351–360 of 405 posts
Why don't we run a water pipeline down from Oregon? In Portland they have so much water that their drinking fountains literally do not have an off switch. We run pipelines for oil all over the country, would it be that hard to run one for water?
You'd need basically and artificial river. Then, there's landscape constrains. And Oregonians will veto any decision about their water siphoned to California anyways.
It's fascinating to see the many reservoirs we were supposed to have built by now. The engineers of the 1950s and 1960s had a lot of big plans that were all supposed to be in place decades ago (look at the gray squares on the map): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Water_Project A lot of people will say "the environmentalists" stopped them, but really it was that lawmakers gave environmental concerns only…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Food security is the reason governments stick their noses in an otherwise free market.
Even if we accept that argument, which I think is a little far-fetched given the countries that would need to get on board for a hypothetical food embargo against the US to be effective, there's no national security implications to almonds and there are good substitutes for rice and cotton. In a real pinch the agricultural production dedicated to ethanol can be redirected to food, and perhaps most importantly even a…
American culture can replace it with wheat, yes, but if you ever want a case study on government fiddling with a crop for national security reasons, rice is it. Not in the US, but Asia? It's probably on par with oil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point remains. Water consumption will be cut down either voluntarily or by lack of availability. You cannot chose not to cut down your consumption, but you can choose what type of consumption to cut first. Drink 10% less water and you will give yourself, in a couple of years, kidney failure. Skip shower each other day and you will give yourself a rancid bodily odor. Stop playing golf and you will give yourself...…
Not much. My point wasn't that it oughtn't be considered, but that it's insignificant in the overall scheme due to how little water (as a percentage) it uses. What part about profiling this like code or a budget is so difficult? If you have one area that's costing 80% of your resources, then reducing usage there by even 1% is more effective than a 100% cut to something that only uses 0.5% of your total resources.
You are looking at the problem from the perspective of which cuts will bring the usage down faster. I am looking from the perspective of which cuts will produce less cost to society. Each point of view lets you highlight some aspect of the issue, and obscures many others by necessity.
80 percent of the developed water supply in California is used by agriculture. About 6 percent is industrial and commercial. That leaves 7 percent residential landscaping, and 7 percent residential non-landscaping (showers, washing machines, etc.). Source: http://www.kcet.org/updaily/socal_focus/commentary/where-we-... Even if residential landscaping or non-landscaping water usage dropped by a quarter immediately, wh…
It looks like it won't help much, but landscaping should stop. Double stop. Triple stop. No need to waste water in there, and comply with neighbor whatever regulations.
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.…
>If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally.
No, water will simply become further commoditized, as Nestle is already doing today. And instead of the bottom Billion suffering it'll be the bottom 5 Billion.
The US will still mostly be fine.
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.…
Whatever dude. The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. >If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. No, water will simply become further commoditized, as Nestle is already doing today. And instead of the bottom Billion suffering it'll be the bottom 5 Billion. The US will still mostly be fine.
Brazil's destruction of its rainforests to create land to raise beef for export actually has more to do with the US than you might think.
I mean, why do you think that is a profitable (in the short run, anyway) thing to do?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Put it back in the ocean? That's where it was before anyways. It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the ocean.
> It's not like that would have any impact on the salt concentration of the ocean. Ocean-wide, no. Where it's dumped, definitely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.
Definitely a fair point. http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=files/Animal-products shows 10.19 litres/calorie beef vs 1.34 liters/calorie vegetables. Which is an even greater distance than the gallons per pound I mentioned. This obvioulsy can't be right. I will argue that theory wise it makes sense that a plant based diet would use less than a diet consisting of eating animals that ate the plant based diet. The anima…
What if meat is imported from areas/states/countries where there is no water problem.
And with that, maybe California should open itself to import vegetables/fruits from other states, countries too?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever dude. The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. >If drinking water or water to grow plants runs out maybe some people start to care finally. No, water will simply become further commoditized, as Nestle is already doing today. And instead of the bottom Billion suffering it'll be the bottom 5 Billion. The US will still mostly be fine.
> The vast majority of climate change comes from Brazil destroying their rainforests, it has little to do with the US. Brazil's destruction of its rainforests to create land to raise beef for export actually has more to do with the US than you might think. I mean, why do you think that is a profitable (in the short run, anyway) thing to do?
Capitalistic demand can be short-sighted and there can be negative externalities, none of that should be surprising. It's up to people who OWN the land (their most valuable asset) to come up with ways to make it sustainably productive.
Like you said, ranching on rainforest land only makes sense in the very short term.