5 ms·

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

by pkulak 12y ago

slantedview 12y ago
Growing water intensive crops like rice in California, which it grows a good deal of, is just stupid. That is an industry which needs to die. I'd argue the same for almonds, which are basically a water intensive cash crop.
- whyenot 12y ago
  Almonds use 10% of the state's water supply. The irony is that almonds and apricots have been grown in the Santa Clara valley and surrounding areas without irrigration until tech booms led to orchards being pulled out and replaced with office complexes.
  - jonnathanson 12y ago
    That is an interesting and ironic thing to consider. And I think it's probably inevitable that California shifts its crop mix away from things like almonds, even if at one point they had been grown sustainably (and certainly rice, which is patently unsustainable, but easier to draw down from). Olives, for instance, grow very well in California and are a lot less water intensive than almonds and other trees in the stonefruit family. The downside is that trees take a long time to grow to productive maturity, and phasing one species out for another cannot be done overnight. I have no idea if a phase-out of one in favor of the other is already underway, and I would hazard a guess that if it is, it's proceeding glacially. But some sort of phase-out seems essential.
toufka 12y ago
Except when it's inconsistent with its environment in the first place. All the government subsidies in the world can't make water be where it isn't.
danudey 12y ago
California's water reserves can't sustain the ridiculously wasteful agriculture that Californian farmers have been growing for decades, and a huge amount of California's water use is going towards agriculture to grow almonds, rice, and grapes in the desert. Those crops are going to have to come from somewhere else pretty soon regardless.
tomswartz07 12y ago
It seems that we have the choice of either: 1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry. The current situation is proof that the current level of agriculture is unsubstainable. As a reference, a few quick searches[1] show that it takes: 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli 4.9 gallons of water to grow a single walnut 1.1 gallons of water to grow a single almond [1] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...
- wes-k 12y ago
  I'm a biased vegan but... 802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef 187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)
  - azinman2 12y ago
    Not sure I believe the animals are getting most of it in California but either way that's something that can be easily moved out of state. Almonds can't.
    - jqm 12y ago
      Correct. There are only a few areas in the world almonds can be commercially grown. California is one. Cattle can be grown lots of places.
  - woud420 12y ago
    As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.
    - 12y ago

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

by pkulak 12y ago

Yes... Destroying an entire industry in a country is a win win...

Growing water intensive crops like rice in California, which it grows a good deal of, is just stupid. That is an industry which needs to die. I'd argue the same for almonds, which are basically a water intensive cash crop.

whyenot 12y ago
Almonds use 10% of the state's water supply. The irony is that almonds and apricots have been grown in the Santa Clara valley and surrounding areas without irrigration until tech booms led to orchards being pulled out and replaced with office complexes.
- jonnathanson 12y ago
  That is an interesting and ironic thing to consider. And I think it's probably inevitable that California shifts its crop mix away from things like almonds, even if at one point they had been grown sustainably (and certainly rice, which is patently unsustainable, but easier to draw down from). Olives, for instance, grow very well in California and are a lot less water intensive than almonds and other trees in the stonefruit family. The downside is that trees take a long time to grow to productive maturity, and phasing one species out for another cannot be done overnight. I have no idea if a phase-out of one in favor of the other is already underway, and I would hazard a guess that if it is, it's proceeding glacially. But some sort of phase-out seems essential.

toufka 12y ago

Except when it's inconsistent with its environment in the first place. All the government subsidies in the world can't make water be where it isn't.

danudey 12y ago

California's water reserves can't sustain the ridiculously wasteful agriculture that Californian farmers have been growing for decades, and a huge amount of California's water use is going towards agriculture to grow almonds, rice, and grapes in the desert. Those crops are going to have to come from somewhere else pretty soon regardless.

tomswartz07 12y ago

It seems that we have the choice of either: 1. Destroying the farming industry 2. Destroying the land entirely, and then destroying the farming industry. The current situation is proof that the current level of agriculture is unsubstainable. As a reference, a few quick searches[1] show that it takes: 5.4 gallons of water to grow a single head of broccoli 4.9 gallons of water to grow a single walnut 1.1 gallons of water to grow a single almond [1] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-californias-water-going http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...

wes-k 12y ago
I'm a biased vegan but... 802.7 gallons of water for one pound of beef 187.969 gallons of water for one pound of vegetables Agriculture consumes 2/3rds of California's water, most of which goes to growing and feeding farmed animals. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalcul... (Used United States for country)
- azinman2 12y ago
  Not sure I believe the animals are getting most of it in California but either way that's something that can be easily moved out of state. Almonds can't.
  - jqm 12y ago
    Correct. There are only a few areas in the world almonds can be commercially grown. California is one. Cattle can be grown lots of places.
- woud420 12y ago
  As a biased omnivore, it would probably be a bit more useful to compare the calorie content of 1 lb of beef vs 1 lb of vegetables. I understand the point you're getting at but the bias might be a little bit too strong there.
  - 12y ago