4 ms·
Just because some people may not grasp this: it is still individual humans consuming the water. Companies and industry don’t burn resources for no reason, they
by HEmanZ 4y ago
Just because some people may not grasp this: it is still individual humans consuming the water. Companies and industry don’t burn resources for no reason, they become products that consumers buy.
The only real solution is that we consumers consume less, and probably spend more for the same products, period.
- sammalloy 4y ago> The only real solution is that we consumers consume less, and probably spend more for the same products, period. I couldn’t disagree more. We need more regulation and taxation, and the real cost of the externalities added to the end product. The public is subsidizing and paying for private industry to pollute and use resources without accountability. That needs to end. The idea that the problem is solely due to personal consumption by individuals is a greenwashing tactic used by corporations to avoid responsibility for their products. The real solution is to put up barriers to producing these products and make the companies pay for their impact on the planet. This strange, antisocial idea that companies aren’t part of the social contract and don’t have to follow the rules of governments and civilization needs to be called out.
- ViViDboarder 4y agoIt doesn’t look like you disagree to me. The result of such taxes or regulations is less and more expensive consumption.
- smcl 4y agoI read that the original comment was laying the blame at the feet of individual consumer choices - implying that if people simply bought/consumed less of … whatever is causing the Colorado river to be depleted then things would fix themselves. And the reply is saying that there need to be explicit regulations to cause this, presumably because people have really no way to know the what environmental impact each dollar they spend has and where.
- philsnow 4y agoI read it the same way, similarly to PR campaigns that tell Californians to water their lawns less and take fewer and shorter showers, even thought that usage uses by far less water than ag or industrial uses.
- reducesuffering 4y agoWe should all do our part. Less ag and industrial products means a higher cost for us all.
- HEmanZ 4y agoI think you’re reading the wrong thing into my comment. I would absolutely agree the problem is that externalities aren’t priced in. The result of pricing those in would be that everything gets more expensive and consumers get to consume less. I don’t like the idea of blaming companies anymore than blaming individual consumers. They’re working in the same market
- throw0101c 4y ago> Companies and industry don’t burn resources for no reason, they become products that consumers buy. If companies start paying the total costs—including externalities (water, carbon)—of their raw materials, and pass those costs onto consumers, perhaps things will rebalance.
- 0xB31B1B 4y agoThis isn't whats happening at all, at least in ag. There is a huge amount of deadweight loss to extremely wealthy long time ag landlords who own water rights. At this time, they have extremely inefficient water uses because water is costless to them. If water prices were to be raised, they would install various methods of water conservation (drip irrigation instead of flooding, etc) and maintain production levels, resulting in similar prices and availability for consumers.