http://www.alternet.org/story/148519/

Maude Barlow gave this stirring plenary speech, full of hope even in the face of ecological disasters, to the Environmental Grantmakers Association annual retreat in Pacific Grove, California. Barlow, a former UN Senior Water Advisor, is National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and founder of the Blue Planet Project. Barlow is a contributor to AlterNet’s forth-coming book Water Matters: Why We Need to Act Now to Save Our Most Critical Resource.

We all know that the earth and all upon it face a growing crisis. Global climate change is rapidly advancing, melting glaciers, eroding soil, causing freak and increasingly wild storms, and displacing untold millions from rural communities to live in desperate poverty in peri-urban slums. Almost every human victim lives in the global South, in communities not responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. The atmosphere has already warmed up almost a full degree in the last several decades and a new Canadian study reports that we may be on course to add another 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100.

Half the tropical forests in the world – the lungs of our ecosystems – are gone; by 2030, at the current rate of harvest, only 10% will be left standing. Ninety percent of the big fish in the sea are gone, victim to wanton predatory fishing practices. Says a prominent scientist studying their demise “there is no blue frontier left.” Half the world’s wetlands – the kidneys of our ecosystems – were destroyed in the 20th century. Species extinction is taking place at a rate one thousand times greater than before humans existed. According to a Smithsonian scientist, we are headed toward a “biodiversity deficit” in which species and ecosystems will be destroyed at a rate faster than Nature can create new ones.

We are polluting our lakes, rivers and streams to death. Every day, 2 million tons of sewage and industrial and agricultural waste are discharged into the world’s water, the equivalent of the weight of the entire human population of 6.8 billion people. The amount of wastewater produced annually is about six times more water than exists in all the rivers of the world. A comprehensive new global study recently reported that 80% of the world’s rivers are now in peril, affecting 5 billion people on the planet. We are also mining our groundwater far faster than nature can replenish it, sucking it up to grow water-guzzling chemical-fed crops in deserts or to water thirsty cities that dump an astounding 200 trillion gallons of land-based water as waste in the oceans every year. The global mining industry sucks up another 200 trillion gallons, which it leaves behind as poison. Fully one third of global water withdrawals are now used to produce biofuels, enough water to feed the world. A recent global survey of groundwater found that the rate of depletion more than doubled in the last half century. If water was drained as rapidly from the Great Lakes, they would be bone dry in 80 years.

The global water crisis is the greatest ecological and human threat humanity has ever faced. As vast areas of the planet are becoming desert as we suck the remaining waters out of living ecosystems and drain remaining aquifers in India, China, Australia, most of Africa, all of the Middle East, Mexico, Southern Europe, US Southwest and other places. Dirty water is the biggest killer of children; every day more children die of water borne disease than HIV/AIDS, malaria and war together. In the global South, dirty water kills a child every three and a half seconds. And it is getting worse, fast. By 2030, global demand for water will exceed supply by 40%— an astounding figure foretelling of terrible suffering.

Knowing there will not be enough food and water for all in the near future, wealthy countries and global investment, pension and hedge funds are buying up land and water, fields and forests in the global South, creating a new wave of invasive colonialism that will have huge geo-political ramifications. Rich investors have already bought up an amount of land double the size of the United Kingdom in Africa alone.

We Simply Cannot Continue on the Present Path

I do not think it possible to exaggerate the threat to our earth and every living thing upon it. Quite simply we cannot continue on the path that brought us here. Einstein said that problems cannot be solved by the same level of thinking that created them. While mouthing platitudes about caring for the earth, most of our governments are deepening the crisis with new plans for expanded resource exploitation, unregulated free trade deals, more invasive investment, the privatization of absolutely everything and unlimited growth. This model of development is literally killing the planet.

Unlimited growth assumes unlimited resources, and this is the genesis of the crisis. Quite simply, to feed the increasing demands of our consumer based system, humans have seen nature as a great resource for our personal convenience and profit, not as a living ecosystem from which all life springs. So we have built our economic and development policies based on a human-centric model and assumed either that nature would never fail to provide or that, where it does fail, technology will save the day.

Two Problems that Hinder the Environmental Movement

From the perspective of the environmental movement, I see two problems that hinder us in our work to stop this carnage. The first is that, with notable exceptions, most environmental groups either have bought into the dominant model of development or feel incapable of changing it. The main form of environmental protection in industrialized countries is based on the regulatory system, legalizing the discharge of large amounts of toxics into the environment. Environmentalists work to minimize the damage from these systems, essentially fighting for inadequate laws based on curbing the worst practices, but leaving intact the system of economic globalization at the heart of the problem. Trapped inside this paradigm, many environmentalists essentially prop up a deeply flawed system, not imagining they are capable of creating another.

Hence, the support of false solutions such as carbon markets, which, in effect, privatize the atmosphere by creating a new form of property rights over natural resources. Carbon markets are predicated less on reducing emissions than on the desire to make carbon cuts as cheap as possible for large corporations.

Another false solution is the move to turn water into private property, which can then be hoarded, bought and sold on the open market. The latest proposals are for a water pollution market, similar to carbon markets, where companies and countries will buy and sell the right to pollute water. With this kind of privatization comes a loss of public oversight to manage and protect watersheds. Commodifying water renders an earth-centred vision for watersheds and ecosystems unattainable.

Then there is PES, or Payment for Ecological Services, which puts a price tag on ecological goods – clean air, water, soil etc, – and the services such as water purification, crop pollination and carbon sequestration that sustain them. A market model of PES is an agreement between the “holder” and the “consumer” of an ecosystem service, turning that service into an environmental property right. Clearly this system privatizes nature, be it a wetland, lake, forest plot or mountain, and sets the stage for private accumulation of nature by those wealthy enough to be able to buy, hoard sell and trade it. Already, northern hemisphere governments and private corporations are studying public/private/partnerships to set up lucrative PES projects in the global South. Says Friends of the Earth International, “Governments need to acknowledge that market-based mechanisms and the commodification of biodiversity have failed both biodiversity conservation and poverty alleviation.”

The second problem with our movement is one of silos. For too long environmentalists have toiled in isolation from those communities and groups working for human and social justice and for fundamental change to the system. On one hand are the scientists, scholars, and environmentalists warning of a looming ecological crisis and monitoring the decline of the world’s freshwater stocks, energy sources and biodiversity. On the other are the development experts, anti-poverty advocates, and NGOs working to address the inequitable access to food, water and health care and campaigning for these services, particularly in the global South. The assumption is that these are two different sets of problems, one needing a scientific and ecological solution, the other needing a financial solution based on pulling money from wealthy countries, institutions and organizations to find new resources for the poor.

The clearest example I have is in the area I know best, the freshwater crisis. It is finally becoming clear to even the most intransigent silo separatists that the ecological and human water crises are intricately linked, and that to deal effectively with either means dealing with both. The notion that inequitable access can be dealt with by finding more money to pump more groundwater is based on a misunderstanding that assumes unlimited supply, when in fact humans everywhere are overpumping groundwater supplies. Similarly, the hope that communities will cooperate in the restoration of their water systems when they are desperately poor and have no way of conserving or cleaning the limited sources they use is a cruel fantasy. The ecological health of the planet is intricately tied to the need for a just system of water distribution.

The global water justice movement (of which I have the honour of being deeply involved) is, I believe, successfully incorporating concerns about the growing ecological water crisis with the promotion of just economic, food and trade policies to ensure water for all. We strongly believe that fighting for equitable water in a world running out means taking better care of the water we have, not just finding supposedly endless new sources. Through countless gatherings where we took the time to really hear one another – especially grassroots groups and tribal peoples closest to the struggle – we developed a set of guiding principles and a vision for an alternative future that are universally accepted in our movement and have served us well in times of stress. We are also deeply critical of the trade and development policies of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank and the World Water Council (whom I call the “Lords of water”), and we openly challenge their model and authority.

Similarly, a fresh and exciting new movement exploded onto the scene in Copenhagen and set all the traditional players on their heads. The climate justice movement whose motto is Change the System, Not the Climate, arrived to challenge not only the stalemate of the government negotiators but the stale state of too cosy alliances between major environmental groups, international institutions and big business – the traditional “players” on the climate scene. Those climate justice warriors went on to gather at another meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, producing a powerful alternative declaration to the weak statement that came out of Copenhagen. The new document forged in Bolivia put the world on notice that business as usual is not on the climate agenda.

How the Commons Fits In

I deeply believe it is time for us to extend these powerful new movements, which fuse the analysis and hard work of the environmental community with the vision and commitment of the justice community, into a whole new form of governance that not only challenges the current model of unlimited growth and economic globalization but promotes an alternative that will allow us and the Earth to survive. Quite simply, human-centred governance systems are not working and we need new economic, development, and environmental policies as well as new laws that articulate an entirely different point of view from that which underpins most governance systems today. At the centre of this new paradigm is the need to protect natural ecosystems and to ensure the equitable and just sharing of their bounty. It also means the recovery of an old concept called the Commons.

The Commons is based on the notion that just by being members of the human family, we all have rights to certain common heritages, be they the atmosphere and oceans, freshwater and genetic diversity, or culture, language and wisdom. In most traditional societies, it was assumed that what belonged to one belonged to all. Many indigenous societies to this day cannot conceive of denying a person or a family basic access to food, air, land, water and livelihood. Many modern societies extended the same concept of universal access to the notion of a social Commons, creating education, health care and social security for all members of the community. Since adopting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, governments are obliged to protect the human rights, cultural diversity and food security of their citizens.

A central characteristic of the Commons is the need for careful collaborative management of shared resources by those who use them and allocation of access based on a set of priorities. A Commons is not a free-for-all. We are not talking about a return to the notion that nature’s capacity to sustain our ways is unlimited and anyone can use whatever they want, however they want, whenever they want. It is rooted rather in a sober and realistic assessment of the true damage that has already been unleashed on the world’s biological heritage as well as the knowledge that our ecosystems must be managed and shared in a way that protects them now and for all time.

Also to be recovered and expanded is the notion of the Public Trust Doctrine, a longstanding legal principle which holds that certain natural resources, particularly air, water and the oceans, are central to our very existence and therefore must be protected for the common good and not allowed to be appropriated for private gain. Under the Public Trust Doctrine, governments exercise their fiduciary responsibilities to sustain the essence of these resources for the long-term use and enjoyment of the entire populace, not just the privileged who can buy inequitable access.

The Public Trust Doctrine was first codified in 529 A.D. by Emperor Justinius who declared: “By the laws of nature, these things are common to all mankind: the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea.” U.S. courts have referred to the Public Trust Doctrine as a “high, solemn and perpetual duty” and held that the states hold title to the lands under navigable waters “in trust for the people of the State.” Recently, Vermont used the Public Trust Doctrine to protect its groundwater from rampant exploitation, declaring that no one owns this resource but rather, it belongs to the people of Vermont and future generations. The new law also places a priority for this water in times of shortages: water for daily human use, sustainable food production and ecosystem protection takes precedence over water for industrial and commercial use.

An exciting new network of Canadian, American and First Nations communities around the Great Lakes is determined to have these lakes names a Commons, a public trust and a protected bioregion.

Equitable access to natural resources is another key character of the Commons. These resources are not there for the taking by private interests who can then deny them to anyone without means. The human right to land, food, water, health care and biodiversity are being codified as we speak from nation-state constitutions to the United Nations. Ellen Dorsey and colleagues have recently called for a human rights approach to development, where the most vulnerable and marginalized communities take priority in law and practice. They suggest renaming the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals the Millennium Development Rights and putting the voices of the poor at the centre.

This would require the meaningful involvement of those affected communities, especially Indigenous groups, in designing and implementing development strategies. Community-based governance is another basic tenet of the Commons.

Inspiring Successes Around the Globe

Another crucial tenet of the new paradigm is the need to put the natural world back into the centre of our existence. If we listen, nature will teach us how to live. Again, using the issue I know best, we know exactly what to do to create a secure water future: protection and restoration of watersheds; conservation; source protection; rainwater and storm water harvesting; local, sustainable food production; and meaningful laws to halt pollution. Martin Luther King Jr. said legislation may not change the heart but it will restrain the heartless.

Life and livelihoods have been returned to communities in Rajasthan, India, through a system of rainwater harvesting that has made desertified land bloom and rivers run again thanks to the collective action of villagers. The city of Salisbury South Australia, has become an international wonder for greening desertified land in the wake of historic low flows of the Murray River. It captures every drop of rain that falls from the sky and collects storm and wastewater and funnels it all through a series of wetlands, which clean it, to underground natural aquifers, which store it, until it is needed.

In a “debt for nature” swap, Canada, the U.S. and The Netherlands cancelled the debt owed to them by Colombia in exchange for the money being used for watershed restoration. The most exciting project is the restoration of 16 large wetland areas of the Bogotá River, which is badly contaminated, to pristine condition. Eventually the plan is to clean up the entire river. True to principles of the Commons, the indigenous peoples living on the sites were not removed, but rather, have become caretakers of these protected and sacred places.

The natural world also needs its own legal framework, what South African environmental lawyer Cormac Culllinen calls “wild law.” The quest is a body of law that recognizes the inherent rights of the environment, other species and water itself outside of their usefulness to humans. A wild law is a law to regulate human behaviour in order to protect the integrity of the earth and all species on it. It requires a change in the human relationship with the natural world from one of exploitation to one of democracy with other beings. If we are members of the earth’s community, then our rights must be balanced against those of plants, animals, rivers and ecosystems. In a world governed by wild law, the destructive, human-centred exploitation of the natural world would be unlawful. Humans would be prohibited from deliberately destroying functioning ecosystems or driving other species to extinction.

This kind of legal framework is already being established. The Indian Supreme Court has ruled that protection of natural lakes and ponds is akin to honouring the right to life – the most fundamental right of all according to the Court. Wild law was the inspiration behind an ordinance in Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania that recognized natural ecosystems and natural communities within the borough as “legal persons” for the purposes of stopping the dumping of sewage sludge on wild land. It has been used throughout New England in a series of local ordinances to prevent bottled water companies from setting up shop in the area. Residents of Mount Shasta California have put a wild law ordinance on the November 2010 ballot to prevent cloud seeding and bulk water extraction within city limits.

In 2008, Ecuador’s citizens voted two thirds in support of a new constitution, which says, “Natural communities and ecosystems possess the unalienable right to exist, flourish and evolve within Ecuador. Those rights shall be self-executing, and it shall be the duty and right of all Ecuadorian governments, communities, and individuals to enforce those rights.” Bolivia has recently amended its constitution to enshrine the philosophy of “living well” as a means of expressing concern with the current model of development and signifying affinity with nature and the need for humans to recognize inherent rights of the earth and other living beings. The government of Argentina recently moved to protect its glaciers by banning mining and oil drilling in ice zones. The law sets standards for protecting glaciers and surrounding ecosystems and creates penalties just for harming the country’s fresh water heritage.

The most far-reaching proposal for the protection of nature itself is the Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth that was drafted at the April 2010 World People’s Conference on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia and endorsed by the 35,000 participants there. We are writing a book setting out our case for this Declaration to the United Nations and the world. The intent is for it to become a companion document to the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every now and then in history, the human race takes a collective step forward in its evolution. Such a time is upon us now as we begin to understand the urgent need to protect the earth and its ecosystems from which all life comes. The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Mother Earth must become a history-altering covenant toward a just and sustainable future for all.

What Can We Do Right Now?

What might this mean for funders and other who share these values? Well, let me be clear: the hard work of those fighting environmental destruction and injustice must continue. I am not suggesting for one moment that his work is not important or that the funding for this work is not needed. I do think however, that there are ways to move the agenda I have outlined here forward if we put our minds to it.

Anything that helps bridge the solitudes and silos is pure gold. Bringing together environmentalists and justice activists to understand one another’s work and perspective is crucial. Both sides have to dream into being – together – the world they know is possible and not settle for small improvements to the one we have. This means working for a whole different economic, trade and development model even while fighting the abuses existing in the current one. Given a choice between funding an environmental organization that basically supports the status quo with minor changes and one that promotes a justice agenda as well, I would argue for the latter.

Support that increases capacity at the base is also very important, as is funding that connects domestic to international struggle, always related even when not apparent. Funding for those projects and groups fighting to abolish or fundamentally change global trade and banking institutions that maintain corporate dominance and promote unlimited and unregulated growth is still essential.

How Clean Water Became a Human Right

We all, as well, have to find ways to thank and protect those groups and governments going out on a limb to promote an agenda for true change. A very good example is President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who brought the climate justice movement together in Cochabamba last April and is leading the campaign at the UN to promote the Rights of Mother Earth.

It was this small, poor, largely indigenous landlocked country, and its former coca-farmer president, that introduced a resolution to recognize the human right to water and sanitation this past June to the UN General Assembly, taking the whole UN community by surprise. The Bolivian UN Ambassador, Pablo Solon, decided he was fed up with the “commissions” and “further studies” and “expert consultations” that have managed to put off the question of the right to water for at least a decade at the UN and that it was time to put an “up or down” question to every country: do you or do you not support the human right to drinking water and sanitation?

A mad scramble ensued as a group of Anglo-Western countries, all promoting to some extent the notion of water as a private commodity, tried to derail the process and put off the vote. The U.S., Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand even cooked up a “consensus” resolution that was so bland everyone would likely have handily voted for it at an earlier date. But sitting beside the real thing, it looked like what it was – an attempt, yet again, to put off any meaningful commitment at the UN to the billions suffering from lack of clean water. When that didn’t work, they toiled behind the scenes to weaken the wording of the Bolivian resolution but to no avail. On July 28, 2010, the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted to adopt a resolution recognizing the human right to water and sanitation. One hundred and twenty two countries voted for the resolution; 41 abstained; not one had the courage to vote against.

I share this story with you not only because my team and I were deeply involved in the lead up to this historic vote and there for it the day it was presented, but because it was the culmination of work done by a movement operating on the principles I have outlined above.

We took the time to establish the common principles that water is a Commons that belongs to the earth, all species, and the future, and is a fundamental human right not to be appropriated for profit. We advocate for the Public Trust Doctrine in law at every level of government. We set out to build a movement that listens first and most to the poorest among us, especially indigenous and tribal voices. We work with communities and groups in other movements, especially those working on climate justice and trade justice. We understand the need for careful collaborative cooperation to restore the functioning of watersheds and we have come to revere the water that gives life to all things upon the Earth. While we clearly have much left to do, these water warriors inspire me and give me hope. They get me out of bed every morning to fight another day.

I believe I am in a room full of stewards and want, then to leave you with these words from Lord of the Rings. This is Gandalf speaking the night before he faces a terrible force that threatens all living beings. His words are for you.

“The rule of no realm is mine, but all worthy things that are in peril, as the world now stand, those are my care. And for my part, I shall not wholly fail in my task if anything passes through this night that can still grow fair, or bear fruit, and flower again in the days to come.

For I too am a steward, did you not know?” —J.R.R. Tolkien

http://www.alternet.org/story/148335/

Meeting the growing demand for energy in the U.S., even through sustainable means, could entail greater threats to the environment, new research shows.

The study was carried out by Circle of Blue, a network of journalists and scientists dedicated to water sustainability, and could have implications not just for the relationship between energy demand and water scarcity in the U.S. but elsewhere in the world, as well. “It is not just that energy production could not occur without using vast amounts of water. It’s also that it’s occurring in the era of climate change, population growth and steadily increasing demand for energy,” explained Circle of Blue’s Keith Schneider, who presented the findings in Washington Wednesday.

“The result is that the competition for water at every stage of the mining, processing, production, shipping and use of energy is growing more fierce, more complex and much more difficult to resolve,” he said. About half the 410 billion gallons of water the U.S. withdraws daily goes to cooling thermoelectric power plants, and most of that to cooling coal-burning plants, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Meanwhile, climate change is leading to decreased snowmelt, rains and freshwater supplies, says Circle of Blue.

One of the things missing from the discussion, then, is the recognition that saving energy also saves water, the group contends.

The U.S. government has not been blind to the conflict between energy and water needs. The first part of a report commissioned by the U.S. Congress in 2005 laid out the consequences of not paying enough attention to water supply issues in increasing energy production. The second part, which would have laid out a research agenda and begun developing solutions, has yet to be made public, says Schneider.

He says the U.S. Department of Energy has declined repeated requests to explain why the report has not been published.

Energy demand in the U.S. is expected to increase by 40 percent as the U.S. population rises above 440 million by 2050. The water supply will not be able to support that growth, Schneider says.

Renewable sources of energy will certainly be a large part of trying to meet that energy demand, but these, too, come with a hidden water cost.

In 2009, the U.S. dedicated 23 million acres of public lands in six states for new solar electricity-generating plants as part of its economic stimulus package, which apportioned nearly 100 billion dollars for clean energy projects. Though the plan appeared promising, environmentalists soon began to point it could have damaging, unintended consequences. Schneider notes that criticism of the impact the water-cooled solar plants could have on water priorities in the U.S. Southwest even came from within the government.

“In arid settings, the increased water demand from concentrating solar energy systems employing water-cooled technology could strain limited water resources already under development pressure from urbanization, irrigation expansion, commercial interests and mining,” wrote Jon Jarvis, then head of the National Park Service’s Pacific West Region, in a February 2009 internal memo. “Solar generating plants that use conventional cooling technology use two to three times as much water as coal- fired power plants,” Schneider noted.

In other countries, the threat of water scarcity is even more pertinent.

Egypt, for example, has a population of approximately 82 million, but an annual water quota of about 86 billion cubic metres – and the population is expected to rise by more than 10 million people in the next decade.

Yet 30 European blue chip companies are set to invest 560 billion dollars over the next 40 years to build solar power plants in North Africa as part of the Desertec Industrial Initiative. Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia have agreed to work with the initiative. Comparing this project with the U.S.’s, Schneider notes that in an environment that faces even greater water scarcity than the southwestern U.S., such projects could prove disastrous. Circle of Blue calls the intersection of a rising demand for energy and diminishing supply water a “choke point”, but energy development – whether of the fossil fuel or renewable variety – is just one aspect of the water scarcity crisis that is unfolding in various regions of the globe.

Yemen is widely seen as the place where this scarcity will hit first and hardest.

“Analysts are worried Yemen could be the first country in the world to effectively run out of water,” said Christine Parthemore, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, where she studies the intersection of natural resources and security issues. She spoke at a separate event Wednesday.

Yemen, which has no rivers and cannot afford desalination, is drawing water at around 400 times its replacement rate, she says, and this looming crisis is compounding other issues in the region, like the fact that Yemen has become a key recruiting spot for groups like al Qaeda.

“We are about to see water wars in the future,” said U.S. General Anthony Zinni. “We have seen fuel wars; we’re about to see water wars.”

Rivers in some of the world’s most populous regions are losing water, according to a comprehensive study of global stream flows.

The research, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., suggests that the reduced flows in many cases are associated with climate change, and could potentially threaten future supplies of food and water.

The results will be published May 15 in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR’s sponsor.

“The distribution of the world’s fresh water, already an important topic,” says Cliff Jacobs of NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences, “will occupy front and center stage for years to come in developing adaptation strategies to a changing climate.”

The scientists, who examined stream flows from 1948 to 2004, found significant changes in about one-third of the world’s largest rivers. Of those, rivers with decreased flow outnumbered those with increased flow by a ratio of about 2.5 to 1.

Several of the rivers channeling less water serve large populations, including the Yellow River in northern China, the Ganges in India, the Niger in West Africa and the Colorado in the southwestern United States.

In contrast, the scientists reported greater stream flows over sparsely populated areas near the Arctic Ocean, where snow and ice are rapidly melting.

“Reduced runoff is increasing the pressure on freshwater resources in much of the world, especially with more demand for water as population increases,” says NCAR scientist Aiguo Dai, the lead author of the journal paper. “Freshwater being a vital resource, the downward trends are a great concern.”

Many factors may affect river discharge, including dams and the diversion of water for agriculture and industry.

The researchers found, however, that the reduced flows in many cases appear to be related to global climate change, which is altering precipitation patterns and increasing the rate of evaporation.

The results are consistent with previous research by Dai and others showing widespread drying and increased drought over many land areas.

The study raises wider ecological and climate concerns.

Discharge from the world’s great rivers results in deposits of dissolved nutrients and minerals into the oceans. The freshwater flow also affects global ocean circulation patterns, which are driven by changes in salinity and temperature, and which play a vital role in regulating the world’s climate.

Although the recent changes in freshwater discharge are relatively small and may only have impacts around major river mouths, Dai said the freshwater balance in the global oceans and over land needs to be monitored for long-term changes.

Scientists have been uncertain about the impacts of global warming on the world’s major rivers. Studies with computer models show that many of the rivers outside the Arctic could lose water because of decreased precipitation in the mid- and lower latitudes, and an increase in evaporation caused by higher temperatures.

Earlier, less comprehensive analyses of major rivers had indicated, however, that global stream flow was increasing.

Dai and his co-authors analyzed the flows of 925 of the planet’s largest rivers, combining actual measurements with computer-based stream flow models to fill in data gaps.

The rivers in the study drain water from every major landmass except Antarctica and Greenland and account for 73 percent of the world’s total stream flow.

Overall, the study found that, from 1948 to 2004, annual freshwater discharge into the Pacific Ocean fell by about 6 percent, or 526 cubic kilometers–approximately the same volume of water that flows out of the Mississippi River each year.

The annual flow into the Indian Ocean dropped by about 3 percent, or 140 cubic kilometers. In contrast, annual river discharge into the Arctic Ocean rose about 10 percent, or 460 cubic kilometers.

In the United States, the Columbia River’s flow declined by about 14 percent during the 1948-2004 study period, largely because of reduced precipitation and higher water usage in the West.

The Mississippi River, however, has increased by 22 percent over the same period because of greater precipitation across the Midwest since 1948.

Some rivers, such as the Brahmaputra in South Asia and the Yangtze in China, have shown stable or increasing flows. But they could lose volume in future decades with the gradual disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers feeding them, the scientists say.

“As climate change inevitably continues in coming decades, we are likely to see greater impacts on many rivers and the water resources that society has come to rely on,” says NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a co-author of the paper.

Reposted from the National Science Foundation.

“Our tests strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted,” the study authors write. “Given the industry’s refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified.”

Researchers conducted comprehensive tests at the renowned University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory on 10 leading bottled water brands, purchased from retailers in nine states and the District of Columbia (D.C.). A total of 38 toxic pollutants were detected altogether, with each brand containing an average of eight. Chemicals detected included fluoride, byproducts of chlorine-based disinfection, caffeine, pharmaceutical drugs, fertilizer residue, plasticizers, solvents, fuel propellants, arsenic, other minerals and heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes. Four brands also contained bacteria.

More than a third of the chemicals detected are not regulated by the bottled water industry. Voluntary industry standards regulate the following two-thirds, but water purchased in five states and in D.C. contained levels of some carcinogens in excess of even the industry’s standards.

“In other words, this bottled water was chemically indistinguishable from tap water,” the authors write. “But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,900 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.”

Further analysis at the University of Missouri found that when applied to breast cancer cells, one brand of water led to a 78 percent increase in proliferation rate compared with untreated cells. The addition of estrogen-blocking chemicals noticeably reduced this effect.

“Though this result is considered a modest effect relative to the potency of some other industrial chemicals … the sheer volume of bottled water people consume elevates the health significance of the finding,” the researchers write.

The researchers were unable to determine if estrogen-mimics in the water came from the water itself or had leached out of the plastic bottle.

In accordance with standard scientific practice, the report does not name the brands tested. Exceptions were made for the brands Sam’s Choice (Wal-Mart) and Acadia (Giant), however, which contained toxin levels high enough to violate California law.

Samples of both brands tested positive for trihalomethanes, which have been linked to reproductive disorders and cancer. The chemicals form when water disinfectants react with pollution. The water also contained bromodichloromethane, a carcinogen regulated under California law. In response, EWG is preparing a lawsuit against Wal-Mart to require that Sam’s Choice water contain the legally required notice: “WARNING: This product contains a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer.”

Acadia-brand water is not sold in California.

Bottled water purchased from these brands also exceeded the bottled water industry’s voluntary standards.

“The bottled water industry boasts that its internal regulations are stricter than the FDA bottled water regulations,” the researchers write, “but voluntary standards that companies are failing to meet are of little use.”

Reprinted from NaturalNews.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 29, 2008) – It’s no simple matter to figure out how regional changes in precipitation, expected to result from global climate change, may affect water supplies. Now, a new analysis led by MIT researchers has found that the changes in groundwater may actually be much greater than the precipitation changes themselves.

For example, in places where annual rainfall may increase by 20 percent as a result of climate change, the groundwater might increase as much as 40 percent. Conversely, the analysis showed in some cases just a 20 percent decrease in rainfall could lead to a 70 percent decrease in the recharging of local aquifers – a potentially devastating blow in semi-arid and arid regions.

But the exact effects depend on a complex mix of factors, the study found – including soil type, vegetation, and the exact timing and duration of rainfall events – so detailed studies will be required for each local region in order to predict the possible range of outcomes.

The research was conducted by Gene-Hua Crystal Ng, now a postdoctoral researcher in MIT’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering (CEE), along with King Bhumipol Professor Dennis McLaughlin and Bacardi Stockholm Water Foundations Professor Dara Entekhabi, both of CEE, and Bridget Scanlon, a senior researcher at the University of Texas. The results are being presented Wednesday, Dec. 17, at the American Geophysical Union’s fall meeting in San Francisco.

The analysis combines computer modeling and natural chloride tracer data to determine how precipitation, soil properties, and vegetation affect the transport of water from the surface to the aquifers below. This analysis focused on a specific semi-arid region near Lubbock, Texas, in the southern High Plains.

Predictions of the kinds and magnitudes of precipitation changes that may occur as the planet warms are included in the reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are expressed as ranges of possible outcomes. “Because there is so much uncertainty, we wanted to be able to bracket” the expected impact on water supplies under the diverse climate projections, Ng says.

“What we found was very interesting,” Ng says. “It looks like the changes in recharge could be even greater than the changes in climate. For a given percentage change in precipitation, we’re getting even greater changes in recharge rates.”

Among the most important factors, the team found, is the timing and duration of the precipitation. For example, it makes a big difference whether it comes in a few large rainstorms or many smaller ones, and whether most of the rainfall occurs in winter or summer. “Changes in precipitation are often reported as annual changes, but what affects recharge is when the precipitation happens, and how it compares to the growing season,” she says.

The team presented the results as a range of probabilities, quantifying as much as possible “what we do and don’t know” about the future climate and land-surface conditions, Ng says. “For each prediction of climate change, we get a distribution of possible recharge values.”

If most of the rain falls while plants are growing, much of the water may be absorbed by the vegetation and released back into the atmosphere through transpiration, so very little percolates down to the aquifer. Similarly, it makes a big difference whether an overall increase in rainfall comes in the form of harder rainfalls, or more frequent small rainfalls. More frequent small rainstorms may be mostly soaked up by plants, whereas a few more intense events may be more likely to saturate the soil and increase the recharging effect.

“It’s tempting to say that a doubling of the precipitation will lead to a doubling of the recharge rate,” Ng says, “but when you look at how it’s going to impact a given area, it gets more and more complicated. The results were startling.”

The work was funded by a grant from the National Science Foundation, as part of the Information Technology Research Program.

Walmart Sam’s Choice Brand Exceeds Legal Limits in California

WASHINGTON – Ten popular U.S. bottled water brands contain mixtures of 38 different pollutants, including bacteria, fertilizer, Tylenol and industrial chemicals, some at levels no better than tap water, according to laboratory tests recently conducted by Environmental Working Group (EWG).

Walmart‘s Sam’s Choice at several locations contained contaminants exceeding California’s bottled water quality standards and safety levels for carcinogens under the state’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Giant Food’s Acadia brand consistently retained the high levels of cancer-causing chlorination byproducts found in the suburban Washington DC tap water from which it is made.

Overall, the test results strongly indicate that the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted.

“It’s buyer beware with bottle water,” said Jane Houlihan, Vice President for Research at EWG. “The bottled water industry promotes its products as pure and healthy, but our tests show that pollutants in some popular brands match the levels found in some of the nation’s most polluted big city tap water systems. Consumers can’t trust that what’s in the bottle is anything more than processed, pricey tap water.”

“For years the bottled water industry has marketed their product with the message that it is somehow safer or purer than tap water,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of the non-profit consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. “This new report provides even more evidence that the purity of bottled water is nothing more than a myth propagated to trick consumers into paying thousands times more for a product than what it is actually worth.”

Laboratory tests conducted for EWG at one of the country’s leading water
quality laboratories found 38 contaminants in ten brands of bottled water purchased from grocery stores and other retailers in nine states and the District of Columbia. The pollutants identified include common urban wastewater pollutants like caffeine and pharmaceuticals, an array of cancer-causing byproducts from municipal tap water chlorination, heavy metals and minerals including arsenic and radioactive isotopes, fertilizer residue and a broad range of industrial chemicals. Four brands were also contaminated with bacteria.

Unlike tap water, where consumers are provided with test results every year, the bottled water industry does not disclose the results of any contaminant testing that it conducts. Instead, the industry hides behind the claim that bottled water is held to the same safety standards as tap water. But with promotional campaigns saturated with images of mountain springs, and prices 1,000 times the price of tap water, consumers are clearly led to believe that they are buying a product that has been purified to a level beyond the water that comes out of the garden hose.

Americans paid $12 billion to drink 9 billion gallons of bottled water last year alone. Yet, as EWG tests show, several bottled waters bore the chemical signature of standard municipal water treatment — a cocktail of fluoride, chlorine and other disinfectants whose proportions vary only slightly from plant to plant. In other words, some bottled water was chemically almost indistinguishable from tap water. The only striking difference: the price tag. The typical cost of a gallon of bottled water is $3.79 – 1,900 times the cost of a gallon of public tap water.

Unlike public water utilities, bottled water companies are not required to notify their customers of the presence of contaminants in the water, or, in most states, to tell their customers where the water comes from, how it is purified, and if it is spring water or merely bottled tap water. Given the industry’s refusal to make available data to support their claims of superiority, consumer confidence in the purity of bottled water is simply not justified.

The bottle water industry has also contributed to one of the biggest environmental problems facing the world today. Only one-fifth of the bottles produced by the industry are recycled. The remaining four-fifths pile up at landfills, litter our neighborhoods and foul our oceans. About halfway between Hawaii and California, an area twice the size of Texas is awash in millions of plastic water bottles and other indestructible garbage.

Read the Reports Executive Summary here.

Read entire report here.

Reprinted from the Environmental Working Group.

Modern agriculture and land-use practices may lead to major disruptions of the world’s water flows, with potentially sudden and dire consequences for regions least able to cope with them researchers at the Stockholm University-affiliated Stockholm Resilience Centre and McGill University have warned.

In a paper published April 1 in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Dr. Line J. Gordon of the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Stockholm Environment Institute and Dr. Garry Peterson and Dr. Elena Bennett of McGill University argue that global water management has been focused too much on the “blue water” side of the hydrological cycle, neglecting the largely invisible changes humanity has had on so-called “green water.”

“Blue water is the part of the cycle we can see, like streams and rivers,” said Gordon, an assistant professor at the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Stockholm Environment Institute. “This is as opposed to ‘green water’ in soil moisture, or evapotranspiration from plants, which agriculture can affect in significant ways.”

“Resilience” describes the capacity of social-ecological systems to withstand climactic or economic shocks, and to then rebuild and renew themselves. In their paper, the researchers look at the likelihood of that vital resilience being lost in the aftermath of catastrophic changes to the hydrological cycle that could be caused by agriculture and land-use practices.

“Our main point is that these effects aren’t necessarily going to result in gradual change,” explained Peterson, McGill’s Canada Research Chair in Social-Ecological Modelling, and assistant professor in the Department of Geography and the McGill School of Environment. “They can result in surprising, dramatic changes, what we call ‘ecosystem flips’ or ‘ecosystem regime changes,’ which can be very difficult or even impossible to reverse.”

According to Peterson, recent outbreaks of toxic algae blooms in Quebec lakes and off Sweden’s Baltic Sea coast are prime examples of ecosystem flips, the consequence of nutrients from fertilizers permeating the soil and running off into streams, lakes and oceans.

“As you get more and more nutrients in the soil you eventually get to a point where you can even completely stop farming and all the nutrients will still be there,” explained Bennett, an assistant professor at McGill’s Department of Natural Resource Sciences and the School of Environment. “You go past a tipping point where it’s very difficult to reverse.”

Ecosystem flips can have significant and sometimes devastating effects on human well-being, as global populations suddenly lose resources they are dependent on, said the researchers. Some of the most vulnerable areas on Earth are places like the drylands of sub-Saharan Africa.

“In some of these regions we risk two types of ecosystem flips, one that causes rapid soil degradation with dramatic effects on yields and farmers’ livelihoods, and another that affects rainfall and therefore also vegetation growth,” Gordon said.

“These are the places where populations are growing the fastest, people have the least amount of water per capita and are the poorest of any of the biomes of the world. They are also the regions most likely to be affected by climate change,” Peterson added.

As global demands for agriculture and water continue to grow, concluded the authors, it is increasingly urgent for scientists and managers to develop new ways to build resilience by anticipating, analyzing and managing changes in agricultural landscapes. Managing the green water component of the hydrological cycle is also important, as well as encouraging more diverse agricultural practices.

Regime shifts – a key issue at the Resilience2008 Conference, Stockholm Sweden, April 14-17 2008

The risk of catastrophic ecosystem regime shifts and the need for resilience-building are key issues at the upcoming international science and policy conference in Stockholm titled “Resilience, adaptation and transformation in turbulent times – preparing for change in social-ecological systems.”

Dr. Line J. Gordon and Dr. Garry Peterson will present their research at the conference. Keynote speakers include the father of resilience theory, Buzz Holling, leading political scientist Elinor Ostrom and renowned ecologist Steve Carpenter, to name a few. The last day of the conference will be devoted to a high-level policy forum on the implications of resilience science.

###

Resilience2008 is organized by the Resilience Alliance, in collaboration with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the International Council for Science (ICSU). Local organizers are the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University, the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) and the Beijer Institute of Ecological Economics.

One of the most startling realizations of the study is that Americans are now using so many medications that their own biological waste products are becoming large-scale environmental pollutants. Yet neither the EPA nor drug companies have yet said anything useful about attempts to protect the environment from the chemical toxicities of pharmaceutical waste. Drug companies have so far pretended the problem doesn’t exist. Their goal is to simply sell more drugs, and they seem to be entirely unconcerned about what happens after a typical medication consumer flushes the toilet and sends the toxic chemicals downstream.

If trace amounts of multiple pharmaceuticals are now in the tap water supplies, it also means that any use of tap water involves the further spread of those pharmaceutical chemicals. Watering your lawn, for example, means spraying small amounts of pharmaceuticals on your lawn. For ranchers, watering their cows, pigs or chickens also means dosing those animals with small amounts of pharmaceuticals, and for public schools in the affected cities, all the water fountains used by the children are now functioning as mass medication dispensing machines.

The most dangerous medical experiment in the history of our nation

The mass medication of America has now turned into a grand medical experiment that exposes infants, children, expectant mothers, senior citizens, voters, law enforcement officers, doctors and everybody else to a combination of drugs known to have extremely dangerous, mind-altering side effects when taken in full doses. And yet this mass medication of the population is being conducted with no doctor visits, no prescriptions, no consent and no medical assessment whatsoever. It is essentially a mandatory medication carpet-bombing of the entire population.

We can only guess what the results will be a generation from now. But clues can be gathered by watching the impact of such drugs on aquatic organisms. Amphibians exposed to very low doses of these types of chemicals, for example, begin to grow dual sex organs and suffer widespread infertility problems. Deformities in fish are being increasingly reported in rivers, and the world’s oceans now have over a hundred “dead zones” where agricultural runoff and medication runoff have combined to form a toxic aquatic poison that kills all fish. This is the same water being used to create tap water in U.S. cities.

What’s in recycled urine, anyway?

I remember hearing people snicker when they learned that NASA was recycling urine on the space shuttle and that astronauts would be drinking each other’s recycled urine. Well guess what, folks? In major U.S. cities, almost everybody is drinking somebody else’s recycled urine!

And guess what’s in that urine? Toxic medications, caffeine, painkillers, and a cocktail of other chemicals like personal care product fragrances, pesticides and more. It’s enough to make you sick. Literally.

Guess what else? This is the water used to make sodas and other beverages at local bottling plants. So every time you pick up a can of soda and drink it, not only are you getting the dangerous chemicals intentionally added to those sodas — like aspartame and phosphoric acid — you’re also getting trace amounts of medication chemicals recycled from other peoples’ urine, too! Yum!

Water treatment plants don’t remove medication chemicals from the water!

Many consumers mistakenly believe that water treatment plants actually remove these contaminants, but that’s not true. Municipal water treatment facilities do remove large solids (like dirt, sand and leaves), but they only sanitize the water by adding chlorine to kill microorganisms. They don’t actually remove toxic chemicals from the water. Only distillation — a highly energy-intensive process — removes everything from the water (including the minerals).

A few cities treat their water with ozone, which is a far healthier method that avoids the use of toxic chlorine (which is linked to bladder cancer). Ozonation can break down some — but not all — medications. So what about countertop filters that use carbon blocks? I’m going to find out the answer to that question later this week when I interview Aquasana, the company that makes countertop filters and shower filters. I’ll be sure to ask them for technical details about the ability of their filters to remove trace amounts of pharmaceuticals. That’s suddenly an increasingly important question to consumers who don’t want to consume toxic chemicals in their water.

Terrorists couldn’t have done a better job of poisoning America

What’s really interesting in all this is that the water supply is often cited as a security vulnerability to the nation; a weakness in the defense where terrorists could easily dump chemicals and poison the American people. But why would they bother? Drug companies have already poisoned the water supply for them!

And just in case the medication chemicals in the water aren’t enough to poison the nation, many water treatment facilities add even more poison in the form of artificial fluoride chemicals that cause bone loss and weaken the immune system. Terrorists could hardly do a better job of poisoning the water supply than what corporate America has done already… with the help of criminally negligent government regulatory agencies, of course.

That brings us to the Environmental Protection Agency, a corrupt organization that has now sold out to big business. Read the following article to learn how the EPA now conspires with the chemical industry to censor scientists who try to protect the public from toxic chemicals: http://www.naturalnews.com/022773.html

The EPA has taken no action whatsoever to regulate or eliminate the presence of pharmaceutical chemicals in the water supply. Apparently, the EPA doesn’t mind the fact that infants, babies and pregnant women are now drinking six different medications in their tap water. The agency remains either silent on the issue or in agreement with the corrupt scientists who say the levels of contamination are too low to really matter. But in truth, nobody knows the health effects of combining multiple low-dose pharmaceuticals and feeding it to the population. Anybody who says there’s no risk of harm is simply lying.

How to avoid contaminated water

The solution to all this? On a personal level, you’ll need to avoid drinking tap water, period. Or filter it really well. Distillation, as I mentioned, is very energy intensive (which makes it bad for global warming), but it does get the water very, very clean. Other consumer-level water filters may remove some amount of pharmaceuticals, but I don’t have all the facts on that yet, so I’m not going to make any recommendations until I learn more.

But I am researching it, so stay tuned to NaturalNews.com and subscribe to our e-mail newsletter at http://www.naturalnews.com/readerregistration.html

I’ll be sure to e-mail an announcement when I have new information about the effectiveness of consumer water filters.

Get your medications for free!

The funny part in all this is that if medication trends continue and the presence of pharmaceuticals in the water supply continues to increase, it might get to the point where you no longer need to pay for medications at all! Need some anti-inflammatory drugs? Just drink the water!

Of course, it might be better described as “drinking Big Pharma’s kool-aid,” because the pharmaceutical industry is now founded on a cult-like belief in chemicals promoted by commissioned drug reps, psychiatric zealots and mind-numbed doctors. The level of irrational belief in the power of pharmaceuticals has reached such a fervor that it can only have been made possible by a mass brainwashing of gullible professionals. They have schools dedicated to this dark art — they’re called “med schools.”

Seriously, this tap water contamination is yet one more reason to consider leaving the city and moving closer to nature. America is now so intoxicated with medications that they’re showing up in the water! Do you realize how many people have to be taking (and flushing) drugs to get to that point? It means that the nation has become a chemical consumption quagmire that has now poisoned the people, the land, the air and the water.

The people of America deserve better. Problem is, they’re too drugged up to know it! Don’t you find it interesting, by the way, that the EPA is warning everybody about the environmental dangers of colloidal silver, yet utterly ignoring the environmental dangers of pharmaceutical antibiotics? It’s an interesting double standard…

###

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies’ products.

Reprinted from Natural News.

(NaturalNews) People all around the world are drinking more and more bottled water. Growing at a rate of 10% a year, it’s the most popular beverage (1). A report by the Earth Policy Institute (in Washington) reports that in 2004, people were drinking 154 billion litres compared to the 98 billion litres in 1999.

As the report says, in many countries bottled water is no healthier than tap water, but can be more expensive than petrol or gas.

Mr. Grant, assistant director of design at RMIT University, says bottled water uses a lot of energy.  Driving a car for one kilometre used four megajoules of energy, drinking a 600-millilitre bottle of water used 1.5 megajoules, including transport costs. Compare this to drinking tap water which used only 0.2 megajoules.

Another issue with bottled water is that some countries have more regulations governing tap water than bottled water. However, regulation of tap water would be a contentious point among consumers given that regulation typically includes fluoridation of the water. For this issue see (http://www.NaturalNews.com/fluoride.html) .

Some companies are bottling tap water, giving the impression it is purer water, and selling it at huge prices. The real issue then becomes the bottled water itself in terms of the energy required to produce, transport and dispose of the bottles. It is also an issue if the water in the bottle is the same, or similar to, tap water.

Water bottles are made of a common plastic, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) which comes from crude oil. According to the Earth Policy Institute, around 2.7 million tons of plastic are used for bottles each year.

While we’re using fossil fuels to make the bottles, we’re burning these fuels to transport the bottles from Fiji to the USA, from Finland to Saudi Arabia, from Australia to the UK. Then they need to be disposed of. Around 86% are tossed in the rubbish. Some are incinerated, producing toxic by-products. Some are buried, taking 1,000 years to biodegrade.

In Germany, one of the most advanced countries in terms of recycling, there are laws requiring environmentally friendly packaging and refillable packaging. Glass water bottles are sold and then refilled up to 20 times. Many city councils in the US and Australia are advising employees not to drink bottled water and urging residents to do the same.

If you’re concerned about tap water, try installing your own filtration system or use filter jugs and carry the water in biodegradable corn starch bottles, these can be purchased from Belu at (http://www.belu.org/).

If you do need to buy bottled water, look for companies such as Belu that aim to be carbon neutral and use their profits to support clean water projects in developing countries. Frank water (http://www.frankwater.com/) and One water (http://www.onewater.org.uk/) also supports clean water
projects.

The following site is running a campaign against bottled water and against companies bottling tap water (http://www.thinkoutsidethebottle.org/) .

Another site called Inside the Bottle is a project by the Polaris Institute to raise awareness about the bottled water industry (http://www.insidethebottle.org/) .

Reference:

1. ((http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/200…)

About the author

Lynn Berry loves good food and cooking and is passionate about nutrition and natural health care. She has a website promoting healthy eating at http://www.low-calorie-vegetarian-recipe.com/.

 Reprinted from http://www.naturalnews.com.

Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

Looking for a quick and easy way to pollute the environment and destroys huge populations of fish and ocean creatures? It’s simple: Just take more pharmaceuticals and urinate! Prescription drugs are now used in such large numbers that they have become an environmental hazard. When you take drugs, they aren’t simply “used up” by the body; they pass through and get funneled into water treatment systems. The bad news is that water treatment facilities don’t remove pharmaceuticals, so they get flushed downstream where they destroy aquatic ecosystems while contaminating the water supplies of farms and cities that happen to be downstream. There’s actually Prozac in the public water supply! (Perhaps municipal water companies will now be charged with practicing medicine without a license for distributing prescription drugs to citizens without a prescription…) Huh? What environmental problem?Drug companies try to pretend this problem doesn’t exist, and the mainstream media has largely ignored it, too. Meanwhile, fish are being born with double sets of reproductive organs, and fish infertility rates are skyrocketing. The humans who eat those fish are, likewise, expressing unprecedented rates of hormone-related health disorders such as breast cancer, prostate cancer, infertility and much more.Those disease, in turn, get treated with yet more prescription drugs! Then those drugs are urinated back into the groundwater supply where the density of synthetic chemicals continues to increase. Sound insane? It is.

Today, the fish are mutants. Tomorrow, it will be the human population. The widespread abuse and marketing of pharmaceuticals is threatening the health of not just today’s ecosytems, but the health of humans, too.

Pro pharma = anti-environment

You cannot be pro-environment while taking prescription drugs. Taking drugs while claiming to be in favor of environmental protection is like driving a Hummer while claiming to support renewable energy. Or drinking vodka while leading the local AA meeting. Consuming pharmaceuticals puts you directly in conflict with the philosophy of preserving the environment, protecting life, and ensuring the safety of our global water supplies.

If you’re currently taking prescription drugs, I encourage you to carefully consider all this. The drugs you take today become the poisons of all creatures living downstream tomorrow (fish, animals, humans, etc.).

By eliminating prescription drugs and switching to natural, plant-based medicines, you can protect your health and protect the environment at the same time! When you pee away the waste products from eating rainforest herbs, the excess nutrients actually HELP living systems downstream. The more pure and natural the medicine you consume, the more pure and natural your urine and feces will be. And that’s a big deal because if you combine all the urine and feces of all the consumers currently taking prescription drugs, you end up with a mountain of toxic waste that, quite frankly, wouldn’t pass EPA regulations if it were produced by a factory.

It is this mountain of toxic feces, by the way, that gets recycled into biomass products that are spread on our crops as fertilizer. You heard me right: Human waste contaminated with Big Pharma’s top-selling chemicals is being routinely spread on the crops you consume right now. (Yet another reason to buy organic…) And it’s not just pharmaceuticals in the waste, it’s also rocket fuel, PCBs, mercury from fillings, cancer chemicals from personal care products, flame retardant chemicals and much more.

Pharmaceuticals are not merely a health hazard, you see: they’re also an environmental hazard. But will the EPA regulate them? Of course not. Big Pharma has too much influence over Washington. In fact, Big Pharma RUNS Washington. There’s nothing that happens in the U.S. Capitol that isn’t ultimately sanctioned by the wealthiest corporations in the world: drug companies.

The coming generation of mutants (and I don’t mean the X-Men)

Future generations of human beings will be born as mutants, and they will live out their lives suffering from mutant disorders that were directly caused by toxic chemicals in their food, water and environment. Drug companies are accelerating this problem by expanding their marketing of these toxic chemicals, hoping to drug pets, infants, babies and senior citizens with as many chemicals as possible in order to maximize their own profits.

Almost nobody is considering the environmental ramifications of widespread pharmaceutical consumption. Think about all the vaccines, antibiotics, HRT drugs, psychotropic drugs and blood thinners made from rat poison — all of which are being dumped into sewage treatment systems with absolutely no safety concerns. When you combine all these toxic substances and dump them into the global environment, what do you think is going to happen?

I’ll tell you what: Massive mutations in living creatures. Babies born with two heads, six fingers and missing one testicle. Brain damage, tumors, and widespread mental retardation. A catastrophic decline in biodiversity and complex ecosystems. The honeybees are already collapsing in population for mysterious reasons that are undoubtedly due to exposure to synthetic chemicals, and that’s just the first sign of things to come. Basically, we’re looking at the future world described in the movie Idiocracy (click here to read my review of this must-see parody about the future of human civilization).

And as all this is happening, pharmaceutical companies don’t give a crap. Crap, however, does contain pharmaceuticals, and in fact, the crap is better for the environment than the pharmaceuticals, which means that anyone who really gave a crap would stop crapping drugs into the environment.

Cartoon and comments reprinted from http://www.naturalnews.com/