71–80 of 222 posts
About time. Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1]. There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're literally running out of water [1]. As in no more. There are entire counties who get nothing when they turn on their faucets. Nothing. No more. Not to mention the ground is sinking. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-droug...
Which entire counties get nothing when they turn on their faucets?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're literally running out of water [1]. As in no more. There are entire counties who get nothing when they turn on their faucets. Nothing. No more. Not to mention the ground is sinking. [1] http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-droug...
Which entire counties get nothing when they turn on their faucets?
India is getting there [1]
About time. Agriculture is using 80% of the water, but accounts for a mere 2% of the GDP (4% of employment)[1]. There's no reason we should be squeezing our rural and suburban centers that fuel the overwhelming majority of our economy while giving farmer's a free pass to suck the state dry of usable water which is mainly used for exported profits and not sustaining local industries. [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/…
The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. What does watering one's lawn contribute to?
If you care about feeding the poor, give them money to buy their food. Don't wreck the environment and distort the market with supply-side meddling.
Can someone explain to me why we don't just build a pipeline from Seattle or some rich water source up north down to California?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The primary contribution of agriculture is feeding people, not GDP. The primary value to California of exporting food (which is what most California agriculture is) is the economic activity produced. (Given a global food market with largely equivalent substitute goods, one could argue that the same is true of agriculture that is used for local consumption, as well.)
You say GDP contribution to Californianis more important than supplying food to the state/country/world. I say feeding people and keeping food prices low is more important than that particular economic statistic when looking at the value of water consumption.
Can someone explain to me why we don't just build a pipeline from Seattle or some rich water source up north down to California?
Unfortunately for farmers, urban dwellers far outnumber them. Of course farmers need to devise more efficient ways to water their crops, but I think it's strange urban dwellers don't understand the inelasticity of water for farming. At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acres that year. Without water, locavores will have to become televores. Calif produces food…
From what I understand most of California's agricultural throughput goes to exports. Japan may have their rice farmers, however in terms of area the US is 24 times bigger than Japan, with only 2.5 times the population. So that's comparing apples and oranges.
On the other hand, food you can import so your assertion is wrong. However if water goes out, then you will either move or die of thirst ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You simply don't understand the scale of the water we use. > At home one can cut showers from 15 mins down to 5 or two. On the farm it means not planting x acres that year. Urban direct water usage (ie., showers, watering lawns, flushing the toilet, etc) only accounts for 4% of the State water budget. FOUR PERCENT. [0] Cutting your shower from 15 mins to 5 is utterly meaningless compared to agricultural use. [0] PDF…
The point isn't about whether cutting home use would make a meaningful difference, just that it's much easier for a household to reduce water use than for a farm. Yes, we need water efficient farms (or, perhaps, farms in places that aren't so hostile to agriculture). But it's very hard to make a farm water efficient.
There are other places in the world to farm that are not currently suffering droughts.