3 ms·

The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Are you burning fossil fuels? If so the

The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Are you burning fossil fuels? If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. Are the farmers going to pay the $18 billion and $1 billion a year for this? No they won't. It's always a hand out.

cyberax 2y ago
> The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Solar, wind, nuclear, biodiesel? In particular, Kansas gets a whopping 50% of energy from wind and 14% from nuclear. They still use coal for 30% of the generation, but it's on the way out. Mind you, mandating that the pumps are powered by renewable energy would be a good requirement. > If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. So your whole idea is to wring hands, self-flagellate, and then to write tearful articles about that?
- thecrash 2y ago
  You come across here like the manager who's tired of hearing his engineers tell him that a design target isn't possible. There are some problems that can be solved if everyone gets over themselves and applies a can-do problem-solving attitude. There are other problems that are caused by fundamental system constraints and can't be solved, only worked around. The trouble is that a certain kind of manager believes that every problem is the former kind, and considers everyone who acknowledges the existence of the latter kind to be weak-willed.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    No, I'm coming here as somebody who is annoyed with people thinking that the only way forward is to hug trees and cry about how the humanity is bad. Yes, the water pumping is unsustainable, so we need to talk about the way to replace it with sustainable water sources. It will probably also involve optimizing the water usage.

cyberax 2y ago

> The diversion of water isn't a solution. You have to pump water up hill. Where are you getting the energy to do this? Solar, wind, nuclear, biodiesel? In particular, Kansas gets a whopping 50% of energy from wind and 14% from nuclear. They still use coal for 30% of the generation, but it's on the way out. Mind you, mandating that the pumps are powered by renewable energy would be a good requirement. > If so then you are making climate change worse just so you can grow crops in an area that isn't suitable for for growing crops because of a lack of water. So your whole idea is to wring hands, self-flagellate, and then to write tearful articles about that?

thecrash 2y ago
You come across here like the manager who's tired of hearing his engineers tell him that a design target isn't possible. There are some problems that can be solved if everyone gets over themselves and applies a can-do problem-solving attitude. There are other problems that are caused by fundamental system constraints and can't be solved, only worked around. The trouble is that a certain kind of manager believes that every problem is the former kind, and considers everyone who acknowledges the existence of the latter kind to be weak-willed.
- cyberax 2y ago
  No, I'm coming here as somebody who is annoyed with people thinking that the only way forward is to hug trees and cry about how the humanity is bad. Yes, the water pumping is unsustainable, so we need to talk about the way to replace it with sustainable water sources. It will probably also involve optimizing the water usage.