4 ms·

In the case of farms that rely on fossil aquifers, there is no way to address the problem other than shutting the farm down completely. If the farm relies on

In the case of farms that rely on fossil aquifers, there is no way to address the problem other than shutting the farm down completely. If the farm relies on an unsustainable source of water, then it doesn't matter if the farm is owned by Americans or foreigners; it isn't sustainable no matter what.

Brian_K_White 4y ago
You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. If these things happen to produce a side effect that it's not profitable to use that piece of land to grow almonds or grass or whatever, so be it. You still didn't confiscate anyone's property that they ever had any valid right to in the first place in the libertarian fearmongering sense. Or you could mark the water resource as public and go ahead and confiscate the property for some reasonable market value (not a value based on selling a valuable public resource). It's not inconsistent with property rights and free markets or anything like that even if you do decide you have to plain take over something.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  > You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. Unless by regulate you mean ban, none of that will make a fossil aquifer sustainable. The best you can do is push back the date the water runs out, but the water will run out. You can't call it sustainable just because it lasts longer than your lifetime. By that standard, coal mining was "sustainable". In regions with regular rainfall where shallow wells suffice, sustainable use of groundwater is simply a matter of balancing inflow with outflow. But in regions where aquifers are deep and sealed, or were filled thousands of years ago when North America was covered in a mile of ice, you cannot use the water and balance inflows and outflows because inflows are effectively zero. The only way to balance inflows and outflows of fossil water is to ban the use of fossil water.
  - red_trumpet 4y ago
    That sounds totally plausible. Do you know in which regions have fossil aquifers, and which have aquifers with reasonable inflow? Also, I don't immediately see why depleting a fossil aquifer would be bad (as opposed to using coal or oil, which affects CO2 levels). Do I miss any side effects? If not, it might be reasonable to use fossil water as long as it is available to make a region liveable, but restrict its use for e.g. agriculture, to make the water last longer.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    "Unless by regulate you mean ban" I mean regulate, as in devise some rule. The exact details are open ended and infinite. You could make up any kind of rule that says what the water may or may not be used for, how much may be extracted per time period, require other things that will eventually lead to the creation of some other water source while this one is being consumed, etc. All kinds of things.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. If these things happen to produce a side effect that it's not profitable to use that piece of land to grow almonds or grass or whatever, so be it. You still didn't confiscate anyone's property that they ever had any valid right to in the first place in the libertarian fearmongering sense. Or you could mark the water resource as public and go ahead and confiscate the property for some reasonable market value (not a value based on selling a valuable public resource). It's not inconsistent with property rights and free markets or anything like that even if you do decide you have to plain take over something.

MichaelCollins 4y ago
> You could regulate use of the water, or tax it, etc. All kinds of things. Have some imagination. Unless by regulate you mean ban, none of that will make a fossil aquifer sustainable. The best you can do is push back the date the water runs out, but the water will run out. You can't call it sustainable just because it lasts longer than your lifetime. By that standard, coal mining was "sustainable". In regions with regular rainfall where shallow wells suffice, sustainable use of groundwater is simply a matter of balancing inflow with outflow. But in regions where aquifers are deep and sealed, or were filled thousands of years ago when North America was covered in a mile of ice, you cannot use the water and balance inflows and outflows because inflows are effectively zero. The only way to balance inflows and outflows of fossil water is to ban the use of fossil water.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  That sounds totally plausible. Do you know in which regions have fossil aquifers, and which have aquifers with reasonable inflow? Also, I don't immediately see why depleting a fossil aquifer would be bad (as opposed to using coal or oil, which affects CO2 levels). Do I miss any side effects? If not, it might be reasonable to use fossil water as long as it is available to make a region liveable, but restrict its use for e.g. agriculture, to make the water last longer.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  "Unless by regulate you mean ban" I mean regulate, as in devise some rule. The exact details are open ended and infinite. You could make up any kind of rule that says what the water may or may not be used for, how much may be extracted per time period, require other things that will eventually lead to the creation of some other water source while this one is being consumed, etc. All kinds of things.