This is about water use, as opposed to land use. Land use matters, but let's try to stay focused for a second, esp. b/c some of the livestock are not local to the feed grows.
The Colorado River has barely touched the Gulf of California for years. There is inherent value as well as economic value in the ecosystem services that result from allowing natural systems to thrive... or even just function at all.
I hope we are not so cynical as to suggest that the over-extraction of the river and the destruction of the reliant ecosystems is an acceptable consequence of human success.
Even if you like hamburgers, is it worth the cost to continue to over-extract for their production from locations that cannot support it just because people have been doing it for a while and have a strong sense of private property rights? Why shouldn't we tell these farmers to pay up for the water or go somewhere to produce that food where it is more abundant?
There are many crops that can be grown in dry area. Historically corn was an important crop in the desert southwest, as were beans and squash. More recently, amaranth. Also agave and other cactus fruit. If you've never had nopalitos, you're missing out.
In short, lots of food crops that require substantially less water. It's a different form of agriculture.
As for hamburgers: we can quibble over the exact figures, but globally, livestock production is responsible for anywhere from 11% to 19% of annual greenhouse gas production. Given that humanity is not going to go all plant-based suddenly, reducing the footprint of cattle production is imperative. Growing hay and shipping it around the world to feed cow is the opposite of sustainable.
It's going to be ok. Pursue beauty, enjoy life, it is too short. There is no guarantee a meteorite does not crash tomorrow and kills 95% of live beings on Earth. Not sure what you mean by sustainable.
Better worry about pollution, which you know, actually hurts currently living people.
Do you like having water to drink? Cities are getting squeezed so that these desert farmers (who get the water for free) can feed their cattle or export hay/alfalfa to other countries.
So it is right and proper for a few extended families to determine the fate of an entire region? It's not even one city of millions, it is several we're talking about.
if you read the article, it notes that a large portion of that hay is shipped out of country.
so, not only does that water not feed Americans, it doesn't feed American cows.
it is much less water-intensive to grow feed-hay where there are not water shortages, let alone to ship that outside of the country that is already dealing with lack of water for major regions.
The Colorado River has barely touched the Gulf of California for years. There is inherent value as well as economic value in the ecosystem services that result from allowing natural systems to thrive... or even just function at all.
Here is a nice summary of the state and characters in Colorado River ecology: https://www.coloradocollege.edu/dotAsset/cbb78858-d078-4a7c-...
I hope we are not so cynical as to suggest that the over-extraction of the river and the destruction of the reliant ecosystems is an acceptable consequence of human success.
Even if you like hamburgers, is it worth the cost to continue to over-extract for their production from locations that cannot support it just because people have been doing it for a while and have a strong sense of private property rights? Why shouldn't we tell these farmers to pay up for the water or go somewhere to produce that food where it is more abundant?