California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought • Hacker News Board

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#151

Post by secabeen » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:40 PM UTC

munificent wrote: post #77

teamhappy wrote: post #65

The first picture that pops into my head when I think of California is sprinklers on people's lawns. We don't really have them in Germany. I mean, of course we do, but people are hesitant to put them up because the first thing that will happen is your neighbours standing at the fence judging you for being so goddamn wasteful (seriously). Now, I'm not a huge fan of judging people (that's a lie), but I can't help but n…

> Another thing we don't really have is air conditioning (might be a climate thing). It's insanely wasteful and chances are you'll be sweaty anyway. The average high in Munich in July is 23 °C. In Los Angeles, it's 28.4 °C. In Death Valley, California, it's 47 °C. (That's average . The highest temperature ever recorded is 57 °C.) 23 °C is what most Americans set their air conditioners to. If it never got hotter than…

Even in Los Angeles, if you're within 5 miles of the ocean and your house was built more than 15 years ago, you won't have AC either. AC is largely a feature of mini-mansions and houses in the more inland areas.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#152

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:43 PM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #87

jff wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Everybody can just only guess why... NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying.

NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying. Should the word "anthropogenic" be in that sentence somewhere? Getting less water is indeed a change in the climate by the very definitions of climate and change.

Not when it's just random chance. An X year drought by definition is supposed to happen every X years.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#153

Post by Lewisham » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:44 PM UTC

epmatsw wrote: post #138

spiralpolitik wrote: post #127

Too little too late. Here's things Jerry could have done but didn't. - Ban the export of bottled water from California. If the drought is as bad as they say we shouldn't be shipping any of it out of state. Sorry Arrowhead. - Introduce tax breaks for installing water efficient appliances. - Introduce tax breaks for the removal of sprinkler systems and replacing plants with ones that require less water. - Introduce a m…

Those all seem like pretty reasonable things. But how on earth aren't there already tax breaks for water efficient appliances? That seems like such an obvious and trivial improvement...

It does exist on a county/city level, Santa Cruz will give you money if you get a high efficiency washing machine.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#154

Post by blazingfrog2 » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #125

teamhappy wrote: post #65

The first picture that pops into my head when I think of California is sprinklers on people's lawns. We don't really have them in Germany. I mean, of course we do, but people are hesitant to put them up because the first thing that will happen is your neighbours standing at the fence judging you for being so goddamn wasteful (seriously). Now, I'm not a huge fan of judging people (that's a lie), but I can't help but n…

> I can't help but notice that americans (seem to) completely lack this sense of responsibility/playing your part/restraining yourself for the greater good/whatever Of course there are exceptions, but in general Americans are much more oriented to the rights of the individual and much less to collectivism and the 'greater good' than Germans. We tend to view collectivism as an inherently oppressive and dictatorial mod…

> Americans care far less about what others will think of them

As a European expat in the US, I find this statement to be very accurate. It can be maddening at times but I've grown to find this characteristic one of the main attractions of life in the U.S. It can be summed up as "I don't feel guilty about anything I don't have direct control over because it makes life much more enjoyable and it always works out in the end."

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#155

Post by teamhappy » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:46 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #125

teamhappy wrote: post #65

The first picture that pops into my head when I think of California is sprinklers on people's lawns. We don't really have them in Germany. I mean, of course we do, but people are hesitant to put them up because the first thing that will happen is your neighbours standing at the fence judging you for being so goddamn wasteful (seriously). Now, I'm not a huge fan of judging people (that's a lie), but I can't help but n…

> I can't help but notice that americans (seem to) completely lack this sense of responsibility/playing your part/restraining yourself for the greater good/whatever Of course there are exceptions, but in general Americans are much more oriented to the rights of the individual and much less to collectivism and the 'greater good' than Germans. We tend to view collectivism as an inherently oppressive and dictatorial mod…

First of all, kudos for not taking it personally. I don't know how any of this is scored but I think you may have won.

> [...] Americans are much more oriented to the rights of the individual [...]

It definitely feels like it. When it comes to things like abortions you can't live up to your own expectations though. Not quite sure why that is.

I love the water tap story. Sounds about right :D

Let me get the recycling thing out of the way and then I'll cover the rest in one go. We have three bins: 1. Organic stuff, 2. paper and 3. everything else. (We have a bag for plastics, not a bin. That's important.) They get picket up by different people and are brought to different places (at least in theory). Kind of makes sense I guess. The reason we do that directly at home is probably because it's the most efficient solution. Our friends in Sweden have way cooler bins. They use one with four compartments instead of four separate bins. Same thing though.

What you said about the "vanishingly inconsequential" effects got me thinking. Maybe that's the real problem. Imagining things on such a large scale is very difficult (e.g., people can't image how small changes caused by evolution lead to a new species). Small streams make large rivers.

---

> [...] if you are not (directly) harming someone else, it's nobody else's business what you do.

That's the other thing, right? They're almost always indirectly harming other people. Indirectly is a nonsense term in that context. They're directly harming other people.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#156

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:48 PM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #124

pkaye wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any evidence of this that they are not growing more because California subsidizes water usage?

Just basic economics. Subsidies increase supply which reduces prices. Lower prices discourage production. Net result is that production shifts to the place with the subsidies.

[deleted]

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#157

Post by refurb » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:51 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #95

bduerst wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tl;dr: Desal is too energy intensive and expensive to be feasible while other conservation options haven't been tried yet. Also, massive potential environmental impact for water intake and brine output.

I find it odd that it's too expensive. It's cheaper than the price of water in e.g. Finland and many European countries, yet I've never heard anyone complain about the price water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Economics http://www.vercon.fi/fi/tietoa-vedenkulutuksesta/veden-hinta...

I was going to say. Look at the numbers in the article. $25,000 per month for 1200 homes. That's $20.83 per month. I'm sure costs down down with scale.

Not that much different than what I'm paying for municipal water.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#158

Post by AesopHimself » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:52 PM UTC

jstalin wrote: post #2

We learned yesterday that 80% of water consumption in California is by agriculture[1]. Yet this executive order does nothing to reduce agriculture's use of water[2]. It only refers to use of urban water, lawns, landscaping, and cemeteries. Agricultural users just need to submit vague "plans." 1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/30/how-growers... 2. http://gov.ca.gov/docs/4.1.15_Executive_Order.pdf

Does this %80 include the water footprint for raising livestock?

It would be interesting to know the relative price in water of a small Niman ranch steak compared to a single serving of California-grown almonds.

Is the drought an argument against eating California-raised livestock since it isn't necessarily as location-dependent as certain agriculture?

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#159

Post by nitrogen » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:54 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #152

nitrogen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NOAA says it isn't because of climate change, if that's what you're implying. Should the word "anthropogenic" be in that sentence somewhere? Getting less water is indeed a change in the climate by the very definitions of climate and change.

Not when it's just random chance. An X year drought by definition is supposed to happen every X years.

What's the dividing line between a changing climate and a very highly randomly varying unchanging climate?

Also, minor nit, "X year event" doesn't mean the event should happen every X years, but that over a span Y >> X, the event happens Y / X times.

Re: California Imposes First-Ever Water Restrictions to Deal with Drought

#160

Post by WalterSear » Wed, Apr 01, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

pjlegato wrote: post #126

WalterSear wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't need meat. We just convince ourselves we do.

Moreover, we don't need cheap almonds and pistachios and flooded rice paddies in the middle of the desert.

All three are drops in the bucket compared to meat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-j-rose/how-to-take-long-s...

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/californias-drought-whos-...

"The meat industry consumes over half of all water used for all purposes in the United States. Most of this water is used to irrigate cattle feedlots."

http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry...