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

California has about one year of water left

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 405 posts

Re: California has about one year of water left

#141

Post by bradleyjg »

jonnathanson wrote: post #119
rjett wrote: post #72

Disclaimer: 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,…

There are other places in the world where these crops can be grown. People in those countries will be more than happy to trade us almonds, rice, bananas and the like in exchange for things we are great at producing like software and music.

It's a win-win.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#142

Post by nemothekid »

Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: 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.…

I'm unsure if we can safely assume that California's recent drought troubles are the cause of climate change, and not the fact that California really is a giant desert.

If anything human intervention made California livable.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#143

Post by waterlesscloud »

Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: 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.…

I believe recent scientific studies have said the California drought is not caused by climate change.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/12/new-study-cal...

Re: California has about one year of water left

#144

Post by ars »

Flip-per wrote: post #120

Warning: 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.…

The drought in California has nothing to do with climate change.

> If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out

If anything climate change will make more water not less. (Higher temperatures mean more evaporation.) The water would just be in a different location, not that there would be less of it.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#146

Post by crpatino »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #50
treehau5 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until new farms capitalize on the opportunity to capture the market in places where there's an abundance of water.

Only on HackerNews are people silly enough to think you have the scalability of virtual infrastructure in the physical world. Farms measure lead times in years . EDIT: I help my uncle manage a farm in Florida. The startup times are seriously ridiculous.

Not only in Hacker News, but otherwise agreed with you.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#147

Post by shit_parade »

Agriculture uses the vast majority of water but most farmers pay very little, sometimes nothing, and sometimes they 'own' water rights which can be very valuable and often worth more than any of the land they farm upon.

Farmers have been overdrawing from rivers and groundwater for decades and the US government has been very slow to respond. Promises of 'smart meters' or 'water markets' are often delayed with time tables being pushed further and further back. Meanwhile the government also hands out large subsidies to grow a wide variety of crops, most recently the federal government has encouraged corn for biofuel, more corn is being grown for biofuel than is being used for livestock (and effects of carbon usage for biofuel is likely 0 or even negative once you take in effect it's entire life cycle). Typically ever pound of beef takes 7 pounds of corn, pork is 5 to 1, poultry is around 3 to 1. Again, we grow more corn for biofuel than we do for livestock because of government subsidies.

If anyone spends anytime at all on this issue they quickly learn that farmers are a powerful lobby, that the agricultural bill is essentially a large handout to a small, tiny, group of people. One reason this occurs is because every state gets two senators, and many middle states are essentially empty but for farmers and their communities.

Government has been mismanaging water usage for decades in the US and yet the first thing people suggest is for the government to come in and fix the problems they created, the amount of cognitive dissonance this takes is staggering.

Re: California has about one year of water left

#148

Post by jaryd »

bashinator wrote: post #101
BryantD wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almonds are a very water-intensive crop. We grow a huge amount of almonds here in California. (Most of them are exported.) See http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30052290 for one writeup. Now, they're also a very lucrative crop, so not growing almonds would certainly affect the state's economy. But...

Specifically, one almond takes about one gallon of water to produce.

Hate to be that guy but do you have a source for this? That's pretty incredible and I'd want to read more.

nevermind: the parent article pretty much covers it

Post reply on HN