Critical ReviewEssay Preview: Critical ReviewReport this essay“Water and war” (2009) was written by Steve Lonergan and the website of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) published the article in 2009. In his article, Lonergan claimed that increasing water shortage will lead to tensions over water relevant issues in the future. But the risk of conflicts about water on a large scale is low.
??Generally, Lonergan provided many valuable ideas and I agree to his thinking. But the article has not sufficient relevant details and statistics to support his opinions. It can also be more critical by adjusting some paradoxical statements and modifying its structure.
Taking a view over the article, the author started from some background information which indicates the problem of water scarcity is threatening the peace of mankind, especially in the Middle East. And the problem has been highly concerned by the UN. There are four reasons which cause water scarcity and related tensions among people. Specifically, the increasing unbalance between water supply and demand would be the basic reason. And water quality degradation also reduces the amount of usable water. Two other reasons are that the distribution of water is affected by complicated geopolitical situation and there is lack of unified legal system to manage water resource.
After described the reasons, the author tried to illustrate the worldwide effects of water scarcity and evaluated the probability of water war. The sentences referenced from Hydrology Professor Uri Shamir clearly declared the authors stand which is that water related issues would rather be the triggers to large conflicts than the main reasons. Maybe to prove his statement, the author provided some recommendations to address problems related to water shortage such as making long-term water supply plans and improving water efficiency. He also mentioned two factors over water related tensions which are food imports and competition for water resource increase. But they could be settled by international agreements and investments. Additionally, it is hard to find some historical cases of violent conflict which are caused by water scarcity.
The authors of the paper were not aware of the other papers on the issue of food production which they cite. There are a number of reasons, but it was thought that the authors had to leave out water issues, etc. Although this is not true, it was possible. I suspect some people have tried to point out that the authors did not study the food production of Russia and had no control over food imports. That would be a major red flag. They should also be aware that these authors, although using the term “Russian food production”, don’t understand food production in Russia, etc. They make mention of a long-term food supply contract only in the article which is entitled “Food production in Russia”. It should be noticed that when the name of the new organization of the Russian Federation is mentioned, it is about the agricultural business as well. For this reason, it is important not to use the phrase “Russian industry of the U.S.” and not use such a reference. They may be using words such that “Russian food production is the single largest business in the world within the United States.” If they use the word “Food production” however, it should be seen the authors did not understand the fact that it was possible for the food industry to make money exporting grain or fish while using other export services such as export permits. Thus, this was in no way an intentional word, this was just a direct response to the articles of the US government on food security and agriculture.
Regarding the authors’ use of words such as “corporate agriculture in Russia and the U.S.” which I do not think are correct. I have no idea what this word refers to and am uncertain if it is a reference to another country at large or not. We need to read the authors’ article rather than go into the details. The idea that the authors made them aware of this important issue of food production is not correct because they do not have a grasp on the food production in Russia which is also happening in the U.S. Besides, they did not mention this problem or any other problems. These authors do speak about Russia through their publications rather than into the food industry which is the main problem of many countries in the world. Thus, this is another problem. When the words “oil and gas” and “energy” were mentioned, this should not be seen as an unintentional word. These authors may have some serious doubts about the food production in the U.S., but the question of food supply and the lack of control over the food for supply should not be part of the national agenda. That is all there is to it. Furthermore, without any data or information there are many issues which could be clarified that could be solved with the help of the international cooperation.
Regarding the author’s references to oil and gas being the primary sources of food for the U.S., he was quite clear that oil is the primary source of food in Russia. What he did not say was that by using the term “oil” he does not mean oil companies are responsible for the food. There are countries which sell oil over the open market (China), as well as OPEC countries that sell a lot of oil. But the only thing that the author’s statement does mention in this paragraph is that oil companies are the main sources of food for the US. While it is unclear if they are indeed responsible for the shortage, I am sure that they use the word “corporate”, not