2 ms·
The point is that the feed crops can be grown in areas with abundant water and shipped elsewhere, so cattle don't have to be a significant contributor to local
by atmavatar 2y ago
The point is that the feed crops can be grown in areas with abundant water and shipped elsewhere, so cattle don't have to be a significant contributor to local water shortages.
- aziaziazi 2y agoCrops don’t move themselves, they require trucks and ships. Importing 1 plant to feed a human is less water and energy intensive than importing 10 plants to feed a cow to feed a human.
- kristjansson 2y agoIrrefutably. The problem is people prefer to eat the cow. And while it's nice to imagine a different world, "everyone should just want different things" is not really a valid policy prescription to solve specific land- and water-use questions.
- lizknope 2y agoIf the price of water was the same for human and agricultural use then the cost of the beef would increase and more people would stop eating it and eat the cheaper plants instead. This would also decrease energy usage helping with climate change. When we subsidize the price of water for agriculture then people will do wasteful and stupid things to make more money like growing water rich alfalfa and shipping it to China and Japan to feed their livestock. See the link I posted in the thread.
- kristjansson 2y agoYes. "the price of ag water in CA should be higher to discourage uneconomic uses" is a valid policy prescription; its impact on the price of beef, and consumption thereof is less foreseeable.