4 ms·

Not sure what point you're making. Let's pivot. Fresh water at the moment is not a short-term renewable resource. In some places fresh water takes a long time

Not sure what point you're making. Let's pivot. Fresh water at the moment is not a short-term renewable resource. In some places fresh water takes a long time to correct when there is an input/output imbalance. So just like any non-renewable resource, particularly one vital to life and food, it should be guarded as a local and national security asset.

mastax 4y ago
Let me be more clear. The article is very focused on the "evil foreigners" angle, which is understandable. I also do not like Saudi Arabia buying up farms and exporting water. But this problem is a tiny subset of the overall problem, which is unsustainable water use. I am concerned that by focusing too much on the evil foreigners, we'll end up with a solution targeted at the evil foreigners, or exporting alfalfa, and we'll end up with the same farms growing alfalfa for cows in California or Arizona which does not solve the problem at all. What we need is to cap all water usage to sustainable levels, ideally with a cap and trade or market system which would incentivize investing in water conservation and encourage efficient land use. Given how climate change legislation has gone in the US we'll probably end up with the worst water uses being banned, and subsidies for better water uses. It's politically easier to pay people for good outcomes than to charge them for bad ones.
- ericmcer 4y ago
  I know the evil foreigners angle is associated with racism and ignorance nowadays but separate societies have different priorities and agendas right? A society should view its natural resources being sold externally as less beneficial than being used internally, unless in some kind of universally beneficial exchange. If a society doesn't exist to enrich its members then what is even the point of it?
  - supertrope 4y ago
    The United States cannot simultaneously push the benefits of free trade and block foreign investment. Reactionary laws like banning the export of crude oil ultimately drive up costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

mastax 4y ago

Let me be more clear. The article is very focused on the "evil foreigners" angle, which is understandable. I also do not like Saudi Arabia buying up farms and exporting water. But this problem is a tiny subset of the overall problem, which is unsustainable water use. I am concerned that by focusing too much on the evil foreigners, we'll end up with a solution targeted at the evil foreigners, or exporting alfalfa, and we'll end up with the same farms growing alfalfa for cows in California or Arizona which does not solve the problem at all. What we need is to cap all water usage to sustainable levels, ideally with a cap and trade or market system which would incentivize investing in water conservation and encourage efficient land use. Given how climate change legislation has gone in the US we'll probably end up with the worst water uses being banned, and subsidies for better water uses. It's politically easier to pay people for good outcomes than to charge them for bad ones.

ericmcer 4y ago
I know the evil foreigners angle is associated with racism and ignorance nowadays but separate societies have different priorities and agendas right? A society should view its natural resources being sold externally as less beneficial than being used internally, unless in some kind of universally beneficial exchange. If a society doesn't exist to enrich its members then what is even the point of it?
- supertrope 4y ago
  The United States cannot simultaneously push the benefits of free trade and block foreign investment. Reactionary laws like banning the export of crude oil ultimately drive up costs. There's no such thing as a free lunch.