What’s he talking about? Today, we take a look and invest right alongside his idea. And it should start to pay off with the arrival of the first swallows of spring in 2010. It’s also timely now — in this weak-kneed economy — because it has traditionally held up well even in when the economy is on the ropes. Even the Great Depression couldn’t put this thing down.

We start with simple truths. The world’s population has more than doubled since 1950 — from about 2.5 billion to 6.7 billion. By 2050, there will be more than 9 billion people on the planet. Almost all of this growth will come from undeveloped markets such as China and India. And they will all be doing one thing, for sure — eating.

Now, hang on. I know that is a banal insight by itself, but this story has layers like a tiramisu. The second layer is the mix of food eaten, which is important. These undeveloped economies are getting richer. Predictably, as people everywhere have done and continue to do when they have a little more money in their pockets, they change their diets. They spend more on food. The average Chinese spends 40 cents of every additional dollar earned on food. In India, it’s about 70 cents of every additional dollar. What do they buy?

Read the rest of the story at PennySleuth.com.

Still, this is the fourth consecutive official drop in GDP — the longest U.S. economic losing streak since records began in 1947. The economy has contracted 3.8% since then, the deepest pullback since the Great Depression.

Paging through the fine print, there’s only one outlier — one segment of blockbuster growth while the rest of the economy muddles through, at best: federal government spending, up 11.4%.

“In some ways, the whole GDP discussion is irrelevant,” says Chris Mayer. “As investors, we care about markets, and not GDP growth. There is a great fallacy out there that if the economy does well, stocks should do well (or if the economy does poorly, stocks should do poorly). Hence, too many so-called investors waste an inordinate amount of time talking about recovery, or lack thereof.

“It’s possible that GDP does expand strongly. But investors could still lose. We have one glaring historical example: From 1964-1981, GDP grew 370%. And the sales of the Fortune 500 more than sextupled. Yet the Dow Jones industrial average went from 874 on Dec. 31, 1964, to 875 on Dec. 31, 1981.

“As Warren Buffett once wrote: ‘Now, I’m known as a long-term investor and a patient guy, but that is not my idea of a big move.’

“For investors, it is all about the price paid. The really relevant question is not one of whether or not the economic recovery is real. The question is are stocks cheap enough? To answer that, you have to look at stocks and compare them with the alternatives.

“My answer is some stocks are cheap and some are not. It is hard to generalize. In my view, investing is a craft of the specific. It is in the picking of the trees in which investing skills pay off the most, not in assessing the forest. There are, undoubtedly, specific stocks that will prove nice investments over the next few years. Finding them is what we are all about.”

Source: US GDP is Irrelevant

I was in Manhattan last week attending Grant’s Fall Investment Conference. The U.N. General Assembly is meeting there, and the streets were blocked off in places. The NYPD was out in full force. I heard one passerby complain about the inconvenience of it all to one police officer. He responded, “Don’t blame the NYPD, blame the General Assembly.”

With the General Assembly in Manhattan and the G-20 in Pittsburgh, government has taken over the headlines this week. It seems half the world is mostly preoccupied with telling the other half what to do. No doubt, bossiness is in a bull market.

At Grant’s conference, I heard presentations on gold, the dollar, oil, real estate and more by a slate of luminaries, including John Paulson. Paulson is one of the best hedge fund managers in the world. There were many others, including Grant himself, who has created something of a stir lately.

Jim Grant, the host and editor of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, has turned bullish on the recovery. In a Wall Street Journal piece on Saturday, the great bear turned in his claws and picked up the horns of a bull.

In a phrase, Grant’s thesis runs this way: The sharper the decline, the stronger the rebound. For this, he finds ample evidence in the historical record. The economy bounced back strongly after each sharp contraction — such as those in 1893-94, 1907-08, 1920-21 and 1929-31.

In the current recession, GDP (a rough measure of economic activity) contracted nearly 4% from peak to trough, which is a sharp recession as these things go. So, Grant reasons, the rebound will follow the historical pattern.

Grant loves to challenge the consensus. And the consensus this time around is that the recovery will be weak. I loved the quote he pulled from economist A.C. Pigou: “The error of optimism dies in the crisis, but in dying it gives birth to an error of pessimism. This new error is born not an infant, but a giant.”

Grant makes an eloquent and thoughtful case, as he always does. He goes on to conclude in his editorial: “The world is positioned for disappointment. But in economic and financial matters, the world rarely gets what it expects. Pigou had humanity’s number.”

I hope Grant is right. It is an appealing case, but I don’t buy it. Too many of the problems of the prior boom remain unresolved. There is still too much leverage and debt in the system. And on a more basic level, business is not good across a spectrum of sectors. The contraction is still ongoing. I’m inclined to remember the old bearish refrain that things are never so bad that they can’t get worse.

It’s All About Markets

It’s true we’ve had a sharp contraction, but there is no rule that says we can’t contract more. A nearly 4% decline in GDP could turn into an 8% contraction when all is said and done. The move from 4% to 8% would be painful, indeed. Even then, we would be a far cry from the dark woods of the Great Depression.

In some ways, the whole discussion is irrelevant anyway. As investors, we care about markets, and not GDP growth. There is a great fallacy out there that if the economy does well, stocks should do well (or if the economy does poorly, stocks should do poorly). Hence, too many so-called investors waste an inordinate amount of time talking about recovery, or lack thereof.

It’s possible that Grant is right: GDP does expand strongly. But investors could still lose. We have one glaring historical example: From 1964-1981, GDP grew 370%. And the sales of the Fortune 500 more than sextupled. Yet the Dow Jones industrial average went from 874 on Dec. 31, 1964 to 875 on Dec. 31, 1981.

As Warren Buffett once wrote: “Now, I’m known as a long-term investor and a patient guy, but that is not my idea of a big move.”

For investors, it is all about the price paid. The really relevant question is not one of whether or not the economic recovery is real. The question is: are stocks cheap enough? To answer that, you have to look at stocks and compare them with the alternatives.

My answer is some stocks are cheap and some are not. It is hard to generalize. In my view, investing is a craft of the specific. It is in the picking of the trees in which investing skills pay off the most, not in assessing the forest. There are, undoubtedly, specific stocks that will prove nice investments over the next few years. Finding them is what we are all about.

Sincerely,
Chris Mayer

Source: Are the Bears Turning Bullish?

Mittal is the chairman and largest owner of ArcelorMittal (NYSE:MT), the world’s largest steel company. Therefore, his words carry some weight in the steel markets. The fact that these words are so contrary to what everyone else seems to think is significant…

Mittal is singing a rosy tune that has the market atwitter. He thinks steel demand could grow more than 10% in 2010, which would be a strong rebound, indeed.

Whether Mittal turns out to be right or not will hinge on what happens in China. China makes up about half of the world’s steel demand. That’s where the controversy begins, because there is just a lot of uncertainty over China’s economy right now.

I think it’s noteworthy that even those who think Mittal is way too optimistic are still calling for a 5% increase in steel demand next year. The contraction in demand was so severe and happened so quickly in 2009, it is hard to imagine steel demand not rebounding some next year.

Source: Steel Sector: Still Suffering or Rebound Ready?

But with all the artificial stimulus money floating around, here and abroad, you can never be sure of what you see. Is this a real recovery or is it an artificially ripened tomato, and hence an imposter? When the stimulus money stops flowing, will the recession get worse?

CNN’s bailout tracker reports that U.S. government stimulus has totaled $2.8 trillion so far this year, with another $8.2 trillion in commitments. Most of this money has gone to the financial sector. Some of it has gone to infrastructure projects and to consumers (“cash for clunkers,” for example).

That is a lot of money. It is hard to say how all of this spending has artificially boosted economic activity in some sectors of the economy. It is obvious that such spending cannot continue indefinitely.

Take a look at this next chart, which shows you how the stimulus spending reaches a peak sometime in early 2010 at $57 billion and then takes a dive.

Of course, the government can always decide to spend more. But as it is now, this is a pattern of spending we can expect to distort the various sectors it flows to. You can see also on the chart where the money goes, including that big red layer that goes toward highways and transportation.

We may yet see a surge in business activity as we get to 2010. But after that, we’ll see if this seeming recovery in the making is real or manufactured by funny money.

Source: Peak Stimulus

Guaranty Bank in Texas became the 81st U.S. bank to fail this year. It was the 11th largest bank failure in U.S. history. This kind of thing is becoming so regular it is hardly news when it happens.

But what’s interesting to point out about this one is that the FDIC sold Guaranty to Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria of Spain. This is the first time regulators have sold a failed bank to a foreign lender. Such a turn of events would have been unthinkable only a decade ago.

So the world turns. When it comes to the question of who has the money, it’s often a non-U.S. buyer these days.

Speaking of foreign buyers, there is probably no group of buyers more watched and coveted than Chinese consumers. Recently, the Financial Times had a piece that highlights things the Chinese like to buy.

This is important because the Chinese are becoming increasingly affluent in large numbers. Total consumer spending was $1.7 trillion in 2007, compared to $12 trillion in the U.S. But that number is growing rapidly. The FT focused on the new rich. China now boasts more millionaires than the U.K. The rapid growth of this group has companies all over the world spending more money and time figuring out ways to get in their pockets.

So what do the affluent Chinese like? Outside of ordinary things like flashy cars and booze and quirky things like ivory and dried seahorses, one thing was mentioned in the FT piece that caught my eye: The Chinese love gold.

“China loves gold in all its forms,” the FT reports, “as a reserve currency, jewelry, an investment.” I’ve mentioned in the past about how the Chinese central bank doubled its holdings of gold this year, but it’s more widespread than that.

The rising middle class in China also buys a lot of gold. Since 2007, Chinese consumers have been the second largest purchasers of gold jewelry in the world, behind only India. The FT points out those gold sales were up 28% year over year in May. Total gold demand for the year was up 21%, to 400 million tonnes. There are not too many sales of any kind going up that much in this financial crisis, but there it is.

The financial crisis and weak stock market have helped gold as people look for a place to park some money. I think gold will remain a good place to be for some time yet. And gold stocks have the stars lined up for them. Many are reporting falling cash costs, yet the price of gold is staying up here in the $900s — and is likely headed much higher. That means gold stocks are reporting good increases in cash flow, among the few sectors to do so.

The Growth Is Overseas

As to the larger picture, I think trends in overseas markets should continue to be a focus, and I will keep on an eye on them. The U.S consumer is pretty well tapped out, finally. The growth is overseas.

Over the weekend, Barron’s featured a worthwhile interview with Chris Wood, the Hong Kong-based strategist for CLSA’s Asia-Pacific group. He’s been on top of some of the bigger-picture developments in Asia for years — sniffing out trouble in Thailand before the Asian crisis in 1997, for instance, and, more recently, giving early warning calls on the global troubles that would emerge after the U.S. mortgage market imploded.

What’s Wood’s take today? “The financial crisis in the Western world will lead to a long period of anemic growth,” he says. “From a global investor’s standpoint, Asia and the emerging markets stand out as a place to invest.”

When you look at some of the data rolling in, it is hard not to see it. For instance, earlier this year, oil consumption in the developing countries passed the top 30 (OECD) countries for the first time. There are now more cars sold on a monthly basis in the top 16 emerging markets than there are in the U.S., Japan and the EU combined.

More opportunities will emerge, as many of these markets are only in the early innings of the most commodity-intensive part of their development. As a result, we’ll see a lot more power plants, water treatment plants and the like built over time. Then there are the agricultural needs, not only to support population growth, but to support the boost in biofuels.

Biofuel Boom

Steven Johnston at AgCapita, a firm dedicated to investing in agriculture, put together a worthwhile newsletter. In the latest update, the group shows how biofuel production is on the rise:

This trend will surely continue, as most of the oil-producing countries have in place biofuel targets whereby they mandate that a certain amount of fuel must be biofuel. AgCapita’s own research indicated that the biofuel targets in the U.S., the EU, Canada, Japan, Brazil, India and China alone could require the use of over 400 million acres of arable land, or over 10% of the world’s total. This is in direct competition with food production and should have a significant effect on crop prices.

What a lot of people overlook is just how fertilizer-, water- and energy-intensive these biofuels are. So agriculture remains another attractive market to invest in right now in what otherwise looks like a time of tepid growth. That means opportunities in fertilizer stocks, grain handlers, farm equipment and farmland.

Have a good week, and I’ll write you again soon.

Regards,
Chris Mayer

Source: What Chinese Money Buys: Gold Goes Green

– T. Boone Pickens

Inflation can do tricky things to markets. It creates distortions. In those distortions, an intrepid investor can find some big moneymaking ideas. I think we’ve got one opening up in oil and gas, and it is not without precedent in financial markets. In fact, it’s starting to look a little like the tail end of the 1970s in some respects.

In the spring of 1969, the Dow Jones industrial average stood at 969. By 1982, the Dow hit 1,071. That’s thirteen years of going nowhere. (We’ve had 10 years or so of going nowhere, though the ride between the poles has been anything but boring).

The problem is inflation makes that performance look better than it really was, like when a crooked judge makes a fight look close with a split decision even when the one fighter can barely walk to his corner and everybody in the building knows it was a rout.

Adjusted for inflation, or the weak dollar, the Dow was really more like 400. That makes it one of the worst stretches for the market since the 1930s.

The consumer price index, that flawed measure of inflation, doubled from 1960 to 1982. This is why a generation of people grew to believe that the best way to buy a house was to borrow all you could afford. And for a time, that looked brilliant. As Robert Sobel relates in a history of the period, a modest suburban home going for $30,000 in 1969 sold for $300,000 13 years later. With a lot of debt, your returns were much greater.

Of course, that kind of thinking eventually got us into a heap of trouble, as we now know.

But that period of time also had an effect on Corporate America’s balance sheets. When a company buys an asset, say a factory, it records its cost on its books. It will then depreciate this asset over time. So the value of the factory on its books will decline over time.

In a period of high inflation, its book value will be understated. The cost of a similar factory will be a lot higher in dollar terms, though the company will still show the old figure.

In other words, during periods of inflation, book values understate the true value of corporate assets. This happened in the 1960-82 period. Combine that phenomenon with a stagnant stock market and, eventually, you get some very cheap stocks. This is exactly what happened during the inflationary 1970s. Thus, by the early 1980s, stocks were quite cheap indeed.

In fact, by July 1984, S&P reported that 30% of the stocks on the NYSE traded below net tangible book value. The old value mavens like Ben Graham would have had a field day.

What happened next, though, is what interests us especially. The low stock prices kicked off a takeover boom. The 1980s takeover mania was the busiest since the “age of Morgan at the turn of the century,” Sobel reports in his The Age of Giant Corporations. The 1980s was the age of the LBO, Barbarians at the Gate, Michael Milken and the corporate raider.

The oil industry also had its takeover boom. In fact, the outlines of the 1980s oil and gas industry look similar to today’s. In 1970s, there was a drilling boom as people thought that oil and gas prices would rise indefinitely. That collapsed and then you had oil and gas companies sitting on huge reserves they built up during the boom.

So in a time when it cost $15 a barrel to get oil out the ground, many oil companies traded for $5 a barrel in proven reserves. Getty Oil traded for $72 per share, with assets of $250 per share. Marathon’s stock went for $68, even though each share had $210 in assets backing it up. And on and on it went.

Enter T. Boone Pickens. An Oklahoma-born geologist, Pickens was well aware of the value of these companies. He started going after them and making millions of dollars as bidding wars ensued. He lost several of these, but still cleared millions in profits.

There was a roll call of takeovers in the industry during this time — Shell bought Belridge Oil for $3.6 billion, DuPont bought Conoco for $7.4 billion and U.S. Steel took out Marathon for $6.5 billion. (Yes, U.S. Steel thought it would be smart to diversify). These were some of the bigger deals.

I won’t go too much into the history of this period, and perhaps I’ve already gone into too much detail. But I think something similar may be unfolding in today’s market.

In oil and gas, we have many companies trading cheaply in the wake of a drilling boom gone bust. What we need now is a T. Boone Pickens to shake things up.

When I look at some of my favorite oil and gas stocks, like Contango Oil & Gas (MCF:amex), I see stocks trading for far less than what it would cost you to find those reserves. If I were a natural gas producer, I’d look to pick up stocks like these, rather than drill new wells. At some point, I think that will happen and we’ll see lots of buyouts in the oil and gas sector.

Natural gas is very cheap right now, but it won’t always be the case. In a new research report by Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., a very good firm specializing in energy, $7.50 natural gas prices is forecast for next year! That’s pretty bold considering natural gas is under $3.00.

The firm bases this prediction on a comprehensive, bottoms-up model that takes into account rig count, decline rates on existing wells and other variables. According to Tudor Pickering, “The die is cast for 2010” — there is no way to get around a dramatic decline in natural gas production next year. And even assuming tepid demand for natural gas, we’re going to have a very different picture in natural gas next year.

After that, Tudor Pickering predicts the market will get full again by 2011. If it is right, we have a great window to make money between now and probably the middle of 2010 in natural gas.

Source: The Coming Takeover Boom

This is important because the Chinese are becoming increasingly affluent in large numbers. Total consumer spending was $1.7 trillion in 2007, compared to $12 trillion in the U.S. But that number is growing rapidly. The FT focused on the new rich. China now boasts more millionaires than the U.K. The rapid growth of this group has companies all over the world spending more money and time figuring out ways to get in their pockets.

So what do the affluent Chinese like? Outside of ordinary things like flashy cars and booze and quirky things like ivory and dried seahorses, one thing was mentioned in the FT piece that caught my eye: The Chinese love gold.

“China loves gold in all its forms,” the FT reports, “as a reserve currency, jewelry, an investment.” I’ve mentioned in the past about how the Chinese central bank doubled its holdings of gold this year, but it’s more widespread than that.

The rising middle class in China also buys a lot of gold. Since 2007, Chinese consumers have been the second largest purchasers of gold jewelry in the world, behind only India. The FT points out those gold sales were up 28% year over year in May. Total gold demand for the year was up 21%, to 400 million tonnes. There are not too many sales of any kind going up that much in this financial crisis, but there it is.

The financial crisis and weak stock market have helped gold as people look for a place to park some money. I think gold will remain a good place to be for some time yet. And gold stocks have the stars lined up for them. Many are reporting falling cash costs, yet the price of gold is staying up here in the $900s — and is likely headed much higher. That means gold stocks are reporting good increases in cash flow, among the few sectors to do so.

Source: What the Chinese Are Buying and How to Own it First

And it’s a region that holds the key to growth opportunities that could eclipse the growth in the BRIC countries.

In fact, this region collectively has a bigger economy than Brazil, Russia or India already. And in terms of growth, it is growing faster than any of these countries. In terms of population, it’s bigger than the U.S. and nearly as populous the EU. It holds 60% of the world’s proven oil reserves and nearly half of its natural gas.

That last clue probably gives it away. I’m talking about the Middle East and North Africa, or MENA.

Among its largest economies are Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

In one of my presentations at Agora Financial’s 10th Annual Investment Symposium in Vancouver, I focused on the growth in these economies because it touches on nearly everything we’ve talked about here recently – water and food scarcity issues, infrastructure needs, energy and the growth in non-U.S. trade. To start, let’s look at a couple of basic facts that push this along.

The first is explosive population growth. MENA is one of the fastest-growing regions in the world. Over the last 50 years, MENA’s population is up more than fourfold. And the population is still young, with the majority of the population under 25 years old. Over the next 30 years, MENA’s population will grow more than 60%, to nearly 700 million people.

The second is that trade is expanding in this part of the world, as I highlighted in last month’s letter. To show this in a different way, let’s look at Syria.

Yes, Syria. Long a pariah state with which the U.S. maintained frosty relations, all that is beginning to change. In July, the U.S. made a couple of announcements that I thought signaled an important shift. First, the U.S. would send an ambassador to Damascus after a four-year absence. Second, the U.S. would ease export bans to Syria.

But more important than this political thaw is the economic story. Syria has been a mercantile crossroads between East and West since its days as a link on the old Silk Road.

Put Your Money Where China Puts Theirs

The ancient city of Aleppo, for instance, was a key stop along the old Silk Road. Even today, it still has the longest covered market in the Middle East – a souk seven miles long. There you can find goods that take you back in history – soap made from olive oil or silk scarves and keffiyehs of a variety of colors. Head down an alleyway and find gold jewelry and stands of fresh pistachios and sacks of spices and more. Then there are the backstreets of hawkers with lamb – always plenty of lamb – and you smell the scent of lime, garlic and mint.

But much has changed, as Ben Simpfendorfer relates in The New Silk Road. Today, for the first time in 22 years, banks in Syria can set their own interest rates on loans and deposits. Today, you can change money on the street without the threat of a ball and chain winding up around your ankles. A stock market even opened for business in March.

The largest investor in the country is Haier, a Chinese company. It makes 50,000 washing machines and 50,000 microwave ovens in Syria every year. Another Chinese company, Sichuan Machinery Import & Export, recently completed a $180 million hydroelectric plant here. There are big real estate projects, including a new $300 million resort on the Syrian Mediterranean coast. There are some 40,000 new hotel beds coming online in the next three years – up from 48,000 currently. Tourism is already 13% of the economy.

Syria is basically following the “China model” of maintaining a closed political order but carving out free zones and allowing trade.

Of course, this isn’t some Big Rock Candy Mountain fantasy where the sun shines every day on the birds and the bees and the cigarette trees. There are all kinds of problems in Syria, and elsewhere, but I find the changes taking place so far absolutely remarkable.

In a sense, we’ve seen this movie before. Roger Owen wrote the classic study on the Middle East and its place in the economy. In his book, he covers the period 1800-1914. This was a time of growth and transformation. At least a few points are similar to today. Then, as now, the region experienced a huge population growth. The Middle East’s population alone grew 300%. Then, as now, trade grew even faster under a more liberalized economic regime.

Then, the Middle East benefited from growing demand for agricultural goods from European markets. Today, the region benefits from expanded trade with China and the rest of Asia for the region’s oil.

But that’s not to say that oil has solved the problems of the MENA countries…

Right now, these countries are looking to invest in farmland overseas. The Saudis have grabbed farmland in Indonesia. The UAE has locked down farmland in the Sudan and Pakistan. As Eckart Woertz of the Gulf Research Center in Dubai says: “In a global food crisis, you may find it difficult to secure food supplies at any price no matter how many oil revenues you have.”

When I got back home from Vancouver, there was an issue of The Economist waiting for me. It had a cover story on the Arab world titled “Waking From Its Sleep” and a 14-page special report within. What’s happening in this part of the world is starting to get more attention.

The key takeaway from all of this is to recognize this other, non-BRIC, growth engine and the needs and opportunities it creates. Once again, we’ll see enormous investment in food and water resources to feed and slake the thirst of all these people. And we’ll need all of the infrastructure and burn all of the hydrocarbons that come with that growth.

Sincerely,
Chris Mayer

Source: Forget BRIC… These Emerging Economies Hold the New Keys to Growth

To set the table, water rates in China have been so far below the global average it’s ridiculous. Especially when you consider the severe water problems in China. The graphic below is from The Wall Street Journal (“China Cities Raise Water Price in Bid to Conserve” by Andrew Batson):

The Chinese are water-poor. They are sucking their aquifers dry. It is particularly bad in the north of China. The groundwater under the North China Plains is draining away quickly. By some estimates, China will exhaust this water supply in the next ten years.

You probably know that the city of Venice is sinking a fraction of an inch per year. But that’s nothing compared to what is going on in Beijing. Parts of Beijing are sinking 8 inches a year! According to Andrew Lees (The Right Game), it is the world’s largest cone of depression (an underground hole created by a depleted water table) at over 15,000 square miles. The second largest cone of depression is around Shanghai.

So finally, many cities are raising the price of water. The WSJ points out several places where water prices could rise 25-48%. Shanghai, for instance, raised water rates 25% in June and plans another 22% increase next year.

The second event that caught my eye was the collaboration between China and India to monitor the health of Himalayan glaciers. This area is very important to both countries. They fought a war over it in 1962. So, the fact that they are getting together on the Himalayan glaciers is meaningful.

Here is why it is so important: Seven of the world’s largest rivers, including the Ganges and the Yangtze, are fed by the glaciers of the Himalayas. They supply water to about 40 per cent of the world’s population.

Well, those glaciers are shrinking. The Indian Space Research Organization, using satellite images, has studied the changes in 466 glaciers. It found they had lost more than 20% of their size between 1962 and 2001.

This melting increases the water flow at first, but eventually slows dramatically as the glaciers either melt completely or reform. These observations have given rise to a kind of “Peak Himalaya” where people wonder if we have not seen the maximum water flow from the mountains.

We know the current run rate on demand is already well above what is sustainable given annual rainfall and river flows. That’s why you have those depressions. That explains the depleted aquifers and the rivers that don’t reach the sea. Now throw into that ugly brew a decline in water supply from the Himalayas. The situation is worse than it seems, if that is possible, because much of the existing fresh water in both countries is so polluted it is unfit for human consumption.

As if all of that weren’t bad enough, the demand for water is still rising rapidly in China and India. The water use per capita in China and India are still well below global averages. As these countries industrialize, they’ll consume exponentially more water. It takes water to make just about everything. For example, to make a 1 tonne passenger car takes more than 100,000 gallons of water. Just to make a cotton shirt takes over 1,000 gallons of water. And most of our water goes into making our food.

So, population growth by itself guarantees increased water demand. (Globally, water consumption increases at more than twice the rate of population growth.) These two countries already have big populations and both will get bigger. When you look at demographic trends, China and India alone will add close 600 million people over the next 30 years. That’s two present-day United States.

Fresh water, like oil, is getting a lot harder to find for 40% of the world’s population. It will get worse before it gets better. The days when we think of water as a cheap resource are coming to a close. That’s especially true for China and India.

Bottom line: We need to create more fresh water. You do that by finding new sources either through new supplies (drilling deeper, desalination, etc.) or by using existing supplies more efficiently (irrigation and other efficiency gains).

All of that takes time and energy. Desalination is energy intensive. Drilling deeper for water or going to more distant source requires energy to pump and move the water. Replacing older, less efficient plants and equipment takes time and energy again. (Detect a theme here?)

Countries, companies and people will find ways to make this transition. The companies that can solve these problems will do well.

Regards,

Chris Mayer

Source: The End of Cheap Water?