No it's simply because it's an idea that is jumped upon by the popular media so it's kind of annoying to see it brought up. Especially because it's such an out dated concept from the 80's where it was predicted that major conflict over water would occur before the beginning of the 21st century (never did). And the kind of academics I'm talking about are well known who have studied resource conflict, water conflict and international water treaties for the greater parts of their careers. So far in the modern age there has been no conflict fought solely over a water resource. As for the future well it sums up as:
- 80% of fresh water usage goes into agriculture. That means that immediate water usage for things like drinking water, cleaning ect, uses an tiny percentage of our total water usage. Until immediate water supply is threatened, it is unlikely that tensions would rise enough for conflict to occur.
- Food is unlikely to become scarcer as a result of reduced water supply. Currently agriculture is very inefficient in its water usage. However, there are recent technologies that have reduced water use in many centres of western agriculture by upwards of 60%. If this is transferred across to developing nations, and those who are most likely to disagree over water sources (namely international rivers), then it would decrease any threat by a considerable amount. On top of this, a 10% reduction in agricultures use of water supply would double the amount of water available for drinking and immediate use.
- Because food (relies on water) is far less valuable than commodities such as oil (you need oil to run the war machine in the first place) and far more numerous in its supply, politicians and those who actively send their nations to war are far more likely to be concerned with oil, gas and other important resources for energy usage long before they are concerned with food or water supply. Even with a growing population. Therefore it's unlikely that water will ever be a casus belli.
- The areas of highest conflict risk are those along water ways such as the Mekong, Jordan and Ganges. There are 261 international rivers with many of them shared between 4 or more countries. Countries are unlikely to ever go to war over these water ways because their power cancels each other out. For example, Cambodia is the lower riparian on the Mekong, and if Thailand decided to build dams ect, it is unlikely to be able to challenge Thailand in warfare because it is far stronger. Likewise, Thailand is unlikely to challenge China for obvious reasons. So the power shifts cancel each other out. Even in desperation this would be the case.
- Solutions to water conflicts are sought out peacefully simply because the cost doesn't justify the means. Unless you get some nutty dictator who decides to go to war over it, governments are never going to risk spending the money, man power and resources over a water supply. They are far more likely to bargain with economic means. Many such agreements are already under way. For example Thailand gets a share of the hydroelectric power a dam in Laos produces because they helped fund it so it benefits both parties.
- Exponential population growth (limits to growth argument) is unlikely to occur. At some point, even if much strain is put on world resources, population growth is likely to level out. In many developed nations the death rate is already higher than birth rate. Furthermore, it doesn't take into account technology growth. At our rate of growth in technology, it is likely that resource management is going to get a lot better. Particular as developing nations contribute more and more to research in such areas.
Anyway, no war appeals to me. And you know that's more of an expression right? As in 'Im sorry, WHAT?'.
