The map above shows a relative pressure indicator (incorporating population density and runoff) for river basins in different hydroregions of the world. We can see that dry belts (medium density and very low runoff) around the equator and northern mid-latitude (high density and medium runoff) have the highest pressure on water security, while hydroregions with minimal pressure are due to high runoff and/or low population density (e.g. Amazon and Orinoco basin, Boreal hydroregions, Northern Australia basins) (Meybeck et al. 2013). Water security pressure range from the most to the least densely populated: Asia > Europe > North America > Africa > South America > Australia. Interesting to note is the difference between the “Old World” (Asia, MENA, Europe) and the “New World” (Americas and Australia).

In the map above we see which countries and city regions around the Mediterranean that suffer most acutely from overall water risk. London, Budapest, Bucharest, Valencia, Naples, Odessa, Donetsk, Sofia, Istanbul all show signs of high overall water risk due to population pressure. Countries in the dry belt of North Africa and the Middle East (MENA) all show signs of high overall water risk, either from depletion of water resources, pollution or lack of access to clean drinking water.

If we look at baseline water stress defined as the ratio of total annual water withdrawals to total available renewable supply (accounting for upstream consumptive use) we find that stress is extremely high (dark red) in parts of Morocco, Tunisia, Spain, Italy, Malta, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Azerbaijan, and Iran. If we compare the map above to the one below, showing population pressure in the Mediterranean region (in 2009), we find that baseline water stress occurs around many of the big cities as expected.

City regions along the Mediterranean east coast in Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt have high population density in close proximity to each other. This at the same time as they suffer from extremely high baseline water stress is like begging for a conflict. Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta will suffer in the future if they don't do something about their unsustainable water situation immediately. Morocco, north Algeria and Tunisia will also have to address their water situation.

People may not perceive water stress as an issue depending on access to water defined as % of population without access to improved drinking water. Here we see the situation being severe (>20%) in countries undergoing conflict such as Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and large parts of North Africa. In the map below we can see that Spain, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Cyprus all have desalination plants (red ring). This requires lots of energy, most likely from fossil fuels, that many countries can’t afford to spend and it only furthers global warming. Relying on desalinated water is a very risky strategy.

From all the above pictures it is not difficult to figure out that water stress, together with climate change and peaking fossil fuels will lead to migration and conflict without any foresight or planning ahead. Water is essential for all life, without sufficient water resources people have no option but to move as ecosystems dry out. Relying on groundwater pumping and fossil aquifers with little respect for ecological limits or plans for collecting rainwater is a disaster in the making, of which we are seeing the first signs. Furthermore, explosive population growth in the MENA-region following their oil boom have lead to far more people than the arid landscape can provide for. The only reason this population increase was even possible was due to fossil aquifers now empty and massive amounts of energy from oil that has been used to desalinate water from the ocean. But these are finite resources. Thus the crisis we now see in the Middle East was foreseeable, it was only ever a question of when, not if. The German Advisory Council on Global Change reported on these risk already in 2007. Most other European countries must also have been aware of these risks. A little planning could have gone a long way but all we see now instead is chaos.

The demonstrators included groups opposed to forced evictions because the law can levy fines of €30,000 for attempting to prevent home repossessions. Some protestors even said that "we are returning to the time of Franco and it is completely unconstitutional, we must protest because we cannot remain silent". Many believe the new law is an attempt by the Spanish government to muzzle protestors over their handling of the deep economic crisis that has gripped the country for several years.

Pieces of news have been reported in international media outlets, many questioning the Spanish governments decision. Here in Sweden, politician Gudrun Schyman has critized Swedish mainstream media for not writing about this important piece of news as well as the lack of public response in Europe, saying "Why is not entire Europe boiling in wild protests against what is happening in a EU country with 46 million inhabitants?". Instead it has been totally quiet when freedom of speech and freedom of assembly died in Spain. What is happening in Spain is shocking and should worry many Europeans, we cannot take our liberties for granted. Who knows, perhaps it will be our turn next time. 

Swedens climate is usually defined as temperate in the southern and middle region of the country and polar in the north. Despite being located so far north Sweden has a warmer climate than Canada has on the same latitude, mainly because of the Golf Stream bringing warmer waters that pass by the west coast. As global warming continues unabated most experts expect a higher temperature increase in the northern hemisphere than for the global average. This is due to polar amplification which refers to the phenomenon that changes in Earth's radiation balance tends to produce a larger change in temperature near the poles than the planetary average. When reflective snow and ice melts it gives way to darker marine and terrestial surfaces which absorb more heat from the sun, in turn melting more snow, which causes more warming (i.e. reinforcing feedback loop). Winter temperatures, especially, is set to increase significantly. 

In 2006 SMHI established that the mean temperature in Sweden had increased with about +1C degree since the beginning of the 1990s, a very high increase over such a short time span. Beyond rising temperatures concrete signs in nature of a warmer climate has been observed in form of longer plant seasons, less snow cover etc. The Winter of 2007/2008 was extremely mild in Sweden and record warming was measured, since observations first began in 1880. This year, 2014, is set to brake the 2007 record and become the warmest year ever recorded in Sweden. According to the World Meterological Organization's regional centre for Europe 2014 will likely also become the warmest year on record for entire Europe. The marginal increase is about +0.3 degrees Celsius, from the 6.7C record in 2007 to 7C in 2014. Warm periods have dominated the entire year. The Spring in Europe was the warmest on record and Winter was the second warmest on record. Around 20 countries from Italy in the south to Norway in the north have experienced record warming this year. And 9 out of 10 of the warmest years ever recorded ocurred during the 21st century. Looking at the Winter anomaly chart below we can see that the Nordic countries and central Europe have recorded above average temperatures this winter. It doesn't look like we will have a white Christmas this year, at least not in southern Sweden.

The role of Climate Change

Media Reporting

The estimated average inbreeding coefficient of pups born in 2013 was 0.25. This is the next lowest number since 1998. During the winter 4 finnish-russian wolves were documented in Sweden. One male is located in Gävleborg and has produced four wolf litters during 2008,2009,2010, 2012. The female that was identified for the first time during the winter of 2010-2011, and was re-located by SEPA at several occasions, was also documented this year. The two wolves that were re-located during 2012-2013 from reindeer terrain in Norrbotten to the border between Örebro and Västra Götaland stayed and had a litter.

During 2013-2014, 58 wolves were confirmed dead, 44 were found in Sweden. These numbers are included in the population estimate. In Sweden 26 (of 58) wolves were shot, 14 in self-defence and 12 in protective hunting. 9 died in traffic and another 9 died of unidentified causes.

We have known for a long time that there are physical limits to population and economic growth in terms of what the Biosphere can provide. The Limits to Growth (1972) “business-as-usual” (BAU) scenario produced about forty years ago now aligns well with historical data that has been updated (Figure 1, Turner, 2014). Showing that we are headed in the wrong direction, away from achieving sustainable development. The BAU scenario results in collapse of the global economy and environment, subsequently forcing population down. A collapse in this context simply refers to the fact that standard of living will fall at rates faster than they have historically risen, due to disruption of economic functions. According to the model, a fall in population only occurs after about 2030 but the general onset of collapse first appears at about 2015 when per capita industrial output begins a sharp decline (Turner, 2014). Given the imminent timing, we ought to raise the question whether the current economic difficulties are related to dwindling resources and an end to growth.

Most people assume that the major global difficulties will occur after the end to growth. According to Dennis Meadows, one of the original authors of the book limits to growth, this is not correct. Instead, the global population will experience the most stress prior to the peak, as pressures mount high enough to neutralize the enormous political, demographic, and economic forces that now sustains growth. Pressures building up can take many forms, for example, rising energy and resource costs (A), growing debt (B), climate change (C) and growing population dependency ratio (D).

The history of commodity prices has generally been one of steadily decline for most of the last century. However, the average price fall of some 1.2% a year (inflation adjusted) met it’s low point in 2002. Since 2002 we have seen a remarkable price rise in most commodities (Figure 2). Rising energy and food prices, for example, seems to be the new normal. Unless there is a global economic contraction, prices will likely continue to rise.

2. Commodity indices (1900-2010) - Paradigm shift Source: GMO (2011)

B) Growing Debt

3. Public debt in % of GDP in 2013 (left) 4. Private debt in % of GDP in 2012 (right). Source: Eurostat

C) Climate Change

The world is aging at a rapid rate and by 2030 there will be 34 nations where more than 20% of the population is over 65 (figure 6). This has broad implications for economic growth and immigration trends. While Sweden's dependency rate will rise we still have a rise in population both from births and from immigration (SCB, 2014). Given today's immigration policy the potential to meet the growing needs of an aging population is better than other countries such as Japan or Austria.

Most common solutions to increased welfare costs depend on growth. For example through encouraging higher birth rates, raising immigration rates, increasing labor productivity, raising the retirement age and increasing taxation. Effective responses, however, are different. Especially if one is serious about creating a more resilient society. There will probably have to be a restructuring of the economy, a reorienting of capital and labor structure of society, from production toward maintenance, to serve an aging population and lower resource consumption. Priority has to shift from GDP per person toward maximizing human welfare directly i.e. using different metrics for national targets. Expenditures have to be reduced by developing non-market methods of social support (e.g. volunteer work, time-banking). The benefit of an aging population is that construction rates goes down, so does the need for police, prisons and military, while the need for health care increases. Shorter work time can give more jobs while allowing more leisure time. Shifting taxes from labor towards heavy industries and resource extraction is another interesting idea.

Several stresses are converging, creating difficulties for the welfare state. Especially in countries with demographic trends of having to care for a larger number of pensioneers. Dependency ratio will increase at the same time as GNP declines. Resource prices have reverted from their long-term downward trend, to increasing prices, but falling again in times of economic contraction.We have unsustainable levels of debt, especially unproductive debt (consumption and speculation), putting downward pressure on the economy. No government has yet tried to increase taxes a lot on the financial sphere or other efforts to get debt levels down, this is mainly because much of our growth today depends on ever increasing debt. Climate change will have many impacts e.g. increasing yields in the north and lower yields in the south of Europe. Scandinavia is in a better position than southern Europe to handle coming heatwaves and floods since temperatures are lower from the beginning. There is plenty of human capital and much work needed to be done (e.g. elderly care) but misalignment of incentives has led to massive unemployment and a generation of lost youths who can't get a job, even with a university degree. Potential solutions should involve changed goals, redirected investment and initiatives to engage the neglected work force. Sweden is in a better position than most other countries to achieve a more resilient society but radical thinking and a clear vision is needed if we wish to maintain our social welfare.

Similar to the case of TTP a very controversial clause in the TTIP is the Investor-state dispute settlements (ISDS). The ISDS would allow corporations to sue governments, for any government action (at any level, including local government level) that limits a corporation's future profits. One example of how the ISDS clause in TTIP would impact countries can be found in the case of the Swedish, part state owned, energy company Vattenfall suing the German government over the issue of terminating nuclear power plants. Vattenfall demands payouts of 4,7 billion euros (Der Spiegel), and has caused outrage in Germany. Other examples includes tobacco companies suing the Australian government over health labeling of cigarettes, and fracking companies suing the Canadian government over environmental protection. The original justification for introducing ISDS in trade agreements was for trade deals with countries where the judicial system was weak in protecting foreign investors. But this is not the case with either the EU or the US. According to the latest UN report on the topic, ISDS cases has increased from 0 in 1992 to 514 in 2012.

There is now a growing civil society resistance to TTIP and ISDS inclusion in the TTIP negotiations. Last month there were 450 protest actions across 24 member states (The Greens Europe). The European NGO Finance Watch writes about ISDS that "the very principle of such a mechanism is anti-democratic, because it allows investors to challenge legitimate regulations and other rules that have been created and voted by democratic institutions with a view to protecting their citizens". Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) has reported that of 560 lobby encounters that the European Commission trade department held to prepare the negotiations, 520 (92%) were with business lobbyists, while only 26 (4%) were with public interest groups (CEO). That must be considered corporate capture. A large number of European scientists have also voiced concern over ISDS legal nature, quote "there is little evidence linking the conclusion of the Treaties to increased flows of foreign direct investment, and there is little evidence that they contribute to other development goals, such as encouraging good governance" (University of Kent). And a recent study from Tufts University has concluded through modelling that TTIP could lead to: net loss in exports for the EU, a net loss in GDP, and a loss in employment of some 600 000 jobs, and the author conclude by stating that "In the current context of austerity, high unemployment and low growth, increasing the pressure on labor incomes would further harm economic activity" (Capaldo, 2014).

Many environmental organisations fear that the TTIP will ignite a "race to the bottom" regarding environmental regulations in the EU, so that they come to resemble the US far weaker regulatory system. Most likely the TTIP will accelerate the privatization of public goods and services such as National Health systems. This could have tremendous effects on public health. And many analysts agree that TTIP would allow big food corporations to avoid food safety regulations and undermine sustainable agricultural practices in the rush for profits and trade. For example, the US has much weaker standards on animal welfare, ecosystem protection and GMO labeling. These are serious citizen concerns that has not been sufficiently addressed by governments wishing to take part of the TTIP.