Re:How Growers Gamed California’s Drought
by raldi on Tuesday March 31, 2015 @09:09PM
(#9300952)
Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious.
We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing.
You can agree to agree, I guess.
Re:How Growers Gamed California’s Drought
by CalRobert on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @06:29AM
(#9302687)
You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.
Re:How Growers Gamed California’s Drought
by maxerickson on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @09:33AM
(#9303361)
What does 'the market rate' mean for all the infrastructure (I guess most of the agriculturally interesting surface water has been diverted under existing regulation)?
I don't mean that in a snide way, I just wonder what exactly you mean. Like, would it be okay under this market system for someone to purchase a large amount of the land where the water originates and construct a huge dam+reservoir? Would adjacent property owners have to go to court to redo the resolution of their competing interest in water that happens to flow across the properties?