Instead of an oil pipline, why not a water pipeline?
California has about one year of water left
111–120 of 405 posts
Re: California has about one year of water left
#112Maybe I skimmed the article a bit fast, but I saw no mention of desalination plants, which are the obvious solution (though expensive and as far as I'm aware not implemented yet).
They should build a giant desalination plant somewhere between LA and SF like Santa Maria area which can supply LA, SF and Las Vegas through a pipeline. Each city should try and clean and recycle as much water as possible and the pipelines could keep them topped up
Re: California has about one year of water left
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding is that under most scenarios water for humans is fine, but agriculture will be totally dead in California.
Which in turn means US will have to do with about 50% less vegetable/crop to consume.
The US is a net food exporter by a large margin.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#114I blame golf.
Really. I learned to play on an OIL course. They mixed oil and sand to create a fairway and we carried around a piece of astroturf to place under the ball (see http://www.panoramio.com/photo/22230833). A grass course in a desert (ie most every course in california) is a totally unnecessary waste of water.
When they stop spending water on golf, THEN we can talk about rationing water for household use.
(Fyi, the airbase that picture was THE airbase for the first gulf war. The f117s would land there at night. Seeing a black triangle open white landing gear on approach was like something out of the x-files.)
Re: California has about one year of water left
#115I wish there was some way to change prices to alter demand. Maybe a "task force of thought leaders" can crack open an Econ 101 textbook and look at the supply and demand curve on the first page. Sorry for the sarcasm, I'm just disappointed in the "reach for regulation first" approach to dealing with shortages.
Are you serious? You want WATER to have its price raised to reflect the realities in California? All that would do is screw all the poor and middle class people and it would do nothing to solve the shortage. Put down Atlas Shrugged for a minute and look at reality. The whole state of California has always been on water welfare, and if it weren't life there would be untenable for anyone who wasn't extremely wealthy. I…
Water is already priced based on the type and quantity of usage. The more you use, the more it costs. You can raise prices for farms without "screw[ing] all the poor and middle class."
If you raise farm water prices, you will find that water-intensive crops will be less profitable (even with raised prices) and farms will switch to crops which use less water.
Rationing may have the same effect, or it may instead have the effect of fewer crops being produced and prices going up.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#116Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…
The Midwest would make a good alternative place to grow. It won't be as prone to droughts and will have a longer growing season due to climate change. Either that or giving farmers a subsidy for growing crops that require less water. Our huge Almond industry is a giant water-guzzler.
Almond Trees at maturity seem to be small enough to be movable to new locations (12-33 ft high, 12 in trunk)
Re: California has about one year of water left
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ahh, ok they hinted at that in the article but for some reason it didn't click in my head. I wonder if the farmers will just move to neighboring states (not that it's easy to pick up and move a farm....) losing farms in California would be a huge loss: > California produces a sizable majority of many American fruits, vegetables, and nuts: 99 percent of artichokes, 99 percent of walnuts, 97 percent of kiwis, 97 percen…
It's not as though the drought just stops at the border of California, so that probably won't be practical.
While true, it's also surprisingly like that- basically, the Sierra Nevadas have been blocking the weather that gave the rest of the country severe flooding last year.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#118Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…
I think simply phasing out water subsidies would be a huge win. I've read a fair number of reports suggesting that, while not great, the situation would be considerably improved if farmers had an incentive to invest in more efficient irrigation techniques or switch to more drought-tolerant crops. The catch is that it costs money and that's risky if you're the first one in the industry doing it – if the government announced that, say, the current subsidies would be reduced 10% a year starting in couple years that'd send a message to everyone that it's safe to take out loans because all of your competitors are going to have to do the same thing.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#119Disclaimer: I have no clue if what I'm proposing is realistic or not, but: Perhaps the federal government should step in and gradually step down the level of subsidies given to farmers in California and gradually increase subsidies given to NEW farmers in other, more water rich parts of the country. This would have the effect of moving farms to more sustainable locations in the country. Sure, the types of crops produ…
My understanding is that California is so ideal for agriculture because of its climate (with the water scarcity being the big liability, the can we've been kicking down the road for decades). Other states, either individually or collectively, do not have the year-round, Mediterranean, relatively predictable climate to take on the load that California would drop. This includes not only total square acreage of arable, mild farmland, but also a bevy of specific crops that cannot be grown reliably in other states. (There are certainly wetter states, but they have seasonal extremes that make X, Y, Z crops very challenging.)
When it comes to agriculture, California is in the rare position of being a jack of all trades and master of most. That is, until the water runs out. Then it starts to look more like the mild, but semiarid desert it was before we engineered it to run on various, unsustainable water sources.
That being said, the subsidies have certainly placed us in a predicament -- a wildly unstable dependency -- that will be extremely tough to unwind. Something has got to change on that front, and quickly.
Re: California has about one year of water left
#120Warning: strong language and opinion
I'm glad each time climate change consequences hit the US instead of other countries that contributed way less, like Tuvalu.
You consider this rude? Fair enough, I consider it rude to destroy the planet we are living on, at least in a way that makes it habitable for humans. Of course other countries are not innocent either, but the (institutions of the) US stand out in many ways.
We need as much pressure as possible for the three big climate-relevant conferences in 2015 (Paris et cetera), this will be the best chance we get for the next couple of years. If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. We all can be fucking glad if any of the upcoming changes turns out to be reversible. I'm afraid that few will be (keyword tipping points).