Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

news.nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 91 posts

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#51

Post by pm90 »

foota wrote: post #37
adekok wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> t's meteorologically obvious that higher temperatures = higher evaporation = higher global rainfall It doesn't help the Southern US if Central America has higher rainfall. i.e. there is no guarantee that the rain falls where it's needed for farming. Much the opposite, as it turns out.

In theory, couldn't agricultural centers move?

Yes but in general politics comes in the way.

Agriculture is not just a way to make food, but a source of livelihood for millions of people. Most non-developed countries depend on agriculture to provide work for their people. This would affect them the most, putting most of them out of work.

There's also the simple factor that countries want to be self-sufficient in their food production.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#52

Post by cwbrandsma »

tkyjonathan wrote: post #7

"thirsty grains like rice and wheat".. Yet again no mention of animal agriculture. How much water a day does a cow need Vs wheat?

But I can raise cattle on land that wont grow wheat. I say this as someone that grew up near the Idaho Rockies. The land is incredibly rocky, seemingly barren looking, and EXTREMELY plow unfriendly. But cattle graze without a problem.

Now, as for the giant feed lots that you probably think all cattle are raised in, those are a thing. But so are open range cattle.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#53

Post by vivekd »

I don't want to minimize the concerns of groundwater loss, but I don't see it resulting in a food shortage as the article suggests. It just means we'll have to desalinate. Yes that will mean food prices go up, but they also go up in relation to other things like rising gas prices.

Preserving ground water is important, but tying it to looming food shortages seems alarmist.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#54

Post by jamesblonde »

ianai wrote: post #6

Is anywhere not facing a water shortage? Where is it "best managed" or "least bad"

Ireland. Even if we lose most of the water through rusty pipes, there's still no shortage. Ireland uses that water to be the fifth largest beef exporter in the world and the largest exporter of beef in Europe.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#56

Post by jwatte »

searine wrote: post #39
fulafel wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And more widely, much more crops are used as animal feed vs human consumption. We have no food shortage, just a high demand for luxury (meat) foods that competes with basic sustenance.

The solution in a first world economy is not to limit options. That is just regression. The solution is to make the industrial system sustainable. If there was a power crisis, you wouldn't make everyone use pocket calculators instead of computers, you'd figure out how power generation alternatives.

Actually, conservation is likely much lower hanging fruit than new generation -- both for water and energy. It's just that the American market somehow thinks "conservation" equals "limiting and red tape" when it really means "making sure you can keep producing/consuming."

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#57

Post by saurik »

ehnto wrote: post #9
stretchwithme wrote: post #8

When people use a resource, they should pay more than just the cost of extracting it. They should also pay for its underlying value, which bears some relation to the price you would pay if the resource were no longer available. Such prices would signal to users the actual scarcity of the resource, giving them incentive to reduce waste and find alternatives. It would also spur development of desalination and other tec…

I don't disagree, but it is still a scary prospect. Humans need water. We don't need gas, or oil, heck we can even survive without electricity. We can make do. But we die without water, and it is worrying to imagine a scenario where some people can no longer afford water because the price went up due to any number of factors. The price of a resource fluctuates for reasons not always related to the actual resources in…

The way I interpret that problem is that the pricing model itself is broken: it should be set up such at the cost of water increases the more water you use; if you are using a family's worth of water for drinking and cooking and showering, then you pay low rates, but if you are using an estate's worth of water then instead of just paying linearly more you should be forced to pay staggeringly more.

Another way to model this which some people will prefer and others will think is worse is that you just charge the correct/high rate for water at all scales but then hand people cash to subsidize their expected requirement for water, which they could choose to spend on water or which they could spend on something else, which maintains incentives to use less than the expected amount of water but which also doesn't cause weird effects in the market itself where people start trying to sell each other water from their different rate brackets.

(edit: Actually, I guess this is sort of how California has been trying to deal with this, with penalties to larger users... but in practice these penalties are of course being given to the people already not using much water and are not being levied against the richer people who are using tons of water :/. Here is an article about this from the New York Times, "In California, Stingy Water Users Are Fined in Drought, While the Rich Soak".)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/22/us/stingy-water-users-in-f...

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#58

Post by jcfrei »

hyperbovine wrote: post #36
jseliger wrote: post #20

It is surprising to not see desalinization mentioned, here or in the article. Consider https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the... or https://www.technologyreview.com/s/534996/megascale-desalina... . I have no special knowledge of desalinization apart from a distant relative who has worked on such projects, but the absence of it in the discussion is notable given its recent prominence.

Desal can potentially alleviate drought in urban environments -- at a steep energy and environmental cost -- but is simply not in the running for producing food at a large scale. For example, ag in California alone consumes ~30 million acre-feet (MAF) a year [1]. The total installed desal capacity worldwide is around 35 MAF/yr [2]. [1] http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=1108 [2] https://www.researchgate.…

Desalination seems perfectly capable of creating enough fresh water for agriculture. Desal requires plenty of electricity but with a big investment into new nuclear power plants these demands could be easily met. Switching to irrigation with desal water will come at a cost but I don't think it will be dramatic in the developed world.

Re: As Groundwater Dwindles, a Food Shock Looms

#60

Post by Hydraulix989 »

stuckagain wrote: post #48
delbel wrote: post #46

Unlikely a problem given the discovery of a largest fresh water bodies ever known was just discovered: http://inhabitat.com/scientists-discover-freshwater-reserves...

_More_ fossil water may not be the solution we seek.

Explain?
Post reply on HN