Climate change undoubtedly poses a potent — even existential — threat to the planet. However, the current approach to mitigating it, which reflects a single-minded focus on cutting carbon dioxide emissions, might end up doing serious harm, as it fails to account for the energy sector’s depletion of water resources — another major contributor to climate change.
“Water is at the heart of both the causes and effects of climate change,” a National Resource Council report declared.
Indeed, the water cycle — the processes of precipitation, evaporation, freezing, melting and condensation that circulate water from clouds to land to the ocean and back — is inextricably linked to the energy exchanges among the land, ocean and atmosphere that determine the Earth’s climate.
Illustration: Mountain People
Just as the accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere contributes to climate change, so does the degradation and depletion of water resources. These processes are mutually reinforcing, with each propelling and intensifying the other.
Energy extraction, processing (including refining) and production are highly water-intensive. The energy sector is the largest consumer of water in every developed country except Australia, where, like in most developing countries, agriculture comes out on top.
In the EU, electricity-generating plants alone account for 44 percent of all freshwater consumed each year; in the US, that figure is 41 percent.
The more stressed water resources become, the more energy the water sector demands, as groundwater must be pumped from greater depths, and surface water must be transported across longer distances.
In India, for example, energy comprises about 90 percent of the cost of groundwater.
As these processes fuel climate variability, they reduce water availability and boost energy demand even further, producing a vicious cycle that will be hard to break.
Meeting higher electricity demand and achieving national targets for production of biofuels and other alternative fuels would require a more than two-fold increase in global water use for energy production over the next quarter-century.
The only way to break this cycle — and thus to mitigate climate change effectively — is to manage the nexus between water and energy (as well as food, production of which depends on water and energy). Countries must make energy choices that are not only less carbon-intensive, but also less water-intensive.
With global water supplies already strained, the shift to a water-smart approach to energy could not be more urgent.
Two-thirds of the world’s people — especially in Central and South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa — confront serious water shortages. Asia — the biggest driver of increased global energy demand — is also the world’s driest continent, measured by water availability per capita.
In these water-stressed regions, shortages have already begun to constrain the expansion of energy infrastructure. One important reason why China has failed to develop its shale hydrocarbon industry is inadequate water in the areas where its deposits are located. To extract energy from shale, millions of liters of water must be shot into it.
Increasing water stress has also driven up costs for existing power-generation projects, possibly jeopardizing their viability. Australia’s Millennium drought, which lasted from the late 1990s until 2012, undermined energy production, causing prices to rise.
With energy shortages usually most severe in water-stressed areas, what are affected countries to do? For starters, they must recognize that energy that is “clean” in terms of carbon can be “dirty” from a water-resource perspective.
For example, “clean” coal involving carbon capture and sequestration ranks, along with nuclear power, at the top of the water-intensity chart.
Some renewables, such as solar thermal power and geothermal energy, are also notoriously water-intensive. By contrast, solar photovoltaic and wind power — two renewable technologies gaining traction globally — require no water for their operations. Encouraging the development of such sources should thus be a high priority.
However, the type of energy that is used is not the only issue. It is also important to select the right types of plants at the planning stage. Alternative cooling technologies for power generation, including dry or hybrid cooling, can reduce water consumption — though the use of such technologies is constrained by efficiency losses and higher costs.
Power plants should also be located in places where they will rely not on freshwater resources, but instead on saline, brackish, degraded or reclaimed water. In Asia, which leads the world in terms of adding nuclear power capacity, most new plants are located along coastlines, so that these thirsty facilities can draw more on seawater.
Yet here, too, there are serious risks. Rising sea levels, as a result of climate change, could pose a much more potent threat than natural disasters, such as the tsunami that caused the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster in Japan.
Moreover, with coastal areas often densely populated and economically valuable, finding suitable seaside sites for new nuclear plants is no longer easy. Despite having more than 7,200km of coastline, India has struggled to implement its planned expansion of nuclear power through seaside plants, owing to strong opposition.
True energy security is possible only in the context of resource, climate and environmental sustainability. The global focus solely on carbon reduction not only obscures these critical linkages, but also encourages measures that adversely affect resource stability.
It is time to adopt a more comprehensive, integrated and long-term approach to the management and planning of energy, water and other resources, with a view toward broader environmental protection.
Otherwise, we will fail to meet the sustainable-development challenges we face, with devastating consequences, beginning with the world’s most water-stressed regions.
Brahma Chellaney is a professor of strategic studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and a fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath