5 ms·

> failure of natural springs this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. > land subsidence in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will

> failure of natural springs this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. > land subsidence in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. > huge profits to the companies that get to them first also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper.

mythrwy 7y ago
Aren't sea levels predicted to rise causing damage and altering coastlines? So seafloor subsidence should be great, let have more of it! (yes, I realize it likely won't be much)
- chr1 7y ago
  Unfortunately this particular method of creating seafloor subsidence won't help because we'll be moving water from under the sediment layer over it, so the sea level should stay the same. I wonder however if moving water into aquifers of deserts would help.
  - schiffern 7y ago
    Sadly the current economic incentives seem to reward removing water from aquifers. Obviously there's direct pumping, but moreso land use changes that stop groundwater infiltration: losing wetlands and forests to pavement, roofs, poorly-designed agricultural drainage, and even regularly-mowed grass which develops subsoil hardpan. Any would-be groundwater is diverted into flash flood runoff and overloaded storm sewer systems. The ultimate end to this poor land/hydrology management is desertification, where ~zero water is stored on the land and all water immediately drains off in a torrent.
  - mythrwy 7y ago
    "Subsidence" means sinking. In this case, with the fresh water below removed (thus nothing holding it up) the sediment layer between salt and fresh would sink (or subside). At least that's what happens on land. With the weight of the salt water on top, the effect may be even larger. But likely we won't be pumping out enough water to make a measurable difference so it's not a "real" suggestion.
    - chr1 7y ago
      After removing the water and using it, the water will come back into ocean so sinking (or subsiding:) of the sediment layer won't change the water level. The same water that was under the sediment layer will simply move above it. So there won't be any effect independently from the amount of pumping.
      - mythrwy 7y ago
        Ah ok, I see your point. But (and getting even more ridiculous here) the water need not necessarily be returned to the ocean. It could be used for instance to water crops inland or recharge inland aquifers that had previously been depleted.
        chr1 7y ago
        Yes, i think moving water to inland aquifers and dry lake-beds in current deserts should have a significant impact, but unfortunately i have not been able to find a study confirming or disproving this.
        foobar1962 7y ago
        Australia has huge problems with salinity, where previously dry areas were deforested and irrigated with water sourced from other areas (like the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area). Saline groundwater rises to the surface and causes the top soil to become irreversibly salty. Re-forestation would solve the problem (deep rooted plants lower the groundwater level) but because the soil is salty, nothing can or will grow there. The areas are now wastelands, good only for salt mining. I remember some research was put into developing salt-tolerant trees specifically to solve the problem, not sure how successful it was.
schiffern 7y ago
We haven't even studied what damaging side-effects could occur, yet already we're trying to talk ourselves into Drill Baby Drill. No time to understand its role in the global biogeochemical cycling of Earth... there's money to be made! This seems like transparently unwise behavior for people such as we — residents of a fragile spaceship — to engage in. >this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. Sure it can: a fresh[er]water spring venting into salt water is still a spring. These types of fresh/salt transitions are seen by divers all the time. These springs and "meetings of the waters" are often hot beds of life underwater, and shutting them down will have unknown hydrological and biological consequences. >in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. How do we know that? Just because the impact is less obvious or "more distant" doesn't mean it's less costly. >also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper. Taxes? Lower prices? Sounds like someone's not optimizing for Shareholder Value, citizen. :-\ [Un]fortunately, real businesses do. They use regulatory capture to dodge taxes or otherwise avoid contributing back to the public coffer (see the numerous stories of aquifers given away "for a song" to private companies) and they use anticompetitive monopolistic/oligopolistic practices to avoid lowering prices. These practices are economically inefficient (ie they make the society poorer overall, and by utilitarianism reduce the society's overall happiness), yet they are common. So I question your claim of automatic huge profits for governments and consumers. It could be that all the profits go to the companies, and any economic profits for third parties get cancelled out by the economic losses incurred by additional income inequality. Not all profit is profitable. If I give an extra dollar to the local warlord, have I made the society richer? Happier? Free-er? Does it make any difference if the local warlord calls itself "Nestle?" (actually that's not quite fair: Nestle has a body count most warlords would give their left arm for, but that's a separate issue)
- nightwing 7y ago
  If we do not talk about usefulness of a resource how would we know if it is worth to study what happens when it is removed? > Taxes? Lower prices? Sounds like someone's not optimizing for the almighty Shareholder Value, citizen Sure, sometimes people in governments take money and create anti-competitive regulations, but don't you agree that in such cases the problem is not "our desire to exploit resources" but the corrupt government. Even with that companies still pay lots of taxes, and there is often competition lowering the prices. Particularly in this case they have to make the price cheaper than the other methods of getting water. > If I give an extra dollar to the local warlord, have I made the society richer? Happier? Free-er? Does it make any difference if the local warlord calls itself "Nestle?" Do you argue against all taxes? As far as i can understand your arguments would apply equally against any human endeavor other than suicide. Whatever we do is going to change the environment somehow, of course the attitude of "dig up everything" is stupid, but "do not touch anything, it will have unknown consequences" is not better.

mythrwy 7y ago

Aren't sea levels predicted to rise causing damage and altering coastlines? So seafloor subsidence should be great, let have more of it! (yes, I realize it likely won't be much)

chr1 7y ago
Unfortunately this particular method of creating seafloor subsidence won't help because we'll be moving water from under the sediment layer over it, so the sea level should stay the same. I wonder however if moving water into aquifers of deserts would help.
- schiffern 7y ago
  Sadly the current economic incentives seem to reward removing water from aquifers. Obviously there's direct pumping, but moreso land use changes that stop groundwater infiltration: losing wetlands and forests to pavement, roofs, poorly-designed agricultural drainage, and even regularly-mowed grass which develops subsoil hardpan. Any would-be groundwater is diverted into flash flood runoff and overloaded storm sewer systems. The ultimate end to this poor land/hydrology management is desertification, where ~zero water is stored on the land and all water immediately drains off in a torrent.
- mythrwy 7y ago
  "Subsidence" means sinking. In this case, with the fresh water below removed (thus nothing holding it up) the sediment layer between salt and fresh would sink (or subside). At least that's what happens on land. With the weight of the salt water on top, the effect may be even larger. But likely we won't be pumping out enough water to make a measurable difference so it's not a "real" suggestion.
  - chr1 7y ago
    After removing the water and using it, the water will come back into ocean so sinking (or subsiding:) of the sediment layer won't change the water level. The same water that was under the sediment layer will simply move above it. So there won't be any effect independently from the amount of pumping.
    - mythrwy 7y ago
      Ah ok, I see your point. But (and getting even more ridiculous here) the water need not necessarily be returned to the ocean. It could be used for instance to water crops inland or recharge inland aquifers that had previously been depleted.
      - chr1 7y ago
        Yes, i think moving water to inland aquifers and dry lake-beds in current deserts should have a significant impact, but unfortunately i have not been able to find a study confirming or disproving this.
        foobar1962 7y ago
        Australia has huge problems with salinity, where previously dry areas were deforested and irrigated with water sourced from other areas (like the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area). Saline groundwater rises to the surface and causes the top soil to become irreversibly salty. Re-forestation would solve the problem (deep rooted plants lower the groundwater level) but because the soil is salty, nothing can or will grow there. The areas are now wastelands, good only for salt mining. I remember some research was put into developing salt-tolerant trees specifically to solve the problem, not sure how successful it was.

schiffern 7y ago

We haven't even studied what damaging side-effects could occur, yet already we're trying to talk ourselves into Drill Baby Drill. No time to understand its role in the global biogeochemical cycling of Earth... there's money to be made! This seems like transparently unwise behavior for people such as we — residents of a fragile spaceship — to engage in. >this can't happen if aquifer is already under the sea. Sure it can: a fresh[er]water spring venting into salt water is still a spring. These types of fresh/salt transitions are seen by divers all the time. These springs and "meetings of the waters" are often hot beds of life underwater, and shutting them down will have unknown hydrological and biological consequences. >in this case it will be seafloor subsidence, which will have much smaller impact than land subsidence has. How do we know that? Just because the impact is less obvious or "more distant" doesn't mean it's less costly. >also huge profits for the governments taxing these companies, and for people buying the resource cheaper. Taxes? Lower prices? Sounds like someone's not optimizing for Shareholder Value, citizen. :-\ [Un]fortunately, real businesses do. They use regulatory capture to dodge taxes or otherwise avoid contributing back to the public coffer (see the numerous stories of aquifers given away "for a song" to private companies) and they use anticompetitive monopolistic/oligopolistic practices to avoid lowering prices. These practices are economically inefficient (ie they make the society poorer overall, and by utilitarianism reduce the society's overall happiness), yet they are common. So I question your claim of automatic huge profits for governments and consumers. It could be that all the profits go to the companies, and any economic profits for third parties get cancelled out by the economic losses incurred by additional income inequality. Not all profit is profitable. If I give an extra dollar to the local warlord, have I made the society richer? Happier? Free-er? Does it make any difference if the local warlord calls itself "Nestle?" (actually that's not quite fair: Nestle has a body count most warlords would give their left arm for, but that's a separate issue)

nightwing 7y ago
If we do not talk about usefulness of a resource how would we know if it is worth to study what happens when it is removed? > Taxes? Lower prices? Sounds like someone's not optimizing for the almighty Shareholder Value, citizen Sure, sometimes people in governments take money and create anti-competitive regulations, but don't you agree that in such cases the problem is not "our desire to exploit resources" but the corrupt government. Even with that companies still pay lots of taxes, and there is often competition lowering the prices. Particularly in this case they have to make the price cheaper than the other methods of getting water. > If I give an extra dollar to the local warlord, have I made the society richer? Happier? Free-er? Does it make any difference if the local warlord calls itself "Nestle?" Do you argue against all taxes? As far as i can understand your arguments would apply equally against any human endeavor other than suicide. Whatever we do is going to change the environment somehow, of course the attitude of "dig up everything" is stupid, but "do not touch anything, it will have unknown consequences" is not better.