4 ms·

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

by 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...

by Kalium 3y ago

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...