5 ms·

>If there's inadequate water or sun to grow crops that need lots of both, perhaps that location is not the best for those crops. "omg lets just move the farms

>If there's inadequate water or sun to grow crops that need lots of both, perhaps that location is not the best for those crops. "omg lets just move the farms to where the water is" like you're not talking about growing plants rooted in the literal ground, some that must be cultivated over multiple years to yield quality product. like we're not all going to be chasing water on a hotter planet with a chaotic climate.

bequanna 3y ago
Contrary to what the alarmists are saying, the world’s breadbaskets aren’t going to turn into barren Mad Max hellscapes in the next decade. In fact, if warming occurs, the US and Canada stand to net gain arable land and have increased growing seasons. Of course the counter to that will always be “… but we’re going to have like SO much climate chaos!” which has become the perfect scary, vague and ultimately unprovable argument.
- omegaworks 3y ago
  We're already seeing climate-related migration, loss and disaster. These things are quantifiable in dollars and lives. That certain regions are expected to "win" does not fully grasp the impact on our overall economic stability, the systems that keep necessities like food cheap and accessible. Whether you like it or not, the food market is global[1]. "Climate chaos" is not hyperbole. 1. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/global-wheat-prices-jump-following-collapse-of-major-dam-in-southern-ukraine https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/global-wheat-prices-jump-...
  - bequanna 3y ago
    Where exactly is this “climate-related migration, loss and disaster” happening? Calling a flood, hurricane or even several years long drought a “climate related disaster” doesn’t count. These events have occurred since time immemorial. Every weather measurement deviation from average is not some “disaster” that can be blamed on evil corporations and people driving SUVs.
Kalium 3y ago
Does it sound silly if I say things like "Maybe let's not grow rice in Texas using water from the Colorado"? Or maybe "Hey, let's emphasize the farms where the water already is instead of ones where the water isn't"? I'm talking about businesses, yes. Many of which will, as you say, need multiple years to start up elsewhere. I freely and readily acknowledge that this will probably be a difficult process for those businesses. Fortunately, food supply chains are now globe-spanning and de-emphasizing agriculture in drought-prone parts of the US is very unlikely to result in food shortages, much less famine. We could start more gently by having them pay a fair price for the natural resources they require and are thus not available for everything else that needs water.
- singleshot_ 3y ago
  One amazing thing about America is that there’s a ton of resistance to the government coordinating where certain things should be grown (e.g. grandparent poster) but an extremely high tolerance for the government coordinating where certain things should be grown (e.g. crop subsidies) even though I just said the same thing twice. It’s all in the framing, I guess.
- omegaworks 3y ago
  It's precisely the costs of moving those food supply chains that is at hand here. Our entire system of private landownership and water rights assigns value to a plot and enables investment. To minimize or dismiss these as irrelevant undermines the foundations those industries are built upon. If anything, the last few years have shed light on is just how fragile global supply chains are. The war in Ukraine has impacted wheat prices globally. > de-emphasizing agriculture in drought-prone parts of the US is very unlikely to result in food shortages, much less famine There's a reason food security is considered a national security issue[1]. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/10/11/do-you-care-about-us-national-security-then-you-care-about-global-food-security/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/10/1...

bequanna 3y ago

Contrary to what the alarmists are saying, the world’s breadbaskets aren’t going to turn into barren Mad Max hellscapes in the next decade. In fact, if warming occurs, the US and Canada stand to net gain arable land and have increased growing seasons. Of course the counter to that will always be “… but we’re going to have like SO much climate chaos!” which has become the perfect scary, vague and ultimately unprovable argument.

omegaworks 3y ago
We're already seeing climate-related migration, loss and disaster. These things are quantifiable in dollars and lives. That certain regions are expected to "win" does not fully grasp the impact on our overall economic stability, the systems that keep necessities like food cheap and accessible. Whether you like it or not, the food market is global[1]. "Climate chaos" is not hyperbole. 1. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/global-wheat-prices-jump-following-collapse-of-major-dam-in-southern-ukraine https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/global-wheat-prices-jump-...
- bequanna 3y ago
  Where exactly is this “climate-related migration, loss and disaster” happening? Calling a flood, hurricane or even several years long drought a “climate related disaster” doesn’t count. These events have occurred since time immemorial. Every weather measurement deviation from average is not some “disaster” that can be blamed on evil corporations and people driving SUVs.

Kalium 3y ago

Does it sound silly if I say things like "Maybe let's not grow rice in Texas using water from the Colorado"? Or maybe "Hey, let's emphasize the farms where the water already is instead of ones where the water isn't"? I'm talking about businesses, yes. Many of which will, as you say, need multiple years to start up elsewhere. I freely and readily acknowledge that this will probably be a difficult process for those businesses. Fortunately, food supply chains are now globe-spanning and de-emphasizing agriculture in drought-prone parts of the US is very unlikely to result in food shortages, much less famine. We could start more gently by having them pay a fair price for the natural resources they require and are thus not available for everything else that needs water.

singleshot_ 3y ago
One amazing thing about America is that there’s a ton of resistance to the government coordinating where certain things should be grown (e.g. grandparent poster) but an extremely high tolerance for the government coordinating where certain things should be grown (e.g. crop subsidies) even though I just said the same thing twice. It’s all in the framing, I guess.
omegaworks 3y ago
It's precisely the costs of moving those food supply chains that is at hand here. Our entire system of private landownership and water rights assigns value to a plot and enables investment. To minimize or dismiss these as irrelevant undermines the foundations those industries are built upon. If anything, the last few years have shed light on is just how fragile global supply chains are. The war in Ukraine has impacted wheat prices globally. > de-emphasizing agriculture in drought-prone parts of the US is very unlikely to result in food shortages, much less famine There's a reason food security is considered a national security issue[1]. 1. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/10/11/do-you-care-about-us-national-security-then-you-care-about-global-food-security/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2022/10/1...