How about living somewhere more environmentally friendly? Like... Not in a desert. Plenty of water elsewhere in the USA.
‘Climate change is water change’
11–20 of 52 posts
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#12Where is all the water going, if it's simply not precipitation enough in these areas?
It's a combination of factors. Some's being exported as food (nuts, beef). Some isn't being recaptured, as aquifers are being depleted to the point of collapsed. Etc.
But where does it all end up? In the ocean? In the atmosphere? Frozen in glaciers? Is it that global warming is making it rain in other areas instead?
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#13The arctic is, as usual, going crazy this summer. Terrible weather for sea ice melting (lots of clouds, storms), but we'll probably still end up at the 2nd lowest sea ice extent when the minimum is reached in Sept. Happening right now is what will become the longest-running arctic summer storm since records began. Even more intense storms are forecast for 10 days time. Read more here. neven1.typepad.com/blog/
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of factors. Some's being exported as food (nuts, beef). Some isn't being recaptured, as aquifers are being depleted to the point of collapsed. Etc.
But where does it all end up? In the ocean? In the atmosphere? Frozen in glaciers? Is it that global warming is making it rain in other areas instead?
With climate change we've had a noticeable increase in coastal flooding.
So maybe that's where.
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of factors. Some's being exported as food (nuts, beef). Some isn't being recaptured, as aquifers are being depleted to the point of collapsed. Etc.
But where does it all end up? In the ocean? In the atmosphere? Frozen in glaciers? Is it that global warming is making it rain in other areas instead?
Does it really matter for that particular region? Evaporation increases, weather patterns shift.
And even when the rain falls somewhere else it might just cause a flood and run off into the ocean.
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it make more sense to build a gigantic pipeline from Oregon/Washington to California?
I believe the cost of pumping it outweighs the cost of more desalinization plants.
Desalination needs energy (so does pumping of course). As long as you're not getting that energy 100% (including supply chain) from renewables you're making climate change worse.
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#17For all those claiming the solution is as easy as "just moving out of the desert", people aren't the only major issue when it comes to the Colorado River's water.
So unless you're willing to forego vegetables every single winter, those farms in the southwestern desert (as backwards as it may seem) are there to stay until they're too expensive to maintain.
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#18Meanwhile solar panel manufacturers are suffering from oversupply, meaning not enough purchasing. This despite the fact that prices are now down to 60 cents a watt or less.
Solar will never be cheaper than coal because coal is a rock. it'll always be cheaper to go dig coal than to make something else. Politicians need to deal with this or we are all doomed.
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a combination of factors. Some's being exported as food (nuts, beef). Some isn't being recaptured, as aquifers are being depleted to the point of collapsed. Etc.
But where does it all end up? In the ocean? In the atmosphere? Frozen in glaciers? Is it that global warming is making it rain in other areas instead?
Some combination of those things--warmer air holds more moisture, which leads to more rainfall in some places. Rain patterns shift. Some places will get more, other places less.
Re: ‘Climate change is water change’
#20I think as climate change really starts getting going the American Southwest including California will need to start desalination on a massive scale or risk mass emigration. The current situation is sketchy at best, give it 20 years and most of that area will be bone dry.
Water in Southern California is a complex issue that isn't given its proper due - and desalination plants aren't the cure-all that people assume.
Desalination plants: are expensive to build; are more energetically expensive than most alternatives, which means they are also more expensive to run (its tough to take salt out of water); inefficient - compared to alternatives, more water must be processed to create the same amount of potable water; environmental concerns, from intake (water intake may also 'suck in' krill, young fish, etc. which form the bottom of the food chain) and what happens with all of the concentrated 'sludge'? Dumping it back into the ocean would surely increase salinity in the area creating dead zones; time consuming to build - more water is needed now, not 10 years from now.
In L.A. specifically, there are treatment plants like Hyperion which perform secondary treatment on waste-water and then pumps that treated water 4.5 miles into the ocean. Does it make sense to treat waste-water, pump it into the ocean so it picks up solutes like salt, then desalinate it so that it's potable and then pump it back to shore? It makes more sense to upgrade facilities so they can perform tertiary treatment to make waste-water potable - it'd be cheaper than desalination, and much of the infrastructure is already there.
Also in L.A., storm runoff gets directed into a pipe system completely separate from the sewer system, so after a rainfall all of the water gets collected and essentially directed straight to the ocean via the stormdrain system without any treatment (and it also picks up massive amounts of debris and pollution along the way). It would also make sense to treat and store that kind of run-off instead of letting it go to waste (and pollute the beaches as well).
Israel is often given as a shining example of desalination, but they also recycle something over 80% of their water for irrigation. Essentially, they used all alternatives before adding desalination. L.A. imports over 80% of its water, and only recycles ~2% of it.