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

California is not in drought

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 216 posts

Re: California is not in drought

#71

Post by anewaccount2021 »

ummonk wrote: post #9
chrisco255 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we moved 50 million people there in the past 60 years so clearly nature must stop the mega drought cycle.

It has nothing to do with the people. The majority of the water is used for agriculture, which supplies the nation and even the world with water-hungry food.

People build houses in forested areas. People buy second homes in the Sierra range. Now you can't do controlled burns...you're burning someone's house down.

California cannot do controlled burns. There is too much invasive development, and the State isn't going to tell NorthStar or Kirkwood to take one for the team by burning the Sierra deadwood down.

Re: California is not in drought

#72

Post by njarboe »

rsj_hn wrote: post #54
zbrozek wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many CA communities make it hard to cut down trees ("conservationism"), and also don't religiously enforce clearance rules that they do have on the books. The combination means that there's a huge pileup of fuel even in suburban neighborhoods. To those downvoting - this is a town-owned parcel in my neighborhood, just a few miles down the hill from the CZU complex evacuation zone. https://i.imgur.com/PVUoUVg.jpg

Indeed "Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres[...] California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire." https:/…

Well, 4.4 million acres burned in 2020 and 1.7 million in 2018, so were a third of the way to that 20 million already.

Re: California is not in drought

#73

Post by anewaccount2021 »

So much denial in this thread. It is far too late to prevent a megafire in California. Too many people. Too much invasive development. No homeowner is going to volunteer to have their home or vacation property burned down as a favor to the State.

Look at how the population of the Sierra communities has swelled in just the past few years.

You ain't seen nothing yet. The past few years are barely a preview of what's to come. The megafire will happen and burn for years. No insurance system can pay out for what will happen - losses will be carried by property owners with no recourse.

Re: California is not in drought

#74

Post by splitstud »

quixoticelixer- wrote: post #34
kansface wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm highly skeptical of this source. What percentage of that water usage for animal agriculture is actually in the form of grass (or rainfall more properly)? What percentage of the land used could be productively farmed by humans for human edible foods? What percentage of the GHGs from animal husbandry are net new? IE, a cow eats some grass, makes some co2 or w/e, which then goes back into new grass.

Animals drink a lot of water but grass does take even more. Cows produce net CO2e emissions because they produce methane.

Cows do not produce methane. Decaying grass produces methane, whether in a cow or out.

Re: California is not in drought

#75

Post by splitstud »

dqv wrote: post #65
kemiller wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The water and land that they use isn't necessarily useful for other crops. Marginal pasture land can't be magically turned into cropland but almond orchards can.

Sure but the 77.3 million acres to grow the plants we eat pales in comparison to the 781 million acres we use for animal agriculture.[0] Why turn almond orchards into cropland when we can just use less of the land we use for animal production and turn that into cropland? I highly doubt all 781 million acres can only be used for animal grazing. [0]: https://extension.oregonstate.edu/bloomberg-illustrates-how-...

Makes perfect sense until you consider the massive amounts of inputs, measured in land or energy, it takes to grow those crops on the smaller amount of land footprint you ARE measuring.

Re: California is not in drought

#76

Post by splitstud »

ummonk wrote: post #9
chrisco255 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But we moved 50 million people there in the past 60 years so clearly nature must stop the mega drought cycle.

It has nothing to do with the people. The majority of the water is used for agriculture, which supplies the nation and even the world with water-hungry food.

Which does not mean that's where farming should be done, or whether si many people should crowd into a desert.

Re: California is not in drought

#77

Post by BurningFrog »

kardianos wrote: post #44
mullingitover wrote: post #43

While the agriculture sector would love cities to go into drought mode and cut back on water usage, let's review a fun fact: agriculture isn't even in the top ten of industries contributing to state GDP[1]. However, agriculture uses 80% of the state's water. [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/304869/california-real-g...

Do you eat money?

Money can be exchanged for food.

Same thing, for practical purposes.

Re: California is not in drought

#78

Post by tzs »

tuatoru wrote: post #58
s1artibartfast wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is poor logic influenced by the politics of the LA aqueduct and water project. Nuts are calorie dense, and most foods require as much if not more water per calorie. Food simply requires a lot of water. For example, A 5 oz glass of wine takes 34 gallons. A head of iceberg lettuce takes 16 gallons of water. You will note that the motherJones article compares almond water things like home use, not other food source…

This is also poor logic. Nuts are not a calorie crop, they are a relatively high-cost garnish/flavouring. A snack size serving of almonds is around 20 of them, representing about 20 gallons. A side dish of lettuce is probably about half of one, 8 gallons. That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing.

> That said, California's water is probably best used in high value add industries like semiconductor manufacturing.

California has some of the best soil for farming in the country (or even the world). A gallon of water used for agriculture in California will be more effective than a gallon used for agriculture in most other places.

As far as I know there is nothing that makes California a great place for semiconductor manufacturing. A gallon of water used for semiconductors in California isn't more effective than a gallon used for semiconductor manufacturing anywhere else.

That argues for prioritizing in California water for agriculture over water for semiconductors.

Re: California is not in drought

#79

Post by rsj_hn »

njarboe wrote: post #72
rsj_hn wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed "Academics believe that between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres burned each year in prehistoric California. Between 1982 and 1998, California’s agency land managers burned, on average, about 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres[...] California would need to burn 20 million acres — an area about the size of Maine — to restabilize in terms of fire." https:/…

Well, 4.4 million acres burned in 2020 and 1.7 million in 2018, so were a third of the way to that 20 million already.

> Well, 4.4 million acres burned in 2020 and 1.7 million in 2018, so were a third of the way to that 20 million already.

Unfortunately this article was written in Sept 2020 so I think (but don't know) that those are baked in. But in the big picture, yes, nature will eventually burn what needs to be burned. However the hope is for controlled burns, not burns that destroy lives and property. The Camp Fire in 2018 alone killed 85 people. That's a steep price to pay for refusing to do controlled burns.

Re: California is not in drought

#80

Post by dqv »

refurb wrote: post #67
mullingitover wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California isn't big on dietary staple agricultural goods. The five biggest ag businesses are dairy, grapes, almonds, cattle, pistachios, and strawberries, none of which we really need to grow here. They're luxury foods generally. There's not that much that's grown here that couldn't be grown elsewhere.

Exactly. We could all eat drought resistant oats for each meal with a shot of essential vitamins and minerals. Very efficient and green!

There's no need to bring the argument to this level of absurdity. The parent made a valid point about those food items being luxuries. Less fun is not the same thing as no fun.
Post reply on HN