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

Australia’s Darling River is running dry

widerimage.reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#111

Post by jbattle »

mixedbit wrote: post #71
neotek wrote: post #4

Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.

We shouldn't use "believe" and "don't believe" terminology when we talk about scientific facts. It is more proper to say that people refuse to accept the climate change.

I'd prefer language like "I [am/am not] persuaded by the evidence I've seen"

Small difference but I think it properly orients the discussion around evidence

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#112

Post by ahbyb »

lisper wrote: post #101
ekianjo wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be simply solved by selling water usage rights or incentivizing saving water wherever the river runs. This was done with success in some parts of the US.

Until the amount of water available becomes less than the rights that have been sold. Then things get sticky again.

Then sell a %

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#113

Post by WillDaSilva »

gonational wrote: post #74
neotek wrote: post #4

Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.

The IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum)[1], and then said "we have a consensus" when the scientists came back with an inevitable conclusion. This resulted in the inevitable false attribution of human activity being the cause of [strike: global warming] climate change. To fully appreciate the gravi…

That's quite the strawman you've built here

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#114

Post by [deleted] »

asdf21 wrote: post #61
voqv wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're pressured to improve KPIs of economy and life quality (including employment rates) and that's the complete opposite of what fixing the climate requires.

Are you saying that fixing climate change requires poor life quality for people in Western countries? Is poor life quality in the West going to stop worldwide deforestation somehow?

[deleted]

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#115

Post by timberfields »

thehappypm wrote: post #96
timberfields wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

context: I lived in Australia for a few years in South Australia. There was talk of building one, maybe two desalinization plants near Adelaide. I think the consensus across the board is "yup, it does, and it would help massively" though it always came down to money and how it was going to get funded. Side tangent: I cannot for the life of me understand the argument for "well, yeah, climate change is bad, but let's t…

Being honest, there is a certain amount of privilege baked into this mindset. Not everyone is a software engineer with RSUs and a six-figure income. For many individuals and many communities, every dollar matters and increasing taxes to square off against a massive, but global and impersonal, existential threat is simply not something that everyone can get behind.

Really? You think this is about individual mindset? It's about governments and governments around the world. And about the future of our race and planet. Money should not stop us from tackling existential threats to everything we know and hold dear.

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#116

Post by mywittyname »

ehnto wrote: post #30
nshepperd wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so charge agriculture and industry more.

I imagine the prices would just flow on to the consumer. I would personally prefer water usage regulation, that's something we can pretty easily do since we already meter it to charge for it. If you just raise the prices, there's no guarantee it would actually lower water usage enough to help.

> If you just raise the prices, there's no guarantee it would actually lower water usage enough to help.

Sure it will. If water costs these farmers $1,000,000/gallon, they would use 0% of what they do now, since nobody would buy a $4MM avocado. That's absurd, but it does demonstrate that there is a price for water that will lower its usage.

The goal should be to price water such that enough is left downstream for personal consumption. Doing so will raise prices on agricultural goods, which will decrease demand, also lowering water consumption.

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#117

Post by pstuart »

moomin wrote: post #89
vkou wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities require relatively little water for the economic output they produce, compared to farmers. If you require farmers to pay full price for the water they consume, they will never be able to afford it.

Indeed, some forms of farming e.g. cotton in Australia are literally unsustainable when exposed to market forces. Doesn’t mean capitalism is wrong in this case, though.

> Doesn’t mean capitalism is wrong in this case, though.

Edit:

Wes it does, in this case. This is not some software startup. The water, which ostensibly belongs to all, is the input to this wealth.

Plus, that's a stupid use of water that should not be rewarded.

Original below ----------------

of course it does. It's "captialism" and we must bow down before it and not question any of the inputs to the money being made.

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#118

Post by pvaldes »

jandrese wrote: post #80
thewhitetulip wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's true, but once the ecosystem is established, we don't drain water, trees cause rain right?

The natural state of the ecosystem is a desert. We could try to plant trees to help control the moisture in the soil and evaporation, but it would be an artificial ecosystem, propped up by human intervention.

This is a natural state, but also the most degraded state of the ecosystem.

If there was a river, there was either forests or coastal rains. Would not be uncommon to find that the landscape was more humid in just two or three generations ago.

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#119

Post by gonational »

WillDaSilva wrote: post #113
gonational wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The IPCC gave models to scientists that are necessarily missing part of the picture (namely, all energy from the sun that is not part of a specific EMR spectrum)[1], and then said "we have a consensus" when the scientists came back with an inevitable conclusion. This resulted in the inevitable false attribution of human activity being the cause of [strike: global warming] climate change. To fully appreciate the gravi…

That's quite the strawman you've built here

How’s that?

Re: Australia’s Darling River is running dry

#120

Post by jefftk »

DrJones1098 wrote: post #58
nshepperd wrote: post #8

If only it was somehow possible to charge more for water, so that people would use less.

So you're saying subject a fundamental basic need for human life and existence to capitalism? That's an absolutely terrifying proposition.

Do you think it's a problem that food is priced?
Post reply on HN