One ton of Almonds require roughly 3.8 million gallons of water. One ton of Wheat, on the other hand, requires about 250,000 gallons of water.

Overall, almonds and grapes are cash crops - not food crops.

Last time I checked almonds had a lower water use per calorie than most food crops out there. That's the statistic that actually matters in my opinion.

Almonds are also more nutrient-dense than wheat.

I was curious ratios, almonds are more dense but it's not a clear win by water usage. Almonds are about 2x the calories and protein per weight, 10x niacin, 24x vitamin E, but then even or less on things like zinc or folate. TIL.

And AFAIK, people don't eat mostly almonds or wheat anyway.

I'd bet a lot of unused almond and wheat meal goes to animal feed which is far less efficient than either of the inputs.

So the end effect or almonds vs another crop is diminished anyway.

I assumed almonds mostly went to almond milk?

This almond "drink" contains very little of the actual almond meal, it's 90% water, as opposed to the actual nut of the almond.

The pulp that's left after pressing is getting fed to livestock.

What do you suppose the buyers of the grapes and almonds do with them, if you think they aren't food?

They're talking mostly about two water intensive crops; almond trees and grapevines, two crops no one needs to survive. It sucks that I have to breath that stuff all day today when they're asked to grind it up instead.

Seems like prioritizing the common good is in line with big aggro if we don't care about the independent farmers this could impact.

The state should cover the cost of grinding these unwanted plants. It's unrealistic to expect farmers to take a more expensive route to dispose of them, if they have a cheap alternative.

Highly recommend reading The Dreamt Land by Mark Arax if you'd like to learn more about this. The plants should never have been planted. Decades of unregulated groundwater pumping and effectively stolen federal water is feeding what used to be desert. There's no real plan for what happens when the water runs out (which is beginning to happen, evidently); just keep guzzling water while the going's still good.

The current model of farming in California is ultimately doomed; much of the groundwater depleted over the past century cannot be replenished as the ground has subsided and compacted itself after the water was pumped out. Basically the entire Central Valley sank by about 16 feet between 1920-1970 (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/land-subsidence-in-california/s...). Data since then is spotty because we basically stopped monitoring it.

Likewise, the state should pay for my trash pickup, and if they don't, I'll just dump it on my neighbour's lawn. It's unrealistic to expect me to take the more expensive route to dispose of my rubbish.

I believe dumping your trash in your neighbor's lawn is illegal. Burning unwanted agricultural crops apparently isn't. You could make burning the crops illegal too, which would also solve the problem, but that would probably face legislative barriers. Paying the farmers to do the right thing might be the most straight forward solution.

For basic household rubbish? Yeah, state should definitely pay for that since it's in everyone's interest. I'm not sure you'll find much opposition here.

If they’re prohibited from burning, they'll consider that cost when they’re choosing the crop to plant?

The farmers could start a GoFundMe to cover the cost of grinding it up. I'm sure a lot of people in Silicon Valley would gladly pay to keep this smoke out of the air

I think it's fairly obvious that climate change presents a tremendous threat (I assume that's what the parent is on, it's flagged so I can no longer see it), but a _billion_ is a gross overstatement. I'd recommend checking out Climate Feedback[0], a website I like to check on that is a panel of climate scientists basically reviewing claims on climate change. 99% are them reviewing climate denial, but some in there are reviewing claims overstating the impact of climate change.

[0]https://climatefeedback.org

Relatively small disruptions like a pandemic and a localized war have supply chains and food production strained. I think it's plausible that something as serious as global climate change can cause widespread economic collapse, famine, and wars. I'm not sure that climate scientists are best equipped to talk about the fragility of the global economic system.

Sometime around 20 or 25 years ago, we stopped wanting to have an amazing elevation of humanity -- instead, for some reason, a majority of the population of the West was convinced to worship poverty instead.

Twenty years ago was 2002. What exactly happened during the Bush administration to make people worship poverty in the USA? Is the aftermath of the Iraq war so large?

If we were to build new institutions in the wake... what principles would we need? How often would they change?