Abundance vs Scarcity

Much of what's been written on this blog over the past 60 days has dealt with two visions of the future. In one, there is abundance with new sources of energy, food and clean water. In the other, there is scarcity creating competition for a dwindling supply of resources. 

The abundance vs scarcity question is a fairly common issue when looking at future scenarios and many others have written on it. What I would like to stress is that the hemisphere shouldn't view either vision as being imposed on it by some outside force. It should be investing in science, technology and education to try to build that future of abundance. It should be looking at government policies and private sector investments that can help eliminate problems of scarcity. We should plan for the worse of the two scenarios. I wouldn't want to avoid planning for potential scarcity in the future. But we should be working and investing to build the better of the two, because if we have a choice, it's certainly the better future to live in.

Water sanitation innovation

WashPost:

Last year, Ugarte’s team partnered with Alfredo Zolezzi, Chief Innovation Officer of Chile Advanced Innovation Center, to test a revolutionary pint-sized Plasma Water Sanitation System that his company was developing. This can purify 35 liters of water in five minutes using only the power required to light a 100 watt bulb. If the system can be mass produced for less than $100, as Zolezzi believes, and the output passes the lab tests to which it is being subjected, it has the potential to provide clean, safe water to billions in the developing world. 

There are several projects similar to this being tested right now around the world. Once cheap enough, they have the potential to be a game changing technology to help improve the health of people around the hemisphere.

Urban farming in a breadbasket

I've been spending time reading about vertical farming in urban environments as a possible way to feed future populations and conserve water supplies.

The biggest megacity regions in South America - Rio, Sao Paulo, Buenos Aires and Bogota - all exist right near some large agricultural areas that are fully capable of feeding them. Unlike other urban areas of the world, the need for vertical farming doesn't seem particularly urgent. It would help save water and it could help boost exports to regions like China where the demand for food continues to outstrip supply. However, those are secondary benefits not currently driven by local demand.

All this is to say that I think some form of vertical farming is likely in the future around the world, but without significant leadership or some economic incentive, South America may be one of the last regions to adopt it.

On the other hand, the Caribbean where land for agriculture and fresh water are at a premium could have the conditions to be an early adopter.

100 year view on climate change in CentAm

A new study providing the 100 year view on climate change in Central America is rather grim. Temperatures will rise by over 2 degree Celsius in most of the region. This will reshape agriculture, reduce biodiversity and could cause diseases to spread, such as dengue reaching San Jose, Costa Rica.

Most importantly, there will be less water in key agricultural areas. Countries, if they keep the same borders, will likely fight over fresh water supplies, river flows and watersheds. Countries need to think through and prepare water management plans if they hope to provide for their entire populations in the coming decades. When the water does arrive, it will often be in the form of devastating floods and hurricanes, requiring better resilience and responses by regional authorities.

Water vs Internet

It's easier to bring internet connections to slums than water, sewage or garbage removal services. That will be even more true ten years from now, when it's likely that well over 50% of populations in slums will have access to internet, television and phone communications. That is a big quality of life improvement and opens up new opportunities for businesses and education. It will happen whether or not cities and countries invest because that is the way technology is moving.

The ability to move high speed data connections wirelessly means there is less need to solve the problem of the last mile or last 100 feet. Cities can't move water, sewage or garbage wirelessly. The basic questions about infrastructure aren't going away.

Whether those slums can access clean water or decent sewage removal depends almost entirely on government investments. That's not to say that the 19th and 20th century models of delivering those services is the only way. There may be some innovative solutions. However, the free market and advancing technology are much less likely solve those problems without some government investment.