How taxing organic products could save California's water shortage

on this site a lot of good news about America, in the sense of this sh** in Russia no

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: mOjOm

We have only ourselves to blame. We vote in the people who do this every year.

It doesn't matter who you vote for...

Professors Martin Gilens (Princeton University) and Benjamin I. Page (Northwestern University) looked at more than 20 years worth of data to answer a simple question: Does the government represent the people?

Their study took data from nearly 2000 public opinion surveys and compared it to the policies that ended up becoming law. In other words, they compared what the public wanted to what the government actually did. What they found was extremely unsettling: The opinions of 90% of Americans have essentially no impact at all.

Source

Unless you're a corporation and have a lot of money, or are a mult-millionaire, your vote and voice doesn't matter to congress. What the politicians listen to is $$$.

Republican, Democrat -- it doesn't matter. Congress doesn't listen to the people. Look at the approval ratings of Congress. Does it look like they care about those ratings?

a reply to: Mandroid7
Actually organic farming uses LESS water than chemical farming. I can't speak for GMO crops (which I would never eat by choice) but anyone who stayed even half awake during their high school biology class should know this. I now believe it is not possible for a politician to ever say anything truthful. Chemical fertilizers build soil up with salts and also kills the bacteria in the soil that breaks down organic matter. Therefore more water is required where chemical fertilizers are used. I have had an organic lawn where my neighbors used chemicals. My lawn stayed greener longer during the dry season. I did not water the lawn but my neighbors did and their lawns still burnt out due to the build up of salts and minerals in the soil. When chemical salts and minerals build up enough, no amount of water, other than distilled water or rain water will help.

In an organic environment, breakdown of nutrients is accomplished through bacterial action (which chemicals kill). When there is less water, the bacteria are less active which is self regulating. Solutions by nature are ALWAYS better than solutions by man. These type of politicians will just ruin the world.

a reply to: Mandroid7

My state (Kalifornia) is run by a bunch of knuckleheads. The governor wants to spend $50 billion on a train to nowhere, to pay off his political debts, but won't spend 10% of that on rebuilding, or innovating the water infrastructure vital to the state's success. Absolute idiots!

The state government has been saddled with "pay to play" politics for decades and they have no intention of finding real solutions. They will saddle us with more debt and regulation and scaremonger rather work to find solutions. Our state government is the model of failure, pure and simple. I can't wait to leave this state permanently.

The politcos have no intention of finding solutions. Their only goal is to wring every last dollar out of us and then blame us for their failures to lead. In truth we are to blame for their failures. We keep electing them. It is a self-fulfilling prophesy.

I'm going to go throw-up now!

a reply to: zbrain75

Chemical fertilizers build soil up with salts and also kills the bacteria in the soil that breaks down organic matter. Therefore more water is required where chemical fertilizers are used.

Good point.

But it's also not just the end use of those products that may cause more water usage, it's also how much resources and energy are used to make those products to get them to the farmers' fields.

Whereas with organic products, the seed gets planted, it gets watered, it gets harvested.

End of story... no need for the big manufacturing process inbetween.

When a product is being manufactured, how much water is used to make it ? How many employees working at this place are washing their hands and flushing toilets and making pots of coffee on their breaks ? How many truck drivers are delivering these products and also using water during their work day ? How many retailers are selling these products with their business/employee water usage ?

In most likelihood, there's probably 100 times more water usage to get these chemical fertilizers from point A (making it) to point Z (the end user).

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Or they could grow organic using the new Israeli developed method.

There is a plantation where I live that started recently and said the same amount of land/water grants 200% to 600% higher crop yields using this method.

They raise a rectangle of dirt, insulate with plastic, and I am not sure what else they do. But it's incredibly easy and cheap to do it.

That's call the polytunnel method. Any country anywhere could use this technique to grow just about any kind of crop. With regulated temperature, humidity, light, soil wetness, salinity and Ph balance, all crops can be grown given enough space and energy. Countries actually signed trade agreements not to use this technology because it put the least developed countries at a disadvantage (they didn't have any other alternative export product).

Liberals never seem to think that raising taxes will hurt anything. So, I guess fox news is saying that only conservatives will switch to GMOs. Sounds like something the Haterade drinkers above would approve of.

originally posted by: zbrain75
a reply to: Mandroid7
Actually organic farming uses LESS water than chemical farming. I can't speak for GMO crops (which I would never eat by choice) but anyone who stayed even half awake during their high school biology class should know this. I now believe it is not possible for a politician to ever say anything truthful. Chemical fertilizers build soil up with salts and also kills the bacteria in the soil that breaks down organic matter.

Assuming too much is used.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not an expert in farming techniques but wouldn't vertical farming be better than a tax?

Vertical farming uses 98% less water than growing in a field and being a sealed environment it massively reduces the need for pesticides which makes organic farming the way to go. The disadvantage is that they use a little more energy than an open field but work is being done to mitigate that (which we could solve by building the things and getting experience with them) and really we're in a situation where water is more valuable than energy.

As a bonus, northern California also happens to have the best environmental conditions in the US for vertical farming, and it's also prime real estate for geothermal electricity which gives a non polluting source of power using known and proven technology to power the farms.

a reply to: Mandroid7

The National Review used to be a reputable conservative publication - what's happened?

Tax fracking - uses - no wastes - much more fresh water then organic produce.

Tax bottled water and soda - see above.

Shall I go on?

Isn't there some quote about desparation and that the battle is nearly won when this level trash is all the 'distinguished' opposition has left to say. Or should I say the 'exinguished' opposition.

originally posted by: Aazadan
Correct me if I'm wrong here, I'm not an expert in farming techniques but wouldn't vertical farming be better than a tax?

Vertical farming uses 98% less water than growing in a field and being a sealed environment it massively reduces the need for pesticides which makes organic farming the way to go. The disadvantage is that they use a little more energy than an open field but work is being done to mitigate that (which we could solve by building the things and getting experience with them) and really we're in a situation where water is more valuable than energy.

As a bonus, northern California also happens to have the best environmental conditions in the US for vertical farming, and it's also prime real estate for geothermal electricity which gives a non polluting source of power using known and proven technology to power the farms.

Expensive to convert - ...

a reply to: thinline

Not 'anything' - it's not 'anyone'.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: zbrain75

Chemical fertilizers build soil up with salts and also kills the bacteria in the soil that breaks down organic matter. Therefore more water is required where chemical fertilizers are used.

Good point.

But it's also not just the end use of those products that may cause more water usage, it's also how much resources and energy are used to make those products to get them to the farmers' fields.

Whereas with organic products, the seed gets planted, it gets watered, it gets harvested.

End of story... no need for the big manufacturing process inbetween.

When a product is being manufactured, how much water is used to make it ? How many employees working at this place are washing their hands and flushing toilets and making pots of coffee on their breaks ? How many truck drivers are delivering these products and also using water during their work day ? How many retailers are selling these products with their business/employee water usage ?

In most likelihood, there's probably 100 times more water usage to get these chemical fertilizers from point A (making it) to point Z (the end user).

Don't forget the waste gets composted.

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

very cool.

Man, that second pic is genius and cheap to build.
You cant beat that setup with the white plastic and drip irrigation.
It would really lock in the moisture.

Can someone please forward this to the fox news comments section?

..oh wait, they don't have one

But, I suspect, maintenance will be a bit*h. My limited experience with mulch and drip systems on a small (25' x 40') scale are that what you save in water you have to put in in constant maintenance. I didn't have the time. The cost/benefit may well be worth it now for larger growers but I choose to water by hand with is also very water saving.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Expensive to convert - ...

Geothermal isn't that expensive. It's more expensive than coal in upfront costs but less expensive after you account for long term issues.

The farms themselves would cost a few billion, but let me ask you this: How much is trucking in water going to cost? How much will be lost in the damage to agriculture? I would bet that it's actually cost neutral or atleast not all that much more expensive than the alternative.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: FyreByrd
Expensive to convert - ...

Geothermal isn't that expensive. It's more expensive than coal in upfront costs but less expensive after you account for long term issues.

The farms themselves would cost a few billion, but let me ask you this: How much is trucking in water going to cost? How much will be lost in the damage to agriculture? I would bet that it's actually cost neutral or atleast not all that much more expensive than the alternative.

I thought we were talking about irriagtion.

Personally, I'd rather put the billions (even the Trillion that Bernie Sanders is talking) into solid infrastructure programs that povide citizens with jobs and hope then spend it on weapons and killing.

One would think that feeding the country healthy - sustainable food would be a priority - but I'd be wrong. War, killing and pillage are the priority.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
I thought we were talking about irriagtion.

Personally, I'd rather put the billions (even the Trillion that Bernie Sanders is talking) into solid infrastructure programs that povide citizens with jobs and hope then spend it on weapons and killing.

One would think that feeding the country healthy - sustainable food would be a priority - but I'd be wrong. War, killing and pillage are the priority.

No, vertical farming involves stacking rows of crops that grow one above the other out of I think plastic tubing. I don't know all the specifics of the method, but it achieves such a high water efficiency because there's virtually no runoff, almost all of the water used goes directly to the food, there are also no losses to evaporation due to the closed environment and grows vegetables in a very space efficient method, it's a lot like hydroponic growing which is up to 20x more space efficient than just growing in a field, yet that still takes up even more space than this.

The big drawback is that because you're growing vertically, a lot of light from the sun gets blocked, the lower the food is the less sunlight it gets, this results in needing growing lights which require a good deal of electricity, but as I said California is pretty much uniquely positioned to take advantage of geothermal and that can compensate. Contrary to the claims of the coal lobby they aren't the cheapest electricity source in certain areas of the country.

Personally, I would call an investment like this into food and electricity production a worthy example of infrastructure spending.

a reply to: Aazadan

Hmmm... You're not wrong and the yield per the amount of land used is much higher. Kind of makes one wonder why these methods are not employed on a larger scale by big business even when individuals and small business use them successfully.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
Good point.

But it's also not just the end use of those products that may cause more water usage, it's also how much resources and energy are used to make those products to get them to the farmers' fields.

Whereas with organic products, the seed gets planted, it gets watered, it gets harvested.

End of story... no need for the big manufacturing process inbetween.

When a product is being manufactured, how much water is used to make it ? How many employees working at this place are washing their hands and flushing toilets and making pots of coffee on their breaks ? How many truck drivers are delivering these products and also using water during their work day ? How many retailers are selling these products with their business/employee water usage ?

In most likelihood, there's probably 100 times more water usage to get these chemical fertilizers from point A (making it) to point Z (the end user).

Excellent point! The politicians like to push the agenda desired by those in power so they can claim there are too many people to sustain life on Earth. All the while big business is wasting resources by the boatload. In addition, the runoff from chemical farming pollutes rivers, streams and lakes in major ways so there is much more impact than considering water usage.

originally posted by: zbrain75
a reply to: Aazadan

Hmmm... You're not wrong and the yield per the amount of land used is much higher. Kind of makes one wonder why these methods are not employed on a larger scale by big business even when individuals and small business use them successfully.

It's called capitalism. I assume you're familiar with the concept of planned obsolescence? Well, part of the reason we do that is to create an inefficiency that offsets productivity gains. If a person has to buy a blender every 30 years that's not much work, but if they have to buy a new one every 2 years that's 15x the work and 15x the jobs.

Efficient farms cost jobs and bring down the price of food thus there's incentives to not adopt the better methods unless we have jobs to spare.