23/01/2018

Growing Populations, Climate Change Leave Cities On A Fast Track To Water Deficits

Daily Climate

By 2050 many of the world's major cities will face surface water shortages, spurring regional conflict and competition for scarce resources

More than a hundred cities—containing millions of people—will have water demands outstripping surface water supplies by 2050, according to a new analysis of climate change impacts on water.
The global study cited many cities in the U.S.—including Los Angeles, San Diego, Santa Ana and Long Beach in California, and Phoenix, Arizona—as headed for worsening future water problems.
These water deficits—exacerbated by a changing climate, a growing population and urbanization— will spur conflict between cities and nearby farming areas and put pressure on already stressed groundwater supplies.
There are "two big climate change impacts relevant to drinking water quantity," said senior author of the study, Robert McDonald, lead scientist for the Global Cities program at The Nature Conservancy. "Timing of rainfall is changing … in general wet periods will get wetter, dry periods will get drier.
"The other is that, because it's hotter, evaporation from whole watersheds will go up a lot, even if there is the same amount of precipitation, cities will find reservoirs a lot lower."
Currently about 54 percent of the world's population lives in cities—which is "likely to grow to between 60 percent and 92 percent" over the next 80 years, according to the study published in Nature Sustainability journal.
  Currently about 54 percent of the world's population lives in cities—which is "likely to grow to between 60 percent and 92 percent" over the next 80 years, according to the study published in Nature Sustainability journal.
"We're in the middle of the fastest urban growth in history, and it would be hard to build water supply systems for all those people anyway," McDonald said. "Climate change is making it harder."
Water demand in cities is estimated to increase by about 80 percent by 2050. Globally, surface water demand will surpass supply by about 366 billion gallons, leaving 233 million people in cities with potential shortages, meaning the cities would be reliant on storage to get people safe water.
"This clearly points out a very stressful challenge ahead for cities—for all water users," said Brian Richter, the president of Sustainable Waters, who was not involved in the current study.
Top 10 cities with a projected surface water deficit by 2050:
  • Los Angeles, California
  • Jaipur, India
  • Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
  • Dalian, China
  • San Diego, California
  • Karachi, Pakistan
  • Harbin, China
  • Phoenix, Arizona
  • Porto Alegre, Brazil
  • Monterrey, Mexico
The "United States shows a clear division between cities in the West that are vulnerable to a surface-water deficit and cities in the East that have little vulnerability," the authors wrote.
Researchers estimated future water demand and availability in 482 of the world's largest cities, which contain 736 million people.
Due largely to climate change impacts on water supplies and trends of turning natural areas to urban, they estimate 27 percent of the 416 cities that rely on surface water will have a water deficit three decades from now. In addition, 41 percent of all river basins are set to have conflict between urban water users and agricultural users.
"South Asia is a hotspot region where competition between urban and agricultural demand is generally highest," the authors wrote.
The study comes as the World Economic Forum released their 2018 Global Risks Report, which cited "water crises" as the fifth highest risk to the planet over the next decade. Failure to mitigate and adapt to climate change was fourth on the list.
The annual report points out that lack of water is strongly linked to other escalating challenges such as food insecurity, involuntary migration and struggling economies.
Water scarcity could cost some regions of the world—such as Central Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia— up to 6 percent of their GDP.

Changing the historical blueprint
Richter said historically cities have followed a similar pattern in water use—first, using whatever water is most available, whether it's tapping groundwater or rivers. Then, as populations grow, the common next step is to reach into other watersheds and import water.
"Some cities reach great distances," he said, pointing to China's South to North Water Diversion project—which will require more than 620 miles of pipeline to take water from the Yangtze River in South China to North China—as one of the more extreme examples.
Richter said after importing, many cities then turn to desalination, and, more commonly, water re-use, recycling and conservation efforts.



This, he said, should be flipped.
"It's very important for cities to push aggressively on water conservation, it's by far the least expensive way to manage an urban water budget," he said.
Richter said the good news is there is still "tremendous potential" in many U.S. cities to push water demands far below what they are today.
"Many 'smart water' cities are at 50 to 60 gallons per capita per day, but many cities, including some in the Southwest, have a per capita use 10 times that," he said.
Richter pointed to San Antonio, which boasts the largest recycled water delivery system in the U.S., and Tucson, Arizona, which stores about 15 million gallons of reclaimed surface water in reservoirs for use in irrigation, fire fighting and industries, as two examples of forward thinking cities.
McDonald said a San Diego initiative to purchase water rights from agricultural district, and help farmers install new, more efficient irrigation equipment, is an example of a city-rural water solution.

Links

New Climate Model Promises To Help Avoid Dangerous Global Warming

Climate Change Institute

A new international study involving ANU has designed a new and simpler climate model that gives authorities a more precise picture of how humanity is tracking to avoid dangerous global warming this century.
The Paris Climate Agreement set targets to restrict the rise in global temperatures to two degrees Celsius or less above pre-industrial levels by reducing carbon emissions.
Co-researcher Professor Eelco Rohling from ANU said the uncertainties in climate models used by scientists today were too large to develop future carbon budgets that meet specific warming targets.
"There is significant uncertainty in projecting the amount of carbon that can be emitted, in part due to the limited number of Earth system model simulations and their discrepancies with present-day observations," said Professor Rohling from the ANU Research School of Earth Sciences.
"Our model narrows the uncertainty in global warming projections and reduces the range in equilibrium sensitivity of global temperatures to emissions."
Professor Rohling said a warming target of 1.5 degrees above the pre-industrial level would require the total emitted carbon from the start of last year to be less than 195-205 petagrams of carbon. A petagram is one billion metric tonnes.
"The two degree target is only likely if the emitted carbon remains less than 395 to 455 petagrams of carbon," Professor Rohling said.
"At the current emission rates, the 1.5 degree target is reached in 17 or 18 years and the two degree target in 35 to 41 years, so there is a limited window to develop a low carbon future.
"Immediate action on climate change is essential, to develop strategies towards zero carbon emissions, options to take carbon out of the atmosphere and ways to adapt to the effects of a much warmer climate."
ANU conducted the study in collaboration with the University of Southampton and the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom.

Links

How Engineering Earth’s Climate Could Seriously Imperil Life

Wired

Gary Davis/EyeEm/Getty Images
Travel with me to the year 2100. Despite our best efforts, climate change continues to threaten humanity. Drought, superstorms, flooded coastal cities. Desperate to stop the warming, scientists deploy planes to spray sulfur dioxide in the stratosphere, where it converts into a sulfate aerosol, which reflects sunlight. Thus the planet cools because, yes, chemtrails.
It’s called solar geoengineering, and while it’s not happening yet, it’s a real strategy that scientists are exploring to head off climate disaster. The upside is obvious. But so too are the potential perils—not just for humanity, but for the whole natural world.
A study out today in Nature Ecology & Evolution models what might happen if humans were to geoengineer the planet and then suddenly stop. The sudden spike in global temperature would send ecosystems into chaos, killing off species in droves. Not that we shouldn’t tackle climate change. It’s just that among the many theoretical problems with geoengineering, we can now add its potential to rip ecosystems to shreds.
The models in this study presented a scenario in which geoengineers add 5 million tons of sulfur dioxide to the stratosphere, every year, for 50 years. (A half century because it’s long enough to run a good climate simulation, but not too long that it’s computationally unwieldy. The group is planning another study that will look at 100 years of geoengineering.) Then, in this hypothetical scenario, the sulfur seeding just stops altogether—think if someone hacks or physically attacks the system.
“You'd get rapid warming because the aerosols have a lifetime of a year or two, and they would fall out pretty quickly,” says study co-author Alan Robock, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “And then you'd get all this extra sunlight and you'd quickly go back up to what the climate might have been without the geoengineering.” We’re talking a rise in land surface temperatures of almost a degree per decade. “Even if you do it over five years, you're still going to get this rapid warming,” he says.
Now, species haven’t survived on Earth for 3.5 billion years by being wilting flowers; if the climate changes slowly, species can adapt to withstand extra heat or cold. But suddenly blast the planet with a massive amount of solar energy that quickly, and you’re liable to catch a species off-guard.
And it’s not just temperatures they’d have to adapt to. Dramatic shifts in precipitation would force species to quickly move to new climes or face destruction. Species like amphibians, which are sensitive to temperature and precipitation changes, would have a tough go of it. And of course, not all species have the option of fleeing. Populations of trees and clams and corals would be pretty much kaput.

How Climate Change Is Already Affecting Earth

Even if a species is particularly resistant to these changes, the downfall of a keystone species could bring its whole ecosystem crashing down. Take coral, for instance. “If you lose the corals, you lose the species that live within those corals and you lose the species that rely on those species for food,” says John Fleming, a staff scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute who wasn’t involved in the study. “And so it really is an up-the-chain process.”
Knowing these risks, it might seem implausible that humans would just suddenly stop geoengineering efforts once they’ve started. Why not just keep pumping sulfur dioxide into the air ad infinitum to keep the planet on life support? Robock explains that the scenario they used isn't definitive—it's just a possible option. And there's a possibility that we might not willingly stop geoengineering.
Say the world came together and decided that solar geoengineering is our only hope for survival. Planes start flying over the equator, spraying millions of tons of gas. The planet cools—but alas, this doesn’t affect everyone equally. Some nations might find themselves the beneficiaries of extra precipitation, while others descend into drought.
In that situation, a massive country like China or India suffering ill effects could blame the geoengineers and demand they stop. “There is the potential for clubs of countries to wield a lot of power to make a global geoengineering deployment work more for their interests than for less powerful countries,” says lead author Chris Trisos of the University of Maryland.
Or maybe the Earth itself plays a wildcard. Volcanoes spew their own sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere all the time; get a big enough eruption and you can send the climate into disarray. That happened in 1815 with the eruption of Mount Tambora, which led to the Year Without a Summer. Or Laki in 1783, which caused famine in India and China because it weakened vital monsoons.
“If there was a series of volcanic eruptions that produce a cooling effect, then that might be the reason why people say, ‘Well, actually, we better stop doing the solar engineering,’” says University of East Anglia environmental scientist Phil Williamson, who was not an author of the paper but who penned a companion analysis of it. “And then you get the rebound effect as a result of that.”
To be fair, science’s exploration of solar geoengineering is still in its early days. Hell, the technology to do it doesn’t even exist yet. It may well be that scientists find that deploying aerosols is just too risky. Maybe a better idea is 2CO2 sequestration. Or marine cloud brightening, as another way to bounce light back into space.
But now is the time to start considering the ethical and regulatory pitfalls of pursuing such a strategy. Late last year, Congressman Jerry McNerney introduced a bill that would require the National Academies of Science to produce two reports—one that looks at research avenues and another that looks at oversight. “I hope that we can sooner rather than later figure out what the potential benefits and risks are of doing this geoengineering so society will know whether it's even a possibility,” says Robock. “If not, if it's too dangerous, then it'll put a lot more pressure on us to do mitigation soon rather than later.”
“The ultimate fear with geoengineering is that we're trying to alter a system that's much too complex for us to truly predict,” says Fleming. “So doing that can put us in a worse situation than we're in already.”
In the meantime, here’s an idea: Let’s dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The whole of life on Earth would certainly appreciate it.

Links