Water footprint of livestock varies greatly be regions. Stopping livestock may not be as high impact solution as one might think. Greenhouse emissions are another matter though. 2 articles in...
Water footprint of livestock varies greatly be regions. Stopping livestock may not be as high impact solution as one might think. Greenhouse emissions are another matter though.
Surely you realize that would by no means be the easiest change we can all make, right? I think a smarter argument would be to emphasize reducing meat portions, while increasing vegetable intake....
Surely you realize that would by no means be the easiest change we can all make, right?
I think a smarter argument would be to emphasize reducing meat portions, while increasing vegetable intake. Smaller meat portions would make it easier to buy cuts of meat that were harvested from animals, raised in an environmentally responsible way
You will never win anyone over if you tell them to stop eating meat for multiple reasons, but if you try finding middle ground to compromise on, your odds of making a difference will be vastly greater
In my mind "dramatically less" and "none" are functionally equivalent, so I'm fine with that. To be clear, I'm no vegan. I just flirt with veganism and have realized how little my life would...
In my mind "dramatically less" and "none" are functionally equivalent, so I'm fine with that.
To be clear, I'm no vegan. I just flirt with veganism and have realized how little my life would change if I ate no animal products at all. I mostly eat meat/dairy as a convenience to others.
A system where people raising high externality crops/livestock are the ones paying for those externalities should work out pretty well. People will end up switching to beans and such once they see how much beef really costs.
This could be correct; in countries where red meat is extremely expensive, diet of common folk includes more grain and vegetables ( speaking from experience ). So if you were to push the people of...
This could be correct; in countries where red meat is extremely expensive, diet of common folk includes more grain and vegetables ( speaking from experience ).
So if you were to push the people of developed nations to pay the premium, it would first disincentivize small livestock producers. If big players can't bring in supply fast enough, it might cause permanent shifts in dietary choices.
But production numbers and investment popularity must be thoroughly taken into consideration otherwise monopolisation of big companies would increase.
According to their website, the Westlands Water District (which is due east across the Diablo Range from Pajaro) It's also notable that Pajaro's current representative (at least through this...
While American farmers elsewhere have watered their crops by freely pumping the groundwater beneath their land, growers in Pajaro must pay hefty fees for irrigation water — making it one of the most expensive places to grow food in the country, if not the world. The cost: Up to $400 per acre-foot, a standard measurement equal to water covering one acre, one foot deep. The fees bring in $12 million a year, which is used to recycle, restore and conserve the region’s groundwater.
...
Experts from as far away as China and Egypt are traveling to the valley to study the system. But replicating it elsewhere could face major challenges. For one thing, “People don’t like taxes,” said Nicholas Brozovic, an agricultural economist at the University of Nebraska. “There’s nothing mysterious about that.”
...
One reason experts see Pajaro as a model: Despite the high price of water, agriculture in the region is thriving. It is the headquarters of major brands, including Driscoll’s, the world’s largest berry supplier, and Martinelli’s, which grows most of the apples for its sparkling cider in the Pajaro Valley.
Soren Bjorn, a senior executive at Driscoll’s who in January will become the chief executive, said in an interview that he “absolutely” sees the region as a model of water pricing that could be replicated in water-stressed regions from Texas to Portugal. “Water can’t be free anywhere, because you can’t run a sustainable water supply without pricing it,” he said. “That would apply to the globe."
...
“There’s a big public-policy argument for pricing groundwater,” Mr. Preonas said. “But if you were to try something this across the country, it would mean farmers would shift away from growing crops like corn, or leave agriculture altogether. Any way you cut it, it would likely raise food prices. But the alternative is running out of water.”
A New York Times investigation this year found that many of the aquifers that supply 90 percent of the nation’s drinking-water systems are being severely depleted by a combination of climate change and overpumping by farmers, industrial users, cities and others.
For many of the nation’s farming regions, the day of reckoning with the loss of groundwater is fast approaching. In the Pajaro Valley, it came 40 years ago.
With its loamy, sandy soil and cool nighttime breezes, the Monterey coast is an ideal climate for strawberries. But in the 1980s, disaster struck. Growers over pumped the coastal groundwater, allowing saltwater from the Pacific Ocean to seep in below their fields, up through the roots of the berry crop.
...
In the central California valley’s Westlands water district, where many farmers fought the groundwater-management law, the board of directors will soon vote on a plans that would allow growers to pay for credits to use groundwater above a certain allocation. They could buy and sell the credits, starting at about $200 a credit. A handful of other water districts in California are implementing similar measures.
Many farmers worry about the beginning of such a trend.
“The concern is that any kind of pricing scheme or market based mechanism that tries to manage or distribute this resource is likely to privilege a certain kind of producer — a multinational corporation — at the expense of small-scale independent farmers,” said Jordan Treakle, program coordinator for the National Family Farm Coalition.
And in some parts of the country, pricing groundwater could spell an end to current crops altogether. For example, some experts said that could be the case for producers of Texas cotton, a commodity crop that relies almost entirely on groundwater from the depleting Ogallala aquifer.
Mr. Bjorn of Driscoll’s said Americans should be ready to face just that outcome.
“We can’t get away with producing something for which the resources do not exist,” he said. “We would be fooling ourselves to keep growing low-value crops in places in the desert.”
“Overcoming the hump of the politics is the hardest part,” Mr. Bjorn said. “After that it’s just managing the resource.”
According to their website, the Westlands Water District (which is due east across the Diablo Range from Pajaro)
is the largest agricultural water district in the United States, made up of more than 1,000 square miles of prime farmland in western Fresno and Kings Counties. Westlands has federal contracts to provide water to 700 family-owned farms that average 875 acres in size.
It's also notable that Pajaro's current representative (at least through this weekend) is Kevin McCarthy.
I didn't realize farms weren't paying for water, it explains a lot of the waste. I'm sure it costs considerably less to buy water sprayers than to set up something like drip irrigation, so if...
I didn't realize farms weren't paying for water, it explains a lot of the waste. I'm sure it costs considerably less to buy water sprayers than to set up something like drip irrigation, so if course a business person is going to do the logical thing and buy the lowest cost decent irrigation system.
Obviously going with an instant switch would put a lot of farmers out of business.
plans that would allow growers to pay for credits to use groundwater above a certain allocation.
This is probably the best way to handle it, along with some kind of subsidy for new irrigation systems and the training to use them.
I'm of a few different minds on this issue that I just learned about this morning (I knew about depleting aquifers but not much beyond that). I agree with the idea that credits would likely favor...
I'm of a few different minds on this issue that I just learned about this morning (I knew about depleting aquifers but not much beyond that).
I agree with the idea that credits would likely favor large corporations. I think there are a lot of little guys doing great things and I would hate for them to shut down. That said, in the article, Driscoll's comes off really well and I have to imagine they're the biggest guys around (although I also have to wonder if there's more to it...).
I think that credits also sound like they could be a misleading way to disguise the push against implementing taxes on water use as a grassroots movement.
...I guess that when I just expressed opposite opinions about the credits, it shows that I have no idea what I'm talking about and my opinions boil down to "they need to consider this carefully and I have no direct play in this so my opinions don't matter."
I think it's important to not suck our aquifers dry in order to prevent sinkholes/ground settling and any other issues that don't directly relate to farming. yes, this is a very well-informed opinion.
If they want to empty the aquifers and end up using municipal water at a much higher price in the future, then part of me says fuck em, that's on them.
It also turns out that would be on everyone else through higher prices. And while I would be willing to pay higher prices for more sustainable farming and feel to a degree like we should force that on everyone, there are obviously very good arguments against that and many more factors to consider.
But the higher prices would drive the people who couldn't sustainably manage their aquifers out of business, so at least it would help the more sustainable farms. So it's got that going for it, which is good.
I guess in conclusion, if you're going to farm in a desert and can't do it sustainably, fuck you, you're not entitled to destroy the environment. I don't want the sustainable farmers going out of business, but I really hope the unsustainable farms have to shut down ASAP. But the resulting higher prices would likely lead to even worse nutrition and higher obesity rates than we already see, so there's a tough balancing act that needs to consider public health, the economy, geology, and the ecosystem.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk, feel free to disregard everything I said because I am totally uninformed on this issue. But also don't fall for astroturfing...if it is happening...and also I have no idea which side of the argument would be astroturfed...so yeah.
Notice that the credits quote said they'd pay for usage "above a certain allocation". Farming is a science, we know how much water should be needed to grow crop x in location y. I have no idea if...
I think that credits also sound like they could be a misleading way to disguise the push against implementing taxes on water use as a grassroots movement.
Notice that the credits quote said they'd pay for usage "above a certain allocation". Farming is a science, we know how much water should be needed to grow crop x in location y. I have no idea if the allocation is crop specific or not, but maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe planting orange trees during a decade long drought should be discouraged. We'd end up with less oranges, but the land is still there and could grow something else that needs less water. Now oranges are more expensive, but we have more grapes.
It also turns out that would be on everyone else through higher prices. And while I would be willing to pay higher prices for more sustainable farming and feel to a degree like we should force that on everyone, there are obviously very good arguments against that and many more factors to consider.
It's even messier than that. If the farms aren't paying for water now, that means taxes are paying for it. So yes, moving the cost the farms is less progressive and makes folks who have less money pay more, but there is that baseline allocation to use.
There aren't a ton of small farms left, but of those that are I seriously doubt they're running the family farm in Nevada.
There are a number of problems, including the risk to small farms, but if changes are not made proactively, the aquifer will deplete completely. The water currently available will disappear like...
There are a number of problems, including the risk to small farms, but if changes are not made proactively, the aquifer will deplete completely. The water currently available will disappear like the passenger pigeon. Failing to set limits and thus putting off the end of the ability to farm water intensive crops in those regions by a few years does not actually help smaller farmers in the long run.
Also, why are alfalfa and cotton currently grown where water is scarce?
The loss of smaller farmers in the US is the result of a different policy failure, but if the water depletes, no one will be able to grow, just like when fishing stocks deplete completely, no one can fish.
Or maybe stop raising livestock? Please? It seems to me to be by far the easiest change we can make that will have a high impact.
Water footprint of livestock varies greatly be regions. Stopping livestock may not be as high impact solution as one might think. Greenhouse emissions are another matter though.
2 articles in regards to this subject:
https://academic.oup.com/af/article/2/2/9/4638620?login=false
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2019WR026995
Surely you realize that would by no means be the easiest change we can all make, right?
I think a smarter argument would be to emphasize reducing meat portions, while increasing vegetable intake. Smaller meat portions would make it easier to buy cuts of meat that were harvested from animals, raised in an environmentally responsible way
You will never win anyone over if you tell them to stop eating meat for multiple reasons, but if you try finding middle ground to compromise on, your odds of making a difference will be vastly greater
In my mind "dramatically less" and "none" are functionally equivalent, so I'm fine with that.
To be clear, I'm no vegan. I just flirt with veganism and have realized how little my life would change if I ate no animal products at all. I mostly eat meat/dairy as a convenience to others.
A system where people raising high externality crops/livestock are the ones paying for those externalities should work out pretty well. People will end up switching to beans and such once they see how much beef really costs.
This could be correct; in countries where red meat is extremely expensive, diet of common folk includes more grain and vegetables ( speaking from experience ).
So if you were to push the people of developed nations to pay the premium, it would first disincentivize small livestock producers. If big players can't bring in supply fast enough, it might cause permanent shifts in dietary choices.
But production numbers and investment popularity must be thoroughly taken into consideration otherwise monopolisation of big companies would increase.
According to their website, the Westlands Water District (which is due east across the Diablo Range from Pajaro)
It's also notable that Pajaro's current representative (at least through this weekend) is Kevin McCarthy.
I didn't realize farms weren't paying for water, it explains a lot of the waste. I'm sure it costs considerably less to buy water sprayers than to set up something like drip irrigation, so if course a business person is going to do the logical thing and buy the lowest cost decent irrigation system.
Obviously going with an instant switch would put a lot of farmers out of business.
This is probably the best way to handle it, along with some kind of subsidy for new irrigation systems and the training to use them.
I'm of a few different minds on this issue that I just learned about this morning (I knew about depleting aquifers but not much beyond that).
I agree with the idea that credits would likely favor large corporations. I think there are a lot of little guys doing great things and I would hate for them to shut down. That said, in the article, Driscoll's comes off really well and I have to imagine they're the biggest guys around (although I also have to wonder if there's more to it...).
I think that credits also sound like they could be a misleading way to disguise the push against implementing taxes on water use as a grassroots movement.
...I guess that when I just expressed opposite opinions about the credits, it shows that I have no idea what I'm talking about and my opinions boil down to "they need to consider this carefully and I have no direct play in this so my opinions don't matter."
I think it's important to not suck our aquifers dry in order to prevent sinkholes/ground settling and any other issues that don't directly relate to farming. yes, this is a very well-informed opinion.
If they want to empty the aquifers and end up using municipal water at a much higher price in the future, then part of me says fuck em, that's on them.
It also turns out that would be on everyone else through higher prices. And while I would be willing to pay higher prices for more sustainable farming and feel to a degree like we should force that on everyone, there are obviously very good arguments against that and many more factors to consider.
But the higher prices would drive the people who couldn't sustainably manage their aquifers out of business, so at least it would help the more sustainable farms. So it's got that going for it, which is good.
I guess in conclusion, if you're going to farm in a desert and can't do it sustainably, fuck you, you're not entitled to destroy the environment. I don't want the sustainable farmers going out of business, but I really hope the unsustainable farms have to shut down ASAP. But the resulting higher prices would likely lead to even worse nutrition and higher obesity rates than we already see, so there's a tough balancing act that needs to consider public health, the economy, geology, and the ecosystem.
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk, feel free to disregard everything I said because I am totally uninformed on this issue. But also don't fall for astroturfing...if it is happening...and also I have no idea which side of the argument would be astroturfed...so yeah.
Notice that the credits quote said they'd pay for usage "above a certain allocation". Farming is a science, we know how much water should be needed to grow crop x in location y. I have no idea if the allocation is crop specific or not, but maybe it shouldn't be. Maybe planting orange trees during a decade long drought should be discouraged. We'd end up with less oranges, but the land is still there and could grow something else that needs less water. Now oranges are more expensive, but we have more grapes.
And then we have this mess - use it or lose it water rights. That kind of thing has got to go if we want to have any hope of actually helping the water usage cycle on a national scale.
It's even messier than that. If the farms aren't paying for water now, that means taxes are paying for it. So yes, moving the cost the farms is less progressive and makes folks who have less money pay more, but there is that baseline allocation to use.
There aren't a ton of small farms left, but of those that are I seriously doubt they're running the family farm in Nevada.
Mirror, for those hit by the paywall:
https://archive.is/4rV79
There are a number of problems, including the risk to small farms, but if changes are not made proactively, the aquifer will deplete completely. The water currently available will disappear like the passenger pigeon. Failing to set limits and thus putting off the end of the ability to farm water intensive crops in those regions by a few years does not actually help smaller farmers in the long run.
Also, why are alfalfa and cotton currently grown where water is scarce?
The loss of smaller farmers in the US is the result of a different policy failure, but if the water depletes, no one will be able to grow, just like when fishing stocks deplete completely, no one can fish.