Calirofrnia has about 1 years worth of water left

[C0ckney]

Why would you do that when you can build 1000 desalination plants, dozen nuclear power plants, and have all the water with no greehouse emissions? On this planet, without WWIII, US/western consumption culture will not change, building the infrastructure is a lot more realistic.

no greenhouse gas emissions? 1/3 of carbon emissions come from agriculture, to say nothing of all the methane that farm animals produce. climate change is happening we are seeing its effects; we will see a lot more in years to come. it will require us to change the way we live and it's better to start that process and move towards a sustainable future than spending vast amounts of resources on maintaining activities that will, in the long run, kill us all.

[Jon Miller]

The issue, Reg, is that many core places across the world are all facing water issues.

It might seem unrelated at it's face, but because the whole world is doing the same activities and so the whole world (outside of the naturally plentiful areas like Washington State and Patagonia) are facing water issues.

It is like the mortgage crisis in 2008. And the areas which are weak will be leaned on even more as the more exposed areas fail.

JM

[regexcellent]

There are lots of places around the world that aren't facing water issues. But nobody writes international stories like "Canadian prairies experience record crop yields thanks to unusually suitable weather." There really are good years and bad years everywhere.

For instance, last year: http://www.pressherald.com/2014/08/0...ecord-harvest/

[Jon Miller]

Not true. There are good years in a few places where we would expect good years due to climate change. There are bad years in more places where we would expect bad years due to climate change. And then there is looming disaster in places we would expect bad years and bad years in places we would expect good years, despite/because of climate change.

JM

[Jon Miller]

You are confusing the water problems with Climate Change.

JM

[C0ckney]

Reminder to everyone that people eat mostly grains, and those aren't grown in California. They're doing okay this year.

A study published in Science suggests that, due to climate change, "southern Africa could lose more than 30% of its main crop, maize, by 2030. In South Asia losses of many regional staples, such as rice, millet and maize could top 10%".

it will be in poor places, where hundreds of millions already face food insecurity, that the effects will be most keenly felt.

[regexcellent]

Global warming isn't going to reduce the amount of farming output either; if anything it'll increase it by a lot, and none of the year to year patterns we're seeing at the moment have anything to do with global warming.

If you want to increase corn production in southern Africa the best way to do it would be to throw out Robert Mugabe.

[ZEE]

I don't think you guise understand. We are all going to DIE of thirst. It's hoPeless at this Point.

Ming, locK the thrade.

[C0ckney]

Global warming isn't going to reduce the amount of farming output either; if anything it'll increase it by a lot, and none of the year to year patterns we're seeing at the moment have anything to do with global warming.

scientists who have studied the issue have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. and it's not just global warming either, it's the change in weather patterns, extreme weather, and rapid changes that plants and ecosystems can't adapt to.

If you want to increase corn production in southern Africa the best way to do it would be to throw out Robert Mugabe.

interestingly in brazil the most productive (in terms output per hectare) producers are small scale peasant farmers, who produce around 70% of brazil's food. the least productive, it almost goes without saying, are the big landowners.

reforma agrária já!

[regexcellent]

No, scientists have not even reached conclusions about how much global warming will affect the temperature, but just about everyone is in agreement that Canada will for instance be warmer, which means more time above freezing, which means longer growing seasons. And even slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide massively improve plant growth; this is why greenhouses run at around twice normal CO2 concentration.

The impact on global weather patterns are totally unknown. We don't even know what global warming will do to cloud coverage, which is a key reason we don't know how much the temperature will rise; if cloud coverage increases, that creates a negative feedback loop, for example.

You can not possibly believe that Mugabe seizing the farms from their owners and giving them to his political cronies, the single thing that collapsed the entire Zimbabwean economy, improved outcomes.

[Hauldren Collider]

You can not possibly believe that Mugabe seizing the farms from their owners and giving them to his political cronies, the single thing that collapsed the entire Zimbabwean economy, improved outcomes.

Cockney's a communist. Of course he thinks that. Once he gets into the looney left stuff, it's not really worth addressing.

[Aeson]

You're both unbelievably retarded. The price would rise and more people would enter the water business. If you leave the price unchanged, that actually would encourage draining the whole aquifer, and there would be less water for everyone. Lonestar, you have the situation entirely backwards. Donegeal, you're accusing me of being "horrible" when in fact the Kentonio Krew are the ones proposing ****ing the poor, despite being too unintelligent to recognize it.

You are presenting a false dichotomy. But even if we adopt it and assume direct price controls as the only other possible proposal to your laissez-faire solution, there is government intervention which can still potentially facilitate ample supply. In fact, it is government intervention (huge taxpayer funded irrigation projects) that got California to the point where it could be an agricultural powerhouse in the first place.

The return on investment for the US people of such government intervention (or rather, investment) in California and elsewhere has been huge in regards to output, selection, and quality of many types of produce.

You keep bringing up Venezuela, but the applicable analogy is to past US irrigation projects.

[C0ckney]

Cockney's a communist. Of course he thinks that. Once he gets into the looney left stuff, it's not really worth addressing.

oh dear. you were doing quite well in this thread too, but it seems that reading comprehension has tripped you up again.

[ZEE]

c0cKney is a Poo-Poo eater.

[C0ckney]

No, scientists have not even reached conclusions about how much global warming will affect the temperature, but just about everyone is in agreement that Canada will for instance be warmer, which means more time above freezing, which means longer growing seasons. And even slight increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide massively improve plant growth; this is why greenhouses run at around twice normal CO2 concentration.

The impact on global weather patterns are totally unknown. We don't even know what global warming will do to cloud coverage, which is a key reason we don't know how much the temperature will rise; if cloud coverage increases, that creates a negative feedback loop, for example.

yes they have, such as the study published in science that i referred to.

as i explained in my previous post, it's rather more complicated than temperature rise = more plant growth. different areas will be affected in different ways and it is likely to be some of the poorest areas that are worst affected.

You can not possibly believe that Mugabe seizing the farms from their owners and giving them to his political cronies, the single thing that collapsed the entire Zimbabwean economy, improved outcomes.

i said that small peasant proprietors in brazil produce more than big land owners. i don't think my post was hard to understand.