[jcoq]

70% of the water in Arizona goes to farming. Our state ships hay to the Middle East. Subsidized water is a ridiculous subversion of market economics.

Blaming this on suburban households is like pretending that climate change would be solved if only consumers would be mindful of their carbon footprints.

[bogota]

It’s becoming unbearable that every issue facing society is the consumers fault. I take a ten minute shower and I’m destroying the world but the farmer growing crops that wouldn’t exist in the region without imported water is fine.

I realize we can fix more than one thing but the arguments i am always seeing is stating the consumer is the biggest issue and it’s infuriating.

[colpabar]

If they can convince us that everything is our fault, then we'll turn to fighting amongst ourselves, and nothing will change. Which is exactly where we're at, and not just with climate issues.

Stop trusting the people on TV!

[jiocrag]

Whose fault is it?

[ianai]

I’m not really interested in fault when this is a solvable problem with current tech. Consider that New Mexico gets enough solar power per year to power all of the globe. And it gets a ton of wind (70 mph gusts the last several days for much of the day!). And that’s just one state in the southwest and the rest get similar (or more) amounts of sunny days, wind, etc.

Though water rights are probably the lower hanging fruit to tackle…except it’s chock full of political issues dating back to the Spanish territorial days.

Politicians way worse than today in many ways found ways to build out the big infrastructure projects that made the modern southwest a possibility - ie the Hoover Dam, the national highways, and power grid.

[grapeskin]

To an extent, it is. Americans can’t do much about hay shipped to the Middle East, but buying cheap produce out of season pushes markets to grow crops in unusual places. Less of a problem when buying in-season foods from down the road, but that’d mean customers also have to stop shopping at places like Walmart.

[majormajor]

Americans seem to be one of the only two groups that actually could do something about Americans shipping hay to the Middle East, no? How is that a "can't do anything about it"?

[frosted-flakes]

Outside of voting for politicians in elections who promise change in this regard (and casting a vote is a very coarse signal), the average individual American can't do much. And blaming individuals for taking advantage of the system they were borne into is dumb—individuals cannot be expected to understand the macro-level naunces that group behaviours have.

[caeril]

Voting is a much worse waste of time and resources than making the right choices. Even if you vote for the "right" congressional candidate, the hurdles of getting a bill out of committee, avoiding lobbying pressures/temptations, making deals with other members of Congress, watering it down with the other chamber, hoping it doesn't get vetoed, etc, already reduces your odds by, let's say, 95%.

If you buy local, in-season, sustainable foods, you have a 100% chance of being 1/300MMth of the solution, not a 5% chance of being that same 1/300MMth of the solution.

[R0b0t1]

Americans can fix the subsidized water distribution. Why allow people in the Middle east to purchase US hay at a discount? Charge fair market price.

[JohnWhigham]

I don't live in the Southwest, but I'm not inconveniencing myself so some fucking company can make more money. If the individual needs to belt-tighten, so can the company. They're people too, right?

[_Algernon_]

It's true though. Any company is a selling a product to a consumer or is part of a supply chain whose end product goes to a consumer.

Granted, the consumer in question may be on the other side of the earth, which isn't great for creating healthy incentives, but it doesn't change the fact that consumers need to consume less.

[robocat]

> consumers need to consume less

A lower consumption simplifies down to the equivalent to: (aj) reducing GDP per capita, or (b) reducing the number of capita (people). Structurally and morally, both of those are very difficult to manage. Ironically the argument for less “consumption” is usually made by the well-off people in wealthy economies. Weirdly war and political strife that destroys economic systems may be good for the planet (and the USA in particular wins relatively against other economies which have GDP destruction).

I would state a solvable problem as: how do we increase consumption, while decreasing resource usage? That requires efficiency, technology, and reducing the environmental cost of our economic systems. To achieve those goals needs a systematic global system that encourages those effects, while avoiding the tragedy of the commons. Politically we don’t seem to be achieving that.

[spacexsucks]

Or nestle finishing off water reserves

[jiocrag]

The difference is that we need to eat -- you don't need to take 10 minute showers or water your lawn. It IS the over-consuming citizen (i.e. you) causing these problems at the end of the day, whether that fact makes you uncomfortable or not.

[el_jay]

But do we need to eat almonds and avocados grown in a [REDACTED] desert?

And whether we are talking factories or mansions, it’s behind the big walls that you find big resource use.

Blaming “consumers” for climate change, if they are not also material stakeholders in major emitting entities, is borderline gaslighting.

[_Algernon_]

Disagree. Consumers buy the products these companies make. There wouldn't be a market for the products if consumers didn't buy them.

[bcassedy]

In general people want products that will enrich their lives in some way. Sometimes these things aren't necessities, but sometimes they are. Food for example...

I introduce a new food product, Soylent Green. It tastes great, doesn't cost much and is nutritious. It starts becoming wildly popular.

Does that mean that there was huge demand for cannibalistic products? No. There was demand for tasty, cheap, nutritious food.

If this happened in real life the ingredients label would be a list of indecipherable chemicals, proteins, and "natural flavors". What you're suggesting requires that consumers be able to understand the externalities involved in the sourcing of every ingredient as well as the manufacturing process AND then use those to override their own preferences regarding the end product.

Identifying and preventing externalities or at least making sure externalities are factored into pricing is something that governments are MUCH better equipped for than any individual.

[labster]

If you don’t think there’s a huge demand for cannibalistic products, you haven’t been listening to Q. Which is good news for you. Of course confusion about the plausible goals of large actors is kind of their thing.

[majormajor]

If you can sell a product at $5 by doing it in an unsustainable way but can't afford to go below $10 if you do it in a sustainable way, is it reasonable to expect each individual consumer to fully vet claims of sustainability and make the right long-term decision?

This is what you're pushing for, and what we have, and it's a terrible world to live in since it lets you the producer who is knowingly doing damage to avoid taking any responsibility and just push it all to "consumers."

Whatever happened to personal responsibility applying to rapacious producers too?

[heavyset_go]

Consumers didn't hold a gun to anyone's head and force them to profit from environmentally disastrous manufacturing and shipping practices, or to profit from literal slave labor in supply chains. Those actually committing those actions, and profiting from them, are responsible for their actions, and it's shifting the blame to suggest that those who have no say in how private businesses are run are responsible for how private businesses are run.

[_Algernon_]

No, but consumers enabled them by buying their products. And consumers do have a say, either by voting to increase regulation, or by not buying products.

Public companies are legally required to maximize profit. This will only be changed politically, or by changing what provides the company profit. Both lead back to the consumer.

[labster]

A lot of the almonds are grown in former marshland. It’s our own mismanagement of water that has desertified the San Joaquin valley.

[jiocrag]

Do you eat avocados or almonds or kiwis or bananas or lettuce? If so, then STFU.

[bogota]

Please send me some data on how water that is able to be treated and re used is causing issues for society.

[scarmig]

That reminds of me of when my state made a big show of banning restaurants from automatically bringing water to your table, when 80% of our water use goes to agriculture.

[jiocrag]

Dude... farms make food lol. You don't need an extra cup of water without asking, but farms need water to grow food. This is the type of delusional entitlement that is ruining the planet.

[majormajor]

"Delusional entitlement" is thinking you should be able to forever grow crops in a region where water is scarce.

[jiocrag]

And WHY do you think crops are grown there?? Year round sunshine to feed the consumer’s (I.e. YOUR) appetite. You can’t grow avocados in Minnesota.

This is the definition of delusional entitlement — not understanding how food supply works in the US then bitching about the consequences for a system that feeds you.

[heavyset_go]

The only entitlement I see is from those who think they're entitled to grow crops in a desert during a drought. Nobody is going to die if almonds aren't grown in the desert.

[jiocrag]

That’s because it’s the only place you can grow these crops year round, which is what the American consumer demands. You have very poor systems understanding — just a myopic view that lets you cast aspersions while enjoying the benefits of the system.

[yawz]

I believe that number is even higher in California: ~80%

How much almond California produces? Given the fact that "one ounce of almonds requires ~23 gallons of water", do the math!

[adolph]

Here is a source(ish) for the above. On the supply side:

  41% Groundwater 
  36% Colorado River (limited to 2.8 million acre feet annually)
  18% In-state Rivers (unlimited)
  5% Reclaimed Water

https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

[ebiester]

It's an ugly problem. The farmers actually have first right to the water over the cities, even if they use it inefficiently, due to the oldest laws in Arizona: water right laws.

That's right, the first laws in Arizona were about water and grabbing someone's water rights is some messy law.

Yes, we need to be talking about some drastic solutions in the area, yes, but it's not as simple as it seems from the outside.

[s1artibartfast]

It is not a matter of subsidized water, It is a challenge around private water ownership and public demand.

Most western states have some form of private water ownership, where land owners own the water under it, like gold, oil, ect.

Most of the population is urban, and don't have sufficient water ownership to meet their demands, particularly in times of drought.

This creates a natural conflict between owners who want to use it for one thing, and thirsty cities who don't own the water.

The the extent it is a the fault of suburban households, it is their fault for not buying the water or lands to meet their needs.

https://mywaterearth.com/who-are-the-global-water-grabbers/

[scarmig]

If a perfect market existed in water in western states, the cost of a gallon of water would be the same whether directed to urban or agricultural uses. It clearly isn't, which is a pretty clear sign that there are high frictions facing people who want to purchase the water they need.

A fix to this requires a change in policy.

[s1artibartfast]

It is not the price of a gallon that is being paid, but the right to use a gallon for all time. There are indeed high frictions, mostly in the form of upfront capital costs.

If you want to buy a farmers water, they want to be compensated for sunk capital and future earnings. They bought land, planted it, drilled wells, and have 30+ years of future earnings, after which, they could sell their rights.

In short, the relevant market is for the water rights, not the water itself.

[seandoe]

This. I live in Utah and it's the same story.

[syspec]

I think they alluded to that in their reply