California Goes Nuts(medium.com)
medium.com
California Goes Nuts
https://medium.com/mother-jones/california-goes-nuts-daa3632e5c55
15 comments
I pay comcast almost $100 a month for shitty Internet, throttled at peak times, max 20mbps one direction if I'm lucky, and I think there is even a cap on the bandwidth I can use.
I can pay Layer3 or HE $0.50 per mbps and get 200mbps to my server for the same price. The difference is that layer3 only needs to lay cables between a few dozen datacenters. Comcast needs to lay them between the data centers, and then millions of homes.
Economies of scale, etc.
I can pay Layer3 or HE $0.50 per mbps and get 200mbps to my server for the same price. The difference is that layer3 only needs to lay cables between a few dozen datacenters. Comcast needs to lay them between the data centers, and then millions of homes.
Economies of scale, etc.
>I can pay Layer3 or HE $0.50 per mbps and get 200mbps to my server for the same price.
I find this unlikely, or at the very least, exaggerated
If you buy several gigabits from he.net, you can get around $0.50 per mbps.
As of last year, for the same quantities, you are looking at about 6x that for Level3 (I assume you mean Level3, not Layer3)
Level3 is probably the most expensive major bandiwdth provider you are likely to encounter (they also have the largest network... if I was going to spend three bucks a megabit, and to be clear, I'm not, I'd spend it with Level3.) He.net is one of the cheapest, and only approaches "largest network" if you are counting IPv6 peers.
If your provider is charging you the same for both, most likely they have a he.net link for normal traffic, and then a burstable Level3 link, and they only use the latter as a backup.
(Also note, the pricing I'm talking about is only valid for the "one to five gigabits" level... bandwidth is one of those things that gets dramatically cheaper as you buy more. Dramatically.)
Also interestingly, if you want comcast in the datacenter... their pricing is closer to Level3 than it is to He.net. Even if you want to do 'paid peering' and only want to send data to/from comcast over the link. (Of course, no sane person would send traffic other than the traffic to/from comcast customers out said comcast link.)
(Of course, none of this has anything to do with your point, but someone was wrong on the internet, etc...)
I find this unlikely, or at the very least, exaggerated
If you buy several gigabits from he.net, you can get around $0.50 per mbps.
As of last year, for the same quantities, you are looking at about 6x that for Level3 (I assume you mean Level3, not Layer3)
Level3 is probably the most expensive major bandiwdth provider you are likely to encounter (they also have the largest network... if I was going to spend three bucks a megabit, and to be clear, I'm not, I'd spend it with Level3.) He.net is one of the cheapest, and only approaches "largest network" if you are counting IPv6 peers.
If your provider is charging you the same for both, most likely they have a he.net link for normal traffic, and then a burstable Level3 link, and they only use the latter as a backup.
(Also note, the pricing I'm talking about is only valid for the "one to five gigabits" level... bandwidth is one of those things that gets dramatically cheaper as you buy more. Dramatically.)
Also interestingly, if you want comcast in the datacenter... their pricing is closer to Level3 than it is to He.net. Even if you want to do 'paid peering' and only want to send data to/from comcast over the link. (Of course, no sane person would send traffic other than the traffic to/from comcast customers out said comcast link.)
(Of course, none of this has anything to do with your point, but someone was wrong on the internet, etc...)
I've bought transit for $0.50 per mbps from small providers where they made money from markups on the vm and promise of future higher quantities.
Yes, I meant level3. Also did not know Comcast had transit in datacenters? Is that global or only in US?
Yes, I meant level3. Also did not know Comcast had transit in datacenters? Is that global or only in US?
>Also did not know Comcast had transit in datacenters? Is that global or only in US?
I only have experience of the US... this was in silicon valley, in fact.
I only have experience of the US... this was in silicon valley, in fact.
yeah, if you are paying some third party, it's not really "level3" bandwidth... a big part of what makes it "brand x" bandwidth is how much they are overselling it.
That said, unless you have very serious bandwidth needs, buying from a third party like that usually works out just fine. In my experience, most people vastly overestimate how much bandwidth they are going to use.
That said, unless you have very serious bandwidth needs, buying from a third party like that usually works out just fine. In my experience, most people vastly overestimate how much bandwidth they are going to use.
My local electric coop recently ran fiber to every cow farm in this rural county and offers symmetrical gigabit for $100/month. Why can't everyone have this?
Co-mo.net
Co-mo.net
A gallon of water delivered to your toilet and a gallon of water delivered to an orchard have very different infrastructure, quality, and leakage costs. I'm not saying that water prices are reasonable, but neither is your comparison.
I never quite got what "it takes x gallons" actually means. Where does the water go? Does it get sucked up by the plant somehow? Does the plant split the water into oxygen/hydrogen and those get bound to some other atom? Does it just disappear into the ground and end up as groundwater? Does it just evaporate and rain down somewhere else? Does it end up going to a river and ending up in the ocean as saltwater?
(Actual question)
(Actual question)
This USGS website explains the various forms of water loss...
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
Assuming the farmers are irrigating efficiently then most of the water is being lost to evapotranspiration aka the plants sweating it out through their leaves. Almond trees let more water escape through their leaves than say a cactus might and that is why it takes more water to keep them healthy.
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
Assuming the farmers are irrigating efficiently then most of the water is being lost to evapotranspiration aka the plants sweating it out through their leaves. Almond trees let more water escape through their leaves than say a cactus might and that is why it takes more water to keep them healthy.
So I guess the main problem is that the rain might fall somewhere else that is not California and we now have to move that water back there because otherwise they'd run out.
I still think that water desalinization improvements should see a lot more funding... and that cross-country water pipelines from the areas that commonly flood over, to the southwestern US should be started.
Combined with wind and solar power, this can be used as a fuel source (hydrogen storage)... it's rather short sighted that such efforts haven't been made in this country starting years ago.
Combined with wind and solar power, this can be used as a fuel source (hydrogen storage)... it's rather short sighted that such efforts haven't been made in this country starting years ago.
Can they not put plastic covers like that around the trees and capture water that way? Or does that kill the tree?
[deleted]
It evaporates through the leaves of the tree, as the plant respires. One tree produces X amount of almonds/year, and requires Y amount of water to stay healthy. Y/X gives you the water-per-almond.
Most of what makes up a tree's physical substance is pulled from the air, but it still needs some nutrients from the soil and water to move those nutrients in order to survive.
Most of what makes up a tree's physical substance is pulled from the air, but it still needs some nutrients from the soil and water to move those nutrients in order to survive.
So if it evaporates, as in the parent question, what does "requires 1 gallon of water" mean? One gallon goes back in the air, right? It will presumably end up as rain? So the net loss of water is 0, or am I missing something?
Is there some loss that is permanent or slow to recover, here?
Is there some loss that is permanent or slow to recover, here?
It means that one gallon of water that could've been used elsewhere in California during the period of growth went into the clouds and is likely going to rain down a few thousand miles away.
The point of the "n gallons of water per x fruit" is saying that one certain crop is incredibly inefficient with its water consumption, and it'd be better to use it on something else. It's like saying a bloated web browser consumes 500 MB of memory/tab. Your memory isn't gone forever after you use it, but so long as you're using that browser or growing that crop, it's draining that resource away from other applications. You probably only have 8-16 GB of memory to use at once, just like a region only has N gallons of water it can use at any one time.
The point of the "n gallons of water per x fruit" is saying that one certain crop is incredibly inefficient with its water consumption, and it'd be better to use it on something else. It's like saying a bloated web browser consumes 500 MB of memory/tab. Your memory isn't gone forever after you use it, but so long as you're using that browser or growing that crop, it's draining that resource away from other applications. You probably only have 8-16 GB of memory to use at once, just like a region only has N gallons of water it can use at any one time.
That gallon of water used to water that tree right now is not available to me to shower, drink, or flush right now.
The water becomes immediately unavailable until it returns to the ground as rain somewhere or someWHEN else.
Sure, looking at the big picture the water is never actually "lost". Until you can plumb my domestic water into the clouds directly, the big picture is irrelevant. All that matters is the water that is available in a potable form for me to drink right now.
In financial systems, we might come to an arrangement that I will pay you Friday for a burger Tuesday. With water, it doesn't work like that. If I don't have water now at the time I need it, there is no use promising me water late next week.
And when it comes to a decision between me having a litre of water today for me to survive on, or saving your thousand-dollar almond tree, I will unashamedly pick me.
The water becomes immediately unavailable until it returns to the ground as rain somewhere or someWHEN else.
Sure, looking at the big picture the water is never actually "lost". Until you can plumb my domestic water into the clouds directly, the big picture is irrelevant. All that matters is the water that is available in a potable form for me to drink right now.
In financial systems, we might come to an arrangement that I will pay you Friday for a burger Tuesday. With water, it doesn't work like that. If I don't have water now at the time I need it, there is no use promising me water late next week.
And when it comes to a decision between me having a litre of water today for me to survive on, or saving your thousand-dollar almond tree, I will unashamedly pick me.
The water cycle has a net loss of 0, but only on a global scale. Water that is expired by a tree and ends up as vapour in the air does not precipitate straight out again, unless the air is already completely saturated (ie: it's already raining/snowing). That water will indeed come down again... somewhere.
In general, something needs to change for the water vapour to turn into rain, like changing altitude from passing over a mountain (reducing temperature and pressure), or the air stream combining with a colder one. Deserts tend to be flat and featureless, so there's little in the way of atmospheric change as you pass through them.
An interesting example of this is the continent of Australia - the most populated part is on a thin strip on the east coast as that's where the water and hence arable land is. But the air moves across the continent from the west - in general, the air crosses an entire continent before giving up it's water. It gives up that water because it hits the long strip of mountains slightly inland from the east coast, which changes the conditions appropriately. But until it hits those mountains, the entire overland journey is very consistent for the vapour, so it stays as vapour. There are several mechanisms at play here in dumping the water from vapour into rain - check out wikipedia, I couldn't do them all justice.
In general, something needs to change for the water vapour to turn into rain, like changing altitude from passing over a mountain (reducing temperature and pressure), or the air stream combining with a colder one. Deserts tend to be flat and featureless, so there's little in the way of atmospheric change as you pass through them.
An interesting example of this is the continent of Australia - the most populated part is on a thin strip on the east coast as that's where the water and hence arable land is. But the air moves across the continent from the west - in general, the air crosses an entire continent before giving up it's water. It gives up that water because it hits the long strip of mountains slightly inland from the east coast, which changes the conditions appropriately. But until it hits those mountains, the entire overland journey is very consistent for the vapour, so it stays as vapour. There are several mechanisms at play here in dumping the water from vapour into rain - check out wikipedia, I couldn't do them all justice.
In a localized sense, the loss is of the water that's readily available for use in that region. I suppose you could think of it as a sort of "debt," where you measure the loss in terms of energy or dollars required to restore the water at the rate it's being consumed, for instance through desalination.
I suspect it's just simpler to call it "loss of water."
Another way to think about it, is that farming has historically occurred in places where there are decent natural growing conditions: Climate, soil, and water. If you let the water go somewhere else, through evaporation and rainfall, then you might end up having to maintain growing conditions artificially by bringing the water to where there is decent climate and soil. And again, you could measure the cost of doing that as a "debt."
I suspect it's just simpler to call it "loss of water."
Another way to think about it, is that farming has historically occurred in places where there are decent natural growing conditions: Climate, soil, and water. If you let the water go somewhere else, through evaporation and rainfall, then you might end up having to maintain growing conditions artificially by bringing the water to where there is decent climate and soil. And again, you could measure the cost of doing that as a "debt."
I don't think anybody is claiming that California's drought is due to a violation of the principle of conservation of matter, however rain that falls on distant lands is surprisingly useless.
I guess the main problem is that the rain might fall somewhere else that is not California and we now have to move that water back there because otherwise they'd run out.
This would be true if they were actually getting rain, and they were using surface water, but that is not the case. They are in the middle of a drought, and they are using ground water, which replenishes very slowly.
I am going to think twice before buying nuts again...
It takes 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond! How many almonds' worth of water does it take to:
* Flush a toilet: 1.6
* Run a dishwasher: 8
* Run a garden hose for 2 min: 20
* Take 10-min shower: 25
* Do a load of laundry: 45
How much water per year does it take to (in billions of cubic meters):
* produce all of the almonds in California: 3.6
* provide water to all Los Angeles homes and businesses: 0.86
* provide water to all San Francisco homes and businesses: 0.11
It takes 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond! How many almonds' worth of water does it take to:
* Flush a toilet: 1.6
* Run a dishwasher: 8
* Run a garden hose for 2 min: 20
* Take 10-min shower: 25
* Do a load of laundry: 45
How much water per year does it take to (in billions of cubic meters):
* produce all of the almonds in California: 3.6
* provide water to all Los Angeles homes and businesses: 0.86
* provide water to all San Francisco homes and businesses: 0.11
Nope. Don't stop buying nuts. Stop buying meat & dairy:
Almonds -- 350-500 gallons; (added in an edit by popular demand, not in source)
Eggs -- 573 gallons;
Chicken -- 815 gallons;
Cheese -- 896 gallons;
Pork -- 1630 gallons;
Butter -- 2044 gallons;
Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons;
(gallons of water per pound of food)
Source:
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-Waterfoo...
And the meat & dairy industry takes up a whopping 47% of California's water.
Source (page 3 [pdf page 9]):
http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft...
I actually made an account to comment on these posts. No one else seems to be putting things into perspective. We aren't draining ourselves of water from small things like produce and nuts..
Almonds -- 350-500 gallons; (added in an edit by popular demand, not in source)
Eggs -- 573 gallons;
Chicken -- 815 gallons;
Cheese -- 896 gallons;
Pork -- 1630 gallons;
Butter -- 2044 gallons;
Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons;
(gallons of water per pound of food)
Source:
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-Waterfoo...
And the meat & dairy industry takes up a whopping 47% of California's water.
Source (page 3 [pdf page 9]):
http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft...
I actually made an account to comment on these posts. No one else seems to be putting things into perspective. We aren't draining ourselves of water from small things like produce and nuts..
Here's an idea for California : Stop trying to hog the economic output of the world. Your state can no longer support it.
California : > 3 million illegal immigrants and growing (California policies welcome it) > Continuing to cram people into the major cities (stop) > Stop producing so much water demanding products.. Let another state that has a more adequate water supply and conditions do it > Stop trying to produce 80% of the nation's agriculture. Let other states do it.
^ Solutions that put things into perspective. Why are none of them being pursued? because it attacks tax revenue and money. Money from other sources > people's comfort who live in California. All of that money ($115 billion in annual tax revenue and still in debt up to their ears and no money to fund water solution projects .. corruption, waste)
Perspective : California doesn't give a rats ass about its residents. It exists and makes policies to further grow its tax base .. consequences be dammed. Residents always put up with the idiocy. So, screw them (over and over)
California : > 3 million illegal immigrants and growing (California policies welcome it) > Continuing to cram people into the major cities (stop) > Stop producing so much water demanding products.. Let another state that has a more adequate water supply and conditions do it > Stop trying to produce 80% of the nation's agriculture. Let other states do it.
^ Solutions that put things into perspective. Why are none of them being pursued? because it attacks tax revenue and money. Money from other sources > people's comfort who live in California. All of that money ($115 billion in annual tax revenue and still in debt up to their ears and no money to fund water solution projects .. corruption, waste)
Perspective : California doesn't give a rats ass about its residents. It exists and makes policies to further grow its tax base .. consequences be dammed. Residents always put up with the idiocy. So, screw them (over and over)
[deleted]
A critical difference being you can produce meat / dairy in all sorts of climates that don't have water problems, unlike almonds that need a very specific climate. For example where I live there hasn't been a serious drought in the last 200 years, and you can easily raise chickens, cows, et al. without worrying about water.
To put things into perspective, you should mention that there are ~500 almonds/lb (just looked at a random amazon product page to determine this - probably depends on variety and quality). This is needed to compare the numbers in your post with the numbers from the article.
Stop eating rice and drinking coffee and wearing cotton!
Rice: 5000 gallons per pound.[1]
Brewed coffee: 37 gallons per cup brewed coffee. [2]
Pair of cotton Jeans: 900 - 1800 gallons [3]
[1] http://www.usriceproducers.com/files/187_Rice%20Facts.pdf
[2] http://www.ocwd.com/ConservationEducation/WaterFacts.aspx
[3] http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/how-many-gallons-...
Rice: 5000 gallons per pound.[1]
Brewed coffee: 37 gallons per cup brewed coffee. [2]
Pair of cotton Jeans: 900 - 1800 gallons [3]
[1] http://www.usriceproducers.com/files/187_Rice%20Facts.pdf
[2] http://www.ocwd.com/ConservationEducation/WaterFacts.aspx
[3] http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/how-many-gallons-...
I was going to suggest that rice and coffee are generally grown in humid areas where fresh water is not a problem, but fortunately I decided to Google first.
http://calrice.org/
Their biggest selling point is that California rice production provides wetland habitat for migrating birds.
California rice farmers may not be doing well though. http://calrice.org/blog/?id=1427805660&author=California+Ric...
Their biggest selling point is that California rice production provides wetland habitat for migrating birds.
California rice farmers may not be doing well though. http://calrice.org/blog/?id=1427805660&author=California+Ric...
I'm curious about what the proposed alternative for jeans is. I typically own three or four pairs at a time, and I wear them for at least 6 or 7 years--often much longer. I don't know whether from a water conservation perspective that's economical or not, but it's plain to me that it's a peculiar item to add to any chart that also includes rice, coffee, or almonds.
It is a peculiar item, but listed to show water is essential for many of our life necessities and conveniences. Just some context in a story, sorry, narrative, where almonds are the bad nuts du jour. Lots of everyday items require lots of water, coffee, rice, almonds, sugar, meat, etc.
Conservation is a comprehensive issue that's not going to be solved finding and singling out one bogey nut.
Conservation is a comprehensive issue that's not going to be solved finding and singling out one bogey nut.
To properly normalize, a pound of almonds requires 350-400 gallons.
This was brought up two days ago when a similar story was posted. And the conversation then seemed to conclude it's not so much about how much water almonds and cows need to grow, it's about California inefficiently allocating resources and screwing its citizens in favor of farmers.
There's a difference between a) flushing water down the toilet and b) pouring it back into the ground.
edit - clarify; Edit2 - add the following
I shouldn't have been so short or flippant. There is a difference between using water in a way that renders it basically unusable without cleaning/purifying it through energy intensive processes or massive dilution (dumping into the ocean which is still unusable without desalinization) and using water in a way that allows it to naturally return to the system through evaporation.
We talk about agricultural use of water as if that creates some sort of excuse to be wasteful. Will not running the water while brushing your teeth or shaving solve the drought? No. Is it completely wasteful and unnecessary? Yes.
I completely agree that ridiculously minor "feel good" measures like only getting a glass of water on request at restaurants will do little to nothing to show love any actual problem. I think it also hurts finding an actual solution because we feel like we're sacrificing so we've dibe our share. Sort of like driving a Prius.
Solving the water shortage problem is going to take a lot more than low-flow shower heads. But it's also going to require a lot more than eating fewer almonds. And the fact that agriculture is a big consumer of water isn't a reason or an excuse to be wasteful.
If you really want to contribute towards a healthier more sustainable planet, skip that burger and have a salad with some California avocados and sliced almonds on top.
edit - clarify; Edit2 - add the following
I shouldn't have been so short or flippant. There is a difference between using water in a way that renders it basically unusable without cleaning/purifying it through energy intensive processes or massive dilution (dumping into the ocean which is still unusable without desalinization) and using water in a way that allows it to naturally return to the system through evaporation.
We talk about agricultural use of water as if that creates some sort of excuse to be wasteful. Will not running the water while brushing your teeth or shaving solve the drought? No. Is it completely wasteful and unnecessary? Yes.
I completely agree that ridiculously minor "feel good" measures like only getting a glass of water on request at restaurants will do little to nothing to show love any actual problem. I think it also hurts finding an actual solution because we feel like we're sacrificing so we've dibe our share. Sort of like driving a Prius.
Solving the water shortage problem is going to take a lot more than low-flow shower heads. But it's also going to require a lot more than eating fewer almonds. And the fact that agriculture is a big consumer of water isn't a reason or an excuse to be wasteful.
If you really want to contribute towards a healthier more sustainable planet, skip that burger and have a salad with some California avocados and sliced almonds on top.
[deleted]
So, essentially they're targeting the least significant portion of water usage because they can do so more easily and they don't really consider this drought to be a big problem... Tax revenue from Agriculture means more. In the mean time, as the state heads towards a brick wall, they'll engage in silly water restrictions so it seems like they did something. Sounds about right for California. When something happens, use it as a reason to raise costs and taxes and do everything in your power to not solve the real issues.
Sales tax is up again too right? California really knows how to show its residents love. Tax revenue from almonds is 30x more important than the general comfort of its residents is what I gather. That's just nuts..lol
Sales tax is up again too right? California really knows how to show its residents love. Tax revenue from almonds is 30x more important than the general comfort of its residents is what I gather. That's just nuts..lol
Agriculture has more unified representation than the public. It's easier to reach and mobilise them. The public would feel more helpless in comparison.
or.. the public simply doesn't care. In that case, you get the government you deserve and California's government is absolutely nuts. Goes for the broader U.S as well. If people did care, they'd be more involved and wouldn't allow for such a group of clowns to tax them to the hill and piss it in the wind. The brightest people in the world focused on trying to get people to click on ads as their water supply dwindles and their government institutes retard level policies.
I think for many people it's not that they don't care but that they don't know what to do. When it comes to voting, you generally have a vote for a candidate/party that has to encompass all issues. The granularity might be such that you can't easily impact a specific issue.
You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever.
I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been.
It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.
You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever.
I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been.
It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.
According to the article China consumes most of them.
I used to think China needed us. Now I think they are using us up the way the US has used up 3rd-world countries for decades.
Nah, first China would have to stage protests in our major cities, then bomb us claiming they're 'liberating us' from our oppressive despots, install Chinese-friendly dictators who give Chinese businesses a monopoly on almond production, then brutally suppress all anti-Chinese dissent claiming that those of us who don't want to succumb to our new Chinese overlords are terrorists.
They'd also use us as cheap labour, and allow us to go thirsty while entire cities worth of water gets diverted by Chinese corporations for almond plantations, and then we'd slave away thirstily picking almonds for Chinese businesses to then whisk away back to China.
Oh, and the whole while there'd be drones overhead bombing us every once in awhile, probably at family functions just to remind us who's in charge. This would be justified back in China by reminding the public that we're ignorant, violent Christian heathens in the face of their enlightened Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian philosophy, who are plotting to bomb Chinese almond corporations, rape Chinese women and eventually take over China itself (American people who immigrated to China will be 'proof' of this nefarious plot, what with our American cultural buildings that are disguised as unhealthy food outlets but are really terrorist hideouts).
They'd also pay and arm our compatriots who succumb to the new order to hunt us down and kill us for objecting to our new almond-loving overlords (until they realise that they're also getting a raw deal, in which case they'd get drone'd and the cycle would repeat itself).
Then we could say the Chinese are treating us the way the US has treated other nations.
They'd also use us as cheap labour, and allow us to go thirsty while entire cities worth of water gets diverted by Chinese corporations for almond plantations, and then we'd slave away thirstily picking almonds for Chinese businesses to then whisk away back to China.
Oh, and the whole while there'd be drones overhead bombing us every once in awhile, probably at family functions just to remind us who's in charge. This would be justified back in China by reminding the public that we're ignorant, violent Christian heathens in the face of their enlightened Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian philosophy, who are plotting to bomb Chinese almond corporations, rape Chinese women and eventually take over China itself (American people who immigrated to China will be 'proof' of this nefarious plot, what with our American cultural buildings that are disguised as unhealthy food outlets but are really terrorist hideouts).
They'd also pay and arm our compatriots who succumb to the new order to hunt us down and kill us for objecting to our new almond-loving overlords (until they realise that they're also getting a raw deal, in which case they'd get drone'd and the cycle would repeat itself).
Then we could say the Chinese are treating us the way the US has treated other nations.
China sends the USA iPhones and T shirts, the USA sends them almonds and airplanes (for now). Isn't world trade great?
At this point, I don't think either country is exploiting the other, though China could do well to enforce environmental regulations (which would definitely drive up export costs).
China doesn't have enough water to grow almonds. Water shortages here make California's water shortages look insignificant.
At this point, I don't think either country is exploiting the other, though China could do well to enforce environmental regulations (which would definitely drive up export costs).
China doesn't have enough water to grow almonds. Water shortages here make California's water shortages look insignificant.
the way the US has used up 3rd-world countries for decades
They still have a long way to go before treating you that way.
They still have a long way to go before treating you that way.
* Produce a hamburger: 660
1 hamburger or 1 cow? Genuinely curious, also could you source that? Thanks!
http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-gallons-of-water...
I've seen a lot of different numbers, most of them seem to be napkin math.
I've seen a lot of different numbers, most of them seem to be napkin math.
Some of the comments made there are pretty interesting, specifically that it's not about the use of water its about the waste.
-Ground water can be at least partially recouped through wells. This would be a really interesting number to look up.
-Sewage water is wasted as it is dumped into the sea.
Anything else? Where does water leave the cycle?
-Ground water can be at least partially recouped through wells. This would be a really interesting number to look up.
-Sewage water is wasted as it is dumped into the sea.
Anything else? Where does water leave the cycle?
Meat+Dairy uses the same amount of water as agriculture. People are just using almonds as a scapegoat.
The photography in this article is gorgeous, the material is great, and the presentation is almost flawless. I continue to be impressed with the output on Medium - I wonder how they manage to get outlets like Mother Jones to grace them with such awesome content.
The images of California reservoirs remind me of images of the Aral sea in Uzbekistan which was drained during Soviet times in order to grow cotton in the middle of the Central Asian desert. Humans really are greedy and stupid.
and myopic and self-centered ..
> Not planning ahead for a foreseeable event
and
> 33.8 million people not batting an eye for over 5 years while their state runs completely dry of water
People have to face personal consequences in today's society before they wake up. Notably, that's when you hear the most yapping and observe the most activity : When something is too far gone and its too late.
> Not planning ahead for a foreseeable event
and
> 33.8 million people not batting an eye for over 5 years while their state runs completely dry of water
People have to face personal consequences in today's society before they wake up. Notably, that's when you hear the most yapping and observe the most activity : When something is too far gone and its too late.
Sounds like the state needs to let the price of water rise naturally according to its increased scarcity. That should raise the price of nuts, which will lower demand and bring water consumption back to equilibrium.
Hold the price down on a resource that has its supply drastically cut and we'll end up with scarcity.
Hold the price down on a resource that has its supply drastically cut and we'll end up with scarcity.
This is why we should be looking seriously at desalinization for both drinking and irragation water.
With proper designs, we should be able to mitigate a lot of the bad side effects while protecting more of the land based ecosystems.
With proper designs, we should be able to mitigate a lot of the bad side effects while protecting more of the land based ecosystems.
Costs a lot of money. We can always make water given enough energy, and we have enough uranium to last us a few centuries if we want to build expensive nuclear plants. But no one wants to pay the cost.
When we say: there is a shortage of X, what we really mean is that there is a shortage of cheap X, and we aren't yet ready to pay the cost for expensive X.
Like almonds, they are yummy, but if the price went up by 10 because they had to use desalinated water, we might not eat so many.
When we say: there is a shortage of X, what we really mean is that there is a shortage of cheap X, and we aren't yet ready to pay the cost for expensive X.
Like almonds, they are yummy, but if the price went up by 10 because they had to use desalinated water, we might not eat so many.
Last I recalled, California has some of the highest taxes in the U.S and has the highest Gross State product. So, where's the money going? I guess everyone is so busy working their faces off that they don't have time to ask such important questions. O'well, no Desalinization plants for you.
California Tax revenue : $115,089,654,000 (115 billion). I think this issues can get a hellavuh lot worse than it is right now before any serious action is taken. When I start seeing billion dollar steps being made to address the issue, that's when I'll consider that they take it seriously.
California Tax revenue : $115,089,654,000 (115 billion). I think this issues can get a hellavuh lot worse than it is right now before any serious action is taken. When I start seeing billion dollar steps being made to address the issue, that's when I'll consider that they take it seriously.
Exactly. No high speed train ($68 billion) for now. More desalination plants and irrigation.
That's a bit of a false choice. If you don't build the trains you are either willing to forsake future mobility, or for equal mobility you are going to have to build roads and airports of far greater total cost than $68B.
California Government here : Sorry, we need to raise sales tax to 12% to fund the desalination plants. Never let a tragedy go to waste.
We happen to have a lot of sunshine and wind... It's possible even with current tech to build plants that could basically operate on 100% renewables.
Renewables aren't free. You have to build whatever to capture them. Even desalinization plants that use of sunshine in hot middle eastern deserts are expensive.
Sure, but we definitely have the funds as a state as pointed out in an earlier comment.
If additional revenue is needed, the state has a rather healthy economy that could greatly benefit from additional water.
If additional revenue is needed, the state has a rather healthy economy that could greatly benefit from additional water.
With better screens and technology that helps the plants power themselves by recycling the energy used to suck in water - in a way, like a hybrid car regenerates power from its own motion - the typical cost of running desalination plants can dip below $2,000 an acre-foot.[1]
Oh, and you also need land for that next to the ocean.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pri...
Oh, and you also need land for that next to the ocean.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pri...
Any idea how hard it would be to genetically engineer an almond tree that could drink sea water?
Probably prohibitively difficult anytime in the forseeable future. Lots of people are spending money trying to improve, on a much more limited scale than "drink sea water", salt tolerance on a variety of crops where that is probably easier than almond trees, and that's not easy.
Makes me wonder how much electricity a 50 acre almond farm could generate from solar power, to contribute to the vast electricity requirements of desalinization.
The new billion dollar San Diego desalination plant can produce 18 billion gallons of water per year, at a cost of $1 per ~162 gallons (1/2 of one cent per gallon; or roughly $2,000 per acre foot of water, about 325,000 gallons).
From what I can find, almond growing in California consumes 1.1 trillion gallons of water per year. So it would take ~60 modern desalination plants at a cost of $1 billion each to provide water for just California's present almond growing....
The new billion dollar San Diego desalination plant can produce 18 billion gallons of water per year, at a cost of $1 per ~162 gallons (1/2 of one cent per gallon; or roughly $2,000 per acre foot of water, about 325,000 gallons).
From what I can find, almond growing in California consumes 1.1 trillion gallons of water per year. So it would take ~60 modern desalination plants at a cost of $1 billion each to provide water for just California's present almond growing....
On 50 acres you could get maybe 5MW peak power, extrapolating from the utility-scale project being built in San Benito County claiming 247MW on 2500 acres.
For reference it takes 38 megawatts of power to generate 50 million gallons of water per day from that San Diego plant.
That's 150AF. An orchard needs at most 4 feet of water per year, and let's say you can count on 1 foot of that falling from the sky. Your 50 acres of solar could therefore produce enough water every day to irrigate 50 acres of orchard for a year, or in other words if you devoted less than 1% of your land to solar power you could irrigate the rest of it with desalinated water.
Of course, California producers would never do that because they would have to put up their own money. History shows that what farmers want in the way of infrastructure gets paid for by the public (dams, aqueducts, levees, drainage, etc).
Edit: whoops that's high by almost a factor of 10x, but I'll leave it the way I originally wrote it.
Of course, California producers would never do that because they would have to put up their own money. History shows that what farmers want in the way of infrastructure gets paid for by the public (dams, aqueducts, levees, drainage, etc).
Edit: whoops that's high by almost a factor of 10x, but I'll leave it the way I originally wrote it.
As a fun thought experiment I tried thinking about this issue as if it affected my profession (software development). Imagine if electricity was going scarce. Yet prices are pretty cheap in the kWh such that I don't really notice it. I just pay my monthly bill (actually it auto-pays itself) and I go on my merry way. But what if the electricity problem was real such that at a certain point we wouldn't have any light. Would I change my profession to "do my part"? Probably not. This is why you can't expect almond farmers to stop pumping ground water. This is their livelihood. They have families to support too. They need to pay their rents and buy food and maybe have some fun from time to time. That raises the question...who is going to be first? How does the government even begin to regulate? What a mess.
To put this in another perspective; 1 gallon = 128 ounces. If you're supposed to drink 6 to 8 8oz glasses of water a day, for the same amount of water you could either remain well-hydrated for 2 to 3 days or eat a single almond.
[deleted]
meanwhile california residents are lectured about watering lawns
> [H]e’s heard ... that I’m a magazine writer looking into California’s almond boom. He demands to know what my angle is. Am I going to blame almonds for the state’s mounting water woes, like other articles have?
> When I assure him I’m after the whole story, he softens.
And yet, is not blaming almonds exactly what the author proceeds to do?
I'm not saying they aren't to blame, but this seems a bit dishonest.
> When I assure him I’m after the whole story, he softens.
And yet, is not blaming almonds exactly what the author proceeds to do?
I'm not saying they aren't to blame, but this seems a bit dishonest.
"Low in carbohydrates and high in monounsaturated fat and protein, these nuts are buoyed by a rising wave of nutritional consensus and diet fads (gluten-free, paleo, low-carb, etc.)."
Important point. The dietary fads seem to completely disregard environmental concerns and general impact on the production area.
Important point. The dietary fads seem to completely disregard environmental concerns and general impact on the production area.
The more important point is China consumption, which doesn't seem to be tied to any dietary "fad" as you call it.
I'm curious:
How do the following compare in water utilization, in typical preparation? Bonus: since we're comparing gallon of water to gallon of caloric beverage, you get to use a dimensionless quantity! Or you can be boring and call it "Gallons of water used per gallon of ____".
-Almond milk
-Peanut milk
-Soy milk
-Cow milk
How do the following compare in water utilization, in typical preparation? Bonus: since we're comparing gallon of water to gallon of caloric beverage, you get to use a dimensionless quantity! Or you can be boring and call it "Gallons of water used per gallon of ____".
-Almond milk
-Peanut milk
-Soy milk
-Cow milk
Quick googled + calculator estimates:
Cow milk seems to be around 1000 gallons per gallon. Soy milk comes in around 130 gallons per gallon. Almond milk, around 400 gallons per gallon. Peanut milk is less popular than I thought, but should come in somewhere close to soy.
Cow milk seems to be around 1000 gallons per gallon. Soy milk comes in around 130 gallons per gallon. Almond milk, around 400 gallons per gallon. Peanut milk is less popular than I thought, but should come in somewhere close to soy.
[deleted]
To put that in perspective, if you were paying $1000 per acre-foot for the water in your home, you could flush your toilet 42 times a day for a month and your bill would come to less than $5. Remember that the next time someone tells you to let it mellow.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-fa...