How the West Was Lost: In America’s First Climate War
theatlantic.com
theatlantic.com
In addition, the map of western watersheds is amazing. I would love to see the other one the article mentions.
edit: couldn't find that, but did find Powell's 1878 report https://pubs.usgs.gov/unnumbered/70039240/report.pdf.
The science behind it, and that it was predicted by John Wesley Powell isn't discussed. It's just a thing that happened. Maybe other schools, or more recent education, discuss it more in depth.
My main takeaway was that they "solved" the dust bowl by pumping water up from the aquifers, which are now like 70% depleted - scary.
This rings very true today, save for the ability to desalinate. While it’s hard to predict what environmental impact such mass irrigation would have, we do have the technical ability now.
California should certainly invest in at least enough of desalination to supply cities and act as a safe guards against fluctuations in rainfall for agriculture.
Israel desalinates more water than it uses and is a net exporter of water in the region, selling fresh water to other countries.
(Disclaimer: I haven't tried even back-of-the-envelope calculations about other costs of doing so, e.g., capital- and operating costs of pipelines, pumps, etc.)
So it’s in the ballpark of a percent of California’s total GDP (which is roughly 2 trillion, IIRC) for non-industrial uses. (But industry, including agriculture, is responsible for that GDP- how easily a “dry” Californian economy could support desalination can’t be inferred from these numbers!)
Conceivably, using offshore wind turbines to power a desal plant could perhaps be cost-effective.
Equally flawed is taking on faith that technology will save us from ourselves.
I sort of feel we need Malthusian pessimists to warm us when we are heading for the cliff. The Green Revolution, and what it achieved in India and elsewhere, was achieved in substantial part through public investment in research. I guess we’re all rather glad we didn’t continue blithely believing the Gods would save us from the Malthusians! Right now, the Malthusians are warning us of the physical limits to further crop productivity increases. I’d take this as a signal that we need to start investing in solutions!
This paper, by the British Warren Buffet, explains the problem and is well worth the read if you have the time. It’s well-written so not as daunting as it’s length otherwise makes it look.
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-comment...
I’m not quite sure how we would hedge against 70% acquifer depletion, climate change or soil degradation, but a more honest conversation about the need for a hedge would be a start.
And looping back to your question, how to tell the difference between the Malthusian and the correct...and realizing you are essentially asking how to work out who is right and who is wrong about an unknowable future...maybe we look to how honest they are about the inherent uncertainty in any predictions made about the future, and secondly about the need to take risk mitigation steps to avoid worst outcome scenarios.
For those not familiar with the American West, Lake Powell is the 'upper half of the Grand Canyon', blocking tributaries that only a handful of white men had ever ventured into before the whole lot was flooded.
They love their irony.
Lake Powell, the $20 bill (Andrew Jackson was very against a central bank) &etc...