4 ms·

As the poster above this beautifully states: > Corporations are extensions of the desires of the average person The agriculture sector is not just wasting wat

As the poster above this beautifully states: > Corporations are extensions of the desires of the average person The agriculture sector is not just wasting water for the fun of it. They're producing food for us, the consumers of food. Some of the food is more efficient with respect to water-use than other food. So you've got basically two, non-mutually-exclusive options: 1. Inform / expect individuals to make better choices (e.g., eat less beef, drink less milk, etc.), so that our aggregate demand for these products decreases, and the supply (production) follows. 2. Government intervention to, e.g., tax inefficient foods and/or subsidize efficient ones to nudge consumers in the right direction. Given our politics in the US, I don't see this as happening anytime soon. I remember the shrieks of "THEY'RE COMING FOR OUR ICE CREAM!!!" as a rallying cry against The Green New Deal a few years ago. There is no "us" and "them" for responsibility of these things. It's everyday people, in aggregate, causing every environmental and social ill. It's complicated, but pretending it's entirely that guy's fault (damn agriculture!) is to shirk your tiny sliver of personal responsibility. You can choose to do better. Or you can wait for government to make you do better. But the end result will be much the same.

ryandrake 3y ago
"Vote with your wallet" rarely ever works. "Nudging" consumers won't work either. You're never going to convince an entire population to voluntarily stop eating almonds because their production wastes water. If we learned anything from COVID it should be that you're never going to be able to convince millions of people to take any kind of specific, cooperative, collective action on anything--even if their lives are at stake. Instead of sitting back and hoping that millions will do some inconvenient action, why not instead focus on regulating the few dozens of entities actually causing the problem?
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  Totally. My point is: one can both take individual action and advocate for regulation. They're not mutually exclusive options. I feel like "nothing will happen until it's regulated" is often used as an excuse for inaction. I know tons of people who think climate change is a huge problem, but drive cars that get under 20mpg, who eat steak dinners multiple times per week, etc. Their stance is basically "I'll put in 0 effort to do better until the government makes everyone do better". And many politicans' takes are: "why should the U.S. put in any effort until everyone (usually relatively poor countries like China, India, etc.) starts improving?" I have little confidence that significant-enough regulation is possible. We need people to do better while also advocating for the government to take actual, meaningful steps. To address a few of your points specifically: > "Nudging" consumers won't work either. You're never going to convince an entire population to voluntarily stop eating almonds because their production wastes water. Yes. It can. See: cigarette use for example. Taxation works. If almonds are heavily taxed, and cost, e.g., 2x what they do today, you can reasonably expect almond consumption to drop. > regulating the few dozens of entities actually causing the problem Again, the "entities actually causing the problem" rounds down to "all of us". Exxon-Mobile isn't just creating CO2 emissions for fun. We're buying gasoline from them because,collectively, a bunch of us want to live in suburbs, drive big comfortable SUV's, etc. Sure, Exxon-Mobile is very interested in maintaining the status-quo, and it's a shame they have the power/cash to do so. But collective individuals as U.S. voters and consumers refuse to change their habits, and generally vote against politicians willing to do anything that'd inflict any inconvenience / change on their lives. Every time gas prices go up even slightly, people lose their minds.
hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I feel like nearly every sentence in your comment grossly misses the point. Of course I expect agriculture to use more water, and it's a good thing that we all have more than enough to eat. The issue is there are often no regulations put in place to incentivize agriculture to use water efficiently and economically. I mean, please point out to me "the average person" in California that desires to grow alfalfa so it can be shipped overseas to China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile we're pretending making people ask for water at restaurants makes any difference at all when it comes to water savings. > There is no "us" and "them" for responsibility of these things. Baloney. Warren Buffet was right when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." I'd have no problem supporting water restrictions locally if it wasn't just a total distraction, a "going through the motions" if you will, while the biggest users of water do nothing. Edit: coincidentally, I just saw this article on NYT just after posting this comment: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/climate/california-merced-river-dry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/climate/california-merced... . There should be no restrictions on local users of water until agriculture is addressed.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  When we try solve a problem by saying people should do something, we are solving it as a society. Which means we should solve it a societal level, not by making it responsibility of one part of society to do individually. In this case, it can’t be just city dwellers responsibility but farmers too. What individual resp in this case means that it is easier to persuade individual residents than individual farmers. Or that they don’t care about problem and dumping responsibility for it where nothing will happen.
- the_gastropod 3y ago
  I agree with the "class warfare" quote. But aren't "the rich" pretty much the ones pushing these anti-regulatory sentiments? I agree, these regulations you're pointing out aren't sufficient. But I maintain, I think the finger-pointing crap is a distraction. Nobody's going to do anything when they can point their finger at the bigger-offender, and feel vindicated in their own inaction. And since numbers are so easily fudgable, everyone feels this way (see: leading U.S. politicians blaming Africa for climate change [1], about as ridiculous a claim as is imaginable) [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/house-speaker-mike-johnsons-climate-change-playbook-deny-the-science-take-the-funding/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/house-speaker-mike-j...

ryandrake 3y ago

"Vote with your wallet" rarely ever works. "Nudging" consumers won't work either. You're never going to convince an entire population to voluntarily stop eating almonds because their production wastes water. If we learned anything from COVID it should be that you're never going to be able to convince millions of people to take any kind of specific, cooperative, collective action on anything--even if their lives are at stake. Instead of sitting back and hoping that millions will do some inconvenient action, why not instead focus on regulating the few dozens of entities actually causing the problem?

the_gastropod 3y ago
Totally. My point is: one can both take individual action and advocate for regulation. They're not mutually exclusive options. I feel like "nothing will happen until it's regulated" is often used as an excuse for inaction. I know tons of people who think climate change is a huge problem, but drive cars that get under 20mpg, who eat steak dinners multiple times per week, etc. Their stance is basically "I'll put in 0 effort to do better until the government makes everyone do better". And many politicans' takes are: "why should the U.S. put in any effort until everyone (usually relatively poor countries like China, India, etc.) starts improving?" I have little confidence that significant-enough regulation is possible. We need people to do better while also advocating for the government to take actual, meaningful steps. To address a few of your points specifically: > "Nudging" consumers won't work either. You're never going to convince an entire population to voluntarily stop eating almonds because their production wastes water. Yes. It can. See: cigarette use for example. Taxation works. If almonds are heavily taxed, and cost, e.g., 2x what they do today, you can reasonably expect almond consumption to drop. > regulating the few dozens of entities actually causing the problem Again, the "entities actually causing the problem" rounds down to "all of us". Exxon-Mobile isn't just creating CO2 emissions for fun. We're buying gasoline from them because,collectively, a bunch of us want to live in suburbs, drive big comfortable SUV's, etc. Sure, Exxon-Mobile is very interested in maintaining the status-quo, and it's a shame they have the power/cash to do so. But collective individuals as U.S. voters and consumers refuse to change their habits, and generally vote against politicians willing to do anything that'd inflict any inconvenience / change on their lives. Every time gas prices go up even slightly, people lose their minds.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I feel like nearly every sentence in your comment grossly misses the point. Of course I expect agriculture to use more water, and it's a good thing that we all have more than enough to eat. The issue is there are often no regulations put in place to incentivize agriculture to use water efficiently and economically. I mean, please point out to me "the average person" in California that desires to grow alfalfa so it can be shipped overseas to China and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile we're pretending making people ask for water at restaurants makes any difference at all when it comes to water savings. > There is no "us" and "them" for responsibility of these things. Baloney. Warren Buffet was right when he said "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning." I'd have no problem supporting water restrictions locally if it wasn't just a total distraction, a "going through the motions" if you will, while the biggest users of water do nothing. Edit: coincidentally, I just saw this article on NYT just after posting this comment: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/climate/california-merced-river-dry.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/18/climate/california-merced... . There should be no restrictions on local users of water until agriculture is addressed.

ianburrell 3y ago
When we try solve a problem by saying people should do something, we are solving it as a society. Which means we should solve it a societal level, not by making it responsibility of one part of society to do individually. In this case, it can’t be just city dwellers responsibility but farmers too. What individual resp in this case means that it is easier to persuade individual residents than individual farmers. Or that they don’t care about problem and dumping responsibility for it where nothing will happen.
the_gastropod 3y ago
I agree with the "class warfare" quote. But aren't "the rich" pretty much the ones pushing these anti-regulatory sentiments? I agree, these regulations you're pointing out aren't sufficient. But I maintain, I think the finger-pointing crap is a distraction. Nobody's going to do anything when they can point their finger at the bigger-offender, and feel vindicated in their own inaction. And since numbers are so easily fudgable, everyone feels this way (see: leading U.S. politicians blaming Africa for climate change [1], about as ridiculous a claim as is imaginable) [1] https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/house-speaker-mike-johnsons-climate-change-playbook-deny-the-science-take-the-funding/ https://blog.ucsusa.org/derrick-jackson/house-speaker-mike-j...