If only people understood this concept. In my home town city council are bickering about whether to allow additional density to be build on already commercially zoned lots based on whether they force 10 or 12% if the units to be “affordable.”
They are bickering over whether 40 units of a building might have a net decreased rent of $200 a month and instead may get 0 units built instead of 400. The 400 units would likely reduce the rent in the area by more than $200.
Create abundance and then let the market set the price and be happy.
the largest desalination plant in the u. s. can serve 110,000 homes. we would need 30 of them to make a significant dent in just the LA area. we will all be long dead before 30 new desalination plants are operational in california
Or they're advocating for eating less water intensive things. If you for example grow wheat instead of grapes or almonds your likely reduce global famine a little bit.
I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away. That's once or twice a week. Less meat consumption in general would probably be good not only for the environment but also for public health.
Awesome. I’ve been a vegetarian for 25+ years, my 6+ year old car has less than 35k miles, I’ll bet my carbon footprint is lower than nearly every American commenting on this thread.
Having said that, merely hoping that people will make significant changes in their lifestyle for indirect and abstract benefits is simply burying one’s head in the sand with a rationalization that makes them feel good. The population is growing, and we will either innovate our way out of this, or it’s famine/war/etc.
Edit: go into /r/environment on Reddit and suggest people eat a lot less meat and see how quickly it’s downvoted into oblivion. And those are the people who actively care!
> I eat meat whenever my local supermarket has a piece of organic meat on sale because it would otherwise get thrown away.
I don't think that really works any more than the "look I'm killing the cows" argument. If they have to throw away packages each week, they'll buy less in the future, which in turn leads to lower production.
If you charge both the agricultural and residential users the same price, the agricultural ones go out of business. That may well be necessary, but they're politically well connected.
Idea I've had, solar power a desalination plant, pumping the water into a pumped storage reservoir, then water crops from it at night to reduce evaporation and produce energy when the sun isn't shining.
They are bickering over whether 40 units of a building might have a net decreased rent of $200 a month and instead may get 0 units built instead of 400. The 400 units would likely reduce the rent in the area by more than $200.
Create abundance and then let the market set the price and be happy.