Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

news.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#41

Post by blackkettle »

stretchwithme wrote: post #8

When people use a resource, they should pay more than just the cost of extracting it. They should also pay for its underlying value, which bears some relation to the price you would pay if the resource were no longer available. Such prices would signal to users the actual scarcity of the resource, giving them incentive to reduce waste and find alternatives. It would also spur development of desalination and other tec…

In economics what you are describing is typically referred to as a Negative Externality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative). It's hard to reframe these for the obvious reason that the parties involved directly in the transaction benefit from ignoring them (at least in the short term...)

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#42

Post by jackvalentine »

searine wrote: post #39
fulafel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And more widely, much more crops are used as animal feed vs human consumption. We have no food shortage, just a high demand for luxury (meat) foods that competes with basic sustenance.

The solution in a first world economy is not to limit options. That is just regression. The solution is to make the industrial system sustainable. If there was a power crisis, you wouldn't make everyone use pocket calculators instead of computers, you'd figure out how power generation alternatives.

Or price things so that they take in all their externalities... perhaps cheap meat isn't ethical.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#43

Post by Spooky23 »

fulafel wrote: post #21
tkyjonathan wrote: post #7

"thirsty grains like rice and wheat".. Yet again no mention of animal agriculture. How much water a day does a cow need Vs wheat?

And more widely, much more crops are used as animal feed vs human consumption. We have no food shortage, just a high demand for luxury (meat) foods that competes with basic sustenance.

I'd say the addiction is more about sourcing food where the government subsidizes the cost.

The east coast has no water issues compared to the west, yet farmland is fallow everywhere.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#44

Post by d0mine »

miles wrote: post #26
tkyjonathan wrote: post #7

"thirsty grains like rice and wheat".. Yet again no mention of animal agriculture. How much water a day does a cow need Vs wheat?

Producing a pound of beef requires 2,000 gallons, vs 138 gallons for a pound of wheat: http://www.gracelinks.org/blog/1143/beef-the-king-of-the-big...

I see numbers from 441 to ~12,000 gallons that does not inspire confidence in the estimation methods.

No doubt beef requires much more water than wheat but let's not oversimplify.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#45

Post by rdw »

searine wrote: post #39
fulafel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And more widely, much more crops are used as animal feed vs human consumption. We have no food shortage, just a high demand for luxury (meat) foods that competes with basic sustenance.

The solution in a first world economy is not to limit options. That is just regression. The solution is to make the industrial system sustainable. If there was a power crisis, you wouldn't make everyone use pocket calculators instead of computers, you'd figure out how power generation alternatives.

That analogy isn't great -- plenty of places in the world have power crises, and they do respond by limiting consumption of power.

In actual water crises, such as the one in California, limiting and controlling consumption is the response. Obviously, it's always better to come up with an alternative before you reach the crisis. But once you've gotten to the crisis, you're already exhausted all other options and have to be realistic.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#47

Post by stretchwithme »

blackkettle wrote: post #41
stretchwithme wrote: post #8

When people use a resource, they should pay more than just the cost of extracting it. They should also pay for its underlying value, which bears some relation to the price you would pay if the resource were no longer available. Such prices would signal to users the actual scarcity of the resource, giving them incentive to reduce waste and find alternatives. It would also spur development of desalination and other tec…

In economics what you are describing is typically referred to as a Negative Externality ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Negative ). It's hard to reframe these for the obvious reason that the parties involved directly in the transaction benefit from ignoring them (at least in the short term...)

I think it's what they call the tragedy of the commons.

Wikipedia says an externality "imposes a negative effect on an unrelated third party". For example, pollution from a coal-fired power plant that pollutes the air of people living somewhere else.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#49

Post by anigbrowl »

foota wrote: post #37
adekok wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> t's meteorologically obvious that higher temperatures = higher evaporation = higher global rainfall It doesn't help the Southern US if Central America has higher rainfall. i.e. there is no guarantee that the rain falls where it's needed for farming. Much the opposite, as it turns out.

In theory, couldn't agricultural centers move?

Yes. In practice, the economic dislocations involved are often severe.
Post reply on HN