SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
The area of agricultural land that will require irrigation in future could be up to four times larger than currently estimated, a new study has revealed.
Research by the University of Reading, University of Bergen and Princeton University shows the amount of land that will require human intervention to water crops by 2050 has been severely underestimated due to computer models not taking into account many uncertainties, such as population changes and availability of water.
The authors of the study, published in Geophysical Research Letters, argue forecasters and policy-makers need to acknowledge multiple future scenarios in order to be prepared for potential water shortages that would have huge environmental costs.
[...] "If the amount of water needed to grow our food is much larger than calculated, this could put severe pressure on water supplies for agriculture as well as homes. These findings show we need strategies to suit a range of possible scenarios and have plans in place to cope with unexpected water shortages."
[...] The new research suggests that projections of irrigated areas made by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation and others have always underestimated the amount of irrigation required in future by basing them on other assumptions.
The study highlights that the potential global extension of irrigation might be twice, or in the most extreme scenario, even four times larger than what has been suggested by previous models.
[...] Agricultural land where crops cannot be supported by rainwater alone is often irrigated by channelling water from rivers or springs, sprinkler systems, or by controlled flooding. Increased irrigation in future would mean more water consumption, machinery, energy consumption and fertilisers, and therefore more greenhouse gas emissions.
Journal Reference
A. Puy, S. Lo Piano, A. Saltelli. Current Models Underestimate Future Irrigated Areas, Geophysical Research Letters (DOI: 10.1029/2020GL087360)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 07 2020, @01:07PM (1 child)
A few years ago, a municipality nearby to but not quite in the Great Lakes watershed wanted to use Great Lakes water for their municipal water supply, because their current one was drying up. However, the main reason their current supply was drying up was a bottled water plant had been expanding substantially over the last few years, selling their city water at huge markups because they'd put it into a bottle. It was the Great Lakes Compact that told them they couldn't do that, and defended that in court, and while that limited that company's profits it also protected the water supplies of millions of people.
Sure, it helps that the Compact and the well-being of the lakes themselves enjoy a great deal of public support. It also helps that there are legally binding agreements and rules so that if one state changes its mind due to, say, large campaign donations from a company expecting to profit substantially from sending that water somewhere else, they still don't get their way. Because, as we both know, just because the vast majority of the public wants something doesn't mean that's what the government actually does.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 07 2020, @01:40PM
From what? [freshwaterfuture.org] It's not a significant draw of water.
Sorry, I see instead yet another poorly thought-out regulatory body obstructing human progress. It's one thing to protect against California draining the Great Lakes (which was successfully done long before the Compact was a thing). It's another to protect again a 70k city (Waukesha, Wisconsin) that happens to lie just outside the drainage boundary. Again from the above link, they discussed this second case a little:
Funny how we need all these powerful organizations to stop non-problems.