4 ms·

The biggest problem I have with this is a question this article is not asking - do we need to devote so many resources to growing almonds? The water usage alone

The biggest problem I have with this is a question this article is not asking - do we need to devote so many resources to growing almonds? The water usage alone is a little ridiculous in a state that has droughts that almost certainly will get worse over time. 17% of the total agricultural water allocation in CA (which is a buttload of water) goes to growing almonds.

colechristensen 3y ago
One thing is certain, there are a bunch of things in that production chain which are not priced correctly.
observationist 3y ago
It's completely irresponsible and ignorant of long term consequences. Private almond farms (among other crops) are allowed to egregiously consume insane quantities of finite resources, resulting in huge disparity in the benefits from those resources that should be a common good. Politicians get funded by wealthy farmers, and farmers get wealthier by funding politicians. In addition to almond farms, there are all sorts of alfalfa and feed crops produced with a high water weight that get shipped overseas or to other states. Whatever mechanisms most states have in play to manage their water resources are completely inadequate, and they should probably be overhauled. The only reason almonds and other water intensive crops are grown is because there's an exploitable difference in the valuation of the product and the cost of one or more resources required for production. The problem can be regulated and rectified, but the people with money have a big advantage.
- giantg2 3y ago
  "The problem can be regulated and rectified," What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? Sure, we could make farmers pay actual costs and eliminate subsidies. We will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices. It's also possible the rich countries buyout crops from the poor and create famines or the breakdown of free trade (or we abandon the US version of free trade and tax imports to match domestic prices).
  - kurthr 3y ago
    I think you'd want a justification for subsidizing selected farmers and foreign countries imports other than, it makes the largest landowners the highest short term profit. None of it will exist long term unless global warming increases rainfall in the western US. How to rectify? The simplest is to charge/tax farming with scarce water for export. The next is to allow metro purchase of water rights (already happening).
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? California has a smaller water budget than before. Use has to be cut from somewhere, and to date, those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users. There should be a fixed amount of water every farm and household gets for free, and after that, a market rate for it. (This is complicated by the history of Western water rights.) > will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices The world doesn't have that much arable land [1]. America has most of it (and somewhat uniquley, a growing share), and moreover, it's bang next to the world's largest consumers. Those are difficult built-in advantages to fuck up. (I'm not even counting the various federal agricultural subisides and trade protections.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land
    - JohnMakin 3y ago
      > those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users This is really the core of my frustration - if you're a CA resident, and don't live in the central valley or work in the agriculture business, what possible benefit to you is supplying most of the world's supply of almonds? Water, especially in the southwest, is an increasingly scarce and valuable resource. Why would california residents want to subsidize the rest of the world's almond consumption? (Honestly I think they don't, but the political reasons behind this are complex and depressing and way off track of the subject matter of this thread)
      - observationist 3y ago
danielvf 3y ago
My understanding is that the overall move towards almonds is actually a move towards crops that are efficient in terms of dollars of income for a fixed amount of water. Wheat exports for $250 per ton of wheat. This month almonds export at $3,783 per ton. (This is actually down quite a bit from before and is resulting in fewer almonds being grown this year.) In other words, given that farmers have a roughly fixed allotment of water to work from, if you completely banned all almond growing from CA, farmers would just use that same water on other plants and water usage would not change at all.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  You're making the assumption that the water supply is fungible, infinite, and predictable - every year we've had severe drought, they don't cut back on agriculture, they cut back on consumer's water. I also don't think the current level of consumption will be sustainable, so although I do agree they'd try to use the same amount, the net result will be less water for people who actually need/use it to live.
tylershuster 3y ago
Restraint is not part of the free-market calculus. Sure, people like to tout "sustainability" but only as a means of selling yet more products. It's not profitable to fast. Well, it's not materially profitable. Until the well dries up.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> 17% of the total agricultural water allocation in CA (which is a buttload of water) goes to growing almonds To put that into perspective, that is almost twice as much water as California's cities use in total [1]. [1] https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/... 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban
langsoul-com 3y ago
Farmers will grow what's most rewarding, right now its almonds. Unless there's rule or pricing changes, it ain't gonna stop. Near every country has the golden crop, that produces so much more money than the rest.

colechristensen 3y ago

One thing is certain, there are a bunch of things in that production chain which are not priced correctly.

observationist 3y ago

It's completely irresponsible and ignorant of long term consequences. Private almond farms (among other crops) are allowed to egregiously consume insane quantities of finite resources, resulting in huge disparity in the benefits from those resources that should be a common good. Politicians get funded by wealthy farmers, and farmers get wealthier by funding politicians. In addition to almond farms, there are all sorts of alfalfa and feed crops produced with a high water weight that get shipped overseas or to other states. Whatever mechanisms most states have in play to manage their water resources are completely inadequate, and they should probably be overhauled. The only reason almonds and other water intensive crops are grown is because there's an exploitable difference in the valuation of the product and the cost of one or more resources required for production. The problem can be regulated and rectified, but the people with money have a big advantage.

giantg2 3y ago
"The problem can be regulated and rectified," What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? Sure, we could make farmers pay actual costs and eliminate subsidies. We will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices. It's also possible the rich countries buyout crops from the poor and create famines or the breakdown of free trade (or we abandon the US version of free trade and tax imports to match domestic prices).
- kurthr 3y ago
  I think you'd want a justification for subsidizing selected farmers and foreign countries imports other than, it makes the largest landowners the highest short term profit. None of it will exist long term unless global warming increases rainfall in the western US. How to rectify? The simplest is to charge/tax farming with scarce water for export. The next is to allow metro purchase of water rights (already happening).
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > What exactly is the problem and how can it be rectified? California has a smaller water budget than before. Use has to be cut from somewhere, and to date, those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users. There should be a fixed amount of water every farm and household gets for free, and after that, a market rate for it. (This is complicated by the history of Western water rights.) > will also massively cut production because local farm can't compete with overseas crop prices The world doesn't have that much arable land [1]. America has most of it (and somewhat uniquley, a growing share), and moreover, it's bang next to the world's largest consumers. Those are difficult built-in advantages to fuck up. (I'm not even counting the various federal agricultural subisides and trade protections.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arable_land
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    > those cuts have been disproportionately borne by the 10% that goes to urban users This is really the core of my frustration - if you're a CA resident, and don't live in the central valley or work in the agriculture business, what possible benefit to you is supplying most of the world's supply of almonds? Water, especially in the southwest, is an increasingly scarce and valuable resource. Why would california residents want to subsidize the rest of the world's almond consumption? (Honestly I think they don't, but the political reasons behind this are complex and depressing and way off track of the subject matter of this thread)
    - observationist 3y ago

danielvf 3y ago

My understanding is that the overall move towards almonds is actually a move towards crops that are efficient in terms of dollars of income for a fixed amount of water. Wheat exports for $250 per ton of wheat. This month almonds export at $3,783 per ton. (This is actually down quite a bit from before and is resulting in fewer almonds being grown this year.) In other words, given that farmers have a roughly fixed allotment of water to work from, if you completely banned all almond growing from CA, farmers would just use that same water on other plants and water usage would not change at all.

JohnMakin 3y ago
You're making the assumption that the water supply is fungible, infinite, and predictable - every year we've had severe drought, they don't cut back on agriculture, they cut back on consumer's water. I also don't think the current level of consumption will be sustainable, so although I do agree they'd try to use the same amount, the net result will be less water for people who actually need/use it to live.

tylershuster 3y ago

Restraint is not part of the free-market calculus. Sure, people like to tout "sustainability" but only as a means of selling yet more products. It's not profitable to fast. Well, it's not materially profitable. Until the well dries up.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> 17% of the total agricultural water allocation in CA (which is a buttload of water) goes to growing almonds To put that into perspective, that is almost twice as much water as California's cities use in total [1]. [1] https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/... 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban

langsoul-com 3y ago

Farmers will grow what's most rewarding, right now its almonds. Unless there's rule or pricing changes, it ain't gonna stop. Near every country has the golden crop, that produces so much more money than the rest.