by: Lindsey Organ
One of the biggest environmental disasters of our time was, not surprisingly, caused by man. The Aral Sea used to be the fourth largest lake in the world. However, it is now only about 10-20% of its original size. The sea, that is located between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, dried up as the two contributory rivers were rerouted by the Soviet Union in the 1960’s in order to irrigate water thirsty crops like cotton. This had serious impacts on the Aral Sea Basin region. The salinity of the lake has increased to that of more than the ocean, which has killed many species causing large decreases in biodiversity of the area. The fishing industry, that at one time employed more than 60,000 people, is destroyed. The areas of the lake that dried up became a desert polluted with toxic chemicals and salt, which get blown about by dust storms. This has had serious, harmful health effects on people, vegetation, and animals. Also, the large lake mitigated the climate. The summers have become shorter and drier and the winters are longer and colder causing a decrease in the length of the crop growing season.
The Kazakhstan government has borrowed money from the world bank to build dams and fix leaky irrigation systems to try to restore the northern part of the Aral Sea. The water level has increased dramatically and many of the fish species have returned. The rest of the sea continues to shrink and there is little sign of hope for it. Some suggestions for restoration are to redirect large rivers from the north to refill the sea and farm less water-intensive crops. Those ideas are probably not economically viable options so the region most likely will continue to suffer from the loss of the sea.
33 comments:
How did the water actually start to come back into the northern part of the Aral Sea? Maybe there can be similar implementations for the southern sea? Also, how did the fish populations actually start to grow? And, there concerns over the increased salinity and toxic chemicals, so what does this mean for the people in the area who eat these fish? Are they safe? Have they been tested? Also, the plan to divert the other rivers in the Aral sea seem to be the "quick fix" for this problem. Yes, this is a huge economic project, but what about the problems that may be caused from changing the direction of the rivers? It seems like everything we do will make this crisis worse..
I am curious as to the implications of un-rerouting the rivers that used to feed the Aral Sea. Would the losses suffered by those dependent on the rerouted rivers be greater than or less than the benefits for those from replenished biodiversity and irrigation in the Aral Sea region? This would be a very utilitarian decision, giving the greatest good to the greatest number of people. It sounds the impacts of a giant lake bygone are severe, and there would be great benefit, biologically, economically, and agriculturally, in addition to aesthetically, if we could return to the way things were half a century ago.
I would think that faming appropriate crops for that climate would be economically beneficial, as the water becomes more scare its going to raise in marginal user cost and marginal cost of extraction. When the price of water use reaches the maximum willingness to pay the less water intensive crops will become beneficial.
This problem is occuring in lakes and seas around the world when man puts his hand into the game. Note the black sea, which underwent a similar problems over the past decades. Along with the geo-chemical changes, species populations change too. Commercial fishing crashed, and jellyfish exploded in population. Interesting trade off...farming, or fishing? Who is right?
In Abu Dhabi, they planted hundreds of acres of trees to help change the climate that favored more rain to fall in the area. I wonder if some plants could be introduced to this area so that maybe they too could receive more rainfall that would raise the sea level.
Restoring the Aral Sea region as closely as possible to its original state seems like the moral thing to do, but I'm skeptical that human intervention is the right way to go about it. Human interference clearly altered the natural ecosystem initially, but I don't know if re-routing the already re-routed rivers seems like a logical thing to do. It obviously had negative impacts the first time, so it seems like attempting to alter the natural area a second time would be a repetition of a mistake that's already been made. It's a tough issue because I don't know that humans have the ability or the knowledge to actually restore the environment back to its original state.
This is a really interesting story, what I don't understand is when it was significantly decreasing why did no one do anything about it? You would think if they needed water that badly for farming practices they would have made this operation sustainable.
Im not sure if re-directing rivers to fill the lake is the best idea. By doing so, the ecosystems supported by the re-directed rivers will be negatively effected as could human populations who depend upon it. As you said the Soviet Union was initially responsible, Russia then should lead the aid work by helping develop an economy less dependent upon water.
Water sustainable agricultural practices would help contribute to the regeneration of the aral sea. I read an article that stated up to 30% of agricultural water is lost just due to transportation to the irrigation areas. There is also significant amounts of water loss in the remaining 70% due to erosive practices and other unsustainable water use. They may not have to change river directions.
I'm with Lukas Eddy on this. Has anyone considered un-routing these irrigation paths so as to restore the lake to its natural level? It is also interesting when trying to determine what the most efficient allocation would be between the farms and the lake. Clearly, water use could be offset by the introduction of less water-intensive crops. Additionally, who owns the entitlement to use the lake? Farmers or fishermen/residents? And, if one party has this ownership, is the ownership designated properly? Could the costs imposed on the fishermen/residents by the farms be paid for (as a liability) by the farms? Or should there be some legal intervention preventing the farms from allocating so much water? I feel like there is a solution to this that stems from a legally induced negotiation between the farmers and the other lakegoers (not sure that could be a word) that could benefit both parties efficiently.
I don't think that directly altering a flow of water to fill up a lake that has dried out is the best solution. What will happen to the surrounding areas which depend on that rivers flow. It just seems like a chain of events that doesn't really solve anything.
Wow!! I’m totally shocked by how much one lake can affect an entire country or two, even if it is a really "big" lake. Normally I would say that this attempt to replenish the northern part of the Lake by Kazakhstan is the best idea. Yet, after looking at the big picture I'm not so sure. It almost doesn't seem worth it, now that the lake is so small and has already caused so much damage. It doesn't seem like much can be done with such a small area of water and to refill it would no doubt bring heavy damage, as water is such a precious natural resource at the time. I am curious to know where exactly the water that is refilling this lake is coming from and how it could be affecting the country’s economy as a result. So, though this may re-build a lost rich ecological community, the toll it would likely have on the country’s economy seems completely disastrous. For what the country grows upon and lives off, cotton, will likely suffer and any economic benefits form the lake, such as fishing, will hardly see a profit.
This has become an environmental issue because it involves many parties. If there was only one country involved with the removal of water, they would be able to see the destruction they were causing and take action. Until all countries in the area are forced to participate in a restoration program it probably won't happen. Incentives to not grow upstream would be a possible solution, money from fisheries to farmers.
Why can't the method in the North work in the South? It seems that it maybe can be fixed but it appears that there are many issues getting in the way and the biggest one being economic. Obviously the governments of these countries (and the people) would rather have money than a sea. Maybe by educating farmers there could be a chance of helping to try to save the seas for the future. While also continuing to show the farms they can still grow and have a business.
It is wonderful that fixing the dams and irrigation systems helped the Northern part come back, but is diverting other rivers going to help the overall region? What happens to the areas those rivers feed? Aren't they doing the same thing that lead to the desertification of the Aral Sea?
Laura Schafenacker
A lyric from Blue Oyster Cult's Godzilla fits pretty well with this whole scenerio, "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of maaaannnnnn GODZILLA".
I think the best thing to do in situation would be to re-route rivers from many different areas to the sea. It will be expensive to do all of this but in the long run it would be worth it because of how much harm it has caused and will cause in the future. It is amazing to see how much damage to the environment and climate humans can cause in such a short period of time. We might as well spend the same amount of time and money on trying to repair the ecosystem that was once there.
David McKinley
Has there been any talk with Russia about cooperating in a solution to this problem? This is a large problem, and it is unfortunate that a loss of biodiversity and species will not "bounce back" in any meaningful time frame for us humans.
This is a perfect example of why governments need to start putting more consideration into the environmental effects of their policy choices. The USSR may have helped the agriculture industry, but they destroyed the fishing industry and jeopardized the health of their citizens at the same time. It seems as though many policies which harm the environment eventually end up hurting another industry.
A constant reminder of how we can take an invaluable resource and squander it. The most disturbing facts about this problem are the time lapse photos. It's just like a greedy kid with a straw in a glass of coke.
I agree that re-rerouting the originally moved rivers back would probably be more harmful than helpful due to the fact that there are now people, and their crops, who depend on them. Though, I also wonder why nothing was done when the problem started, before the lake was reduced to such a small size. This is very interesting - it shows how much of an impact we really have, and that we need to stop "fixing" nature
Katie Witters
I think that david makes a good point here. Russia should be held responsible for the cleanup and restoration or this lake. Although i know that this is a rather unlikely scenario, it seems like this would be the most equitable solution to the problem. I also wonder about how the rivers could be rerouted to their original positions and what effect this would have environmentally and economically.
Anyone who still believes that humans are not a large enough force to actively change our atmosphere and planet need to do some reading on the Aral sea.
What used to be an area with rainfall (due to evaporative effects from the sea), now is an arid desert with much less rainfall.
I tend to think that this is the fault of the local government that surround the Aral Sea. Wouldn't you think that by the time the water level was down to 50% or so they would try to make a change. At this point it might be too little too late, but I like seeing that they are now trying to make a change and restore the wildlife within this region.
it seems to me that this is a political problem more than environmental one. By that I mean it is a cut and dry policy that is bad for the environment, but very sticky when it comes to changing it. I'm curious to see where these rivers or that have been rerouted. Since the Soviet Union is now a bunch of different countries, I'm guessing there have to be some sort of international cooperation to make this happen, and the only place that's likely to happen is generally the UN. where is the international concern for this problem?
Although the methods you mentioned to refill the south Aral Sea might not be economically smart, I still think that it is very important that we do something to refill the water we have drained from the Aral Sea. Even if this means spending a lot of money and resources, I feel that since we destroyed the ecosystem that was the Aral Sea,it is up to us as human beings to fix the problem. The human race cannot continue destroying habitats for our own selfish greed if we are not going to repair the damage we did.
I think that this is an interesting problem because the sovit union no longer exists and can not be held responsible, at least financially. because of this, the poorer countries that have been negatively effected are forced to borrow from the IMF or world bank.
Based on the comments, i feel it is important to mention, where is this IMF money coming from? Sovrenties should hold themselves accountable, and respect thier land as such. If your assets are being depleted by a neighbor, punish him so. Diplomacy be damned, your home is your home. Stand up for yourself. There are always steps to be taken to combat upstream degredation.
Wow, this is interesting. Obviously, a loss of an industry that employed 60,000 people is detrimental. It seems like rerouting rivers to refill the Aral Sea IS the only option. Even if it is considered not economically viable to invest in rerouting rivers, what will the economy look like without the Aral Sea? Seems to me like the Kazakhstan government needs to act quickly.
This is absolutely an issue but, Im not sure if re-directing rivers to fill the lake is the best idea. This problem didn't happen overnight and its solution is going to be long-term as well. Redirecting rivers for long periods of time is going to have environmental repercussions somewhere. I think we've simply shot ourselves in the foot with this one
ROBERT SEADER
This is interesting, I haven't heard anything about this topic until now. Are they be able to sustain the fish populations that have come back? Is this a project that has already been approved? It is unfortunate that this area is experiencing such a crisis and I hope they will receive financial aid and physical help to achieve some sort of a solution.
It is amazing to see how one event can cause such a catastrophic snowball effect. This should be a lesson to us to respect nature, and never underestimate its power.
This is interesting and I have never heard about this before. I enjoyed reading it.
Post a Comment