61–70 of 258 posts
Just like we fight deforestation by planting trees maybe we should fight drought by re-watering our land. It's a massive logistical problem, to be sure, but it seems like humans already have a pretty good handle on draining water from the land. They could start by banning lawns and golf courses in the desert. No reason someone living in Phoenix needs a verdant green lawn. Maybe place some limits on unsustainable agri…
Approximately 27% of the water used in Utah comes from the Colorado River and 60% of Utahans benefit from the river. 82% of Utah water goes to farmers. Significant amounts of that water usage is to grow Cotton and Alfalfa. Two water intensive crops that are largely exported out of the country. In my opinion we have absolutely no business growing these crops in a desert, especially just to ship them out of the country…
The same is true in California, where almonds, which consume massive amounts of water, are grown, along with alfalfa which is largely exported. Also, stunningly, rice is even grown, which requires flooding fields with water. All of which is to say, our water problems are as much a political problem - due to overuse in farming - as anything.
Flooding fields is not required for rice farming. Its done to control weeds, not because the rice crop demands it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BC has no lack of water; it rains _heavily_ most of the year along the coast. What BC lacks is a water storage plan; as you've mentioned, our glaciers and snow pack are no longer reliable. And there's the impact from less water in rivers and streams to consider, and how that will effect the ecology.
There's really three different ecozones we're talking about here. Coastal, interior, and northern. Yes, there's lots of rain along the coast, but that doesn't help the interior. And it's pretty damned hard to build the infrastructure for rain storage on the scale we're talking about. That said, the recent heat wave hit the coast pretty badly, too.
We're building rain storage right now, in the form of Site C.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cheap fresh water will become the new oil. I wouldn't be surprised if the ridiculous idea of pumping Lake Michigan to NV/CA comes to fruition.
There are international treaties with Canada that are supposed to forbid that. But yeah, that remains a worry.
The choice is pretty clear to me. We need a national water grid. Desalinization is great and a piece of the puzzle, but we need a way to distribute water across the country. It could also be leveraged as an energy storage device if we continue to add more reservoirs at various elevations. It's not going to be cheap or easy, but we'd be stupid not to start on it now. The climate changes, and we need to plan for it. Pl…
No. The Great Lakes are not leaving the Great Lakes area. Ever.
If you look at a map you'll notice that there is quite a lot of water available beyond the great lakes. Is there a reason freshwater can't be pulled from the mouths of great rivers like the St. Lawrence, the Columbia, and the Mississippi right before it reaches the sea? Is there a reason why flood control systems can't be built to sequester excess precipitation so that it can be reclaimed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why punish individuals for their water consumption? That's not exactly the low hanging fruit, the vast majority of water in California is used for farming.
I wasn't suggesting taxing individuals but large-scale farming. That's why I said x thousand gallons, though I guess I ought to have said xx million gallons. Edited.
I know this may be silly but one reason why I stay in the "Great lakes states" and own property here is because of global warming and my lack of hope that tech/governments/capitalism will solve it before we reach a point of no return during which we will experience massive property and life loss in the US. Only then significant change will occur IMO. There are places in the south now that need water to be delivered b…
Sshhhh! - We can't support the required influx of climate refuges. /s Seriously though, nothing silly about it, choosing a climate that requires the least resources to live in is the common sense thing to do. Living in the desert, now that is silly. EDIT: Why is parent getting down voted?
I know this may be silly but one reason why I stay in the "Great lakes states" and own property here is because of global warming and my lack of hope that tech/governments/capitalism will solve it before we reach a point of no return during which we will experience massive property and life loss in the US. Only then significant change will occur IMO. There are places in the south now that need water to be delivered b…
I don't mean to nit pick, but clarification in this context is appropriate I think.
For example, I live about 500 meters from the Pacific ocean, but my house is in absolutely no danger of flooding, because we're about 100 meters above sea level, and we are at the top of a rise. There's nothing 'above' us, so no rain flooding is possible.
Many costal areas will flood due to sea level rise; many more costal areas will flood even sooner due to increasing storms.
But it's quite possible to live safely near the ocean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the goal is just for human use, then that might make sense. This article also includes the ecosystem. Increasing the rainfall in the region could alter the other aspects of the ecosystem. The real issue is on the demand side with ever increasing populations.
The issue is with ever increasing consumption. For water conservation a change in diet to move away from water intensive calories like almonds and beef could be replaced with less water intensive crops like poultry and peanuts.
This reminds me of how the glaciers were supposed to be gone by 2020[1]. [1] https://lidblog.com/national-park-service-glaciers/
This is talking about the facts on the ground today, not some projection of the future.