5 ms·

Maybe the Southwest should elect representatives that believe in climate change.

bikingbismuth 4y ago
Man, we are trying.
jdminhbg 4y ago
All eight Senators from CA, AZ, NV, and NM are Democrats, and I assume they "believe in climate change," although I'm not sure whether simply believing is going to make much of a difference.
- WoahNoun 4y ago
  Senators don't make local policy.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    that was a reply to the suggestion that "maybe" the area should elect senators who believe in climate change. we already have. it wasn't a suggestion that this is actually the answer.
    - erikpukinskis 4y ago
      They said representatives not senators. There are state senators who are the relevant representatives here not federal ones.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        CA and NM both have Democratic "trifectas", and it can reasonably be assumed that they are dominated by anthropogenic climate change believers. However, I would dispute your claim. The majority of the land (and thus resources) in the SW is under federal, not state control. Ergo, federal representatives play an outsize role in deciding questions central to the SW role in and sufferer of climate change.
anigbrowl 4y ago
I'm not posturing when I say there is no way people are going to be able to vote their way out of this in a sensible fashion. Not only are smart people in a minority, some of them are in the 'fuck you' bloc which is the most sizeable and quite motivated.
UkrainianJew 4y ago
Rather cause and effect. We need efficient mitigations to problems occurring right now, not gestures that would have an effect 50 years from now, if only the rest of the world followed suit.
- toomuchtodo 4y ago
  The mitigations are to stop development and water intensive agriculture, and anyone who runs on that platform won’t be elected. The problem will, painfully, solve itself when water supplies are exhausted.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Agriculture typically uses 75-80% of the water in southwestern states. Residential is around 7% (similar to losses from evaporation). Residential per-capita use has been declining for decades. Agricultural use per acre or flat or rising. Stopping development has little to do with the water issues in the SW (it might still be a good idea, but this is not the main reason why)
    - toomuchtodo 4y ago
      I agree with you regarding the ratios you mention. Importantly, the Colorado River Compact was established during an atypically wet cycle, and even with ag reductions, I’d argue no additional pressure should be placed on the watershed due to long duration droughts becoming more frequent. We might yet have to bring water from elsewhere, no further pressure should be incurred.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        The CRT was established after an atypically wet cycle, by people who were decidedly incurious about long term precipitation patterns. http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-about-the-colorado-rivers-flow-100-years-ago-in-compact-negotiations/ http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-ab... We would barely have to cut agricultural use in order to completely cover the water needs of doubling the entire population of the US southwest. Yes, surface and ground water sources are "stressed", but residential use is only going to get more and more efficient on a per-capita basis. Even though growing population creates more absolute need, in as world where agriculture is flood-irrigating fields or spray irrigating alfalfa (losing an outrageous amount to evaporation), we should start with the "easy" problems first. Pay farmers to install drip systems, for a start.
idolotry 4y ago
Maybe, and you're making more of a cynical statement than a question, but if there's a crisis then it's worth asking if the government controlling the water supply of the Southwest isn't working out at all. I believe that's the case. I'd like to try full privatization.

Man, we are trying.

All eight Senators from CA, AZ, NV, and NM are Democrats, and I assume they "believe in climate change," although I'm not sure whether simply believing is going to make much of a difference.

WoahNoun 4y ago
Senators don't make local policy.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  that was a reply to the suggestion that "maybe" the area should elect senators who believe in climate change. we already have. it wasn't a suggestion that this is actually the answer.
  - erikpukinskis 4y ago
    They said representatives not senators. There are state senators who are the relevant representatives here not federal ones.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      CA and NM both have Democratic "trifectas", and it can reasonably be assumed that they are dominated by anthropogenic climate change believers. However, I would dispute your claim. The majority of the land (and thus resources) in the SW is under federal, not state control. Ergo, federal representatives play an outsize role in deciding questions central to the SW role in and sufferer of climate change.

anigbrowl 4y ago

I'm not posturing when I say there is no way people are going to be able to vote their way out of this in a sensible fashion. Not only are smart people in a minority, some of them are in the 'fuck you' bloc which is the most sizeable and quite motivated.

UkrainianJew 4y ago

Rather cause and effect. We need efficient mitigations to problems occurring right now, not gestures that would have an effect 50 years from now, if only the rest of the world followed suit.

toomuchtodo 4y ago
The mitigations are to stop development and water intensive agriculture, and anyone who runs on that platform won’t be elected. The problem will, painfully, solve itself when water supplies are exhausted.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Agriculture typically uses 75-80% of the water in southwestern states. Residential is around 7% (similar to losses from evaporation). Residential per-capita use has been declining for decades. Agricultural use per acre or flat or rising. Stopping development has little to do with the water issues in the SW (it might still be a good idea, but this is not the main reason why)
  - toomuchtodo 4y ago
    I agree with you regarding the ratios you mention. Importantly, the Colorado River Compact was established during an atypically wet cycle, and even with ag reductions, I’d argue no additional pressure should be placed on the watershed due to long duration droughts becoming more frequent. We might yet have to bring water from elsewhere, no further pressure should be incurred.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      The CRT was established after an atypically wet cycle, by people who were decidedly incurious about long term precipitation patterns. http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-about-the-colorado-rivers-flow-100-years-ago-in-compact-negotiations/ http://www.inkstain.net/fleck/2022/01/a-lack-of-curiosity-ab... We would barely have to cut agricultural use in order to completely cover the water needs of doubling the entire population of the US southwest. Yes, surface and ground water sources are "stressed", but residential use is only going to get more and more efficient on a per-capita basis. Even though growing population creates more absolute need, in as world where agriculture is flood-irrigating fields or spray irrigating alfalfa (losing an outrageous amount to evaporation), we should start with the "easy" problems first. Pay farmers to install drip systems, for a start.

idolotry 4y ago

Maybe, and you're making more of a cynical statement than a question, but if there's a crisis then it's worth asking if the government controlling the water supply of the Southwest isn't working out at all. I believe that's the case. I'd like to try full privatization.