Green New Champions

While fossil fuel companies and politicians often blame individuals for their carbon emissions and plastic straws, environmental issues are upheld by the lasting effects of industrialization and colonization and perpetuated by systems of oppression. As fires plague entire countries, global temperatures rise, and communities remain without clean water, government policy is the most efficient mechanism for change.

Countries such as Argentina, Poland, Indonesia, and Tanzania engaged in climate protests throughout the month of January. Coordinated events by Fridays for Future brought out protesters around the globe, and people spoke out with criticisms of various environmental policies. These continued into February, and Sweden, Peru, France, and Serbia were brought into the picture. On March 25th, over 700 youth climate strike protests took place worldwide, and one billion people took part in Earth Day this April. As stated by a supporter of the UK Extinction Rebellion Movement, “This has to be the biggest year yet for climate protest.” 

In 2019, Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced H.Res.109/S.Res.59. This resolution acknowledged human activity as “the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century” and climate change as a catalyst for mass migrations, wildfires, and deadly heat stress. It noted that there will be “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100,” and moreover, BIPOC and low-income communities will be disproportionately affected. People, infrastructure, and industry will take a massive blow without major changes in policy, and with this in mind, 14 Senators and 101 Representatives officially recognized “the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” A new vigor was brought to the movement for environmental justice. 

The Green New Deal calls for supporting community projects, updating infrastructure, upgrading renewable energy sources, building energy-efficient power sources, investing in clean manufacturing, working with farmers and ranchers to decrease pollution by the agricultural sector, restoring biodiversity and natural ecosystems, cleaning up hazardous waste, and promoting international collaboration on climate issues. It includes a lengthy section about how jobs and education intersect with these environmental goals, and it recognizes a variety of equity issues. In the past few years, however, the Green New Deal has been criticized for being “too broad and not specific enough.” To dissolve any blurry areas and rejuvenate the energy behind the 2019 resolution, a new environmental pledge was released in March. 

The Green New Deal Pledge

The general idea of the Green New Deal Pledge is for officeholders to actively push for progressive climate legislation, organize their colleagues to join the fight, and publicly advocate for the Green New Deal. More specifically, there are nine bills beyond the Green New Deal Resolution that pledges must co-sponsor within six months of their swearing-in, and they must abide by a contribution policy.

That contribution policy is for each pledge-taker to “reject contributions of over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists, or PACs,” and the essence of this standard is to ensure that political loyalties lie where they should: with the constituents. When Senators and Representatives are propped up by fossil fuel corporations, entire movements can stall. For example, Joe Manchin, who helped stall the Build Back Better Act, had “between $1.4 million and $5.8 million held in coal companies” in 2020. Taking it back to 2019, the “combined fossil fuel contributions to ‘no’ votes against [the] Green New Deal resolution” was over $55,000,000. As shown in the past few years, big oil, gas, and coal companies are responsible for regulating big oil, gas, and coal companies. In order to hold so-called “climate champions” accountable, the pledge requires officeholders to detach their strings. 

On the topic of fossil fuels, one of the bills that must be co-sponsored is the Keep It in the Ground Act, which “eliminates new fossil fuel production projects on federal public land and waters.” It prohibits the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from renewing or authorizing fossil fuel projects, but there are a couple of exceptions involving national security and specific legal restrictions regarding contracts. While the United States is highly reliant on fossil fuels at this point, policymakers must be conscious of the long-term effects. The use of fossil fuels results in land degradation, water pollution, and ocean acidification, and according to the International Energy Agency, no new fossil fuel projects can be implemented for the world to have even half a chance at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. However, as Senate sponsor Jeff Merkeley stated, “affordable and reliable technology exists to gradually transition to clean energy and clean transportation.” His proposal would be a major win for progressives, and the planet.

Another bill listed in the pledge is the Environmental Justice for All Act, which would “address the disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of federal laws or programs on communities of color, low-income communities, or tribal and indigenous communities.” Notably, the infrastructure that distributes fossil fuels is often built in areas that impact communities with little socio-political power. For example, in regard to tribal and indigenous lands and resources, the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) near Standing Rock would contaminate the reservation’s sole source of freshwater; the Line 3 Pipeline would harm aquatic ecosystems; the Keystone XL Pipeline would have threatened ancestral homeland with dirty tar. Additionally, BIPOC and impoverished communities are often the ones most affected by chemicals and toxic materials. Flint, a city that had dirty water for years, is 57 percent African-American with 41 percent of the city under the poverty line—but although Flint is well-known, other communities are facing similar struggles. A journal article published by Nature Communications stated that “water hardship is spread unevenly across both space and society, reflecting the spatial patterning of social inequality due to settler colonialism, racism, and economic inequality in the United States.” Furthermore, when these communities are affected, it takes longer for the problem to be solved than wealthy, white ones, as evidenced by the degree of post-wildfire cleanup and rebuilding. Climate inequality is already prevalent in the United States.

The next bill, the Civilian Climate Corps for Jobs and Justice Act, would create a climate service program “to help communities respond to climate change and transition to a clean economy.” This Act would not only assist with the completion of federally-funded projects—reducing carbon emissions, transitioning to renewable energy, responding to climate disasters, and launching conservation projects—but it would promote equity. Over 5 years, 1.5 million Americans would each receive “compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare,” and corpsmembers would be eligible for educational funding. Plus, the bill would include tribal sovereignty protections and funds, and career pathways would lead participants towards green sector jobs. As previously explained, addressing climate injustice is a major part of the environmental movement, and this bill would be a step forward on that front.

The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act would also create up to 240,000 union jobs per year while reducing annual carbon emissions to “the equivalent of taking over 1.2 million cars off the road,” and it would alleviate issues like “mold infestations, lead contamination, poor indoor air quality, and unsafe temperatures.” Additionally, the bill would reduce the costs of water and energy for residents while transitioning to energy efficient, zero carbon housing, and it would showcase how the economy and climate action can be positively intertwined. 

Another bill required through the pledge is the Green New Deal for Cities, which would have the Department of Housing and Urban Development fund projects by states, local governments, and Native American nations. To receive funding, the government must have a local Green New Deal program proposal that includes commitments such as working towards zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and the money would be for solutions to issues like climate adaptation, pollution, and conservation on family farms. Especially due to varying levels of familiarity with local issues and resources, it is critical for all levels of government to collaborate on environmental response. The Green New Deal for Cities would allow that to happen, and it would embolden a stronger network of advocates.

Next, the Farm Systems Reform Act would help give family farmers and ranchers a better chance within a system that favors multinational meatpacking companies. One key part of this bill would include strengthening the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 that regulates the meat industry “from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices.” The newer bill would “place a moratorium on large factory farms, sometimes referred to as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements.” To examine the broader picture, large CAFOs create massive amounts of waste—as much as 1.4 billion tons each year—and they are not required to upkeep a treatment facility for that waste. Large CAFOs also cause water pollution that harms not only the environment, but the health of rural communities, and “The overuse of medically important antibiotics by large CAFOs has led to the generation and spread of dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.” Additionally, research has shown that air pollution stemming from animal agriculture causes 12,720 deaths in the United States per year. The industry has been accused of supporting profit over people, and this bill seeks to address that.

The Green New Deal for Public Schools Act would offer environmental and educational resources to children at public elementary and secondary schools, as well as Bureau of Indian Education schools. The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would provide grants to help convert their facilities into zero-carbon schools, and the Department of Education (ED) would award grants for hiring and retaining teachers and staff in high-need schools. The Climate Change Resiliency Program would be created under ED, helping to “increase the resiliency of public and BIE schools during climate change-related events, natural disasters, and public health crises,” and a similar grant program for state educational agencies would be established. This bill would also create the Office of Sustainable Schools within ED to carry out the administrative process of these tasks.

The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development and Generating Renewable Energy to Electrify the Nation’s Infrastructure and Jobs Act, more succinctly known as the BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a substantial grant program for governments and other entities to invest in “electrified surface transportation infrastructure projects.” The bill outlines specific elements of maximum-sustainability projects, and it instructs the DOT to prioritize vulnerable communities and new outdoor areas. In terms of costs, grants must be at least $2 million, with certain exceptions, and a project “may not exceed 85% for planning, design, and construction purposes and 50% of the operation and maintenance costs of the project for its first 10 years.”

Finally, the End Polluter Welfare for Enhanced Oil Recovery Act is a short one, and the overall purpose is to eliminate “the use of carbon oxide as a tertiary injectant” and repeal the tax credit “for enhanced oil recovery costs.” The bill would decrease federal support for fossil fuel projects and remove a financial burden on American taxpayers. It would update royalty rates for oil and gas production, reoccupy royalties from offshore drilling, and reconstruct bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal property. It would also help fund medical care for “tens of thousands working-class Americans” by maintaining the Black Lung Disability Fund. Within 10 years, the United States will “account for 60 percent global growth in oil and gas production,” but this legislation would help prevent more damage caused by special interests.

Responding to the Climate Emergency 

In 2022, there is irrefutably a climate emergency. The Green New Deal Pledge would create new leaders, or “champions,” of the environmental movement in the United States, and the bills themselves would affect not only Americans, but the rest of the world. While passing the original Green New Deal would be valuable, the health of our planet is declining exponentially, and we need specific steps to take as a united front. That is what the Green New Pledge is designed to do. 

Some people have said that passing the “Green New [Anything]” is far-fetched. However, almost 5 percent of Americans would “willingly participate in civil disobedience” to demand climate action, Data for Progress found that “More than 65 percent of likely voters support Green New Deal measures for cities, public housing, and school,” and already, 71 candidates and 22 elected officials are listed on the official website as having taken the Pledge with almost 50 groups as partners.As time goes on, an increasing number of people are understanding that their lives are on the line, and building a coalition committed to strong environmental advocacy is critical. Taking this Pledge is an expression of government responsibility and accountability, and ultimately, taking the greatest strides to protect this planet is not a “radical” path forward.

The Dangerous Myth of Overpopulation

At the height of an international lockdown during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, images of wildlife peacefully walking through deserted city streets proliferated on social media. Monkeys were seen brawling in the streets of Thailand, while boars descended into the streets of Barcelona. These images elicited a plethora of responses, though many agreed on one thing: the staggering number of humans occupying the planet were the root cause of why scenes such as these were incredibly rare. They specifically argued that if not for overpopulation, the relationship between nature and humanity would be much more harmonious. Subsequently, memes with the slogan “Humans are the virus, Covid is the cure” began circulating. While such arguments may seem innocuous, the idea of overpopulation being a root cause of environmental and economic issues is a dangerous one. Its permeability highlights this: it has successfully seeped into our language, discourse, and approach to solutions despite it being rooted in white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, and fascism. Its proponents have crafted an incredible marketing scheme to sell overpopulation as the cause of our woes and to many it makes sense: more people means less resources for environmental and economic prosperity- right? However, overpopulation is not the danger its proponents make it out to be nor does it get to the real root cause of our issues. It is simply a tool to inflict further violence on Black and Brown people on a national and international scale and fuel dangerous ideologies such as ecofascism.

What Is Overpopulation?

In 1789, Thomas Malthus, a cleric and economist, wrote a treatise titled Essay on the Principle of Population which argued: “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race…” Malthus’s vision of collapse was premised on the central argument that population growth would inevitably outstrip the human race’s ability to produce food thus generating the conditions for mass famine and societal breakdown. According to Malthus’s worldview, humans were the equivalent of animals who mindlessly reproduce; based on this assumption, he ascertained that human population growth is geometric (2, 4, 8, 12, etc) while food reserved grow at an arithmetic rate (2, 3, 4, 5, etc). Of course, when operating off of this supposition it is easy to portend misery and chaos. However, Betsy Hartmann, the author of Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: the Global Politics of Population Control, points out that Malthus got two crucial points wrong: population growth is not an eternal process, but has been shown to slow and stabilize as a result of higher standards of living. Furthermore, Malthus’s contention that food growth would be outstripped by population did not consider advances in human production (14). The Industrial Revolution, which was in its beginning stages at the time of this treatise’s publication, would produce the technology to sustain the needs of the growing population and more.  Additionally, it has been successfully demonstrated that not only is population growth not a hindrance to society, but it has actually helped produce more innovation- the more people there are, the more minds there are to discover solutions. 

Despite the fact that Malthus’s treatise has long been debunked, overpopulation never really disappeared and truly re-entered the public consciousness in the 1960s with the works of Garrett Hardin and Paul Ehrlich. Garrett Hardin’s essay “Tragedy of the Commons” is often cited as a foundational argument for protecting natural resources. The essay posits the following: when having access to common land (or resources), we worry that our neighbor’s cattle will graze the best grass, so we must send our cows out first to consume it. The logic is that since everyone is supposedly competitive, what inevitably happens is environmental degradation. However, there are a few foundational problems with Hardin’s premise. The first is Hardin’s view that humans are naturally selfish and competitive- Hardin’s projections as an individual should not provide the basis for over-arching assumptions about all of humanity. Furthermore, this notion has been contested: commons, a historical phenomenon that ceased to exist with the development of modern-day capitalism and its aggressive privatization of land, were early pastures that were well-regulated by local institutions. They were not the competitive, anarchical grazing sites that Hardin suggests. While it is this scenario that is the most well-known part of this notorious essay, it is crucial to examine its other aspects to truly understand the danger Hardin presents. “The Tragedy of the Commons,” has a subheading titled “The Freedom to Breed is Intolerable;” a few paragraphs later he argues: “if we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the UDHR.” These examples further flesh out the nature of Hardin’s ideas: he is openly advocating for human rights violations to prevent reproduction thus mitigating the ‘issue’ of overpopulation. However, it was not white people that should have been prevented from reproducing. Hardin was a known white nationalist who believed that only racially homogeneous societies could survive; in fact, Hardin even lobbied Congress against sending food to poor nations as he believed their populations were threatening Earth’s “carrying capacity.” 

Paul Ehrlich’s book Population Bomb also echoed Malthusian hysteria. Ehrlich based the novel off of his experiences in a crowded city in India and argued that humans were reproducing far beyond their means. The book advocated for incentives, or blatant coercion if that failed, to control the population. Of course, in a similar vein to Hardin, such tactics would only be employed in countries in the Global South- thus the main targets for their fascistic methods were Black and brown people. White supremacy, classism, and misogyny have all been instrinically linked to overpopulation since its conception. It provided a foundation for Social Darwinism which advocates for the restriction of  particular family’s sizes through any possible method. For example, in 1601 the English Poor Law was implemented by Queen Elizabeth I  in order to provide food for the poor; following the publication of Malthus’s treatise, this was severely diminished by the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834. The passing of such an amendment was justified using the Malthusian logic that helping the poor only encourages them to reproduce thus exacerbating their poverty. The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s was also seen as a viable way to reduce the “surplus population” in Ireland, who was an English colony at the time. In the United States, eugenic fears of overpopulation of certain groups resulted in the Supreme Court legalizing sterilization for “undesirable” citizens in 1927. As a result, approximately 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized. 

Overpopulation has been used to justify fascism, thus the use of forced sterilizations,  and its various strains, including eco-fascism. Eco-fascism essentially places the blame of environmental breakdown on overpopulation and immigration and advocates for the extermination of poor people of color and migrants. According to eco-fascists, issues pertaining to the environment are the result of poor people of color reproducing and over-consuming beyond their means; they often focus on the individual consumption of cheap, disposable products. The environmental harm produced by industries such as fossil fuels are never blamed. While eco-fascism may take the appearance of a fringe movement, people of color and migrants have already been subjected to obscene acts of violence. The man who killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas in 2019 included eco-fascist sentiments in his manifesto which explains why he specifically targeted an area populated by Mexican immigrants. The mass shooter responsible for the massacre at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand was also apparently inclined towards eco-fascism. 

Is Overpopulation an Issue?

The short answer is: no. While large populations may place some strain on local resources, it is not a harbinger of apocalypse that Malthusians present it as. It should also be clarified that while the world’s population has increased greatly, that does not mean the Earth is “overpopulated.” In fact, as I hope to demonstrate, population growth is not a hindrance to the environment or economic development. Issues of environmental collapse and/or poverty are a result of colonialism and the international capitalist market rather than individuals in the Global South. 

Firstly, we must establish why it is that the Global South has had such a population boom over the last century. Malthusians would have us believe that Black and Brown people in the Global South are similar to weeds and have a higher natural proclivity towards reproducing- not only is that racist, it is untrue. What is true, however, is that they live under a different set of circumstances than those in Global North. As Hartmann points out, having larger families is for the purpose of survival and security. Children are able to bring in more income or take care of younger family members while their parents work (Hartmann 6). Additionally, children are often the ones to take care of their parents in their old age as many countries in the Global South do not have the same security in retirement age as those in the Global North who may have access to government funded programs (Hartmann 7). Parents may also have a lot of children to ensure that they will have a son who will survive into adulthood as high infant mortality rates continue to persist in certain countries (Hartmann 8). While this highlights the continuing existence of patriarchal values, it also demonstrates structural issues pertaining to infant and maternal care. 

Historically, famines have been attributed to overpopulation. However, as Hartmann states: “Tremendous advances in agricultural productivity mean that today the world produces enough grain alone to provide every man, woman, and child on earth with 3,200 calories a day…” (16). Considering this statistic, it should be obvious that population growth does not necessarily stress natural resources- there is enough for all. Famine is not typically a natural occurrence, but a breakdown in institutions that oversee food production and distribution (Hartmann 17). Africa has long been the famine poster-child for overpopulation zealots. Though there has most certainly been food crises on the continent, it has more to do with the implementation of neoliberal policies than it does with population growth. Hartmann explains that the pivot to becoming economically dependent on exporting cash crops has displaced subsistence farmers, who are often women, to areas that yield less food (18). Population control would not only be draconian, it would completely ignore the root causes of famine which are institutional rather than individual. 

Malthusians also blame environmental issues on population growth in the Global South. Sir David Attenborough, known for the series Planet Earth which is meant to raise awareness for endangered species, is the head of a coporation known as Population Matters. Their website states: “It took humanity 200,000 years to reach one billion and only 200 years to reach seven billion. We are still adding an extra 80 million each year and are headed towards 10 billion by mid-century.” Ultimately, the argument being made here is that the rate of population must be slowed down in order to save the planet. However, this fear mongering statement provides numbers with no context. With a rate of 80 million people per year, that means the population is slowing down- the population growth in 1970 was 2.1 percent per annum and now it is 1.2 percent. Despite this decrease in population growth, the climate crisis continues to become more severe. Why? It has less to do with reproduction and more to do with a capitalist economic structure that requires the extraction of natural resources, including fossil fuels, and mass consumption.  Since 1988, 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions have been produced by just 100 mulatinational corporations. If 750 million people in China, India, and Africa’s poorer population stopped producing carbon, while companies like ExxonMobile, BP, and Toyota continued to operate normally, reduction of carbon emissions would be miniscule. To provide more perspective, the total emissions of the poorest half of the population of China, which is around 600 million people, only account for one-third of the emissions for the richest 10 percent in the United States, which is around 30 million people. In India, who alongside China was a target of Malthusian rhetoric regarding population control, someone in the richest 10 percent uses, on average, just one quarter of the carbon of someone in the poorest half of the population in the United States. Despite the fact that the Global South has experienced most of the population growth in the 20th century, they are not the ones responsible for the present ecological crisis. 

Another major reason as to why population growth is seen as a problem is that it exacerbates poverty. This is another baseless argument. For example, in 1960, South Korea and Taiwan were poor countries with fastly growing populations- both experienced population surges over 50 percent, yet their income and standard of living increased exponentially. As Hartmann points out, “...the impressive economic performance of middle-income countries in the 1960s and 1970s occurred alongside rapid population growth” (30). Poverty is not a product of large populations, but is a symptom of larger economic and political forces. The myth of overpopulation is easy to debunk, yet it is still incredibly dangerous as it still influences the language we use to talk about people in the Global South and the harmful policies that are pushed by international institutions and implemented by political elites. Malthusian agendas seek to subject marginalized people, both at home and abroad, to violence. Moving forward, it is important to remain cognizant of the ways Malthusianism influences environmental policy and ultimately inhibit our chances of creating a better society. 

References

Hartmann, Betsy. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. Haymarket Books, 2016. 

The Era of Desalination: Israel’s Success & The Future of Water in the Middle East

The Water Crisis in the Middle East

For many living in the developed world, a day spent thinking about where their next glass of water will be coming from is an oddity. Although many countries in Europe suffer from issues concerning water scarcity, these are more exceptions to the rule. The issue of water stress and scarcity primarily concerns the developing world, especially the Middle East and North Africa, where access to potable drinking water (or any water at all for that matter) is extremely limited. For instance, while 8% of France and 10% of the Netherlands reside in water-scarce areas, more than 49% of Egypt and 63% of Saudi Arabia lack this essential resource, due to a variety of factors both natural and man-made. Climate change aside, the environment of the Middle East—hot, arid, and seldom rainy—makes for a harsh lifestyle devoid of water. More importantly though is the overuse of water for agricultural purposes. Close to 85% of the region’s water is allocated for irrigation, and often inefficiently. Even wealthier Arab countries find themselves confronted with this issue. As awe-inspiring as the infrastructural marvels of Dubai may appear; even the UAE is close to the breaking point, with groundwater scarcity and water reuse mismanagement creating a deadly storm on the horizon. Combining these aforementioned points with rising populations and increasing water sanitation costs, it is no wonder that so many suffer from this emergency.

Understandably, the question must be asked: How can the governments of these countries provide enough water for the needs and wants of their populations? As the water crisis of the Middle East has become increasingly dire, countries have developed a slew of solutions to the problem, along with mixed results. Initiative include repairing piping infrastructure and water trading, and many countries have focused on sequential water management, which involves sanitizing wastewater for industrial or domestic purposes. Even still, the numbers don’t lie; swaths of the Middle East rely on insufficient water resources. While water reserves continue to plunge and water quality issues constantly spring up, water conflicts—armed and otherwise—are on the horizon.

The answer to this devastating issue lies with Israel’s success. Reeling from its water crisis of the late-2000s, Israel has developed techniques in desalination, water treatment, and drip-irrigation that may aid the entire region. How is it that a country which once teetered on the brink of full-scale collapse from water shortages is now the only country which doesn’t suffer from acute water shortages? And how can we apply these lessons of success in confronting the water crisis of the region as a whole?

What is Desalination?

Before jumping into the specifics, it is important to identify what exactly “desalination” means and what constructing desalination plants actually entails. As the word implies, desalination involves the removal of salt (as well as other minerals and potential inorganic and organic contaminants) from water to make it potable. Desalinated water is most often processed from seawater, although desalination sites might be erected as salt interception schemes (SIS) along irrigation lines to desalinate agricultural runoff or as temporary infrastructure to desalinate waterways along desertified areas. Likewise, the purpose of the desalinated water can vary by context. While a majority of desalination plants are used for drinking water or auxilliary uses (showering, dishwashing, latrines, etc.), the aforementioned salt interception schemes are used to desalinate water to be piped back into natural rivers and waterways as “blue water” for ecological purposes. After all, freshwater fish need water too.

Two primary desalination methods exist: reverse osmosis and thermal distillation. The former works on the science of “water equalization”, whereby the natural properties of water demand equal volumes of water in two separate spaces if divided by a semi-permeable membrane. In layman’s terms: A container is divided in two by a wall of microscopic netting, one half empty and the other half with water. The netting selectively allows water to pass through while leaving salt, minerals, and other contaminants behind. In the case of reverse osmosis, the benefit is its increased thoroughness, especially in separating organic contaminants from the water. Unfortunately, the process remains extremely expensive and energy-intensive—leaving reverse osmosis a strategy that has popularized in Europe and the United States rather than elsewhere in the world.

As for thermal distillation, one can derive the basic premise from the word as well. Rapidly heated water produces steam, which in turn—having separated the water from the leftover compounds—can be recondensed into distilled water for drinking or other various uses. Thermal desalination has become popular in the greater Middle East and North Africa, mostly for the lower energy requirements and the simplicity of design. Admittedly, in contrast to other desalination plants in the area, a majority of Israeli sites utilize reverse osmosis technology, which may not be appropriate for the bulk of Middle Eastern countries which suffer from debt and frequent budget misallocations. However, by taking advanatage of the simplicity and the lower energy requirement associated with thermal desalination technology, it is possible for the region to harness the same wealth of water that Israel enjoys.

Timeline of the Water Crisis in Israel

Not so long ago, Israel itself was another unfortunate example of the rampant water crisis afflicting the Middle East. Historically, Israel’s water was provided from a variety of sources like groundwater spots, natural bodies of water like the Sea of Galilee and Lake Kinneret, and wastewater reuse systems. Further sources, like personal wells and runoff from Mount Camel, provide Israelis with the water they need on a day-to-day basis. Israel’s water politics are heavily influenced by its 1959 Water Law, which designated water as a national public good. This not only confirmed the government’s responsibility in providing safe water to all citizens of Israel, but also the government’s monopoly of power concerning the handling and allocation of water.

At the turn of the 21st century, Israel was in the midst of one of the greatest droughts the country had seen since its founding (lasting from 1998-2002). Israel’s government acknowledged the problem by encouraging water conservation, but continued to distribute water arbitrarily to industry, pollute waterways, and over-sanitize non-drinking water. Much of this misallocation can be attributed to Mekorot: the nationalized water company of Israel. In the absence of competition, Mekorot remained a poorly-managed government monopoly which substantially undercut the price of water to levels that did not meet operation costs. Further mismanagement and lack of attention to the growing crisis from the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development meant that the crisis only worsened. Attempts were made to compensate with water conservation efforts; installation of low-flow toilets and showerheads and investment into innovative water treatment systems. Israeli officials even advised their constituents to take “zionist showers”, or shared family showers. Still, the nation was struggling more than it ever had in providing adequate water.

It was not until 2005 that the government finally built its salvation: the Ashkelon desalination plant. Then-providing over 101 million cubic meters of water to the state of Israel, the Ashkelon plant’s success transformed the state of the Israeli water crisis. Since then, Israel has constructed five more desalination plants, with a bid for a seventh plant in northern Israel to provide >100 million more cubic meters of water. Overall, more than 585 million cubic meters of water are provided by desalination plants in Israel. Today, desalination is an essential part of day-to-day life for a near-majority of Israelis, with 35% of Israel having received their water through desalination channels in 2014, and a projected 70% to be drinking desalinated water by 2050.

Challenges to the Israeli Model

Of course, a solution which seems too good to be true is, quite often, simply that. Plenty of evidence exists to support desalination’s promise for the Middle East, but plenty also exists to point out the risks that come with feverishly constructing desalination plants. Two primary concerns lie with expanding desalination: cost and environmental impact.

With regard to the first, it cannot be overstated how expensive a desalination plan can often become. Projections vary, but according to a survey from the Texas Water Development Board, construction of a 2.5 million gallon per day plant (equivalent to ~100,000 cubic meters per day, less than half the daily production of Israel’s planned seventh desalination plant) would cost more than $32 million. Combine this with supply-chain problems, corruption, and a host of other barriers, and it is little wonder why countries in the Middle East are so unwilling to throw money at a problem which could yield very little. Low returns on desalinated water further dissuade most companies or national agencies even willing to look into desalination.

As for environmental impact, this itself can be further broken down into concern over the power source and the ramifications for sea life because of wastewater. Powering desalination plants can be a heavy undertaking—estimates for the carbon output of Australia’s construction of desalination plants alone in 2015 are around 1,200 kt of carbon dioxide, a number which skyrockets when accounting for year-by-year emissions once the plant goes into operation. Effects on marine life also remain a concern as the amount of wastewater pumped back into the environment increases. Desalination is not a zero-waste process; the contents removed from the salinated water have to go somewhere, which very often means right back into the ocean. Dozens of desalination sites, all pumping gallons of warm, brackish water back into the coastal waterways, could seal the fate of innumerable species of sealife.

All of this is certainly a concern, and few reasonable people would argue that these issues should be ignored in favor of securing freshwater for humans alone. Much of humanity’s mission today involves securing the environment for future generations and not plunging them into unpayable debt. But there are alternatives; desalination sites can easily be powered via renewable energy sources like solar or geothermal power. Studies have shown the positive yields from reverse osmosis plants coupled with renewable energy sources, not only in reducing carbon outputs but in reducing future energy costs too. Additionally, as new processes develop, the outlook on brine treatement techniques has become optimistic. Instead of simply pumping wastewater directly back into the environment, water treatment can further purify water bound for the sea and dispose of contaminants elsewhere (repurposing salt and minerals, etc.).

The Future of Water in the Middle East

At this very moment, more than 66 million people in the Middle East lack basic sanitation. Of the 17 most water-stressed countries in the world, 11 of them lie in the Middle East and North Africa. Water provided a catalyst for conflict when ISIS threatened to take over the entire region (such as when the Islamic State captured the Taqba Dam in Iraq in 2013 which was only reclaimed in 2017) and it continues to provide a spark for political disputes and military clashes alike. In Yemen, where potable water stores have reached a mere 198 cubic meters per capita, widespread water shortage contributes heavily to the famine and in-fighting amongst rebel groups. In northeastern Africa, Ethiopia’s construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam—which would greatly restrict the already-lessening upstream flow of the Nile which provides for Egypt’s and Sudan’s agro-economies—threatens to spark war between these countries and others upstream. As has become increasingly evident, awareness campaigns and changes to individual consumption are not enough. Macro-problems demand macro-solutions, and desalination could be just the answer the Middle East is looking for.

Some scholars have suggested promoting the synergystic relationship between water and other resources like food and energy (hydroelectricity). Part of the impasse with politicians may be the fact that water may be a necessity, but it’s difficult to profit off of in our existing economic system. If we then expand water’s necessity to include agricultural production and hydropower production, we could expand the interest in powerful groups to secure wider access to water resources. 

The reality is that increasing access to water in the Middle East will involve more than internal solutions; a problem that transcends borders such as this demands collaboration and diplomacy between states. Arab-Israeli hydropolitics are complicated, and it’s unfortunately unlikely that the inevitable catastrophe that would come with remaining politically-unilateral would mean Arabs and Israelis finally seeing each other as more than enemies. Perhaps there will come a day when people of Muslim and Jewish faith can live harmoniously in their respective homelands, and perhaps the water crisis will not be that watershed event. But the present and growing problem does provide an opportunity for interstate relations that rises above differences in identity or ideology. We cannot continue to ignore the suffering of those experiencing this crisis, just as we cannot continue to ignore the opportunity that this creates for diplomacy and greater peace in the Middle East.

The Effectiveness of Declaring a Climate Emergency

On January 21, 2020, Spanish Parliament declared a climate emergency and made a promise to propose comprehensive legislation in the next 100 days. This declaration came just weeks after the approval of a coalition government including the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party with Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, and Unidas Podemos, a left wing electoral alliance. The move was prompted by Barcelona’s own climate emergency declaration in which 104 carbon emission cutting measures were unveiled, and, if successful, would cut the city’s carbon emissions in half by 2030. 

Spain is just one example of a country that has declared a climate emergency. In 2019, a variety of countries, cities, and organizations have declared a climate emergency as well, totaling 1,348 jurisdictions. Similar to Spain, some cities made the declaration with the hope that it will be a stark signal to their national governments. Similarly in the United States, 80 cities have declared a climate emergency including, most notably, New York City. On a larger scale, the climate movement was propelled forward when the European Parliament declared in November that they had set a goal to cut emissions by 55 percent by 2030 in order to become climate neutral by 2050. 

However, while the number of places declaring a climate emergency is increasing, the next steps after the declaration are uncertain. When jurisdictions declare a climate emergency, there is a mix of different outcomes. For some places, the declaration is symbolic because it is a show of solidarity with other places and movements like the Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for the Future. Other declarations, like the one that occurred in Miami, have been in response to protests and calls of action by activists, but they have no legitimate plan in place to address the issue. For some larger jurisdictions, specific plans have been set. In Barcelona and New York for example, both have created their own versions of the Green New Deal, a proposed package of legislation in the United States. Activists consider any of these at least a step in the right direction. 

Due to the fact that declaring a climate emergency has no binding aspects, those in power who make the declaration tend to make a variety of promises without a clear deadline on their delivery. In analyzing the first place to declare a climate emergency, their progress has been relatively steady. Darebin is a small city in Australia that declared a climate emergency in 2016, followed by the creation of an emergency plan that addressed a number of different sources of their emissions. Darebin’s largest source of emissions was commercial/industrial electricity followed by residential electricity. To address residential electricity, the city implemented a Solar Saver scheme in which residents were able to get solar panels installed and pay them off using a payment plan. This scheme was considered very successful, as the amount of solar energy generated in the city almost doubled in just a couple of years. Smaller steps have also been taken, such as banning plastic cutlery at city events and resurfacing local roads using recycled materials. At the start of 2020, the city also started their food waste recycling program that reduced the jurisdiction's emissions by 1,600 tonnes in the first year. While these efforts should be commended, they do very little in relation to the global issue. 

Japan is suspected of producing 4 percent of the world's CO2 emissions, making it the fifth largest producer in the world, only surpassed by China, the United States, Russia, and India. There have been a handful of cities in Japan that have declared climate emergencies in hopes of influencing the national government's choices. Japan has felt a variety of effects from climate change, including heat waves that killed a thousand people in 2018, and flooding which resulted in 2 million people being evacuated in July 2018. These climate effects have been felt in coastal cities like Sakai and Hokuei, but especially in the island city of Iki, all of which have declared climate emergencies. The efforts of these smaller jurisdictions do not seem to have had an effect on the national government, as the government announced a plan to build 22 new coal power plants in the next 5 years. With coal burning being a major source of CO2 emissions, Japan's thought process comes into question when thinking about their proposed 26 percent cut of national emissions by 2030 as a part of their pledge to support the Paris Climate Agreement. Japan is just one example of the disconnect between local and national government, thereby showing how national government cooperation is the key to the success of emission reduction.

The climate movement took a major step on the global ladder when the European Union (EU) declared a climate emergency just before the United Nations COP25 Climate Change Conference. This declaration was monumental, but it also came with some drastic ideas for the majority of the continent. Based on the 1.5 degree target set at the Paris agreement, there was a call for a reduction of emissions with a focus on the aviation and shipping industries. The success of the EU accomplishing this goal is dependent on the funds that the European Investment Fund and the European Investment Bank would provide. Additionally, 75 million euros have been allocated for the BlueInvest Fund, a fund to strategically target and support the innovative blue economy working to address oceanic shipping improvements. While these ideas do hold some potential for improving aspects of the EU's emission issues, many activists worry about how much progress can really be made in such a large area with a wide array of issues.

Jurisdictions’ decisions across the world to declare a climate emergency have led to a mixed bag of results. Efforts being made on the local level can be considered successes even if they are small. The message is still very important in those places, however, whether they make major changes or not; it is time for the world to step up. The declaration of a climate emergency puts the pressure on national governments and international bodies to acknowledge the issue and treat it as the emergency it is. Progress may be slow, but it is progress nonetheless.

Fossil Fuel Independence

Many of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have run on the platform of action on climate change, which has been one of the central topics that citizens have been advocating for across the globe. This goal is only possible if there is complete independence from fossil fuels. Elimination of coal, petroleum, and natural gas cannot be ceased overnight, and it will take effort from all parts of the world to collaborate on this issue.

Fossil fuels have become the center of discussion around the future of American environmental political discourse. In 2017, petroleum constituted 28 percent of American energy production. According to a 2019 Yale University study, a majority (53 percent) of Americans blame fossil fuel companies for global warming. “Climate science has found that the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) produced by fossil fuel companies is causing global warming.” Global warming is the cause of wildfires, droughts, flooding, and other dangers looming throughout the country. In California, deadly wildfires are ramping up, causing celebrity outcry and civilian displacement. Gerard Butler recalled a “Heartbreaking time across California,” after the Woolsey fire last year. The Los Angeles County Fire Chief Daryl Osby even recognized the impact of the situation, stating, “And as evident by the Camp Fire in Northern California -- which is larger than this, more structures have been lost than this, more lives have been lost -- it's evident from that situation statewide that we're in climate change and it's going to be here for the foreseeable future." The outcry has become increasingly perceptive. With the increase in attention by celebrity influencers, the younger generations have come out speaking about the climate crisis, its effect on the environment, and what it means for their future.

Climate strikes have sprung up among students and advocacy has reached new levels. Greta Thunberg, a sixteen-year-old activist from Sweden, started the Fridays for Future movement last year after a few years of striking on her own across the world. Fridays for Future is targeted at students, encouraging them to strike every Friday to demand action from their government. Greta started the movement by sitting in front of the Swedish parliament every school day, inspiring countries and students around the world to demand a solution to this overbearing threat to lives and futures. 

Greta is joining forces with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic United States Representative of the Bronx, New York, to create, introduce, and demand the Green New Deal, another hot topic featured in many of the presidential debates. The Green New Deal calls for the elimination of fossil fuels in the United States and to “curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy.” Bernie Sanders, a 2020 presidential candidate endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez, has accused the fossil fuel executives of greed and causing the climate crisis. All three of these leaders have noticed the climate crisis and the root of the problem, but the action needed will need bipartisan support within the United States as well as global support, because this problem is affecting all of humanity. Incredibly, a sixteen-year old has set the foundation and information that will be a center focus in the new decade. Greta has inspired leaders across the globe to take action and plans, such as the Green New Deal, are in place, but the elimination of fossil fuels and conversion to wind, water, and solar (WWS) power will be a difficult transition.

Strikes have helped leaders see the necessity for the large-scale conversion to 100 percent WWS power, but another obstacle has emerged. Mark Jacobson from Stanford University explored the issue that the power grid holds, stating, “the high cost of avoiding load loss caused by WWS variability and uncertainty,” is the greatest concern for achieving complete neutralization of fossil fuel power. While WWS is the ultimate goal for the global economy due to its safety, access, and cleanliness, utility and grid operators continue to find failures to accommodate wind and solar supplies.  

Jacobson has conducted a study to build a system that will test the long-term benefits of using only WWS power at low load loss and at a low cost. This is the first study to analyze long-term benefits. The system tests multiple variables on the ability of WWS installations in the United States, to further understand if a 100 percent WWS world can exist by 2050-2055. The results found that only 11 percent of the initial WWS power was lost during transmission in the 3D model system, supplies had matched the load causing zero to minimal load loss, and solar and wind power complemented each other seasonally. In his conclusion, Jacobson discussed that the social cost would be greater than expected, considering the improvements among heating and cooling systems and transportation systems in the United States. This study found that the overall load loss of the WWS power system is nothing, which means that the electricity-utility aspect of the system were balanced. For example, a pump stored heat and the current of the model converted electricity to heat. Reflecting upon Jacobson’s results, this study demonstrates that a 100 percent renewable energy system is possible.

Political leaders should be improving the funding WWS installations. Jacobson’s study conducted in 2015 was the first to test the long-term benefits of WWS power, yet this climate crisis has been emerging long before. The growth of renewable energy industries, such as the solar power industry, has skyrocketed within the past few years, yet the lack of skilled manpower in these industries is the biggest problem that they face. Global warming is still striking the world, yet global collective action to combat this issue is difficult to acquire due to the lack of agreement and perspective. This past summer the G20, the most well-equipped group to decide what the climate crisis means for the world, met. Unfortunately, the international body reached no consensus on the crisis. “Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, G20 leaders have been unable to reach an agreement on climate and have instead adopted a “G19+1” approach.” Most media implores the current administration to look at the bigger picture, but there has been no push to move the climate crisis to a top priority. More strikes have risen due to this lack of collaboration. 

If it is possible to contribute to a “no load loss,” renewable energy country, as Jacobson proved, the biggest threat to climate change is the lack of manpower and funding behind the WWS installations. This makes independence a current pipe dream due to the lack of governmental collective action. The action needed is dire, as Greta Thunberg mentions, and the need for the Green New Deal is necessary. 

The Ganga Herself: India’s Most Critical Environmental Disaster

No river in the world is as religiously revered, as economically crucial or as devastatingly polluted as the Ganges [Ganga] River.  Former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru proudly declared that, “The Ganga, especially, is the river of India, beloved of her people, round which are intertwined her racial memories, her hopes and fears, her songs of triumph, her victories and her defeats. She has been a symbol of India’s age-long culture and civilization, ever changing, ever-flowing, Ganga.” Yet, the Ganga is sadly changing for the worst, as pollution continues to dirty the sacred waters. The personified goddess, is becoming unrecognizable with pollution levels reaching unprecedented levels. The Ganges, is arguably the most important river in the world not only because of the water supply and economic accessibility, but for the cultural significance. Ganges water is in many Hindu houses around the world and for massive pilgrimages to cities such as Varanasi or Allahabad the river is foundational to these cities themselves.

The Ganges river runs more than 1500 miles from the Himalaya mountains to the Bay of Bengal. As of 2015, the river itself supports 500 million people, and accounts for twenty-five percent of India’s water resources. The use of the river spans from Hindu religious rituals, irrigation of crops, daily water supply and a habitat for many animals. The Ganges is essential to life of many people around the world along with those who live closest to the banks of the river.

Wading Through the Waters in Varanasi

From early European visitors who encountered the murky, muddy waters to locals who bathe daily at the ghats in Varanasi, India, the cleanliness of the Ganges has always been a question. Whereas early visitors were concerned about the mud, today the level of pollution has increased dramatically that the Ganges is the fourth most polluted river in the world.

Victor Mallet, in his book, River of Life, River of Death: The Ganges and India’s Future, takes the reader on a journey on the Ganges from mouth to delta. Mallet states that it is critical to consider the massive scale that this river supports, 700 million people (a little less than the total population of Europe). With every use of the Ganges, the toxic water directly or circuitously impacts about one tenth of the world’s population. From providing much needed water supply in the irrigation of crops in Uttar Pradesh to the fish collected for consumption in West Bengal, to the daily ritual dip in cities such as Allahabad, Rishikesh or Varanasi  – when in contact with the river, a once rich resource, now can have devastating even deadly impacts.

Industrial Waste and Domestic Waste

Industrial and domestic waste are the chief culprits in polluting the Ganges River, especially in cities like Varanasi. The water is often tested in Varanasi at various places and the findings are not surprising. From industrial waste, high levels arsenic and mercury are above permissible levels, along with an array of various other poisons. Mallet reported that India has no standard for toxins found in sediment. So when testing the impact of Ganges water, the samples are compared to the international toxicity standards for drinking water, which are stricter than sediment standards but nonetheless a base comparison. Researchers found in the Ganges sediment “796 part per million of chromium and 4.7 ppm of mercury, thousands of times above the international toxicity standards for drinking water. Research done by Anand Singh and Jitendra Pandey of Banaras Hindu University found that the concentration of heavy metals only steadily increases downstream, becoming more dangerous as the river flows. In 2017,  65 percent of the water stations, that had data available, were at unsatisfactory levels. In Bihar, that number rose to 76 percent of the water tested was unsatisfactory – “with no station reporting satisfactory water quality”.

The problem: the sewage capacity for many treatment plants in Varanasi and other cities is only able to treat half of the sewage that is generated. Anil Kumar Singh, an official at the UP Pollution Control Board, stated that, ‘Treatment capacity [in Varanasi] is about a quarter of the total discharge’. The current infrastructure simply cannot handle the sheer amount of it all especially as India’s population continues to grow.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken upon himself to make cleaning the Ganges his personal mission and also divine purpose. Modi stated that, “Ma Ganga is screaming for help. She is saying, ‘There must be one of my sons who will come and pull me out of this filth’ … There are many tasks that perhaps God has set for me”. However very little has been done beyond the superficial.  While personally living in Varanasi, Prime Minister Modi has visited twice, and both times major temporary construction has occurred before his visit. The first visit in fall 2017 included the covering of the Assi river, a small river that flows into the Ganges. The Assi River is better known by locals as the Assi sewer, that is filled with high levels of plastics caught between bridges as well as so much human waste that it gives off a powerful stench. The second time, was when French President Macron visited, in Spring 2018 and Assi Ghat was completely swept, resurfaced  and even had a red carpet along the steps leading down to the river. Such superficial and surface level action is often described in India as ‘putting lipstick on a woman with a dirty sari’. Resources spent on pretending the problem does not exist but never addressing the core issues.

Who’s Doing What

The local government, central government and non-governmental organizations(NGOs) has taken action to address this issue, however, resulting in little to no progress.

Local Government

The local initiative for Clean Ganga in Varanasi reported that most change has been on superficial levels. The change that has occurred: the addition of 3,000 trash cans along the ghats, nighttime street sweeping and a garbage disposal plant, is much needed, but has been having no major impacts. The biggest change is the addition of two sewage disposal projects still in the building stages. Little progress has been seen made on any noticeable differences in the water quality, and many people feel that the condition of the water is continuously getting worse. With the end of the monsoon and increased water levels, the concentration of the pollutants is lower, but now they are just defused until the water levels lower.

Central Government

The Finance Minister, Arun Jaitely stated in the Union budget of 2018-2019 that the Central Government initiative, Namami Gange, has completed 47 of the 187, and the rest are in “various stages of execution”. The Namami Gange projects seek to address: “sewage treatment infrastructure, river surface cleaning, afforestation, industrial effluent monitoring, making villages on the banks of Ganges open defecation free, riverfront development, among others. The bulk of the projects sanctioned are sewage treatment plants”. While this governmental action is exactly what needs to happen, both local and central government are showing to be ineffective at the implementation of these programs. While the Finance Minister stated that 47 projects have been completed, data suggest otherwise. The National Mission for Clean Ganga reported that only 18 projects have been completed out of the 95 sanctioned with no project being completed in Bihar, Delhi, Haryana, and Jharkhand. Namami Gange, was launched in 2014, with 20,000 core equivalent to about 3.52 million USD allocated for the project.

Non-Governmental Organizations

The Sankat Mochan Temple started a campaign, later an organization, called the Sankat Mochan Foundation whose slogan was “not one drop of sewage”. The founder Veer Bhadra Mishra, the temple’s senior priest, was also a water engineer. Spending years lobbying politicians and government authorities to work towards addressing the problem of sewage pollution in Varanasi. Toward the end of his life, Veer became disheartened by his extraneous 40 years of campaigning and very little action done by the government. At his death in 2013, his son took over religious responsibilities as well as the foundation. While passionate about the work his father started, he continues to meet politicians in hopes of persuading them into action.      

The Sankat Mochan foundation along with an array of other NGOs have campaigned and work towards addressing the need of the cleaning of the Ganges but the little action that they do has had very little impact. The work that these NGOs have done is valuable – but ineffective. Inquiry being conducted by Fullbright researcher, Olivia Trombadore has found that the Sankat Mocha Foundation tests the water in Varanasi for an array of harmful substances, yet these recordings have done very little beyond continuing to provide evidence that pollution exists. Providing concrete data is essential in the process, but not enough work is being done.  In an interview with Vinod, a wood seller who has spent time researching pollution levels, he even stated that, “a lot of money is going into a slogan[targeting the Sankat Mochan Foundation]”.

The common theme amongst the local government, central government and NGOs, is that inaction and ineffective action is the course of action. The problem is known and solutions are in place – but why is there little to no change in the condition of the river? This answer lies in the lack of collaboration between the local government, central government and NGOs. Rather than working together, each entity focuses on one particularity. Which is resulting in the expansion of the sewer treatment plan but no simultaneous growth to the infrastructure of the sewage lines. Resulting in the potential of more sewage to be treated but falls short when crumbling infrastructure makes it impossible for the sewage to even reach the treatment plant.

Solutions

A local solution for Varanasi could be the addition of simple programs such as the publishing of data and informing the public about the dire state of the Ganges. With renown Banaras Hindu University, combining resources could be both a project for the university and further inform the public. Free water testing for households with questionable water sources is another implementation that would help improve the community with little investment done by the Sankat Mochan Foundation.      

The Central Government needs to simply better implement and accountability to the programs they have allocated funds to as well as sanctioned. An alternative solution was offered in March of 2017, when Indian High Court of Uttarakhand state declared the Ganges and Yamuna river legal status as people . It was believed that giving the rivers rights would serve in helping conserve and protect the sacred waters. However, just four months later, the Indian Supreme Court determined that the cause was legally unsustainable. On October 11, 2018, G.D. Agrawal, a renown Indian environmental professor, engineer and activist, who dedicated his life to the cause of the Ganga, died after a four month hunger strike. Agrawa’s self-sacrifice was an attempt to pressure the Indian government to take immediate action to rescue the Ganges by writing a list of demands to PM Modi. A governmental minister was sent to meet Agrawal; he refused give up his fast and his demands were not met.

International solutions have been seen in 2014  Kyoto-Varanasi partner city agreement in which the city of Varanasi, India and Kyoto, Japan cultural exchange as well as the mingling of local university and solutions to environmental problems and cultural preservation with development. The main intention of turning Varanasi into a 21st city that maintains the deep historical traditions. A major focus was the implementation of Japanese water cleaning technology to be introduced and used in Varanasi. Little evidence of this has been seen in the impact of the partner city agreement.

The most damaging part of all this information is how few Indians understand what is happening each time they turn on the faucet or buy vegetables at the local markets. The degree and level that pollution is at, especially in the context of the Ganges, is practically invisible to the public. The information is not hidden, rather the information is not often sought out by the general populous. India is a classist society, those who are being impacted the most, the poor, do not have water filters in their house, regularly bathe, wash clothes and dishes in the Ganges and are the ones who do not have the accessibility to the information they desperately need. Information that could save their life. Pollution of the Ganges is as momentous as the mountains in which the river comes from, but is on the verge of becoming an environmental massacre.