4 ms·

I hate to break it to you, but your "economically illiterate people" might actually understand some fundamental social and political realities that you've not y

I hate to break it to you, but your "economically illiterate people" might actually understand some fundamental social and political realities that you've not yet had the chance to reckon with. Not to mention the physical realities of water resources. Your comparison to oil pipelines is nonsense. Where to start: privatization, a global commodity market, relative scarcity, massive extractive capex.... Sure, we built oil pipelines easily in the past. How difficult has it become? Surely the capital exists. Why don't we build more? Nobody is talking about abandoning real estate. The tragedy of people like you is that you provide a half-compelling distraction. People (cities/farmers/industry) need to use less water. The longer it takes to get people to realize this, the harder it is to fix.

adam_arthur 4y ago
Why would we practice conservation when we can spend $30-50B in capex amortized over 50 years via marginally higher taxes on the populace with minimal opex to solve the problem permanently? Thats why they are economically illiterate. The obvious and more cost effective choice will win in the end, and it doesn’t involve austerity and suffering and repentance for high water use
- tony_cannistra 4y ago
  Because it wouldn't solve the problem permanently. The folks who wrote the Colorado River Compact thought they were solving the problem of dividing the river's water permanently, too. They made it worse. I don't disagree that economics are a critical part of this conversation. But I don't understand how you're making the argument that enabling more water use, not less, is cost effective. Even amortized across 50 years, $30B is more than the $0B required if we just use less water. None of this even comes anywhere near discussing the potential deleterious ecological (and economic!) impacts of draining water-rich ecosystems by piping their water elsewhere. Look to the phase-out of leaded gasoline as a great example of how externalities matter.
  - throwntoday 4y ago
    I don't think you appreciate just how much water the northern part of the continent has.
    - tony_cannistra 4y ago
      Actually, I do. I've lived there. Generally speaking, substantial alterations to hydrological regimes can cause deleterious cascading ecological effects. Just look toward the literature on the hydrological (and consequential ecological) effects of dams (necessary to divert water) for examples. One of particular interest is dams' tendency to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding events, which are characteristically necessary for much of the functioning of floodplain ecosystems such as those you're describing. Such reductions can wreak havoc on biodiversity in these regions.
      - throwntoday 4y ago
        I only meant that the region which has an abundance of water which largely goes to waste can sell their excess via pipelines to the lower 48 wherever there is a dire need.
achenatx 4y ago
water problems are actually energy problems. With cheap energy, you can clean all water from residential areas and you can pipe water in from where it is plentiful. Water is not usually created/destroyed it is moved around and contaminated.
PM_me_your_math 4y ago
Over the years, I've learned that "fundamental social and political realities" are often salesmanship driven solely by agendas. There is the reality and there is fantasy. The reality is we walk over more water (1000x) than there is in all of our rivers and lakes. Humans need water. We don't need to use less of it. We need more of it and there is plenty of it. For example, farms need water to grow food. Humans need food (and water) or we die. And water isn't going anywhere. It doesn't get destroyed. As you probably know, there is a water cycle. It falls out of the sky, bubbles up from the ground, and can be found by drilling for it, just like our most critical energy sources.

adam_arthur 4y ago

Why would we practice conservation when we can spend $30-50B in capex amortized over 50 years via marginally higher taxes on the populace with minimal opex to solve the problem permanently? Thats why they are economically illiterate. The obvious and more cost effective choice will win in the end, and it doesn’t involve austerity and suffering and repentance for high water use

tony_cannistra 4y ago
Because it wouldn't solve the problem permanently. The folks who wrote the Colorado River Compact thought they were solving the problem of dividing the river's water permanently, too. They made it worse. I don't disagree that economics are a critical part of this conversation. But I don't understand how you're making the argument that enabling more water use, not less, is cost effective. Even amortized across 50 years, $30B is more than the $0B required if we just use less water. None of this even comes anywhere near discussing the potential deleterious ecological (and economic!) impacts of draining water-rich ecosystems by piping their water elsewhere. Look to the phase-out of leaded gasoline as a great example of how externalities matter.
- throwntoday 4y ago
  I don't think you appreciate just how much water the northern part of the continent has.
  - tony_cannistra 4y ago
    Actually, I do. I've lived there. Generally speaking, substantial alterations to hydrological regimes can cause deleterious cascading ecological effects. Just look toward the literature on the hydrological (and consequential ecological) effects of dams (necessary to divert water) for examples. One of particular interest is dams' tendency to reduce the frequency and severity of flooding events, which are characteristically necessary for much of the functioning of floodplain ecosystems such as those you're describing. Such reductions can wreak havoc on biodiversity in these regions.
    - throwntoday 4y ago
      I only meant that the region which has an abundance of water which largely goes to waste can sell their excess via pipelines to the lower 48 wherever there is a dire need.

achenatx 4y ago

water problems are actually energy problems. With cheap energy, you can clean all water from residential areas and you can pipe water in from where it is plentiful. Water is not usually created/destroyed it is moved around and contaminated.

PM_me_your_math 4y ago

Over the years, I've learned that "fundamental social and political realities" are often salesmanship driven solely by agendas. There is the reality and there is fantasy. The reality is we walk over more water (1000x) than there is in all of our rivers and lakes. Humans need water. We don't need to use less of it. We need more of it and there is plenty of it. For example, farms need water to grow food. Humans need food (and water) or we die. And water isn't going anywhere. It doesn't get destroyed. As you probably know, there is a water cycle. It falls out of the sky, bubbles up from the ground, and can be found by drilling for it, just like our most critical energy sources.