181–190 of 347 posts
I understand that this is mostly for agriculture, but maybe let's stop building and expanding big cities in the desert. Golf courses in Phoenix, for example, seem like an irresponsible use of water.
The only thing you need water for is the green. Not that I see golf going back to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
72% of water used in Arizona is used by Agriculture.. https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts
Is this essential agriculture that can't take place in another state? Is this water frugal agriculture appropriate for the climate and actual supply, or is it water exuberant agriculture (avocados, sugar beets, applies, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, figs, kiwis, etc)? Percentages alone don't tell the whole story.
Of course not.
But if you own some land which is worth $x00,000,000 when irrigated with subsidised water and only $x,000,000 when it's not, and you can give $x0,000 for lobbying to "protect farming jobs and keep food prices low" by giving you your subsidy? Paying $x0,000 a year is good business sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do Europeans live in small cupboards? There are energy exporting nations in Europe and they're still more energy efficient than the US. Is Europe also food poor because they experience lower rates of obesity? Is eating yourself to death an expression of freedom and the great American dream? >expansive thinking Yes why don't you take your own advice.
So much for the bigotry. Europeans are almost as fat as Americans and White Europeans are basically the same as White Europeans in that regard. I've lived all over both continents and yes, Europeans live in very small flats. Energy is prohibitively expensive. I enjoy European culture a bit more (both have advantages), but in North America you have the choice generally to live big or small. Not everyone needs a big ho…
How is that different in Europe? For the price of a one room flat in the centre of the nice part of town you can equally get a nice big house with a garden way out of town if that is what you prefer. Sure US houses tend to be bigger on average, but it's not like you can't buy a big house on the cheap if that is what you want. You just have to be willing to live an hour+ drive away from anything in a place with no jobs.
The only real difference is that, on average, Europeans tend to prioritise shorter commutes and living closer to town over large homes.
I understand that this is mostly for agriculture, but maybe let's stop building and expanding big cities in the desert. Golf courses in Phoenix, for example, seem like an irresponsible use of water.
Artifical surf parks in Arizona seem a tad excessive. [0] http://www.swellmfg.com/
Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.
If you want go to this route, then you might find the cost of your cereal going up. More than 98% [1] of the water usage attributed to beef/cattle (and other animals) is an indirect measurement - it's from the estimated water usage in the production of the feed that's given to them. Cattle themselves directly use next to no water. So you'd need to add your water tax to grains and other such products. Another interest…
Let's compare daily average household domestic water consumption: - where I live: 202l [0] - US: >1135l [1] US household consumption share of total water usage: 12% [1]. Just reducing household usage to 50% more than a random wealthy northwestern European region instead of 560%(!) more equals 10% total water usage savings. That's without even touching agriculture or other water hungry sectors. Aligning usage to be a…
Let's compare daily average household domestic water consumption: - where I live: 202l [0] - US: >1135l [1] US household consumption share of total water usage: 12% [1]. Just reducing household usage to 50% more than a random wealthy northwestern European region instead of 560%(!) more equals 10% total water usage savings. That's without even touching agriculture or other water hungry sectors. Aligning usage to be a…
I half agree with the author in that "conservation simply can’t do the job" but their supposition seems to be framed as household use alone.
Conservation changes / remove wasteful agriculture would be plenty.
Let's compare daily average household domestic water consumption: - where I live: 202l [0] - US: >1135l [1] US household consumption share of total water usage: 12% [1]. Just reducing household usage to 50% more than a random wealthy northwestern European region instead of 560%(!) more equals 10% total water usage savings. That's without even touching agriculture or other water hungry sectors. Aligning usage to be a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of them is per family and other per person (family of size 1). Is it even comparable? I am not saying it is lesser, it's pretty high, probably 200% not 560% if I am right.
Family size of 1 is given as 108L each, but average usage per member of a family of 2.3 people is given as 89L each, so presumably an average total household usage in Flanders would be about 2.3 x 89 = 205L. I'm not sure where OP gets the 202L number from, it doesn't appear anywhere on the page. Possibly mis-reading a date as a consumption, hence I'm using capital L for Litres. That's more than 5x less than the US. I…
Let's compare daily average household domestic water consumption: - where I live: 202l [0] - US: >1135l [1] US household consumption share of total water usage: 12% [1]. Just reducing household usage to 50% more than a random wealthy northwestern European region instead of 560%(!) more equals 10% total water usage savings. That's without even touching agriculture or other water hungry sectors. Aligning usage to be a…
Quoted post unavailable.
You also don't want to stop outputting twice as much CO2 as the average European I presume. Nor is the US population density expected to triple in an instant.
>A change in thinking towards Nuclear, and hopefully eventually Fusion, would help Europe be more prosperous.
At least I can agree there.