Re:A billion pounds of California almonds stranded at ports ...
by wutbrodo on Thursday July 07, 2022 @08:50PM
(#32021666)
I agree, desalinization is another counterargument to the carrying capacity argument. An effectively inexhaustible source of water means that the tradeoff is primarily against economic activity, which sharply cuts against doomerist claims of land that simply can't sustain 40 million people. There are environmental costs to consider, but that's also (more?) true of temperature control in the 99% of the US that's less temperate than CA's primary population centers.
Re:A billion pounds of California almonds stranded at ports ...
by throwaway5959 on Wednesday July 06, 2022 @08:31AM
(#31999853)
https://norcalwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/CAwaterus...
When I look at this pie chart, the obvious place to start cutting is the 10% going to urban use, or which LA makes up less than half.
LA needs to figure something out to not be completely reliant on other places as they continue to expand. You talk about population carrying capacity, I'd say LA has already hit it then, very naturally. Use all that wealth to make some of your own. They just like to take with their might. We saw what happened when they created the largest ecological disaster in California history diverting water. I think we need to see they are serious, and they need to put up and make big investments instead of always taking. For every gallon we give them, they should have to create a gallon of their own. It's fine and true to say almonds are wasteful, but that doesn't mean it should be LA's water.