq etc. there is no excuse for France’s environmental ineptitude. And on to the subject again! Horses contribute to the environment there-in by rear action.Surely the idea that feed for them,can be grown on roofs and almost anywhere where there is enough moisture seems to suggest,that horses could be part of productive modernisation applied to new ways of using these loyal human friends as they have in the past been part of water pumping milling grains working paddocks and today can be part of local electric powering.Inventors are everywhere..the water problems will be overcome without further grief the first rains of that harvest. As some still say ” God Willing”!