|
computer parts posted:So, become a Raiders fan.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
FilthyImp posted:C'mon man. We're not animals. Also chaps are more of a thing on the other side of the bay.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:21
|
|
|
Also all chaps are assless, there's no need to say "assless chaps." Chaps are leg coverings.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:Some researchers ran models predicting what would happen to California if the drought continued and the results were that it'd be bad of course but it wouldn't turn California into a wasteland or anything. I don't know anything about their models they ran, though. Well this could simply be a momentary blip, or it could be the end of a century of an abnormally wet California. Either way I doubt California is going to descend into Mad Max on fire. At the very worst you'll see a population exodus to wetter climates in the US, and at best we'll finally realize that as a state we need to undertake major steps to find more reliable sources of water for the state, as well as massively ramp up conservation efforts to minimize usage. Honestly I'd prefer both: maybe it would finally lower the loving housing prices. Seriously why is anybody in California allowed to have Kentucky Blue?  Start an effort to replant with Zoysia or Buffalo and watch suburban water usage plummet.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
I don't think we'll see a population exodus. I think it's much more likely that California's agricultural sector gradually collapses under the weight of the greater voting population of urban and suburban areas voting themselves what remains of California's water supply. Agriculture is obviously very important economically, but the state's tax revenues and spending power comes from the cities and their service-based economies and that will not go away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Urban voters take the water from all of the farmers so the agriculture sector collapses. Then the Bay Area hipsters get mad they can't get their local organic produce and vote to return water to farmers. Then they get water restrictions placed on them, and vote to take the water back so they can water their lawn. Oh god, I can actually see the water tug-of-war go on forever. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I don't think we'll see a population exodus. I think it's much more likely that California's agricultural sector gradually collapses under the weight of the greater voting population of urban and suburban areas voting themselves what remains of California's water supply. Ag is much more important to CA than I think many people realize simply because if ag goes, the valley outside of Sacramento (already troubled) will collapse. That said, Ag in CA is incredibly wasteful with water because with current rates, it is cheaper to just buy the water than to minimize water use. Further, many of the big ag groups in CA have such huge allocations that they sell excess water to urban areas. Also, while urban areas have more voters, central valley farmers (the land owners) are often incredibly wealthy. This gives them a huge amount of clout.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Urban voters take the water from all of the farmers so the agriculture sector collapses. There's a way we can defeat this log-jam...kill the fish! If we stopped "wasting" water by letting it flow into the ocean unused, then imagine how many more people/crops we can grow!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Seriously why is anybody in California allowed to have Kentucky Blue? Oh yeah that super high suburban water demand that accounts for 10% of the total statewide demand.  SF/MF = Single/Multi Family Source: California Department of Water Resources
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Oh yeah that super high suburban water demand that accounts for 10% of the total statewide demand. FOOD GROWS WHERE WATER FLOWS END THE OBAMA-CREATED DUST BOWL
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:FOOD GROWS WHERE WATER FLOWS NO WATER NO JOBS = HIGHER FOOD COSTS Paid for by the J G Boswell Company
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
WELCOME TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA NO WATER DELIVERY ZONE STANDING UP FOR THE VALLEY AND LOS ANGELES AND SAN DIEGO* *ahahahahaha like hell those regressive right-wing landowners care about those feral urbans in LA and maybe San Diego
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:17
|
|
|
^The people plopping these signs down on the 5 should just take the 101 instead. It's nothing but solid vineyard for miles. Yeah don't get me wrong, I realize that ag accounts for more than the lion's share of water consumption. But considering the magnitude of the water shortage we may possibly be facing down in the coming years, if there are quick wins we can take, we should take them. Even if you managed managed to cut only residential water usage in half, you'd have still cut California's total water consumption by 5%, which is fairly significant. It's also much easier to accomplish than meaningful reduced consumption by the ag industry. Ag does need to cut back, but it's probably going to happen very slowly outside of drastic legislation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:18
|
|
|
Sydin posted:them. Even if you managed managed to cut only residential water usage in half, you'd have still cut California's total water consumption by 5%, which is fairly significant. It's also much easier to accomplish than meaningful reduced consumption by the ag industry. Ag does need to cut back, but it's probably going to happen very slowly outside of drastic legislation. Yes, somehow cutting the water use of every single citizen by half in order to reduce demand by 5% is indeed significant. Particularly to those holding public positions. However, of greater significance is the fact that once available water output is diminished by any appreciable amount, say 10%, that those drawing 77% of the demand will likely see a larger drop than literally every single urban area put together.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:However, of greater significance is the fact that once available water output is diminished by any appreciable amount, say 10%, that those drawing 77% of the demand will likely see a larger drop than literally every single urban area put together. That's true, but its not like farmers are just wasting water for fun like residential users literally do. Water is a big cost for farms even if they get it cheaper than cities. California has some of the most water-conserving industrial agriculture in the world but there's still room for improvement. If people are worried about making sure we grow less as our water supply shrinks, I don't think you have to worry, the lack of water will do that for you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That's true, but its not like farmers are just wasting water for fun like residential users literally do. Water is a big cost for farms even if they get it cheaper than cities. Due to the tragedy of the commons things like low water rates for business basically encouraged lots of waste and not fixing infrastructure problems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
etalian posted:Due to the tragedy of the commons things like low water rates for business basically encouraged lots of waste and not fixing infrastructure problems. Uh, that's now how the tragedy of the commons work. If you're paying for something and its yours its fundamentally not common. Water quality concerns from non-point source pollution might be a good example but we end up drinking that water anyway. Just because a farm pays less per m3 than you do doesn't mean that water isn't a large chunk of their costs. Besides, why waste water when you can resell it for a premium?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
etalian posted:Due to the tragedy of the commons things like low water rates for business basically encouraged lots of waste and not fixing infrastructure problems. Bingo. Filling up my bathtub and emptying it 5 times a day is literally a drop in the bucket compared to the water use of any agricultural site over an hour. If you left your hose running nonstop for a week it wouldn't even come within three orders of magnitude of the waste we're seeing in ag. People are just really really bad at visualizing these kinds of large numbers. Leaving your sink running while you brush your teeth? Exactly the same as a farming operation growing rice for a season instead of fruit, or using sprayers instead of drip irrigation, or declining to shade their irrigation canals. H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Uh, that's now how the tragedy of the commons work. If you're paying for something and its yours its fundamentally not common. Water quality concerns from non-point source pollution might be a good example but we end up drinking that water anyway. Water is a basic resources that serves a great world example for tragedy of the commons. You have piles of big agribusinesses who pretty much want to make the biggest profit possible and luckily don't have to worry about water conservation due to things such as the greatly reduced water rate. Even if they own they water they are still depleting things like aquifers which will take hundreds of years to refill and contribution to the desertification of the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:09
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Bingo. Actually, the answer is closer than you might like. 560 Liters is an average bathtub size. Lets round down to 500. 5 x 500 = 2,500 Liters a day. 2,500 * 365 = 912,500 liters a year. Lets pick a decently water intensive crop, Almonds. Almonds, once established, need 38 acre/inches a year. That's 3,906,000 liters a year per acre. 912,500/3,906,000 =.23 acres. Your theoretical 5 bath a day habit uses the same water as 1/4th an acre of Almonds. That quarter acre would produce 550lbs of Almonds a year, a $1,017 value. Although the farmer's profit would be more around $98 for that quarter acre after costs. etalian posted:Water is a basic resources that serves a great world example for tragedy of the commons. You obviously haven't heard about the huge new groundwater regulations that were passed this year. Also the regional water districts have quite strong powers to prevent water waste.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
I salve my guilt over wasting water in CA by going the pee in the shower route.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Actually, the answer is closer than you might like. 0.23 acres of almond farm, ie ten times the size of my apartment. Cute. Bathtub volume = 40 gallons Daily use = 200 gallons, aka 0.14 gallons/minute (what we measure water demand in) Water demand of 1 acre of almond production = 3.5 acre-feet annually = 1,137,500 gallons/year = 3116 gallons/day = 2.2 gallons/minute Paramount Farming Co., providing 6% of the state's almonds = 46,000 acres = 99,553 gallons/minute But I'm sure we're both paying the same rates per gallon and waste an equal ratio of our usage. Note: In 2013, there were 940,000 acres of almonds in California, according to the USDA. And 10% of state's water goes to almond production, a similar number to the total water demand of all single-family residential in the entire state. Huh. H.P. Hovercraft fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:0.23 acres of almond farm. Cute. Yes, I agree we grow a lot of Almonds in California. In fact, California grows 82% of the world's Almonds. Almonds are a fairly water intensive crop and that's why I choose them for this example. Your whole point was talking about how minimally impactful a completely wasteful activity (5 baths a day) was. I'm pointing out that agriculture actually produces something of value with that amount of water instead. So sure, its easy to say "reduce agricultural water usage by 5%" but there are real costs associated with that in either reduced production or infrastructure. Versus residential/business water usage reduction where it can be as simple as taking fewer baths or not watering the lawn. California has some of the most water efficient agriculture in the world. If you can find a similarly size agricultural producer with a higher uptake of drip irrigation (for example), I'd love to hear about it. This doesn't mean there isn't room to grow, but there's no other ag state where ag is regulated like California.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So sure, its easy to say "reduce agricultural water usage by 5%" but there are real costs associated with that in either reduced production or infrastructure. Versus residential/business water usage reduction where it can be as simple as taking fewer baths or not watering the lawn. Ah bloo bloo bloo the poor billionaires might hafta cut into their almond exportation profits in order to build more conserving infrastructure; why can't all of those poors just clean themselves less and eat off of paper plates
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
H.P. Hovercraft posted:Ah bloo bloo bloo the poor billionaires might hafta cut into their almond exportation profits why can't all of those poors just clean themselves less and eat off of paper plates Good one!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Yes, I agree we grow a lot of Almonds in California. In fact, California grows 82% of the world's Almonds. Almonds are a fairly water intensive crop and that's why I choose them for this example. I mean, almonds are great and all, but maybe we shouldn't be growing such a water intensive crop here? Note that I'm not saying no ag at all, just pick a crop that's more appropriate for our climate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I mean, almonds are great and all, but maybe we shouldn't be growing such a water intensive crop here? Note that I'm not saying no ag at all, just pick a crop that's more appropriate for our climate. It's also the fastest growing crop, in terms of converting farmland to it over other types of agriculture. Another good one that's grown here is rice, which is interesting when you look at how ridiculously water-intensive that is in a state with no rainfall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Family Values posted:I mean, almonds are great and all, but maybe we shouldn't be growing such a water intensive crop here? Note that I'm not saying no ag at all, just pick a crop that's more appropriate for our climate. Well, there really isn't a better place in the world to grow them. The soil of the central valley on down is amazing. Sure we could grow a less water intensive crop, but we'd just increase the acreage to meet capacity. H.P. Hovercraft posted:It's also the fastest growing crop, in terms of converting farmland to it over other types of agriculture. Likewise, we grow a lot of rice in California, but its some of the best rice in the world for water conservation and where most of the fields are located (Sac. river delta) we can't use that water for drinking anyway. Water deliveries are already heavily curtailed for farmers this year and I'm sure they'll be next year too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Well, there really isn't a better place in the world to grow them. The soil of the central valley on down is amazing. Sure we could grow a less water intensive crop, but we'd just increase the acreage to meet capacity. What capacity? Isn't the entire point that water is the limiting resource? We're already exceeding capacity.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Family Values posted:What capacity? Isn't the entire point that water is the limiting resource? We're already exceeding capacity. That capacity. I'm saying that if we taxed Almonds to force farmers to grow more Tomatoes, which use 50% of the water needed for Almonds per acre, we'd just grow 2x as many acres of Tomatoes. Water is limiting the acreage grown so farmers are right now making the decisions on how to allocate their limited water to grow as many acres as they can. Which is why the argument that farmers are just wasting water for fun is silly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:That capacity. I'm saying that if we taxed Almonds to force farmers to grow more Tomatoes, which use 50% of the water needed for Almonds per acre, we'd just grow 2x as many acres of Tomatoes. Only if demand for tomatoes was inelastic (which it's not, they're perishables).
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if demand for tomatoes was inelastic (which it's not, they're perishables). This is a major factor given how popular California nuts and raisins are in China and other places abroad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 02:05
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Only if demand for tomatoes was inelastic (which it's not, they're perishables). Well, that's the exact decision farmers are making right now. They're choosing to plant fewer acres of Tomatoes/et al to keep Almond trees alive. If they didn't need to water the Almonds the Tomato acres would be irrigated. http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/californias-thirsty-almonds/Content?oid=3830095 quote:Almonds, in short, aren't cut out for droughts. And unless the coming months bring a deluge of rain and snow to California, the almond growers of the western San Joaquin Valley could be in for a catastrophic year. On the last day of January, the state Department of Water Resources said it would cut all water deliveries from California's vast system of reservoirs and aqueducts. The Central Valley Project, which is run by the federal government and provides water to Westlands, may also eliminate water allocations this year. And since tree nuts don't respond well to groundwater in Westlands because of its high salinity levels, the water stoppage could leave the district's almond farmers high and dry. "Every barrier that a grower would never want to experience is being placed before them today," said Gayle Holman, a spokesperson for Westlands. If you shake your fist at the stupid signs on the 10, then you should be happy with the current state of affairs. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Oct 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
on the left posted:This is a major factor given how popular California nuts and raisins are in China and other places abroad. well California was always good at exporting fruits and nuts to other areas
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
etalian posted:Water is a basic resources that serves a great world example for tragedy of the commons. It's also worth noting that for some of these aquifers, if they are depleted enough, the resulting subsidence prevents them from being replenished in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
etalian posted:well California was always good at exporting fruits and nuts to other areas Grandpa is that you?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
Bizarro Watt posted:It's also worth noting that for some of these aquifers, if they are depleted enough, the resulting subsidence prevents them from being replenished in the future. That's part of the reason California passed sweeping new ground water laws this year: http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2014/09/17/what-to-know-about-californias-new-groundwater-law/ quote:The legislation signed Tuesday maintains a local approach with state oversight. It requires agencies in fast-depleting basins to draw up sustainability plans and allows for water meters and fines for monitoring and enforcement. It does not go as far as other Western states by granting state agencies the power to authorize or prohibit groundwater withdrawals, but the California Water Resources Control Board can now intervene if locals fail to act or come up with inadequate solutions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
CHOOO CHOOO MOTHER FUCKERS!!!! Here comes the crazy train!!! http://www.kcra.com/news/states-high-court-declines-appeal-of-bullet-train-case/29152120
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 06:38
|
|
|
As someone who strongly prefers his food be pre-chewed by some of our yeasty buddies, shouldn't we just focus more on high-profit viticulture? We've got the sunlight and the soil for it. Keep it classy. I can continue to pay a premium for my tomatoes and, in the off-season, buy them canned like I did everywhere else I've lived. Let's prioritize here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:03 |
|
|
Sydin posted:In any event it's not even the issue: the problem isn't that more rapes/sexual assaults are being committed at colleges per say. It's that the ones that are go through the University's disciplinary system instead of the police, and many of them are sweeping it under the rug or at worst giving the offender a slap on the wrist. That's what the legislation is aimed at - telling universities that they need to take a hard line against sexual assault and stop trying to shift the blame to the victim. If your problem is that rapes committed on college campuses are not being investigated and prosecuted by the criminal justice system how is the solution to keep it in the hands of university bureaucrats? If there were corporations whose policy was to handle allegations of rape by and against their employees in-house, rather than focusing on cooperating with police and prosecutors, people would be outraged. Why are colleges different?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 11:42
|
|