Print 99 comment(s) - last by tharik.. on Jun 14 at 2:58 PM

Wheat crops in India  (Source: NY Times)
Populations around the Himalayas at risk

recent study in the journal Science shows that the shrinkage of glaciers will cause a lack in water sources for crops, ultimately leading to food shortages for approximately 60 million people living near the Himalayas. This study is one of the first to observe the effect melting glaciers have on the Himalayan river basins, and could possibly further provoke the existing debate that climate change will destroy river basins located mostly in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China and Bhutan.

Dutch scientists Marc Bierkens, Walter Immerzee and Ludovicus Van Beek – who conducted the study and wrote in the journal -- concluded that basins around the Himalayas such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahamaputra depend on the melting glaciers to water their crops, and could see a 19.6 percent decline in their water supply by 2050. 

"We estimate that the food security of 4.5 percent of the total population will be threatened as a result of reduced water availability," the researchers wrote. "The strong need for prioritizing adaptation options and further increasing water productivity is therefore eminent."

This new study largely contrasts the U.N. report in 2007, where the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that hundreds of millions of people were in danger from the receding glaciers. According to the scientists, the reason for the "discrepancy" is that only some basins in this area depend on the glaciers. Others, such as China's Yellow River basin, obtain their water from rainfall and are expected to see a 9.5 percent increase in water supply due to the changing climate altering the pattern of monsoons. 

"We show that it's only certain areas that will be affected," said Bierkens. "The amount of people affected is still large. Every person is one too many but it's much less than was first anticipated."

In addition, the U.N. report included other errors such as the Himalayas disappearing by 2035, when actual data indicates that this will happen by 2350. Client change skeptics attacked this inaccuracy, which in fact, was just a mistake in transposing the numbers. 

Most scientists agree that "glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate as temperatures increase," and that the reason is related to the higher "atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide." Evidence for this appears in the considerable losses seen in glaciers across the Andes, Alaska, the Alps and several other ranges. According to researchers in the United States and Europe, "more than 90 percent of glaciers worldwide are in retreat."

Researchers who did not take part in the study, such as Zhongqin Li, director of the Tianshan Glaciological Station in China, noted that the scientists performing the study disregarded many other basins in central Asia and northwest China which will be affected by the glacial losses. Other glacial experts and scientists warned that "uncertainties and lack of data for the region makes it difficult to say what will happen in the next few decades to the water supply." While many researchers are skeptical of exact numbers in the study, they do agree that there should be a concern for those living in the glacial-dependent basins due to climate change. In addition, problems like pollution, overpopulation and poverty are added stress to the situation.

"The paper teaches us that there's a lot of uncertainty in the future water supply of Asia and within the realm of plausibility are scenarios that may give us concern," said Casey Brown, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts. 

"At present, we know that water concerns are already a certainty - the large and growing populations and high dependence on irrigated agriculture which makes the region vulnerable to present climate variability. 

"This paper is additional motivation to address these present concerns through wise investments in better management of water resources in the region, which for me means forecasts, incentives, efficiency."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Stop having more than one child
By superstition on 6/11/2010 2:32:47 PM , Rating: 4

Yeah, it sucks economically because it will cause a labor shortage and contraction. We'll have to find ways of keeping 50s—seniors productive.

But, overpopulation is a bigger problem than climate change. It makes the problems from climate change worse and speeds it up.

RE: Stop having more than one child
By mdogs444 on 6/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop having more than one child
By geddarkstorm on 6/11/2010 3:07:56 PM , Rating: 3
Or maybe it's time we started expanding into space instead of trying to extinct ourselves with short sighted, reactionary plans like that.

RE: Stop having more than one child
By GuinnessKMF on 6/11/2010 3:23:02 PM , Rating: 5
Wow... I wonder why know one thought of that... just expand into space! Here we are worried about food shortage and overpopulation when all we had to do was research up the space tree and we'd be all set.

I think tomorrow I'll load up my wagon, you know, all ammunition and extra spokes, and head out into space to find myself a nice plot of land to settle.

By ClownPuncher on 6/11/2010 3:36:41 PM , Rating: 3
I'm in space right now, saving you a spot at the SpaceRanch.

RE: Stop having more than one child
By thekdub on 6/12/2010 1:58:50 AM , Rating: 2
Careful that your party doesn't die from space dysentery.

By mindless1 on 6/11/2010 4:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
Ceiling cat says it's better down here.

RE: Stop having more than one child
By Spuke on 6/11/2010 3:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
We'll have to find ways of keeping 50s—seniors productive. But, overpopulation is a bigger problem than climate change. It makes the problems from climate change worse and speeds it up.

I really expected some "it's made from people" jokes.

RE: Stop having more than one child
By clovell on 6/14/2010 12:19:10 PM , Rating: 3
The replacement rate is 2.3 births per woman. Having one child per woman would cause revolutions, wars, famine, and civil unrest worldwide.

Starting at 2 would be a much better idea. Of course, so would knowing wtf you're talking about before opening your mouth with such a stupid-ass argument.

"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki