3 ms·
> Water for drinking takes up a tiny fraction of uses. The argument isn't how much water is used for different purposes relative to each other in absolute term
by CaptArmchair 6y ago
> Water for drinking takes up a tiny fraction of uses.
The argument isn't how much water is used for different purposes relative to each other in absolute terms.
The argument is availability. Fresh water isn't distributed equally across the globe. That's exactly what makes it a scarce commodity.
> If this all becomes and open market, tons of wasteful crops like almonds will get wiped out way before drinking water is a noticeable expense
As long as those almonds can be exported to profitable global markets, almond producers will be able to afford pumping up water / buying up water supplies, causing water related problems locally.
- eru 6y ago> As long as those almonds can be exported to profitable global markets, almond producers will be able to afford pumping up water / buying up water supplies, causing water related problems locally. The commenter you are replying to is implying that in many places, like California, by and large almonds won't be able to be grown profitably to be sold to the global market when you take water costs into account. Access to global markets doesn't magically make everything profitable. (Often just the opposite for specific industries, because you'll also face global competition.)
- kortilla 6y ago> As long as those almonds can be exported to profitable global markets, They can’t though and that’s the point. They essentially don’t pay for the water from the Colorado river and if they paid the rate consumers are charged the cost of Almonds would 10x. Almond demand would likely fall 95% or so at that point and a lot less water would be wasted. Americans are subsidizing almonds with free (or next to free) water while we bicker over the scraps of water leftover (restaurants not automatically pouring table water in CA).