4 ms·
While the effect of residents is small, the usage of other sectors is, ultimately, in service of residents. People raise cattle in response to or anticipation o
by Nzen 5y ago
While the effect of residents is small, the usage of other sectors is, ultimately, in service of residents. People raise cattle in response to or anticipation of demand. Those cattle use more water than if we raised chickens or wheat for seitan. I consider it unlikely that a top down campaign to ration beef, in service of water usage, would succeed without a change in residential culture.
I am more apt to agree with Hank Green [0] that success in major social restructuring requires involvement at the individual level, too, because this encourages secondary behaviors that reinforce the restructuring. People who are voluntarily quitting hamburgers and steaks are more apt to write to their representatives or donate to NGOs that do in support of this issue, initially and to check in later on that promises are kept.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvAznN_MPWQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvAznN_MPWQ
As another example, Alec, who publishes youtube videos as _Technology Connections_, recently published a video about using his house as a thermal battery [1] so he can offset his energy use to night time, rather than running his AC at peak hours. He suggests that utilities involve residents to widen this strategy, in favor of brownouts or other centralized tools for shedding load in extreme circumstances. A policy solution that did not burden individuals with brownouts, ex by overprovisioning generation, would fall back on their shoulders in the form of higher utility rates. I allege the same would be the case for adverse climate change or overallocated water usage.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9GpMWdvWI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0f9GpMWdvWI
- vkou 5y ago> While the effect of residents is small, the usage of other sectors is, ultimately, in service of residents As long as unsustainable water usage continues to be subsidized, I, as a customer, have little ability to prioritize less water intensive products. If you want consumers to make informed choices, either add the externalities to the monetary price, or enforce rationing.
- Karrot_Kream 5y agoThe sad part is the current state of water affairs is so far from this. Discounted commerical water rates (liable to change when your local representative gets a donation from industry), unclear water usage by individuals (how many folks really know how much water they use when?) of tiered pricing, shaming as a mechanism to reduce water usage, etc. It's asinine that we have such an unclear, complicated systems. No wonder even motivated individuals have such a hard time decreasing water usage.
- nohuck13 5y agoYou're taking it for granted that a market-based system isn't going to work. Why? Utah farmers get their water almost for free, while city residents pay closer to its marginal delivery cost. This isn't wise public policy choice made by 21st century philosopher-legislators, but simply the path-dependent product of an anachronistic 19th-century framework of "water rights" plus 100+ years of lobbying. It doesn't help that the state senate (like all state senates) is designed to over-represent rural areas. Second-order solutions like rationing beef might be morally laudable, I just don't think they're really in play until you address the main structural failures, which almost everyone agrees on.
- pbronez 5y agoAgree. Markets and prices are super useful tools, but they must be constructed thoughtfully and maintained rigorously. Property rights must be refactored to allow price discovery. Regulators must price in externalities by force of law. Corruption must be minimized. Above all, you need an effective government at the core. Markets are fantastic for helping large groups of people make locally optimal decisions within global constraints, but you have to be able to establish those global constraints effectively. Water rights, climate impact, employment structures, supply chain resilience… none of that stuff is inherently baked into prices, and governments won’t fix those problems unless they’re solution-focused with low levels of corruption.
- gumby 5y ago> It doesn't help that the state senate (like all state senates) is designed to over-represent rural areas. I don’t think this has been true since Reynolds v. Sims almost 60 years ago. Since then state senates have been pretty pointless (just small equivalents of the lower houses) and really should be abolished. In California, for example, it’s just a mechanism for assembly members who want to stick around beyond their term limits to have a chance at another couple of terms. As I understand the problems of term limits I probably shouldn’t complain.
- nohuck13 5y agoHuh. You're absolutely right. Learned something today :)