California Drought Update May 2022 [pdf]

Post by synaesthesisx » Thu, Jun 02, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

jillesvangurp wrote: post #27

orlp wrote: post #2

"Californians are being asked to reduce their water use by 15 percent over 2020 levels to protect water reserves and help maintain critical flows for fish and wildlife wherever possible." And by that they surely mean agriculture, right? Right? The industry responsible for 80% of the water usage in California? They surely couldn't just be asking urban consumers to reduce? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/2…

Either way, Californians should stop pretending water is cheap, plentiful or sourced in a sustainable way. It simply isn't. Instead of pointing fingers at each other, the best way is to price it accordingly. The root problem is that this is not the case and it's too cheap. And it's only cheap because it comes from non renewable sources that are getting scarcer. Everybody feels entitled to the cheap water and then end…

Post by systemvoltage » Thu, Jun 02, 2022, 4:01 PM UTC

KerrAvon wrote: post #157

systemvoltage wrote: post #11

California is becoming a untenable to live. We had several power outages, roads are awful, had a sewage backup issue that took a month to get resolved, and the price of electricity is through the roof ($0.40/kWH). The idea of the people have here is to regress into a third-world standard of living through the virtue of environmentalism, depopulation, and general attitude against success/ambition/improvement. Providin…

Exactly where are you? I haven’t had this experience in CA recently. I do remember the Enron brownouts that cost Gray Davis the governorship, but that was a long time ago. And where in the USA would you go that’s so much better? I assume fundamentalist, anti-science red states are off the list. I can see arguments for Colorado if you can stand the dryness.

Post by Aunche » Thu, Jun 02, 2022, 4:09 PM UTC

peyton wrote: post #85

paulcole wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everybody doesn’t treat climate change as a problem that they’re both the cause of and solution to, we’re never going to touch the 99%. You think these corporations are growing almonds in the desert and raising cows because nobody buys them?

We’ve had fifty years of behavior change messaging. It’s time to take a different approach.

Post by gopher_space » Thu, Jun 02, 2022, 4:11 PM UTC

TomSwirly wrote: post #152

thaumaturgy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a carefully-considered market-based solution to a complex problem, but there are a few details I'm struggling with. Significantly increasing the price of a natural resource would have severe impacts on impoverished communities while having no effect at all on wealthy people and companies; is this intentional? Around 45% of households in California are rentals. Renters are often restricted by their re…

> On further consideration, I realize that if the cost of water exceeds the cost of replacing a toilet, then people working for minimum wage will be properly motivated to find some way to replace their landlord's fixtures with newer models. I hope you're joking here. This just has to be sarcasm - right? Replacing your toilet is an investment that pays off over years. How is a minimum wage earner supposed to do that?

Post by bumby » Thu, Jun 02, 2022, 4:21 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #131

gruez wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Since when has raising the price of anything changed anyone’s behavior? Making water 2x more expensive probably isn't going to cause you to drink less water, but it might make you consider a variety of water conservation measures, like low flow showers, dishwashers, or low water landscaping.

If your water bill is $100 is $200 really going to change what you do much? Unlikely, unless you're already poor.