4 ms·

Just like we fight deforestation by planting trees maybe we should fight drought by re-watering our land. It's a massive logistical problem, to be sure, but it

by briga 5y ago

Just like we fight deforestation by planting trees maybe we should fight drought by re-watering our land. It's a massive logistical problem, to be sure, but it seems like humans already have a pretty good handle on draining water from the land. They could start by banning lawns and golf courses in the desert. No reason someone living in Phoenix needs a verdant green lawn. Maybe place some limits on unsustainable agriculture in the desert. I imagine such bans would be a tough sell in most parts but it's hard to imagine how else the land can recover.

Koshkin 5y ago
But "Muh house!" https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/default/files/files/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-04-at-11.14.12-AM-qfv3q8.png https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/default/files/files/2017/08/Sc...
- briga 5y ago
  Yeaaaaaah, if cities could stop doing that endless unsustainable sprawl thing that would be great
  - Niglodonicus 5y ago
    Yeaaaaah, if our whole society could stop doing that endless unsustainable growth thing that would be great.
    - blooalien 5y ago
      The whole "unsustainable" part is what gets me. Why is "growth" so important that we must do it to a point where it becomes unsustainable and risks literally all life everywhere on Earth becoming extinct (or at least knocked back to pre-stone age levels)?
      - Niglodonicus 5y ago
        https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
    - imtringued 5y ago
      It's only necessary because people think deposits are sacred. The problem isn't some capitalist cabal. Every single individual is responsible.
dleslie 5y ago
The lawns and golf courses are a small fraction of use compared to farming.
- briga 5y ago
  Definitely, but highly wasteful nonetheless. Easier to tell someone to stop growing their lawn than telling a farmer to stop growing their crops
  - kevinmgranger 5y ago
    Depends on the definition of easier. Telling a multitude of voters they don't get to have their Normal Rockwell painting of a life, versus telling a handful (relatively) of farmers that their water usage is now restricted? Lawmakers will choose their interpretation based off of that.
  - jedberg 5y ago
    Is it? Farming represents 3% of California's GDP, but 40% of the water. If California decided to simply sell that water to other states and then give the money to the farmers in exchange for not farming, the farmers would probably come out ahead. It's also a lot easier to enforce than making sure people don't grow lawns.
    - blooalien 5y ago
      > It's also a lot easier to enforce than making sure people don't grow lawns. It might be easier to convince people to not grow lawns if we'd do away with some of the stupid laws and ordinances that require people to have "well groomed" lawns in places where such grass is an unnatural imported occurrence. Perhaps even offer some tax breaks or other incentives to "zeroscape" or landscape their yards using native plant life suited to the climate. A yard without a lush verdant lawn need not be an ugly yard. It can still have plants and look nice without grass, if we'd "normalize" more nature/planet friendly practices instead of punishing people for not being destructive to their environment. I bring this point up because here in Utah many neighborhoods will actually fine you if you don't have a lush green lawn in your yard. (Unless of course you're rich, then somehow you magically get approval to go the zeroscape route if you so desire.)
mkhpalm 5y ago
Phoenix is a desert but it wasn't ever devoid of water like people think. Its more like a "green desert" of sorts. Its very existence is the result of the sheer amount of water naturally running through the area. Was once the alfalfla capital of the US due to the water and the number of growing seasons. The only reason it started growing so quickly is because A/C became available. Prior to that they couldn't use swamp coolers mid summer due to the monsoon season making it too humid to work. Water, power, etc, all of that was already there. A better example is someplace like Las Vegas.

by briga 5y ago

Koshkin 5y ago

But "Muh house!" https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/default/files/files/2017/08/Screen-Shot-2017-08-04-at-11.14.12-AM-qfv3q8.png https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/default/files/files/2017/08/Sc...

briga 5y ago
Yeaaaaaah, if cities could stop doing that endless unsustainable sprawl thing that would be great
- Niglodonicus 5y ago
  Yeaaaaah, if our whole society could stop doing that endless unsustainable growth thing that would be great.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    The whole "unsustainable" part is what gets me. Why is "growth" so important that we must do it to a point where it becomes unsustainable and risks literally all life everywhere on Earth becoming extinct (or at least knocked back to pre-stone age levels)?
    - Niglodonicus 5y ago
      https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
  - imtringued 5y ago
    It's only necessary because people think deposits are sacred. The problem isn't some capitalist cabal. Every single individual is responsible.

dleslie 5y ago

The lawns and golf courses are a small fraction of use compared to farming.

briga 5y ago
Definitely, but highly wasteful nonetheless. Easier to tell someone to stop growing their lawn than telling a farmer to stop growing their crops
- kevinmgranger 5y ago
  Depends on the definition of easier. Telling a multitude of voters they don't get to have their Normal Rockwell painting of a life, versus telling a handful (relatively) of farmers that their water usage is now restricted? Lawmakers will choose their interpretation based off of that.
- jedberg 5y ago
  Is it? Farming represents 3% of California's GDP, but 40% of the water. If California decided to simply sell that water to other states and then give the money to the farmers in exchange for not farming, the farmers would probably come out ahead. It's also a lot easier to enforce than making sure people don't grow lawns.
  - blooalien 5y ago
    > It's also a lot easier to enforce than making sure people don't grow lawns. It might be easier to convince people to not grow lawns if we'd do away with some of the stupid laws and ordinances that require people to have "well groomed" lawns in places where such grass is an unnatural imported occurrence. Perhaps even offer some tax breaks or other incentives to "zeroscape" or landscape their yards using native plant life suited to the climate. A yard without a lush verdant lawn need not be an ugly yard. It can still have plants and look nice without grass, if we'd "normalize" more nature/planet friendly practices instead of punishing people for not being destructive to their environment. I bring this point up because here in Utah many neighborhoods will actually fine you if you don't have a lush green lawn in your yard. (Unless of course you're rich, then somehow you magically get approval to go the zeroscape route if you so desire.)

mkhpalm 5y ago

Phoenix is a desert but it wasn't ever devoid of water like people think. Its more like a "green desert" of sorts. Its very existence is the result of the sheer amount of water naturally running through the area. Was once the alfalfla capital of the US due to the water and the number of growing seasons. The only reason it started growing so quickly is because A/C became available. Prior to that they couldn't use swamp coolers mid summer due to the monsoon season making it too humid to work. Water, power, etc, all of that was already there. A better example is someplace like Las Vegas.