|
January 03, 2009
Running On Hungry
Making the Desert Bloom has cost the oil rich Arabs a blooming fortune. It hasn't been very profitable either. Saudi Arabia's desert agriculture confirms that money and water can make even a desert bloom until either the money runs out or the water is depleted. Saudi Arabia's experience is noteworthy because within 15 years, the country experienced shortages of both money and later, water. These shortages impacted negatively on the country's heralded commitment to desert agriculture.So what do the Saudis have to show for all that effort? Empty bank accounts, empty aquifers, and an abundance of sand. The difficulty is that sand is not a scarce resource. They also seem to have an abundance of jihadis and those are also currently a glut on the market. And now with oil income this year expected to be less than half what it was last year they seem to be headed for some troubled waters. Or lack of waters actually. Under the arid and semi-arid conditions of the Arab world an economist would argue that it would be beneficial to import foodstuffs instead of investing in financially and environmentally non-viable local farming schemes. An economist would also argue that farming in arid or semi-arid areas should be left to rain fed lands. Given that drinking and household water use in every country is typically one tenth the volume of the water needed to become food self-sufficient, it would be necessary to stop further depletion of non-renewable water reserves by abandoning irrigation schemes so that the remaining water may be preserved for drinking and household purposes. International "trade" in virtual water allows water-scarce countries to import high water using foodstuffs and export low water using manufactured products.It looks as if oil socialism doesn't work any better than industrial socialism and in fact it may be worse. In allocating scarce national resources, an economist would argue against investing in any project unless justified on a purely rate of return on investment basis. Irrigation and land reclamation projects are no exception. These must be evaluated according to their rate of return on investment with full costing of water that ensures maintaining the quantity and quality of the aquifers and accounting for the negative and positive externalities of production and consumption. A rate of return approach diverts the foreign currencies that would otherwise be allocated to irrigation and land reclamation to higher return investments. In the export and/or import-substitution industries, such diversion would increase foreign currency earnings, which would then be used to import food. A rate of return on investment criterion would diversify GDP sources. The diversification would enhance employment opportunities in rural areas and mitigate the negative effects of food imports on rural employment. A rate of return approach invests taxpayers' money in more rewarding projects for the country as a whole, not to one segment of the population at the expense of the others. A rate of return on investment criterion can help steer GDP on a path of optimal growth.The difficulty is that the revenues from oil would need to be more widely distributed into private hands. However, that goes against the grain in the Arab world. What can Arabs produce that the world wants? Not much evidently. And there in lies a problem. Oil has led to a population explosion all living off oil. When the oil is gone starvation is sure to follow. I think the Arabs have another three to five decades to work out a cultural change. Right now they are hurting but have some breathing room. But not much because cultures don't change quickly. Fifty years to make the required changes is the blink of an eye. It will be interesting to see how they manage and a tragedy if they don't. Commenter Fritz suggest a look at When the Rivers Run Dry for a broader look at the problem of water in the 21st Century. Cross Posted at Power and Control posted by Simon on 01.03.09 at 09:00 AM
Comments
Certainly the Saudi attempts to farm the desert are not sustainable (there is more about this attempt in the very interesting book _When The Rivers Run Dry_). But the national security implications of food imports are real -- as real as the national security implications of oil imports. And, far from being some sort of ingrained Arab response, the Saudi arguments for "food independence" remind me of US arguments for "energy independence", with the only exception being that we have the ability to pull it off in a sustainable fashion and the Saudis don't. Not all economists argue only for Ricardian comparative advantage. It is not clear that economic monoculture is, in the long run, a great idea. Is it wonderful to move all our manufacturing to China and gut our industrial infrastructure just because the Chinese can do it cheaper? Fritz · January 3, 2009 02:41 PM Fritz, We haven't moved all our manufacturing to China. Manufacturing still represents about 20% of our economic output. What we have done is automated out a lot of the labor. M. Simon · January 3, 2009 03:38 PM OK, "all our manufacturing" is a bit of hyperbole. But I grew up in Cleveland long enough ago that I remember that Flats as a place of vibrant (and, admittedly, loud and very dirty) activity. I just went back to visit -- the contrast is very sad. The article you link to is really powerful. I don't see the Saudis coming up with anything past oil that can sustain their population. Some of the emirates, probably. But not the Saudis. Fritz · January 3, 2009 04:04 PM ... while here in Israel - with similar climate, and a lot less money and land - we pioneered drip irrigation and other technologies, and are not just feeding ourselves, but exporting everything from flowers to eggplants profitably. Take a look at any map: patterns of desertification match patterns of Arab settlement. 1,500 years ago marauding Arab nomads swept out of the Saudi desert. All they knew how to do was fight, cheat, and despoil. And nothing's changed - well, maybe they've forgotten how to fight.... Ben-David · January 3, 2009 06:03 PM Ben-David -- Israel has also appropriated water (like from Palestinian aquifers and the Jordan River) and is right now destroying the Dead Sea (yeah, yeah, that sounds funny, but it is true) by drying it up. One of the arguments for not returning Golan Heights land is that possession of that land allows Israel to divert more water. A lot of this is described in the book I recommended. None of that detracts from Israel's agricultural accomplishments. Fritz · January 3, 2009 06:21 PM If solar desalinization will not work in Arabia, it won't work anywhere in the world. If they've honestly tried that and failed, it's time for them to determine the carrying capacity of the desert, and find a colony for the rest of their population. They tell me the Rouge is lovely this time of year. comatus · January 3, 2009 09:20 PM Fritz, You might find this of interest: http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2004/12/ezekiel-project.html A plan to replenish the Dead Sea with Mediterranean water and generate electricity as well. M. Simon · January 3, 2009 09:49 PM Fritz: We have not "appropriated" water - it's ours. We use coastal aquifers, our Jordan/Golan springs, and the Galilee (and desalinization plants are being built). It's not Israel's "fault" that several large West Bank watersheds empty into Israel's coastal plain. "Palestinian aquifers" are being dried up by wildcat well-drilling throughout the West Bank. I know because I live there. And the Dead Sea is suffering because EVERYONE upstream - Syria, Jordan, and Israel - is taking too much water out of the Jordan river watershed. So please stop trying to politicize this issue. Ben-David · January 4, 2009 02:13 PM Ben-David: We both know that the Israeli government controls the allocation of water in Judea and Samaria. Water usage is political in any arid region -- and upstream trumps downstream. Which, as I said, is one reason for Israeli continued occupation in Golan. Maybe the Med/Dead or Red/Dead projects will come about -- expensive but that could be a real boon. To one extent I absolutely agree with you. Arab expansion has lead to desertification, especially in recent years. Unfortunately wealth is often measured in animals, even when income comes from elsewhere. And goats are pretty brutal to the landscape. Fritz · January 4, 2009 05:23 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2009
December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A Lack Of Solidarity
Now We Know Who To Blame The First Crook Resigns Operation Cast Lead A Broken Hands Policy A Geometry Problem Reclassification Not Waiting For The Ambulances Harry Reid Puts In A Bid On The Defensive
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What seems to be an ingrained Arab trait, blaming others for all of their problems, does not bode well for the necessary changes they will need to make when their oil runs out.