4 ms·

If only it was somehow possible to charge more for water, so that people would use less.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ehnto 7y ago
It's agriculture and industry that use the water up stream, for this particular issue. Drought in other areas not on the river can be an issue of local water management. Charging people in cities more for water for example, doesn't solve the problem. But for people in smaller, non-metro towns, drought policies are important because they often don't have external supplies.
- nshepperd 7y ago
  Yes, so charge agriculture and industry more.
  - ehnto 7y ago
    I imagine the prices would just flow on to the consumer. I would personally prefer water usage regulation, that's something we can pretty easily do since we already meter it to charge for it. If you just raise the prices, there's no guarantee it would actually lower water usage enough to help.
    - nshepperd 7y ago
      If prices flow on to the consumer, that's good. It motivates consumers to buy less water hungry alternatives and industry to find less water hungry production methods. It certainly would lower water usage.
    - mywittyname 7y ago
      > If you just raise the prices, there's no guarantee it would actually lower water usage enough to help. Sure it will. If water costs these farmers $1,000,000/gallon, they would use 0% of what they do now, since nobody would buy a $4MM avocado. That's absurd, but it does demonstrate that there is a price for water that will lower its usage. The goal should be to price water such that enough is left downstream for personal consumption. Doing so will raise prices on agricultural goods, which will decrease demand, also lowering water consumption.
shusson 7y ago
The Darling river has a water market [1] [1] https://www.mdba.gov.au/managing-water/water-markets-and-trade https://www.mdba.gov.au/managing-water/water-markets-and-tra...
- nshepperd 7y ago
  Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? Edit: Ah, looks like yes; the government was working on undoing this mistake by buying back water rights at large expense, but stopped because, errr, politics. Although it sounds to me like the real mistake here was maybe giving away rights to use water in perpetuity in the first place (which requires the government to "buy back" such rights), instead of selling non-renewable allocations by the litre (which would allow them to just raise the price depending on conditions, or auction the available water yearly etc). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everything-we-know/11037798 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everyt...
  - rstuart4133 7y ago
    > Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? No, the original design was done by CSIRO, the government scientific arm. AFAICT, is was pretty well done. The problem is entirely political. The river system is about 3000km long, and passes through 4 states. The state politicians suffer almost no repercussions by white anting the agreement or just wilfully breaking it, but often get lots of kudos from their local constituents by shoving it to the other states and the federal government. The media has done a number of exposés on farmers violating the agreement with no serious repercussions because the local state politicians - and the states run their respective police forces. It then degenerated into one state saying "if they are going to do that then we will too", aka tragedy of the commons. But, ask any politician and they will tell you it can only be fixed in a drought, when farmers all over the country are going broke and leaving the land in droves, and it's plain to every one if you want to avoid a repeat there are no other solutions bar a compromise that everyone follows. This is the first country wide drought since the one that gave rise to the original agreement. It will need to go on for a bit longer before some sensible things happen, but we live in hope. So despite how it's painted in the article, it's really an opportunity to put our house in order.
JacKTrocinskI 7y ago
I heard that most water consumption comes from farming and industry use and that personal use is only a very small percent of global water use. It seems that industries and farmers see water as a nearly free resource and have no problem drying up water supplies. The avocado industry is an example of an industry that through greed has contributed to many ecological problems.
- SN76477 7y ago
  Agriculture and farming are killing us. We produce more food that we use, and the food we consume is so processed it is killing us. I am not optimistic about man's will to change.
nickthemagicman 7y ago
So you're saying subject a fundamental basic need for human life and existence to capitalism? That's an absolutely terrifying proposition.
- jefftk 7y ago
  Do you think it's a problem that food is priced?
  - michaelscott 7y ago
    If I disagree with the price of a potato, I can buy rice. Food is price elastic in so far as I have options in what food to buy for what purpose. That said, indeed in my country and a number of others there are certain food stuffs which may not be legally taxed via VAT as they are considered necessary for daily survival. Water is completely price inelastic economically. There is no alternative to it and it is essential to the persistence of life. Should it be priced? If it requires labour or other external factors that bear cost, sure. Should its price be tweaked as an economic lever? Even if that worked (it wouldn't for something inelastic like water anyway) I would still say no. Using water's price as a disincentive can only possibly work in non-essential use cases, which doesn't seem to be the case in this Australian example.
    - nickthemagicman 7y ago
      This exactly.
    - nshepperd 7y ago
      Demand for drinking water is inelastic. That's a tiny fraction of a fraction of usage. The majority of fresh water is used for farming, as coolants, solvents, reagents in industrial processes. These uses certainly do have alternatives, whether switching to alternative crops, developing more efficient manufacturing methods, building desalination plants. If that happened there would be more water available for essential use cases like drinking.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

It's agriculture and industry that use the water up stream, for this particular issue. Drought in other areas not on the river can be an issue of local water management. Charging people in cities more for water for example, doesn't solve the problem. But for people in smaller, non-metro towns, drought policies are important because they often don't have external supplies.

nshepperd 7y ago
Yes, so charge agriculture and industry more.
- ehnto 7y ago
  I imagine the prices would just flow on to the consumer. I would personally prefer water usage regulation, that's something we can pretty easily do since we already meter it to charge for it. If you just raise the prices, there's no guarantee it would actually lower water usage enough to help.
  - nshepperd 7y ago
    If prices flow on to the consumer, that's good. It motivates consumers to buy less water hungry alternatives and industry to find less water hungry production methods. It certainly would lower water usage.
  - mywittyname 7y ago
    > If you just raise the prices, there's no guarantee it would actually lower water usage enough to help. Sure it will. If water costs these farmers $1,000,000/gallon, they would use 0% of what they do now, since nobody would buy a $4MM avocado. That's absurd, but it does demonstrate that there is a price for water that will lower its usage. The goal should be to price water such that enough is left downstream for personal consumption. Doing so will raise prices on agricultural goods, which will decrease demand, also lowering water consumption.

shusson 7y ago

The Darling river has a water market [1] [1] https://www.mdba.gov.au/managing-water/water-markets-and-trade https://www.mdba.gov.au/managing-water/water-markets-and-tra...

nshepperd 7y ago
Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? Edit: Ah, looks like yes; the government was working on undoing this mistake by buying back water rights at large expense, but stopped because, errr, politics. Although it sounds to me like the real mistake here was maybe giving away rights to use water in perpetuity in the first place (which requires the government to "buy back" such rights), instead of selling non-renewable allocations by the litre (which would allow them to just raise the price depending on conditions, or auction the available water yearly etc). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everything-we-know/11037798 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-23/water-buybacks-everyt...
- rstuart4133 7y ago
  > Nice! Perhaps the problem is that there's too much water on the market, due to the government handing out too much too cheaply? No, the original design was done by CSIRO, the government scientific arm. AFAICT, is was pretty well done. The problem is entirely political. The river system is about 3000km long, and passes through 4 states. The state politicians suffer almost no repercussions by white anting the agreement or just wilfully breaking it, but often get lots of kudos from their local constituents by shoving it to the other states and the federal government. The media has done a number of exposés on farmers violating the agreement with no serious repercussions because the local state politicians - and the states run their respective police forces. It then degenerated into one state saying "if they are going to do that then we will too", aka tragedy of the commons. But, ask any politician and they will tell you it can only be fixed in a drought, when farmers all over the country are going broke and leaving the land in droves, and it's plain to every one if you want to avoid a repeat there are no other solutions bar a compromise that everyone follows. This is the first country wide drought since the one that gave rise to the original agreement. It will need to go on for a bit longer before some sensible things happen, but we live in hope. So despite how it's painted in the article, it's really an opportunity to put our house in order.

JacKTrocinskI 7y ago

I heard that most water consumption comes from farming and industry use and that personal use is only a very small percent of global water use. It seems that industries and farmers see water as a nearly free resource and have no problem drying up water supplies. The avocado industry is an example of an industry that through greed has contributed to many ecological problems.

SN76477 7y ago
Agriculture and farming are killing us. We produce more food that we use, and the food we consume is so processed it is killing us. I am not optimistic about man's will to change.

nickthemagicman 7y ago

So you're saying subject a fundamental basic need for human life and existence to capitalism? That's an absolutely terrifying proposition.

jefftk 7y ago
Do you think it's a problem that food is priced?
- michaelscott 7y ago
  If I disagree with the price of a potato, I can buy rice. Food is price elastic in so far as I have options in what food to buy for what purpose. That said, indeed in my country and a number of others there are certain food stuffs which may not be legally taxed via VAT as they are considered necessary for daily survival. Water is completely price inelastic economically. There is no alternative to it and it is essential to the persistence of life. Should it be priced? If it requires labour or other external factors that bear cost, sure. Should its price be tweaked as an economic lever? Even if that worked (it wouldn't for something inelastic like water anyway) I would still say no. Using water's price as a disincentive can only possibly work in non-essential use cases, which doesn't seem to be the case in this Australian example.
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    This exactly.
  - nshepperd 7y ago
    Demand for drinking water is inelastic. That's a tiny fraction of a fraction of usage. The majority of fresh water is used for farming, as coolants, solvents, reagents in industrial processes. These uses certainly do have alternatives, whether switching to alternative crops, developing more efficient manufacturing methods, building desalination plants. If that happened there would be more water available for essential use cases like drinking.