3 ms·
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
by 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 agoI 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 agoThe 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.