The Republicans are doomed!!

[JayB]

And three - Assuming that ever came to pass (Canada selling water to LA) if they discovered that they could make more money selling water to LA or anywhere else than they could by using the water for other economic purposes, they might like it quite a bit. The Saudis don't seem to mind selling their oil.

 

I think it's far more likely that arid regions would change the way they use their water (growing fewer water-intensive crops in the central valley, fewer golf courses in the desert, higher retail water bills, etc) before that came to pass, but it does seem like a popular comeuppance/revenge fantasy for many Canadians. "Not such a 'super' power now that you can't water your lawns anymore, eh? EH?"

[pc313]

Portland Or. have water police in the summer,and neighbors turn in neighbors, its funny shit!

[catbirdseat]

I think it's far more likely that arid regions would change the way they use their water (growing fewer water-intensive crops in the central valley, fewer golf courses in the desert, higher retail water bills, etc) before that came to pass, but it does seem like a popular comeuppance/revenge fantasy for many Canadians. "Not such a 'super' power now that you can't water your lawns anymore, eh? EH?"

It is highly unlikely as long as different users pay different prices for the same water. Right now farmers pay 1/100 as much for water as you and I.

[JayB]

I think it's far more likely that arid regions would change the way they use their water (growing fewer water-intensive crops in the central valley, fewer golf courses in the desert, higher retail water bills, etc) before that came to pass, but it does seem like a popular comeuppance/revenge fantasy for many Canadians. "Not such a 'super' power now that you can't water your lawns anymore, eh? EH?"

It is highly unlikely as long as different users pay different prices for the same water. Right now farmers pay 1/100 as much for water as you and I.

 

Yup. The low-hanging-fruit of water conservation. It'd make much more sense to buy water-intensive crops from places that have enough rainfall/water to grow them, instead of spending untold sums to upgrade the storage/distribution infrastructure, retrofit appliances, etc in order to meet industrial/residential demand while soaking the desert....

[pc313]

I think it's far more likely that arid regions would change the way they use their water (growing fewer water-intensive crops in the central valley, fewer golf courses in the desert, higher retail water bills, etc) before that came to pass, but it does seem like a popular comeuppance/revenge fantasy for many Canadians. "Not such a 'super' power now that you can't water your lawns anymore, eh? EH?"

It is highly unlikely as long as different users pay different prices for the same water. Right now farmers pay 1/100 as much for water as you and I.

 

Yup. The low-hanging-fruit of water conservation. It'd make much more sense to buy water-intensive crops from places that have enough rainfall/water to grow them, instead of spending untold sums to upgrade the storage/distribution infrastructure, retrofit appliances, etc in order to meet industrial/residential demand while soaking the desert....

 

We wont run out of water,but will run out of cheap water! And that will change everything from farming to flushing!

[j_b]

I agree that depleting fish stocks would/does have an adverse effect on the people who catch fish for a living, the communities they live in, and the ecosystem that the fish inhabit(ed), at a minimum. It might be interesting to discuss the dynamics of fish stocks, the local economies that depend on them, and what would happen to both as they depleted the resource. This doesn't change the fact that both people who catch fish for a living, and people who buy fish from them would ultimately find other ways to make a living, and other sources of food long before the fish in question were completely depleted.

 

This is false. Fish stocks eventually crash precipitously. During the northern cod collapse, 10,000’s of fishermen in Canada alone lost their jobs in a matter of a couple years while it was one of the few mainstays of the regional economy and nothing could replace the fishing industry. Other collapses have occurred elsewhere.

 

This would likely occur when their population reached the point that it cost more to catch the fish than the fish would sell for. Seems like a strange example to base your argument on.

 

Yours is a strange world indeed. Outside interests can come loot the resource a culture depends on and you think that people will find an equivalent job that doesn’t really exist. Of course, you refuse to acknowledge the 10,000lbs gorilla in the room: it simply isn’t sustainable or even plain reasonnable to deplete a resource for the short-term gain of a few people.

 

Fish depletion issues are widespread today and are often related to similar conflicts in resource allotment like for example the subsidized logging industry or agro-business destroying salmon habitat in western North America.

 

2. So it's primarily the distribution of natural resources that explains the difference between Haiti and the Dominican Republic?

 

Extreme resource/services depletion is linked to the political history (notably colonialism) of these regions. There are no more soils left in Haiti since it is almost completely deforested; all food has to be imported.

 

How about East and West Germany, North and South Korea, etc? Singapore, Hong-Kong, Switzerland, Taiwan, Ireland all grew prosperous on account of the vast stores of natural resources under their soil? Changes in the natural resource distribution explain the decline in agricultural output in Zimbabwe? Do tell...

 

Do tell what? Many variables condition economic fortunes, but resources and ecosystem services (such as climate) are usually the most important besides geographical location for trade centers. Which explains why advanced economies are mostly located in temperate regions. I am surprised I have to explain this to you, but perhaps I shouldn’t be.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Wow. For all his copious pontification, JayB doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of the economics of the real world, nevermind the huge role that human perception plays. Apparently, he memorized the first 2 chapters of his Econ 101 text, and took his world view from there. Damn near autistic, really.

 

I'm reminded of a really bad joke from Engineering school. A slaughterhouse owner asks an engineer to design a chicken plucking machine for him. "No problem, give me a week." the engineer replies. A week passes, and to the surprise of the owner, the engineer appears with drawings and a contraption, and begins his presentation.

 

"Consider the spherical chicken..."

 

Five minutes in an actual business environment might actually do him some good.

Edited November 25, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

And three - Assuming that ever came to pass (Canada selling water to LA) if they discovered that they could make more money selling water to LA or anywhere else than they could by using the water for other economic purposes, they might like it quite a bit. The Saudis don't seem to mind selling their oil.

 

I think it's far more likely that arid regions would change the way they use their water (growing fewer water-intensive crops in the central valley, fewer golf courses in the desert, higher retail water bills, etc) before that came to pass, but it does seem like a popular comeuppance/revenge fantasy for many Canadians. "Not such a 'super' power now that you can't water your lawns anymore, eh? EH?"

 

If we were a species of price-model adhering androids, that might be true. Too bad about that little perception and politics thing.

 

Consider the spherical chicken!

[tvashtarkatena]

For example, Canadians might value something other than money (NO WAY!), like the environment, or salmon, which just might be a cultural symbol that far outweighs its monetary value (IMPOSSIBLE!). Or water might become a a symbol of national soveriegnty (NEVER HAPPEN!). Or the kind of people who live in the Southwest might just not give a shit about conservation or believe there's a problem, like all those Republicans your favorite loser's home state (NUH UH!).

 

No, I'm sure everyone's going to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and agree to do the right thing according to the pricing model, you know, like they always do. No bubbles, no collapses, no lasting regional devastation, no non-linearity, no permanent environmental degradation, no political fun and games; all smurfs and loves and hugs. Just another wonderful day in sphericalchickentopia!

 

 

Edited November 25, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[mattp]

Reading this, I am left wondering: what was Jay's point? Yes, if we do absolutely nothing to plan for the inevitable we'll be forced to stop running all our cars on oil when the price of oil skyrockets or when water in the central California valley reaches the "price correction" we'll stop growing cotton there, but is he REALLY suggesting that we SHOULD leave it up to the big three automakers and the agribus farmers in California to conduct all long range planning?

 

Ford and farmers cannot afford to plan for the future. They have to make money this quarter or next or maybe the one after that or they'll go out of business. Without government intervention, by Jay's own thesis, we will and should continue unsustainable industrial practices until those industries are forced to change those practices, a force that in many cases will come with the collapse or near total destruction of a non-renewable resource and which even Jay must acknowledge could possibly trigger financial and political crises as well. Meanwhile, we are paying Ford and the farmers to hasten the day.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Well than, Matt, just what DOES Ford's huge Long Range Planning Department do all day, then?

[Hugh Conway]

Yup. The low-hanging-fruit of water conservation. It'd make much more sense to buy water-intensive crops from places that have enough rainfall/water to grow them, instead of spending untold sums to upgrade the storage/distribution infrastructure, retrofit appliances, etc in order to meet industrial/residential demand while soaking the desert....

 

Central Valley farms are among the most productive in the world - in $. Your next step forward is to decrease productivity? Are you channeling j_b?

[Hugh Conway]

Well than, Matt, just what DOES Ford's huge Long Range Planning Department do all day, then?

 

send out resumes

[Bug]

They are posting in some isolated forum for an esoteric persuit that brings people together who might never have met otherwise.

Then they argue over soundbites as though it were going to change the world.

Eventually, everything around them collapses and they are forced to find a job that requires them to actually work.

[j_b]

Well than, Matt, just what DOES Ford's huge Long Range Planning Department do all day, then?

 

Plan which pol to buy to defeat CAFE standards in congress.

[j_b]

Yup. The low-hanging-fruit of water conservation. It'd make much more sense to buy water-intensive crops from places that have enough rainfall/water to grow them, instead of spending untold sums to upgrade the storage/distribution infrastructure, retrofit appliances, etc in order to meet industrial/residential demand while soaking the desert....

 

Central Valley farms are among the most productive in the world - in $. Your next step forward is to decrease productivity? Are you channeling j_b?

 

For how long will they be the most productive since their irrigation pratices are simply not sustainable. There is no need to channel me; reading the specialized litterature should be amply sufficient:

 

The sustainability of irrigated agriculture in many arid and semiarid areas of the world is at risk because of a combination of several interrelated factors, including lack of fresh water, lack of drainage, the presence of high water tables, and salinization of soil and groundwater resources. Nowhere in the United States are these issues more apparent than in the San Joaquin Valley of California. A solid understanding of salinization processes at regional spatial and decadal time scales is required to evaluate the sustainability of irrigated agriculture.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1257392

[tvashtarkatena]

Yup. The low-hanging-fruit of water conservation. It'd make much more sense to buy water-intensive crops from places that have enough rainfall/water to grow them, instead of spending untold sums to upgrade the storage/distribution infrastructure, retrofit appliances, etc in order to meet industrial/residential demand while soaking the desert....

 

OMFG, why didn't anyone think of this before? The Canadian Arctic and Amazon basin have TONS of rainfall. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, WILL SOMEBODY PLANT SOME ORANGE TREES THERE ALREADY??!!!

 

JayB, you couldn't POSSIBLY as fucking stupid as you sound on this thread.

[prole]

Reading this, I am left wondering: what was Jay's point? Yes, if we do absolutely nothing to plan for the inevitable we'll be forced to stop running all our cars on oil when the price of oil skyrockets or when water in the central California valley reaches the "price correction" we'll stop growing cotton there, but is he REALLY suggesting that we SHOULD leave it up to the big three automakers and the agribus farmers in California to conduct all long range planning?

 

Ford and farmers cannot afford to plan for the future. They have to make money this quarter or next or maybe the one after that or they'll go out of business. Without government intervention, by Jay's own thesis, we will and should continue unsustainable industrial practices until those industries are forced to change those practices, a force that in many cases will come with the collapse or near total destruction of a non-renewable resource and which even Jay must acknowledge could possibly trigger financial and political crises as well. Meanwhile, we are paying Ford and the farmers to hasten the day.

 

 

You're confused? Isn't this exactly what JayB's been arguing for for all these years? You have forgotten the most important point however: any attempt whatsoever at planning for the sustainability, conservation, social good, etc. that you've all mentioned will inevitably result in a totalitarian dystopia of horrific dimensions. It's an iron law, like "trickle-down" and "self-correcting market".

 

Culture, ecology, dignity simply have no place in the matrices of macroeconomics, they're externalities, unpriceable, irrelevant. "Find another job, find a different way of life, build another strip mall on top of the old McMansions, on top of the factories, and so on, forever. Destruction is only creation writ large. Amen." The key is only to accumulate enough personal wealth to acquire the means to escape the consequences, to enjoy the gentle musical lappings of polluted water as you paddle through the ruins. GET WITH THE PROGRAM PEOPLE!

[mattp]

Well than, Matt, just what DOES Ford's huge Long Range Planning Department do all day, then?

 

It beats me. I'm guessing you and I are not supposed to know what they are up to

 

However, we're talking about the companies that fought requirements for seat belts. I think J_B is probably not far off: the auto makers spend a hell of a lot more resources figuring out how they can control the market, talk people into buying cars they don't need, and manipulating politics in their favor than they do figuring out how to provide transportation for America that is not based on an unsustainable level of oil consumption, doesn't destroy our atmosphere, and isn't dangerous and a waste of money.

 

 

[tvashtarkatena]

I hear Ford's getting into arctic agriculture.

[tvashtarkatena]

"Consider the spherical planet!"

[tvashtarkatena]

JayB should write for John Stewart. The guy's a veritable palladium mine.

[billcoe]

Lots of words. Still avoiding the question. Either admit you cannot answer it or just confess your stupidity and be done with it.

[tvashtarkatena]

Bill, the only outstanding question here is whether or not you're dumber than a post, and it's not much of a question at that, because the answer is self-evident.

[billcoe]

Better to be dumb than an insulting piece of shit such as yourself Pat, who cannot even answer a simple question.