171–180 of 211 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they're advocating for eating less water intensive things. If you for example grow wheat instead of grapes or almonds your likely reduce global famine a little bit.
Or growing water-intensive crops in water-plentiful regions of the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This isn't something cities could or should solve by switching to (expensive) desalination In 2015, the Southern Nevada Water Authority completed a "3rd straw" into Lake Mead to safeguard water availability, at a cost of $817M [1], which is enough to cover the power costs to desalinate Nevada's CO river allotment for ~23 years. It's been a while since I looked into it, but I once ran the numbers and the cost of tha…
Desalination traditionally needs a source of water to desalinate. Then you need somewhere to put the brine. The ocean is traditionally the answer to both these needs. Nevada is not a good candidate for a desalination plant.
No, but it's a good candidate for a solar power plant, and the water source is shared with major coastal metro areas. You'd of course want to move the power to the coast; an amount of water equivalent to that produced by desalination could be withheld upstream, in Nevada.
That said, I still think they made the right move building the 3rd intake, even at such expense. That intake is below the "dead pool" level, while the other 2 are not .. so even if ppl can't sort things out politically and continue to draw the water down past the point that it won't flow over the dam, NV will still be able to draw their "allotment". And of course, it's very hard to build desalination plants in CA, no matter how much sense it makes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they're advocating for eating less water intensive things. If you for example grow wheat instead of grapes or almonds your likely reduce global famine a little bit.
That’s meat, it’s the most water intensive. How much do you want to get that she/he eats meat everyday? What about you?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> salt discharge being pumped back out into the ocean and raising salinity levels around there to significantly damage ocean life, would prevent them from approving the plan Offshore oil platforms with annual spills coating the beaches? Go for it! Massive ports with dozens of container ships anchored off shore dumping who knows what for months? Perfect, ship it! Putting salt back into the ocean after taking it out an…
The same with nuclear plants dumping warm water in the ocean after using it to make steam and for cooling. Perhaps in both cases the waste water could be stored and evaporated in a salt flat or something.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s meat, it’s the most water intensive. How much do you want to get that she/he eats meat everyday? What about you?
I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. That's once or twice a week. Less meat consumption in general would probably be good not only for the environment but also for public health.
Having said that, merely hoping that people will make significant changes in their lifestyle for indirect and abstract benefits is simply burying one’s head in the sand with a rationalization that makes them feel good. The population is growing, and we will either innovate our way out of this, or it’s famine/war/etc.
Edit: go into /r/environment on Reddit and suggest people eat a lot less meat and see how quickly it’s downvoted into oblivion. And those are the people who actively care!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is what I would expect to happen. Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights and seize it but is there not a way for the market to sort itself out fairly? Are they forbidden from selling their water rights? Or is the water actually worth more to the farmers than the city residents so that the current situation is actually fine?
> Everyone wants the government to "simply" violate property rights... It's a lot simpler when you don't believe that water is something private individuals have a right to hoard. Imo, water is a natural resource we all have some minimum access to as humans, regardless of if someone wants to buy it up and sell at a higher price later
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s meat, it’s the most water intensive. How much do you want to get that she/he eats meat everyday? What about you?
I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. That's once or twice a week. Less meat consumption in general would probably be good not only for the environment but also for public health.
I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, market prices on water and beef (incorporating what are now climate externalities) would seem to solve these problems. Why isn't that being considered? Remember when conservatives, neo-liberals, and libertarians supported the market as a solution for everything? Of course, we would need a reasonable amount of water available to consumers at below-market rates.
To me charging market price for water seemed obvious and easy till the comments here pointed out what should be obvious: the farmers Steve getting their water from the faucet but from their own wells, creeks etc. So that solution is pretty hard to do on practice. Other than disgruntled voters, I don't see an obstacle for proper beef prices. In fact I wish we could price in carbon emissions, as I wish that pretty much…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. That's once or twice a week. Less meat consumption in general would probably be good not only for the environment but also for public health.
> I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So change the laws.
I know you’re being earnest and understand the conviction behind what you’re saying, but I can’t help imagining that some of these comments are “false flag” posts by the NRA. Completely overhauling property rights for half of a continent doesn’t come without major resistance. We’re still recovering from the last that that was done. It’s just not as simple a problem as we’d all like it to be, and it’s not because this…