201–210 of 222 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are lots of other ways to clean off a sidewalk.
And there are lots of other places to raise cattle or grow almonds than in a desert.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there are lots of other places to raise cattle or grow almonds than in a desert.
California (specifically, the Central Valley, where most of California's agriculture is centered) is hardly a desert compared to pretty much everywhere surrounding it save for maybe Oregon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you are advocating the continued unsustainable use of a scarce common resource, in a way not provably necessary to the good of that commons, because we might be able to efficiently create more of that resource at an unspecified point in time. Well, I'm convinced. I'll burn my house down this winter to keep warm, too.
Read "The Bet: Paul Ehrlich, Julian Simon, and Our Gamble over Earth’s Future" and learn why this sort of thinking has been shown to be wrong again and again.
Your black-and-white thinking--and the assumption that mine is as black-and-white as yours--kind of sucks, as does your cite-and-run dismissal. Can you please try to do better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you seriously think the answer isn't "produce more, and stop using so much until we do"?
The "and stop using so much" part is misplaced if you're really looking to the agricultural industry, of all things, to do that stopping. We need food and drinking water. We don't need green lawns and golf courses. Not to say that water efficiency improvements in the agricultural space wouldn't be welcome, but rather that landscaping is arguably less important than even the relatively-unimportant foods, let alone the…
If the tradeoff is unsustainable and as-we-currently-know-it-irreparable biosphere destruction and more expensive almonds and beef (through higher alfalfa prices), I'm really okay with that trade-off and I think if you dig into the situation you probably will be too. People aren't gonna starve because dead cow costs more--because beef is already nearing "too expensive" for Americans in situations of food insecurity as is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And there are lots of other places to raise cattle or grow almonds than in a desert.
California (specifically, the Central Valley, where most of California's agriculture is centered) is hardly a desert compared to pretty much everywhere surrounding it save for maybe Oregon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes a lot more sense for orchards (which are widespread in California) than for grapes, tomatoes, lettuce, etc. (which are also widespread in California). For the record, I've lived in several places with water shortages since I was a teenager. I believe every one placed restrictions on certain activities (no washing car at home, water lawns only on designated days, no water for ornamental ponds, etc.) instead…
> letting the price of water reflect its supply and demand. Which would force a significant reduction in agricultural water use.
But the people making the decision would be people who know how much water their crops need, what the alternatives are, how profitable their crops will be in six months, etc. I simply don't have much faith in across the board cuts.
That is, I agree that water needs to be conserved. But I think there's a better approach; namely, letting the market work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken. We could cut our water usage in 1/2 and still produce enough nutritious food for the entire nation plus some. This coming from someone who has favorite pass time of smoking brisket, ribs, and grilling steaks. It's just the facts.
> If this is your honest opinion, you'd be pushing for emergency triage of water allocation for agriculture. Specifically, reducing luxury crops like almonds, beef, and chicken. I'd be fine with agricultural triaging, personally. However, pinning the blame on almonds and livestock is misplaced (and, in the latter case, characterizing them as "luxury" crops seems misplaced unless you consider basic nutrients like prot…
Guess what crop California spends almost 50% of its water on? Alfalfa, which is used to feed cattle.
Also, just cutting out beef can make a huge dent. It's water usage is truly wtf level, whereas chicken is closer to almond level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In this case, the market will very quickly adapt. Because not adapting (increasing prices, reducing usage/costs, etc), will cause businesses to fail. And no one likes losing money or closing businesses, but they don't mind reduced profit. The problem is that all this "short-term regulation" has caused increasing and cumulative lopsidedness in all sorts of relatively harmless areas of the market. That if we were to no…
How quickly do you think "replacement" farms can be set up. I dunno about the wisdom some times of people expressing "markets solve problems best."
I.e. Almonds, as one of the other responders mentioned to your comment. This is not something people "can't live without". If they wanted it prior to this market-adjustment, they'll probably not want it now that it's price has doubled. Or tripled if local shops start importing it from foreign suppliers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yay! Let the rich be the only ones who can afford water!
Yay! Let the rich be the only ones who can afford computers! Shoes! Books! Potting soil! Clothing! Housing! Cars! The list of horrors that the free market visits upon the non-rich is truly shocking. After all, by your logic all non-regulated goods must be affordable only by the rich. The level of economic ignorance in this thread is stupefying.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I certainly wouldn't! Still, the drought is on my mind, and while I recognize the need to conserve, I am frustrated by my government's response to the problem so far. So far, we've been responding to the crisis in a way that doesn't really allow people to make good trade-offs. For instance, I went to my parents house in a nice warm place, after a week in the fog, and my kids kind of wanted to play in the inflatab…
Unfortunately tiered rates in California have been ruled illegal. A bunch of anti-government people got a ballot measure passed which mandates that government services must be priced in line with their costs. Not a terrible idea in thought, but doesn't really help with situations like this.
Also, it is my understanding that there're already two different rates for water in California depending on whether you get in a tap in your house or you use it to water a field by the acre-foot. I'm guessing that legally it is something different than tiered rates, but it barely makes sense.
This post is known to the State of California to cause cancer.