On the one hand, natural resources – particularly water and oil – are both indisputably running out and creeping in to account more for the probability of more violent than mere diplomatic conflicts among thirsty world powers.
On the other hand lies a rather downplayed albeit phenomenal opening for political re-orientation, economic transformation and social responsibility of the variety that is peculiarly unprecedented: hence, a clarion call to “all”.
Set as a live television broadcast, this essay attempts to initiate the inspiration for an indeed global transition from threats triggered by resource scarcity (the sticks) to opportunities that rarely ever make news headlines (the carrots).
Like Oil
“The world consumes two barrels of oil for every barrel discovered. So is this something you should be worried about?”
Most subscribers to The Economist will affirm that Chevron has cultivated a habit of almost always placing ‘food for thought’ of this kind around opening pages of every issue; if not, trust me, you might even find a differentiated version within a few pages ahead:
“It took us 125 years to use the first trillion barrels of oil. We’ll use the next trillion in 30. So why should you care?”
Like Water
“Some 41% of the world's population, or 2.3 billion people, live in river basins under "water stress," meaning they are subject to frequent water shortages.”
It’s the World Resources Institute taking the initiative this time. Still, in order to grasp the gravity of the situation, it may be crucial to take heed to the words of one Palestinian who conducts water negotiations with Israel:
“If we don't address the water issue in … a coherent way there will be a war. There's scarcity and when it comes to water it's a matter of life."
The World in 2007 : “The Power of Natural Resources” CNN Television Special, Global Satellite Broadcast
TAY: Good morning. I am Tay Hembar.
Today’s package brings water and oil to the fore as the most basic natural resources in today’s world for the latter and for eternity in the former. Ishima Omachi, a student participant at this year’s St. Gallen Symposium, joins us live from our St. Gallen studios with a summary of her thoughts on the implications of oil and water scarcity for political, economic and social development worldwide.
You’re welcome to the program, Ishima. You look stunning.
ISHIMA: Oh thank you, Tay! It’s a shame I cannot exactly say same for the state of the world’s natural resources.
Some “Unpleasant Truths”
Like my contribution to the Symposium went, the present configuration of the international order frowns at words like ‘scarcity’. Rapid industrialization is incompatible with such obsolete vocabulary because the intensity driving the world’s chase after express economic growth permits no such words lurking around. But today, when and wherever natural resources take centre stage, questions of water, then oil, invariably command a dominance that is not unfounded: they are running out, creating threats of growing scarcity as the threshold of 21st century conflicts.
Hitherto, I used to believe the world’s utmost challenge is no more than the odds of nuclear terrorism: the singular menace of international terrorism in combination with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly those nuclear things. But given that humanity, in accordance with many commentators, may have consumed more resources since WWII than in all of history prior to that time, diminishing natural resources are cunningly coming to account more for the probability of vicious conflict over water and the black gold.
It would be wrong though to assume that the gravity of this scarcity we speak of is same for both the traditional ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. As I undertook research, in the case of water for example, I realized that the world’s growing population will result in an entire half of humanity suffering from water shortages and scarcity. Yet it is not necessarily over-population causing water shortages or scarcity: “12 percent of the world’s population uses 85 percent of its water, and these 12 percent do not live in the Third World.” The availability of water is therefore a concern for some countries, but “the scarcity at the heart of the global water crisis is rooted in power, poverty and inequality, not in physical [un]availability”.
In its turn, global oil demand is soaring like never before. The world consumes about 84 million barrels of oil per day at a time when it is widely acknowledged that the age of easy oil is over. Now, escalating demand is faced with tighter supplies as international competition intensifies over the same resources. Having climbed to become the world’s second-greatest energy consumer, for instance, China’s widely proclaimed extreme consumption of oil is trivialized by estimates holding that if the average Chinese person lived as excessively as a US citizen, he would consume thirteen times as much. Controlling for populations, China would then daily require much more than is presently produced globally in a day. This shows that scarcity of energy supplies is no more a consequence of “Peak Oil” as it is an outcome of wasteful and irresponsible utilization of resources on the part of the affluent, advanced economies.
The upshot is a fierce battle for resources as millions in the developing world strive to attain what their industrialized counterparts are hoping to maximize: the benefits of a lifestyle that requires increasing amounts of energy from oil, and sanitation from water.
Then the new Cold War
China and India are a massively gigantic duo whose continued emergence is leading to confrontations with the likes of the U.S, Russia, the 25-member EU etc., all of whom are aware that their growth engines will inevitably start to stutter without a constant supply of resources, and whose leaderships see no alternative but to go on an aggressive worldwide shopping spree especially for oil. Day to day, I hear of countless “generous” deals struck by these competing powers with resource-rich others, and the dots connect to trends analogous with 20th century ideological warfare. These expose an insufficiency of “analysis of the extremely varying intentions of the key players and the logic behind their conduct and decisions.” As they court the owners and custodians of the resources, deception, bribery and bargaining have become order of the day, creating tensions amongst major powers that may eventually have to bring their nuclear capacities to bear on resource struggles; not to mention the split between the exploiters and the exploited.
The implications for all are diverse especially when a dreadful void exists in efforts to keep the global race for resources in check. The rise and fall of nations will involve considerable power shifts as the world progresses and time will tell who the eventual winners of widely anticipated conflicts over natural resources will be. I daresay that internecine warfare over access to vital resources could become a global phenomenon, while terrorism, religious strife, political orientation and ideology will definitely resort to the backseat of priority global issues.
Many developing countries could exceed their carrying capacity – that is, their ability to provide the minimum requirements of water and oil, or energy, for human survival – and this will create a sense of desperation which is likely to lead to offensive aggression against countries perceived to possess a greater stock of these crucial resources. As crises spiral, developed countries are also bound to be caught up with “participation in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations”, “fending off unwanted migrants” or by “fighting for access to overseas supplies” of these fundamental resources.
So either way, Tay, uncertainties prevail. Yet I have come with an open mind. Somehow, I’m convinced we’ll find our way.
TAY: You got that one right, only I’m thinking we already have found the way. Or, precisely, our campus anchorman just caught up with David E. Todo, another student participant at the very venue of the Symposium, who approaches the issue from a noteworthy perspective.
ANCHORMAN: David, that was quite a remarkable cum sanguine argument you put up earlier. You perceptibly regard the scarcity of resources more as an opportunity than a threat. Could you kindly shed more light on your apparently unusual conviction?
Breaking Through on a Wide Footing
DAVID: In spite of widespread pessimism, the world, I believe, will find fewer sticks than carrots from the depletion of vital resources; that represents a clarion call to all (I will return to that “all”). Although individual responses may differ, we share a common ultimate objective, which is to ensure that the risks associated with diminishing oil and energy deposits and the prospects of finite water, among others, do not culminate in the conflicts many have begun bracing up for.
Although, even in that case, preparing for uncertainties – or reducing the vulnerability to risks – has many advantages that go beyond the original purpose. The move to unite as “leaders of today” and “leaders of tomorrow” shows that the most important thing is the world grouping together to dialogue, deliberate, even criticize, and hopefully implement a plan. This group dynamics can be used for other developmental purposes too! The opportunities I refer to, therefore, are subsumed in that process because it offers an occasion to convert a situation fraught with conflict into an opening for mutually advantageous solutions.
I accelerated that thinking by compartmentalizing the world according to the political, economic and social dimensions water and oil assume as presently indispensable resources for worldwide development. That way, I found that governments, the business community, and civil society can, apart from sufficiently defining “all”, also respectively and effectively represent each dimension highlighted.
So, to transform conflict-prone resource interdependencies to a key to stabilizing common interests, it is of the essence that…
Politically, governments should understand that natural resource issues are at least as important to global security as all the war-zones and crisis hotspots that grab the headlines, funds and concern. Politicians may have been negligent of resource facts, but they cannot continue to play largely ignorant of perilous contemporary water and oil challenges which governments need to be satisfactorily organized to meet. Dialogue on water management and oil concerns which are basically designated to technical experts magnifies the absence of political leadership: a limiting factor for far-reaching co-operation. Also, governments must avoid unilateralism in their schemes for these resources and look beyond national borders to region-wide co-operation by negotiating, rather than imposing their interests. The Middle East offers a most convincing example of how international co-operation over unevenly distributed water and oil resources has a long and successful history. The institutions they have created are resilient even when relations are strained. Hence, it is clear that a pacifying strategy will create shared regional identities and institutionalize co-operation on issues larger that water and oil.
Economically, movers of global capitalism should commence an equally global reappraisal of the business community’s knowledge of, approach to, and, relationship with, natural resources so imperative for future competitiveness. Oil persistently commands a precarious addiction while water gives life to everything. In years to come, these basics will still account for a greater portion of economic prosperity. Yet steady depletion on both counts has the potential of building a modern economic outlook on natural resources as an economic – and hence, power – factor for generations to come. This will set the international economic stage on a course wherein those actors exclusively distinguished by thriving natural resource agendas hold all the aces. The next few decades should witness the emergence of central corporations with the wherewithal to meet growing demands for water, energy and other natural resources essential for life. Perhaps a steady shift away from an oil economy to one of clean renewables will create enormous opportunities for innovation; just like allocative and productive efficiencies in future water supply and delivery will become promising avenues for high returns in a future where water reigns supreme.
Socially, civil society should be better informed on the state of natural resources in modern times. People need to be concerned enough to accept some of the responsibility always pushed to the political front. But that will not be achieved without educating the common man: making it clear that this oil we so thirst for is ravaging natural ecosystems in the form of climate change; and that fresh water may not be an infinite resource after all. That oil is getting scarcer ordinarily should be cause for fête since less burning translates to environmental good. We can make the scramble for oil a non-necessity by demanding for a collective economic system dominantly greased by clean energy. Water (the kind that is fit for human consumption), however, has no such alternatives. But the option to conserve will create synergistic efforts from organized groups, here and there, subsequently birthing a novel culture of water management among all peoples. Above all, dwindling resources are a wake up call to humanity. Individual obligations and sacrifices and decisions will determine the long-term sustainability of natural resources in the 21st century.
ANCHORMAN: This makes me think all that need be done is simply bridge the divide from natural threats to resourceful opportunities.
TAY: With a recent ACE Group advert in my mind, “some say the bridge will take too long to finish.” “Some say the bridge could join two cultures.” I “say pour the concrete.”
« vorige.