This is the best summary I could come up with:
About 10% of the global population already lives in countries with high or critical water stress.
Meanwhile, scarcity will worsen in the Middle East and the Sahel region in Africa, where water is already in short supply.
Extreme and prolonged droughts, made more frequent and severe by the climate crisis, are also putting pressure on ecosystems, which could have “dire consequences” for plant and animal species, the report’s authors said.
Solutions include better international cooperation to avoid conflicts over water, Connor said.
“There is an urgent need to establish strong international mechanisms to prevent the global water crisis from spiraling out of control,” said Audrey Azoulay, the director general of UNESCO, the UN’s cultural body.
“Water is our common future, and it is essential to act together to share it equitably and manage it sustainably.”
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I never realized we were trying to terraform the world to be Arrakis.
Do not let your body become addicted to water. You will resent its absence.
Hasn’t this been known for years and years? I feel like I’ve seen articles like that every week for years that say the same thing. We fucked
NASA climatologist James Hansen testified to Congress in 1988 and the UN formed the IPCC that same year.
The atmosphere was still at a very safe and very reasonable 350 ppm (pre-industrial normal was 280-300 ppm), so all the emissions up to 1988 could be ignored if we had just taken action after 1988.
Since then, we fucked up. And we primarily fucked up by stopping the transition to cheap nuclear power that was already well underway, because we got scared of it after 1987 (Chernobyl).
If we had ignored those fears and listened to James Hansen, we probably could have kept CO2 below 400. It’s now 420.
Carter had a hugely ambitious plan to build solar power satellites to wean us off both of them. He didn’t like nukes and he was a nuclear physicist.
Nobody likes nuclear, but it’s less bad than terraforming our own planet.
This is not what happened. Takes like this, that oversimplify and make things seem inevitable aren’t very helpful.
For decades before 1988 and for decades after, people have advocated for the environment. The shift to an understanding that we can have an impact on our planet has been slow and hard-won. Don’t pretend like one person or one hearing or one technology could have prevented all this - that’s just not true.
You may be upset that nuclear wasn’t or isn’t used more, but it doesn’t really matter at this point - we are here, and we have really inexpensive and seemingly low impact technologies like solar and wind with battery or other types of storage. Plus, we can now have a more distributed grid with installs right in people’s homes.
Move past whatever has you hung up on nuclear, there’s lots of other ways to have a positive impact on our environmental future.
No, ignorant takes like yours are the real problem. We still can’t solve climate change without nuclear power, it’s simple math, physics and economics.
All the models we have show that we need a huge expansion of nuclear power, even if solar and wind growth fits the most optimistic curve we can think of.
If there was a way to solve climate change without it, I would be more optimistic about the future.
But there are too many ignorant people who can’t even do basic math.
Why did nobody warn us!!!111 /irony
Wait for it. Soon water will be the next best products and probably in some regions reason for war. We all have been warned
