are there any parts of california that are good for growing rice in
is there any good reason to grow rice in the US at all?
like east asia is right there
Import cost are more than just growing. Regulation of what is in the rice. The fact the US has plenty of places that grow rice super well. It is called the Southeast.
The South we give shit to culturally is great for things like rice. Super wet, fertile soil with constant rain and lots of rivers. Lot of it is flat but you can do the step style as well in different parts. And a lot is empty because fuck living there.
I thought I'd never say anything in its favour, but our agricultural political system does have the nice advantage that we can just go "don't grow rice there that's stupid", end of
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I want to complain about water and agriculture but the logical result of that would be me going vegetarian if I wanted to help on a personal level and that's annoying
0
Options
Blameless Cleric An angel made of sapphires each more flawlessly cut than the last Registered Userregular
The problem I have with that Gizmodo is ... well actually, I have several. But anyway, the major problem I have with it is that it suggests that by focusing on almonds, we're missing the bigger picture.
That's not true. The simple fact is that people cannot be bothered to inform themselves when the subject seems overwhelming and complex.
It's true that California is responsible for a lot of agriculture. No one is saying they should stop growing food! What's being suggested is that they need to take a look at what they can actually grow on a sustainable basis. There's not enough water for what they want to do. That's all it comes down to. It doesn't matter what they're currently supplying, it doesn't matter how much money they're making, the only thing that is real and true right now is that there isn't enough water, and that the agriculture industry is by far the largest culprit.
As a species, we've proven that we can totally destroy an area by doing everything we can to reap the resources in the area for the largest profit possible. We're really good at that, we know. It's not impressive any more!
What would blow my fucking mind is if, for once, we decided there was another way.
I just think it's weird to frame this as california going off, doing their own thing, dumping water on the ground
as you point out it's pretty complex?
like if we think we should use our water more sustainably, then we should all eat fewer animal products and &c &c
but ultimately california is just providing the product that the rest of us are consuming, so acting like it's not our collective problem but rather california's irresponsibility seems odd
No, it is California's problem.
No matter how many (or few) Almonds I buy it will not make a bit of difference to how much rain falls on that state.
It is 100% California's problem because they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of the drought.
right, so california residents will bear the consequences for the rest of the country's consumption
but fuck them for growing our rice?
Yes.
If we ended up depleting our fish stocks, killing off one of our biggest exports after oil, we could not go "It's your fault for wanting all this fish! You made us want all the money you'd pay!"
it's up to California not to use more water than they have.
A big part of the problem with the drought is that there are bottled water companies in California that export massive amounts of their water. It would probably help if the rest of the country stopped buying Californian water, which really isn't something they have that much control over, barring telling the companies to fuck off which we know is never going to happen.
Couldn't California just tax the fuck out of water export? Why wouldn't they already be doing that?
no idea! But y'know, everyone can help. Droughts suck, especially when your state starts burning down and the government won't do anything about it as a result
I guess what I'm reacting to is, this seems like an environmental problem to me
we all depend on this state to make us food, and they're (stupidly) obliging in a way that isn't sustainable
so the solution is to a) stop demanding those things that are unsustainable and b) for the state to switch to more sustainable crops
but it seems like this conversation is solely focused on b)
like, strip mining is shitty for the environment, west virginia should stop doing that AND we as a community need to look at our hunger for energy and devise a more sustainable solution
+3
Options
BeNarwhalThe Work Left UnfinishedRegistered Userregular
Skippy I suppose in regard to your point too (We're all to blame, ultimately)
It objectively comes down to a) Stop wasting all your water to make more money, you're gonna die / ruin the place where you live! vs b) Hey can you guys stop buying the stuff we're selling you? We can't help ourselves from killing ourselves, so you need to stop us.
But neither of those things are gonna happen, and instead some level of government will take on some massive financial burden to perform, like, an ecological bailout of the state of California, because it's all too big to fail and we all rely on it, y'know?
The problem I have with that Gizmodo is ... well actually, I have several. But anyway, the major problem I have with it is that it suggests that by focusing on almonds, we're missing the bigger picture.
That's not true. The simple fact is that people cannot be bothered to inform themselves when the subject seems overwhelming and complex.
It's true that California is responsible for a lot of agriculture. No one is saying they should stop growing food! What's being suggested is that they need to take a look at what they can actually grow on a sustainable basis. There's not enough water for what they want to do. That's all it comes down to. It doesn't matter what they're currently supplying, it doesn't matter how much money they're making, the only thing that is real and true right now is that there isn't enough water, and that the agriculture industry is by far the largest culprit.
As a species, we've proven that we can totally destroy an area by doing everything we can to reap the resources in the area for the largest profit possible. We're really good at that, we know. It's not impressive any more!
What would blow my fucking mind is if, for once, we decided there was another way.
I just think it's weird to frame this as california going off, doing their own thing, dumping water on the ground
as you point out it's pretty complex?
like if we think we should use our water more sustainably, then we should all eat fewer animal products and &c &c
but ultimately california is just providing the product that the rest of us are consuming, so acting like it's not our collective problem but rather california's irresponsibility seems odd
No, it is California's problem.
No matter how many (or few) Almonds I buy it will not make a bit of difference to how much rain falls on that state.
It is 100% California's problem because they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of the drought.
right, so california residents will bear the consequences for the rest of the country's consumption
but fuck them for growing our rice?
Yes.
If we ended up depleting our fish stocks, killing off one of our biggest exports after oil, we could not go "It's your fault for wanting all this fish! You made us want all the money you'd pay!"
it's up to California not to use more water than they have.
A big part of the problem with the drought is that there are bottled water companies in California that export massive amounts of their water. It would probably help if the rest of the country stopped buying Californian water, which really isn't something they have that much control over, barring telling the companies to fuck off which we know is never going to happen.
Couldn't California just tax the fuck out of water export? Why wouldn't they already be doing that?
water export in the form of water bottles would can only account for vanishingly little
water export in the form of diverting rivers or pipelines that they just don't have
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
I want to complain about water and agriculture but the logical result of that would be me going vegetarian if I wanted to help on a personal level and that's annoying
Can't I just eat meat and be a terrible being who feasts on suffering
+4
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's both, really. But California has a very irresponsible system of government and ag usage in exchange for the short term dolla dolla bills.
This is the point where a legitimate Federal intervention should be undertaken, though. It'd be smart to have a nationwide agriculture rebalance to deal with the new climate realities we're facing.
The problem I have with that Gizmodo is ... well actually, I have several. But anyway, the major problem I have with it is that it suggests that by focusing on almonds, we're missing the bigger picture.
That's not true. The simple fact is that people cannot be bothered to inform themselves when the subject seems overwhelming and complex.
It's true that California is responsible for a lot of agriculture. No one is saying they should stop growing food! What's being suggested is that they need to take a look at what they can actually grow on a sustainable basis. There's not enough water for what they want to do. That's all it comes down to. It doesn't matter what they're currently supplying, it doesn't matter how much money they're making, the only thing that is real and true right now is that there isn't enough water, and that the agriculture industry is by far the largest culprit.
As a species, we've proven that we can totally destroy an area by doing everything we can to reap the resources in the area for the largest profit possible. We're really good at that, we know. It's not impressive any more!
What would blow my fucking mind is if, for once, we decided there was another way.
I just think it's weird to frame this as california going off, doing their own thing, dumping water on the ground
as you point out it's pretty complex?
like if we think we should use our water more sustainably, then we should all eat fewer animal products and &c &c
but ultimately california is just providing the product that the rest of us are consuming, so acting like it's not our collective problem but rather california's irresponsibility seems odd
No, it is California's problem.
No matter how many (or few) Almonds I buy it will not make a bit of difference to how much rain falls on that state.
It is 100% California's problem because they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of the drought.
right, so california residents will bear the consequences for the rest of the country's consumption
but fuck them for growing our rice?
Yes.
If we ended up depleting our fish stocks, killing off one of our biggest exports after oil, we could not go "It's your fault for wanting all this fish! You made us want all the money you'd pay!"
it's up to California not to use more water than they have.
A big part of the problem with the drought is that there are bottled water companies in California that export massive amounts of their water. It would probably help if the rest of the country stopped buying Californian water, which really isn't something they have that much control over, barring telling the companies to fuck off which we know is never going to happen.
Couldn't California just tax the fuck out of water export? Why wouldn't they already be doing that?
no idea! But y'know, everyone can help. Droughts suck, especially when your state starts burning down and the government won't do anything about it as a result
(Does bottled water actually have a significant impact on available water next to irrigating crops, etc)?
Bottling water? Not a whole lot. But you'd be surprised at just how much water is diverted out of local systems.
And then, how much of that water is just terrible in general.
Upstate NY has a classic example of this. All the steel mills in the area used to pump all their toxic waste into the water system, so much so that an entire lake (and streams connected to it) is pretty much unusable as a water system. So we import.
The rumor is the finger lakes supply a great deal of CNY's potable water, but I'm unsure, I think we get it from PA and other states.
Then you factor in how much water crops and livestock need. If California has cattle, that's probably where I'd look at first before anything really.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I guess what I'm reacting to is, this seems like an environmental problem to me
we all depend on this state to make us food, and they're (stupidly) obliging in a way that isn't sustainable
so the solution is to a) stop demanding those things that are unsustainable and b) for the state to switch to more sustainable crops
but it seems like this conversation is solely focused on b)
like, strip mining is shitty for the environment, west virginia should stop doing that AND we as a community need to look at our hunger for energy and devise a more sustainable solution
It's far more difficult to make Joe Almondeater in New York know/care about the fact that he's desiccating California than it is to make Jane Almondgrower in California know/care about it.
Winky on
+2
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The real thing that is unforgivable is the existence of Las Vegas.
+12
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
It's both, really. But California has a very irresponsible system of government and ag usage in exchange for the short term dolla dolla bills.
This is the point where a legitimate Federal intervention should be undertaken, though. It'd be smart to have a nationwide agriculture rebalance to deal with the new climate realities we're facing.
why not just ask science to fix it for us and change nothing?
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
peak oil was always bullshit
0
Options
TL DRNot at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered Userregular
I want to complain about water and agriculture but the logical result of that would be me going vegetarian if I wanted to help on a personal level and that's annoying
Can't I just eat meat and be a terrible being who feasts on suffering
You can of course - none of us is free of blame for causing suffering.
I drove a car to work today.
The important thing is to be active and interested in incremental changes wherever possible - meatless Mondays, navy showers, carpooling, etc.
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
SKFM the secret there is that actually we put in tons of effort to make those things happen.
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
Changes in technology allowed access to already known sources of oil that were at the time uneconomical to reach or refine.
It is different from watching water which is an even easier to track resource disappearing without magically untapped reserves based on technology.
We know how to get to water everywhere basically. Some places just don't have it.
I know you are from the East so it hard for you to imagine a world without a lot of water but those in the west grew up with it.
There is a reason a large chunk of the American west was at one time described as the Great American Desert.
I guess what I'm reacting to is, this seems like an environmental problem to me
we all depend on this state to make us food, and they're (stupidly) obliging in a way that isn't sustainable
so the solution is to a) stop demanding those things that are unsustainable and b) for the state to switch to more sustainable crops
but it seems like this conversation is solely focused on b)
like, strip mining is shitty for the environment, west virginia should stop doing that AND we as a community need to look at our hunger for energy and devise a more sustainable solution
Well, kinda, but not really. Me eating correctly priced almonds is not an issue, because by definition, it is sustainable for me to eat them. The problem is entirely California's fault for refusing to properly regulate the use of water.
Now, knowing they are terrible and should feel bad might change my behavior, but honestly, as long as any given crop is a worldwide export, even a relatively large cohort of people not buying it stateside won't make too big a difference.
+2
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
SKFM the secret there is that actually we put in tons of effort to make those things happen.
Science did it. I didn't change anything. I drive my car just like I used to and the iphone in my pocket it better than the one before it, and I didn't do anything!
The problem I have with that Gizmodo is ... well actually, I have several. But anyway, the major problem I have with it is that it suggests that by focusing on almonds, we're missing the bigger picture.
That's not true. The simple fact is that people cannot be bothered to inform themselves when the subject seems overwhelming and complex.
It's true that California is responsible for a lot of agriculture. No one is saying they should stop growing food! What's being suggested is that they need to take a look at what they can actually grow on a sustainable basis. There's not enough water for what they want to do. That's all it comes down to. It doesn't matter what they're currently supplying, it doesn't matter how much money they're making, the only thing that is real and true right now is that there isn't enough water, and that the agriculture industry is by far the largest culprit.
As a species, we've proven that we can totally destroy an area by doing everything we can to reap the resources in the area for the largest profit possible. We're really good at that, we know. It's not impressive any more!
What would blow my fucking mind is if, for once, we decided there was another way.
I just think it's weird to frame this as california going off, doing their own thing, dumping water on the ground
as you point out it's pretty complex?
like if we think we should use our water more sustainably, then we should all eat fewer animal products and &c &c
but ultimately california is just providing the product that the rest of us are consuming, so acting like it's not our collective problem but rather california's irresponsibility seems odd
No, it is California's problem.
No matter how many (or few) Almonds I buy it will not make a bit of difference to how much rain falls on that state.
It is 100% California's problem because they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of the drought.
right, so california residents will bear the consequences for the rest of the country's consumption
but fuck them for growing our rice?
Yes.
If we ended up depleting our fish stocks, killing off one of our biggest exports after oil, we could not go "It's your fault for wanting all this fish! You made us want all the money you'd pay!"
it's up to California not to use more water than they have.
A big part of the problem with the drought is that there are bottled water companies in California that export massive amounts of their water. It would probably help if the rest of the country stopped buying Californian water, which really isn't something they have that much control over, barring telling the companies to fuck off which we know is never going to happen.
It's actually not a big part. Like a lot of other things the number of gallons bottled sounds very large but it is very very tiny compared to agricultural uses.
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+1
Options
TehSlothHit Or MissI Guess They Never Miss, HuhRegistered Userregular
Really we just need to start importing arctic ice -- that way it doesn't melt and raise the sea level and we make $$$
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
SKFM the secret there is that actually we put in tons of effort to make those things happen.
Science did it. I didn't change anything. I drive my car just like I used to and the iphone in my pocket it better than the one before it, and I didn't do anything!
Yeah, because we're fucking carrying this team!
Scrublords.
+2
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I remember when they were like "there won't be anymore oil" and now they pay you to take a barrel of oil because there is so much. And there were times where I was like "they can't make the iphone any nicer. It's so nice already!" but look how nice the iphone 6 is. Science will always give us everything we need without requiring us to ever put in any effort.
Changes in technology allowed access to already known sources of oil that were at the time uneconomical to reach or refine.
It is different from watching water which is an even easier to track resource disappearing without magically untapped reserves based on technology.
We know how to get to water everywhere basically. Some places just don't have it.
I know you are from the East so it hard for you to imagine a world without a lot of water but those in the west grew up with it.
There is a reason a large chunk of the American west was at one time described as the Great American Desert.
But we'll end up with like cheap desalination powered by fusion or something and then we'll have all the water. That's my prediction. Science will solve the problem and life will go on.
The problem I have with that Gizmodo is ... well actually, I have several. But anyway, the major problem I have with it is that it suggests that by focusing on almonds, we're missing the bigger picture.
That's not true. The simple fact is that people cannot be bothered to inform themselves when the subject seems overwhelming and complex.
It's true that California is responsible for a lot of agriculture. No one is saying they should stop growing food! What's being suggested is that they need to take a look at what they can actually grow on a sustainable basis. There's not enough water for what they want to do. That's all it comes down to. It doesn't matter what they're currently supplying, it doesn't matter how much money they're making, the only thing that is real and true right now is that there isn't enough water, and that the agriculture industry is by far the largest culprit.
As a species, we've proven that we can totally destroy an area by doing everything we can to reap the resources in the area for the largest profit possible. We're really good at that, we know. It's not impressive any more!
What would blow my fucking mind is if, for once, we decided there was another way.
I just think it's weird to frame this as california going off, doing their own thing, dumping water on the ground
as you point out it's pretty complex?
like if we think we should use our water more sustainably, then we should all eat fewer animal products and &c &c
but ultimately california is just providing the product that the rest of us are consuming, so acting like it's not our collective problem but rather california's irresponsibility seems odd
No, it is California's problem.
No matter how many (or few) Almonds I buy it will not make a bit of difference to how much rain falls on that state.
It is 100% California's problem because they are the ones who will suffer the consequences of the drought.
right, so california residents will bear the consequences for the rest of the country's consumption
but fuck them for growing our rice?
Yes.
If we ended up depleting our fish stocks, killing off one of our biggest exports after oil, we could not go "It's your fault for wanting all this fish! You made us want all the money you'd pay!"
it's up to California not to use more water than they have.
A big part of the problem with the drought is that there are bottled water companies in California that export massive amounts of their water. It would probably help if the rest of the country stopped buying Californian water, which really isn't something they have that much control over, barring telling the companies to fuck off which we know is never going to happen.
Couldn't California just tax the fuck out of water export? Why wouldn't they already be doing that?
Republicans
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
+1
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's both, really. But California has a very irresponsible system of government and ag usage in exchange for the short term dolla dolla bills.
This is the point where a legitimate Federal intervention should be undertaken, though. It'd be smart to have a nationwide agriculture rebalance to deal with the new climate realities we're facing.
why not just ask science to fix it for us and change nothing?
Posts
no idea! But y'know, everyone can help. Droughts suck, especially when your state starts burning down and the government won't do anything about it as a result
I'd love it if you took a look at my art and my PATREON!
we all depend on this state to make us food, and they're (stupidly) obliging in a way that isn't sustainable
so the solution is to a) stop demanding those things that are unsustainable and b) for the state to switch to more sustainable crops
but it seems like this conversation is solely focused on b)
like, strip mining is shitty for the environment, west virginia should stop doing that AND we as a community need to look at our hunger for energy and devise a more sustainable solution
It objectively comes down to a) Stop wasting all your water to make more money, you're gonna die / ruin the place where you live! vs b) Hey can you guys stop buying the stuff we're selling you? We can't help ourselves from killing ourselves, so you need to stop us.
But neither of those things are gonna happen, and instead some level of government will take on some massive financial burden to perform, like, an ecological bailout of the state of California, because it's all too big to fail and we all rely on it, y'know?
water export in the form of water bottles would can only account for vanishingly little
water export in the form of diverting rivers or pipelines that they just don't have
(On this particular issue)
There are plenty of areas in the Deep South that can grow rice just fine (and have in the past, especially in South Carolina and Louisiana).
Can't I just eat meat and be a terrible being who feasts on suffering
This is the point where a legitimate Federal intervention should be undertaken, though. It'd be smart to have a nationwide agriculture rebalance to deal with the new climate realities we're facing.
symbolic fixes can be harmful.
Bottling water? Not a whole lot. But you'd be surprised at just how much water is diverted out of local systems.
And then, how much of that water is just terrible in general.
Upstate NY has a classic example of this. All the steel mills in the area used to pump all their toxic waste into the water system, so much so that an entire lake (and streams connected to it) is pretty much unusable as a water system. So we import.
The rumor is the finger lakes supply a great deal of CNY's potable water, but I'm unsure, I think we get it from PA and other states.
Then you factor in how much water crops and livestock need. If California has cattle, that's probably where I'd look at first before anything really.
It's far more difficult to make Joe Almondeater in New York know/care about the fact that he's desiccating California than it is to make Jane Almondgrower in California know/care about it.
why not just ask science to fix it for us and change nothing?
peak oil was always bullshit
You can of course - none of us is free of blame for causing suffering.
I drove a car to work today.
The important thing is to be active and interested in incremental changes wherever possible - meatless Mondays, navy showers, carpooling, etc.
Eat Northwestern european cheeses because I don't think there are significant clean water issues over here. (Rain+alp meltwater huzzah)
Nothing to forgive. Everything that happens there stays there. Have you even seen a television?
SKFM the secret there is that actually we put in tons of effort to make those things happen.
I randomly worked at the dept of water resources in arizona for a while when I was an undergrad
hooo boy
Why is this wildman doing these things?! Someone needs to dress up in an animal suit in order to lure him out, and then capture him and put him away.
Changes in technology allowed access to already known sources of oil that were at the time uneconomical to reach or refine.
It is different from watching water which is an even easier to track resource disappearing without magically untapped reserves based on technology.
We know how to get to water everywhere basically. Some places just don't have it.
I know you are from the East so it hard for you to imagine a world without a lot of water but those in the west grew up with it.
There is a reason a large chunk of the American west was at one time described as the Great American Desert.
Well, kinda, but not really. Me eating correctly priced almonds is not an issue, because by definition, it is sustainable for me to eat them. The problem is entirely California's fault for refusing to properly regulate the use of water.
Now, knowing they are terrible and should feel bad might change my behavior, but honestly, as long as any given crop is a worldwide export, even a relatively large cohort of people not buying it stateside won't make too big a difference.
Science did it. I didn't change anything. I drive my car just like I used to and the iphone in my pocket it better than the one before it, and I didn't do anything!
I think we need to get on renewables and nuclear like whoa. Our oil and coal dependence is going to hurt us in the next 40 years.
It's actually not a big part. Like a lot of other things the number of gallons bottled sounds very large but it is very very tiny compared to agricultural uses.
you're welcome
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Yeah, because we're fucking carrying this team!
Scrublords.
when in doubt, direct human consumption doesn't match industrial scale in/outputs on most subjects
eating beef is p. bad tho in efficiency terms
But we'll end up with like cheap desalination powered by fusion or something and then we'll have all the water. That's my prediction. Science will solve the problem and life will go on.
Republicans
Antibiotic resistance
Water shortages
Greenhouse gas emissions
it is easy af to grow rice there