California Goes Nuts
medium.com
medium.com
To put that in perspective, if you were paying $1000 per acre-foot for the water in your home, you could flush your toilet 42 times a day for a month and your bill would come to less than $5. Remember that the next time someone tells you to let it mellow.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-gleason-almond-fa...
I can pay Layer3 or HE $0.50 per mbps and get 200mbps to my server for the same price. The difference is that layer3 only needs to lay cables between a few dozen datacenters. Comcast needs to lay them between the data centers, and then millions of homes.
Economies of scale, etc.
I find this unlikely, or at the very least, exaggerated
If you buy several gigabits from he.net, you can get around $0.50 per mbps.
As of last year, for the same quantities, you are looking at about 6x that for Level3 (I assume you mean Level3, not Layer3)
Level3 is probably the most expensive major bandiwdth provider you are likely to encounter (they also have the largest network... if I was going to spend three bucks a megabit, and to be clear, I'm not, I'd spend it with Level3.) He.net is one of the cheapest, and only approaches "largest network" if you are counting IPv6 peers.
If your provider is charging you the same for both, most likely they have a he.net link for normal traffic, and then a burstable Level3 link, and they only use the latter as a backup.
(Also note, the pricing I'm talking about is only valid for the "one to five gigabits" level... bandwidth is one of those things that gets dramatically cheaper as you buy more. Dramatically.)
Also interestingly, if you want comcast in the datacenter... their pricing is closer to Level3 than it is to He.net. Even if you want to do 'paid peering' and only want to send data to/from comcast over the link. (Of course, no sane person would send traffic other than the traffic to/from comcast customers out said comcast link.)
(Of course, none of this has anything to do with your point, but someone was wrong on the internet, etc...)
Yes, I meant level3. Also did not know Comcast had transit in datacenters? Is that global or only in US?
That said, unless you have very serious bandwidth needs, buying from a third party like that usually works out just fine. In my experience, most people vastly overestimate how much bandwidth they are going to use.
I only have experience of the US... this was in silicon valley, in fact.
Co-mo.net
(Actual question)
Most of what makes up a tree's physical substance is pulled from the air, but it still needs some nutrients from the soil and water to move those nutrients in order to survive.
Is there some loss that is permanent or slow to recover, here?
The point of the "n gallons of water per x fruit" is saying that one certain crop is incredibly inefficient with its water consumption, and it'd be better to use it on something else. It's like saying a bloated web browser consumes 500 MB of memory/tab. Your memory isn't gone forever after you use it, but so long as you're using that browser or growing that crop, it's draining that resource away from other applications. You probably only have 8-16 GB of memory to use at once, just like a region only has N gallons of water it can use at any one time.
I suspect it's just simpler to call it "loss of water."
Another way to think about it, is that farming has historically occurred in places where there are decent natural growing conditions: Climate, soil, and water. If you let the water go somewhere else, through evaporation and rainfall, then you might end up having to maintain growing conditions artificially by bringing the water to where there is decent climate and soil. And again, you could measure the cost of doing that as a "debt."
In general, something needs to change for the water vapour to turn into rain, like changing altitude from passing over a mountain (reducing temperature and pressure), or the air stream combining with a colder one. Deserts tend to be flat and featureless, so there's little in the way of atmospheric change as you pass through them.
An interesting example of this is the continent of Australia - the most populated part is on a thin strip on the east coast as that's where the water and hence arable land is. But the air moves across the continent from the west - in general, the air crosses an entire continent before giving up it's water. It gives up that water because it hits the long strip of mountains slightly inland from the east coast, which changes the conditions appropriately. But until it hits those mountains, the entire overland journey is very consistent for the vapour, so it stays as vapour. There are several mechanisms at play here in dumping the water from vapour into rain - check out wikipedia, I couldn't do them all justice.
The water becomes immediately unavailable until it returns to the ground as rain somewhere or someWHEN else.
Sure, looking at the big picture the water is never actually "lost". Until you can plumb my domestic water into the clouds directly, the big picture is irrelevant. All that matters is the water that is available in a potable form for me to drink right now.
In financial systems, we might come to an arrangement that I will pay you Friday for a burger Tuesday. With water, it doesn't work like that. If I don't have water now at the time I need it, there is no use promising me water late next week.
And when it comes to a decision between me having a litre of water today for me to survive on, or saving your thousand-dollar almond tree, I will unashamedly pick me.
https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleevapotranspiration.html
Assuming the farmers are irrigating efficiently then most of the water is being lost to evapotranspiration aka the plants sweating it out through their leaves. Almond trees let more water escape through their leaves than say a cactus might and that is why it takes more water to keep them healthy.
Combined with wind and solar power, this can be used as a fuel source (hydrogen storage)... it's rather short sighted that such efforts haven't been made in this country starting years ago.
It takes 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond! How many almonds' worth of water does it take to:
* Flush a toilet: 1.6
* Run a dishwasher: 8
* Run a garden hose for 2 min: 20
* Take 10-min shower: 25
* Do a load of laundry: 45
How much water per year does it take to (in billions of cubic meters):
* produce all of the almonds in California: 3.6
* provide water to all Los Angeles homes and businesses: 0.86
* provide water to all San Francisco homes and businesses: 0.11
At this point, I don't think either country is exploiting the other, though China could do well to enforce environmental regulations (which would definitely drive up export costs).
China doesn't have enough water to grow almonds. Water shortages here make California's water shortages look insignificant.
They still have a long way to go before treating you that way.
They'd also use us as cheap labour, and allow us to go thirsty while entire cities worth of water gets diverted by Chinese corporations for almond plantations, and then we'd slave away thirstily picking almonds for Chinese businesses to then whisk away back to China.
Oh, and the whole while there'd be drones overhead bombing us every once in awhile, probably at family functions just to remind us who's in charge. This would be justified back in China by reminding the public that we're ignorant, violent Christian heathens in the face of their enlightened Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian philosophy, who are plotting to bomb Chinese almond corporations, rape Chinese women and eventually take over China itself (American people who immigrated to China will be 'proof' of this nefarious plot, what with our American cultural buildings that are disguised as unhealthy food outlets but are really terrorist hideouts).
They'd also pay and arm our compatriots who succumb to the new order to hunt us down and kill us for objecting to our new almond-loving overlords (until they realise that they're also getting a raw deal, in which case they'd get drone'd and the cycle would repeat itself).
Then we could say the Chinese are treating us the way the US has treated other nations.
-Ground water can be at least partially recouped through wells. This would be a really interesting number to look up.
-Sewage water is wasted as it is dumped into the sea.
Anything else? Where does water leave the cycle?
I've seen a lot of different numbers, most of them seem to be napkin math.
edit - clarify; Edit2 - add the following
I shouldn't have been so short or flippant. There is a difference between using water in a way that renders it basically unusable without cleaning/purifying it through energy intensive processes or massive dilution (dumping into the ocean which is still unusable without desalinization) and using water in a way that allows it to naturally return to the system through evaporation.
We talk about agricultural use of water as if that creates some sort of excuse to be wasteful. Will not running the water while brushing your teeth or shaving solve the drought? No. Is it completely wasteful and unnecessary? Yes.
I completely agree that ridiculously minor "feel good" measures like only getting a glass of water on request at restaurants will do little to nothing to show love any actual problem. I think it also hurts finding an actual solution because we feel like we're sacrificing so we've dibe our share. Sort of like driving a Prius.
Solving the water shortage problem is going to take a lot more than low-flow shower heads. But it's also going to require a lot more than eating fewer almonds. And the fact that agriculture is a big consumer of water isn't a reason or an excuse to be wasteful.
If you really want to contribute towards a healthier more sustainable planet, skip that burger and have a salad with some California avocados and sliced almonds on top.
Sales tax is up again too right? California really knows how to show its residents love. Tax revenue from almonds is 30x more important than the general comfort of its residents is what I gather. That's just nuts..lol
You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever.
I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been.
It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.
Almonds -- 350-500 gallons; (added in an edit by popular demand, not in source)
Eggs -- 573 gallons;
Chicken -- 815 gallons;
Cheese -- 896 gallons;
Pork -- 1630 gallons;
Butter -- 2044 gallons;
Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons;
(gallons of water per pound of food)
Source:
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-Waterfoo...
And the meat & dairy industry takes up a whopping 47% of California's water.
Source (page 3 [pdf page 9]):
http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft...
I actually made an account to comment on these posts. No one else seems to be putting things into perspective. We aren't draining ourselves of water from small things like produce and nuts..
California : > 3 million illegal immigrants and growing (California policies welcome it) > Continuing to cram people into the major cities (stop) > Stop producing so much water demanding products.. Let another state that has a more adequate water supply and conditions do it > Stop trying to produce 80% of the nation's agriculture. Let other states do it.
^ Solutions that put things into perspective. Why are none of them being pursued? because it attacks tax revenue and money. Money from other sources > people's comfort who live in California. All of that money ($115 billion in annual tax revenue and still in debt up to their ears and no money to fund water solution projects .. corruption, waste)
Perspective : California doesn't give a rats ass about its residents. It exists and makes policies to further grow its tax base .. consequences be dammed. Residents always put up with the idiocy. So, screw them (over and over)
Rice: 5000 gallons per pound.[1]
Brewed coffee: 37 gallons per cup brewed coffee. [2]
Pair of cotton Jeans: 900 - 1800 gallons [3]
[1] http://www.usriceproducers.com/files/187_Rice%20Facts.pdf
[2] http://www.ocwd.com/ConservationEducation/WaterFacts.aspx
[3] http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/how-many-gallons-...
Their biggest selling point is that California rice production provides wetland habitat for migrating birds.
California rice farmers may not be doing well though. http://calrice.org/blog/?id=1427805660&author=California+Ric...
Conservation is a comprehensive issue that's not going to be solved finding and singling out one bogey nut.
> Not planning ahead for a foreseeable event
and
> 33.8 million people not batting an eye for over 5 years while their state runs completely dry of water
People have to face personal consequences in today's society before they wake up. Notably, that's when you hear the most yapping and observe the most activity : When something is too far gone and its too late.
Hold the price down on a resource that has its supply drastically cut and we'll end up with scarcity.
With proper designs, we should be able to mitigate a lot of the bad side effects while protecting more of the land based ecosystems.
When we say: there is a shortage of X, what we really mean is that there is a shortage of cheap X, and we aren't yet ready to pay the cost for expensive X.
Like almonds, they are yummy, but if the price went up by 10 because they had to use desalinated water, we might not eat so many.
California Tax revenue : $115,089,654,000 (115 billion). I think this issues can get a hellavuh lot worse than it is right now before any serious action is taken. When I start seeing billion dollar steps being made to address the issue, that's when I'll consider that they take it seriously.
If additional revenue is needed, the state has a rather healthy economy that could greatly benefit from additional water.
Oh, and you also need land for that next to the ocean.
[1] http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Desalination-plants-a-pri...
The new billion dollar San Diego desalination plant can produce 18 billion gallons of water per year, at a cost of $1 per ~162 gallons (1/2 of one cent per gallon; or roughly $2,000 per acre foot of water, about 325,000 gallons).
From what I can find, almond growing in California consumes 1.1 trillion gallons of water per year. So it would take ~60 modern desalination plants at a cost of $1 billion each to provide water for just California's present almond growing....
Of course, California producers would never do that because they would have to put up their own money. History shows that what farmers want in the way of infrastructure gets paid for by the public (dams, aqueducts, levees, drainage, etc).
Edit: whoops that's high by almost a factor of 10x, but I'll leave it the way I originally wrote it.
> When I assure him I’m after the whole story, he softens.
And yet, is not blaming almonds exactly what the author proceeds to do?
I'm not saying they aren't to blame, but this seems a bit dishonest.
Important point. The dietary fads seem to completely disregard environmental concerns and general impact on the production area.
How do the following compare in water utilization, in typical preparation? Bonus: since we're comparing gallon of water to gallon of caloric beverage, you get to use a dimensionless quantity! Or you can be boring and call it "Gallons of water used per gallon of ____".
-Almond milk
-Peanut milk
-Soy milk
-Cow milk
Cow milk seems to be around 1000 gallons per gallon. Soy milk comes in around 130 gallons per gallon. Almond milk, around 400 gallons per gallon. Peanut milk is less popular than I thought, but should come in somewhere close to soy.