[HN Gopher] The Last Drops of Mexico City
___________________________________________________________________
The Last Drops of Mexico City
Author : anarbadalov
Score : 205 points
Date : 2025-03-20 13:28 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (mexicocitywater.longlead.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (mexicocitywater.longlead.com)
| LeftHandPath wrote:
| Off topic: This page is beautiful. Love it when people use
| magazine-style layouts on the web.
| racl101 wrote:
| Pretty stylish.
|
| Wouldn't want to read this on a phone though I tell you hwhat.
| Aardwolf wrote:
| Works great in firefox on android. Text takes exact screen
| width and is not too small nor too big, and there are no
| stupid floating right side icons overlapping the text, what
| more do you need
|
| It does have an unneeded text-scrolling-up effect, and breaks
| reader view which means they're doing something sinister, but
| at least reader view isn't actually necessary in this one for
| the way it looks
| Suppafly wrote:
| >Wouldn't want to read this on a phone though I tell you
| hwhat.
|
| Most decently designed sites know how to respond to different
| screen sizes.
| Marsymars wrote:
| I read it on my TV, and it was pretty nice.
| ropable wrote:
| Counterpoint: it's super clear and easy to read on Firefox
| mobile. No popups or interstitial ads. Yes it's quite lengthy
| and there are many pictures, but you know what you're getting
| into with any long article like this one. This is exactly
| what I want for reading on mobile.
| true_blue wrote:
| It's pretty for sure, but it breaks reader view which I use a
| lot, so I don't like it. also it requires a lot of unnecessary
| scrolling to read since the text is broken up so much
| ericmay wrote:
| Is it just me or is anyone else unable to swipe to go back to
| the parent HN page from the longlead.com website?
| karpovv-boris wrote:
| It's like old "science and life" journals. If you have that
| experience, then you'll be appreciating it. Love it
| pdntspa wrote:
| Ugh no. My scroll wheel finger hurts because they are allergic
| to a simple text flow. I hate it when people get too fancy with
| this shit
| glenneroo wrote:
| Pro-tip: If you click anywhere on the page, you can also use
| the arrow keys on your keyboard to scroll up/down and avoid
| finger-wheel-fatigue :)
| eudhxhdhsb32 wrote:
| It's annoying to read on my phone. Text and pictures are moving
| at different speeds than I'm scrolling.
| jppullen wrote:
| Hi all -- I'm Long Lead's editor, John Patrick Pullen. Thanks
| for the compliments (those of you who have) and for those who
| have other thoughts, we hear you.
|
| I'm personally a big fan of reader-mode on browsers, myself,
| but at Long Lead, we think there's an opportunity for a new
| kind of journalism, one that takes time to produce and relies
| on design as much as it does editorial and art. You can't stuff
| that in a reader-mode -- and really we don't want to.
|
| We're a journalism studio. What's a journalism studio, you ask?
| Well, what's a film studio? You know -- they produce feature
| films that look great in the right or best contexts. Watching
| on a phone isn't as good as a tablet, which isn't as good as a
| TV or a projector. Similarly, our features journalism is built
| to scale (we do actually build separate mobile layouts) but
| isn't designed to leave our site. Also, all of them are bespoke
| builds made to support the reporting that they're housing,
| because every feature has its own needs. We work in every
| medium, too, from podcasts to documentaries to photo features
| like this one.
|
| We believe there's an opportunity for this kind of journalism,
| because it used to exist. Remember a time when magazines
| arrived in your inbox with gorgeous photos and fact-checked
| features that took months to make? That's what we're doing, but
| online.
|
| I hope you follow us and our work. We have some exciting stuff
| ahead. The best way to know when our next feature drops is by
| subscribing to our newsletter at www.longlead.com/newsletters.
|
| Thanks so much for reading!
| internetter wrote:
| A couple pieces of feedback from someone who loves your
| content
|
| 1. I can't find an RSS feed anywhere?
|
| 2. Your homepage (https://longlead.com/#stories) is -- and
| there's no gentle way to put this -- borderline unusable. All
| I want is a simple list of your stories.
|
| With a little bit of "undesigning," you'd have an amazing
| site :)
| jppullen wrote:
| Thank you!
|
| 1. Being RSS-compatible would unbundle the editorial and
| art from the design. I wish RSS readers and aggregators
| would support our builds, but they do not. We do produce
| newsletters (currently through Substack) that do/would, but
| those are very different editorial products.
|
| 2. I understand this critique. We have outgrown this build,
| and are looking to develop a new website this year. It was
| good when we were starting out, but it doesn't serve our
| readership well anymore -- as you're pointing out!
| internetter wrote:
| This was killed by the HN community. I've vouched for it.
| Killing posts you disagree with isn't the point of the
| flag feature.
|
| With that being said, I understand your perspective. I've
| grappled with this myself. Please note that having RSS
| does not mandate that there's content attached to each
| entry. It can "just" be a title, date, stable id like
| your slug, and a link. That way, if you insist on
| directing visitors to your own site, that can be done,
| while still allowing the reader to get updates in their
| reader.
|
| I can assure you that if you add an RSS feed, I will
| regularly consume your content. If you don't, I won't
| even know it exists. For all the faults of legacy media,
| attaining readership is not one of them. They'd all
| remove RSS feeds in an instant if they could without
| loosing readers.
| mjmsmith wrote:
| Why on earth is jppullen's comment dead?
| jppullen wrote:
| Well that's not cool. Here it is again:
|
| Hi all -- I'm Long Lead's editor, John Patrick Pullen. Thanks
| for the compliments (those of you who have) and for those who
| have other thoughts, we hear you.
|
| I'm personally a big fan of reader-mode on browsers, myself,
| but at Long Lead, we think there's an opportunity for a new
| kind of journalism, one that takes time to produce and relies
| on design as much as it does editorial and art. You can't
| stuff that in a reader-mode -- and really we don't want to.
|
| We're a journalism studio. What's a journalism studio, you
| ask? Well, what's a film studio? You know -- they produce
| feature films that look great in the right or best contexts.
| Watching on a phone isn't as good as a tablet, which isn't as
| good as a TV or a projector. Similarly, our features
| journalism is built to scale (we do actually build separate
| mobile layouts) but isn't designed to leave our site. Also,
| all of them are bespoke builds made to support the reporting
| that they're housing, because every feature has its own
| needs. We work in every medium, too, from podcasts to
| documentaries to photo features like this one.
|
| We believe there's an opportunity for this kind of
| journalism, because it used to exist. Remember a time when
| magazines arrived in your inbox with gorgeous photos and
| fact-checked features that took months to make? That's what
| we're doing, but online.
|
| I hope you follow us and our work. We have some exciting
| stuff ahead. The best way to know when our next feature drops
| is by subscribing to our newsletter at
| www.longlead.com/newsletters.
|
| Thanks so much for reading!
| mjmsmith wrote:
| Please consider adding an RSS feed for us old fogeys.
| saagarjha wrote:
| New account, likely. It's been vouched for now presumably.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Nezahualcoyotl/Neza, Naucalpan, and Ecatepec (the municipalities
| mentioned) are not in Mexico City proper.
|
| They along with Iztapalapa are the former slum towns. How much of
| the water crisis can be attributed to the fact that these were
| all unplanned muncipalities, with split governance between Mexico
| State and CDMX
|
| Edit: Yep, looks like only 15% of water in Mexico is allocated to
| human consumption and the rest is for agriculture and
| manufacturing [0].
|
| Now I'm curious how many seats in Estado Mexico's assembly are
| within the CDMX metro and how many are not. If majority of them
| aren't within the CDMX metro then it's the classic democracy
| dilemma you see in Brazil, India, Indonesia, Philippines, etc as
| well.
|
| [0] - https://www.axios.com/2024/11/26/mexico-water-crisis-
| claudia...
| arebop wrote:
| For comparison, about 13% of water in US is allocated to "human
| consumption" with the rest for ag and mfg
| [https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-
| school/sci...].
| alephnerd wrote:
| Good point!
|
| But American sewage systems are also functional and
| maintained/upgraded.
|
| I'm not sure how DPW-style work is funded or managed at the
| municipality level in MX.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| Medico city is basically at the level of the water table,
| no? Building a sewer must be a serious pain in the ass.
| alephnerd wrote:
| Edit 3: My hypothesis about state impact doesn't hold (forgot
| that Mexico follows the same system as the US of direct
| governer elections plus a mix of direct and proportional
| representation).
|
| That said, now I'm curious about how public funds are disbursed
| to localities. How do local municipalities and unincorporated
| areas get services funded in Mexico?
| non- wrote:
| One thing I'd like more info on is in what ways Nestle and other
| water companies have contributed to the problem.
|
| I've long heard that they lobby to prevent the local Government
| in CDMX from providing potable water in order to protect their
| bottled water and water-delivery business, but I actually don't
| know how well substantiated those accusations are.
|
| On the positive side of things, Mexico City gets a ton of rain
| during the wet season which can be harvested with rooftop
| collectors.
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| When I lived in Oaxaca it was a massive issue with portable
| water only being available through private means from private
| springs in the nearby area. All hotels and tourist attractions
| had access to water, while the rest went without, some for
| months.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| Do you remember how much they would charge for water?
| racl101 wrote:
| I've heard from a Mexican buddy that Coca Cola is cheaper in
| Mexico than drinking water.
| pier25 wrote:
| I've never seen this
| recursive wrote:
| Coca Cola should just make a new formula that doesn't have any
| flavoring, carbonation, or sweetener. That should be even
| cheaper.
| dhosek wrote:
| They can call it Dasani and sell it for more than they charge
| for the sweetened flavored carbonated beverage.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Soft drinks get carbonation and syrup added and are bottled
| close to point of use (because that's cheaper and better than
| shipping the finished product) so they're subject to local
| potable water costs. Unless government is distorting thing that
| just doesn't make sense.
| xdc0 wrote:
| That's a myth. In many parts of Mexico, if not everywhere,
| water treatment is bad and drinking tap water is not advised,
| so you buy purified water.
|
| It cost around 10 pesos (50 cents) to fill a 19 liter (5
| gallon) jug. That's cheaper than a single 12oz can of coca cola
| Marsymars wrote:
| What's with the $5/5 gallon reference in the article? I
| thought that seemed expensive.
| blovescoffee wrote:
| That's not accurate. At least in the majority of the city.
| You can buy a brand new 5 gallon garrafon for $65mxn ~
| $3.25. You can fill one up from empty for ~$35mxn.
| timetraveller26 wrote:
| https://larevistadelsureste.com/chamula-el-pueblo-que-mas-co...
|
| "A key reason for the rise in consumption is its availability
| and, in many cases, its lower cost compared to drinking water.
| In many rural communities in Chiapas, access to safe drinking
| water is limited, local stores are well-stocked with Coca-Cola,
| and the company's marketing campaigns have ensured that the
| drink is always within everyone's reach."
| rzz3 wrote:
| It's simply not true. Not in any place I've ever seen in all
| the years I've been in Mexico.
| southernplaces7 wrote:
| Been a resident of Mexico for nearly 20 years now, and no, coca
| cola is emphatically not cheaper than drinking water. This
| nonsense myth needs to die.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| It's not cheaper. However, Coca-Cola does consume an enormous
| quantity of water and it is popular and it does drive the cost
| of water up. I'd prolly be pissed too if I were mexican.
| eckmLJE wrote:
| I kept hoping they'd provide a reference of Tenochtitlan.
| Possibly the most striking thing I learned when visiting Mexico
| City.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenochtitlan
| articlereader wrote:
| they did!
|
| >Mexico City was built on top of what used to be a large body
| of water, which would make its water shortage appear ironic if
| it wasn't so tragic. In the early 1300s, the Mexica (or Aztecs)
| settled on an island in the middle of what used to be a huge
| lake called Texcoco, the largest among five intertwined lakes.
|
| But after the arrival of the Spaniards, the city started to
| expand, and the urban sprawl caused the lake system to dry up.
| By the early 20th century, the rivers feeding the once-rich
| lake zone were put into pipelines to make way for motor
| vehicles. Very little is left of the lakes, while the rivers
| have become practically invisible.
| eckmLJE wrote:
| Thank you! I scanned the text and scrolled through all the
| pics, and searched for `tenoch` and didn't get any hits. "The
| urban sprawl caused the lake system to dry up" glosses over a
| super interesting sequence of decisions that led to the
| disaster.
|
| More reading for anyone interested
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Mexico_City#Floodin.
| .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Texcoco#Artificial_drai
| na... https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2022/09/mexico-citys-desage-
| of-160...
| articlereader wrote:
| good read, thanks for sharing!
| ck2 wrote:
| How are we doing with next-gen solar desalination?
|
| Or has all science been defunded at this point?
|
| https://news.mit.edu/2022/solar-desalination-system-inexpens...
|
| I know some US warships have massive desalination plants onboard,
| are they nuclear powered? Can we use the new micro-nuclear-
| reactors to power those for cities?
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Do data centers need to use fresh drinking water or can they
| use water with some salt in it (I'm guessing not because the
| salt corrodes?). They could at least use gray water?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Data centers don't need any water. They can reject heat
| directly to the air. If the price of water were high enough,
| that's what they'd do instead of evaporative coolers. This is
| a fake problem driven by clickbait headlines or, at worse,
| mispricing of water.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Ok, granted, I'm guessing they are just working with
| different capital costs (to build air-based cooling; i.e.
| via a huge air cooling tower). But I'm sure there is a
| place where data centers could be using subprime water for
| cooling economically without artificially low water prices
| (the issue then would be capital costs for transporting and
| using subprime water).
| collingreen wrote:
| > Data centers don't need any water.
|
| Is this using "need" to only mean "there is no possible
| alternative in any design"?
|
| Your statement -implies- datacenters don't use water for
| cooling or, if they do, it isn't enough to cause any
| problem.
|
| How do you square this with the fact that lots of
| datacenters DO use water for cooling? Yes, if water was
| prohibitively expensive businesses would find alternatives
| - that's what prohibitively expensive means so I'm not
| adding anything more than a tautology here.
|
| Similarly does your claim that at worst this is a
| mispricing of water mean that they DO use water and it
| drives the cost up? Isn't that the point here, that
| businesses driving up the cost of water is bad for the
| people that also need (your definition of "need" above)
| water?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Water is a slightly cheaper way to reject heat if you
| have unlimited almost free water. I don't think you'd use
| water for cooling if you had to pay residential water
| rates instead of like agricultural rates for water. It's
| not at all a showstopper to just dump the heat into the
| air without using an evaporative cooler. It just costs
| somewhat more. Compared to the capital cost of an NVidia
| GPU server, the cost is small.
| cicloid wrote:
| that was also my understanding. Nearby Mexico City, in a
| semi-desertic area (Queretaro), there are a high amount of
| data centers, Google, Microsoft and Amazon have a region
| there.
|
| I would think they only need cheap electricity,
| connectivity and in the case of Mexico, far away from
| seismic activity.
| thfuran wrote:
| Evaporating a gallon of water eats about 2.5 KWhr. Buying a
| gallon of municipal water costs me about 0.6C/, or about 2%
| of the equivalent amount of electricity. AC is efficient,
| so say we'd only have to increase water prices by about
| 500% to make it not worth it to use evaporative cooling.
|
| Your claim is that increasing the price of a basic utility
| by several hundred percent to prevent a company from using
| a huge amount of it is a fake problem? That sounds like
| complete bullshit to me, and I don't even live in a city
| that's collapsing into the ground due to aquifer overuse.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| If you are literally drawing so much from the aquifers
| that the city is collapsing into the ground, I think the
| water probably is mispriced.
|
| And there's no reason you have to charge industrial users
| of water less than residential users if the real price
| (meaning the cost to replace that water) is higher than
| the residential price. 0.6C//gallon is less than I pay
| and I live in a wet city. I pay about 2C//gallon. So for
| industrial electricity rates of 5-7C//kWh, A/C is
| approximately a wash vs using residential water for
| cooling.
| thfuran wrote:
| >If you are literally drawing so much from the aquifers
| that the city is collapsing into the ground, I think the
| water probably is mispriced.
|
| Cool story. But every human needs water, and no data
| center needs water. Why should every person have to pay
| more to live just to prevent Amazon from breaking the
| world for a tiny increase in profits?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| "And there's no reason you have to charge industrial
| users of water less than residential users if the real
| price (meaning the cost to replace that water) is higher
| than the residential price" ...is what I said. You can,
| of course, charge residential users less for the first
| 100 or 1000 gallons of monthly use, as is common for
| utilities in the US.
|
| Good faith engagement on this topic probably requires
| thinking for 5 seconds if the objection you raised isn't
| easily addressed by common methods already.
|
| Additionally, industrial/industrial-scale-agricultural
| uses of water are almost always more sensitive to water
| prices. An incredibly poor population would benefit from
| the tax revenues and jobs offered by companies moving in.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| Asianometry made a video on exactly this:
| https://youtu.be/aNNt9O70ASc?si=U2VSh5W3r6rfdA34
| hylaride wrote:
| The economics of desalination can be complex, but the TL;DR is
| that in most cases it's only economical when there's no
| alternative for potable water and not industrial/agricultural
| use (though that doesn't stop some places from doing it anyways
| for security or too much money reasons, particularly Saudi
| Arabia).
|
| Desalination also doesn't help inland areas like Mexico city,
| as there'd also be large costs to pump the water from the
| coasts - Mexico City is 2200m above sea level.
|
| The only nuclear powered surface vessels left in the US fleet
| are the Aircraft Super-carriers, and their water is created for
| supporting itself - ~5-6K sailors and any that's needed for
| operations (cleaning, steam launchers on the Nimitz, etc).
|
| Nuclear micro-reactors are still a ways away and are probably
| not a viable option for developing countries - Mexico currently
| has only one nuclear power plant. There is probably a future
| for nuclear powered desalination for coastal cities in arid
| areas, but it won't help everywhere.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| Is it actually cheaper to power this with nuclear plants
| (especially micro-reactors that don't really exist in
| production) than just deploying a lot of wind/solar/batteries
| to do it?
| hylaride wrote:
| We don't know because nobody is mass building any nuclear
| reactors right now (micro or traditional - it's one of the
| main reasons there's so many cost overruns with anything
| being built right now). There's also no mass scale example
| of renewable desalination, either. It's almost all bespoke,
| so it's mostly theoretical.
|
| If climate change continues and water becomes something to
| fight over like oil was in the 20th century, then we may
| finally see traction on both fronts.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| But there are pretty large-scale deployments of
| renewables and battery storage going on, so presumably
| some fraction of the power used in today's desalinization
| plants is generated from renewables (at least in China.)
| At very least there should be no deep mysteries about the
| generation costs.
| hylaride wrote:
| Sure, but desalination is very power hungry. In Oman they
| managed to get a desalination plant to be 1/3 directly
| covered by solar in the desert and they still need
| alternative power for when that 1/3 is unavailable.
| Battery costs are still high. If it was that easy, it
| would be done.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| What's technically more achievable: adapting
| desalinization so it can work efficiently on intermittent
| power, reducing battery costs, or getting SMRs up and
| widely deployed along the Mexican coast in the next
| decade? I don't have any idea if the answer to this but I
| don't think they're all equally pie in the sky either.
| tristanb wrote:
| Desalination plants produce a lot of brine, which you need to
| dispose of. You can't just put it back in the sea without
| killing marine life. It's not a simple problem to solve.
| pkaye wrote:
| I've heard Mexico City has a lot of leaking water pipes so
| updating that infrastructure might be better. Also to do
| desalination, they need to be close to the ocean. There are
| SMRs close to being in production (NuScale Power is one) but
| solar power might be another cheaper option.
| charlie0 wrote:
| CDMX is massive and very old. I can only imagine updating the
| infrastructure is going to be cost prohibitive. Still, it
| needs to be done.
| pier25 wrote:
| I live in Mexico. About 30 mins from where I live, Amazon and
| others have built data centers (presumably for AI) which consume
| water. This is affecting agriculture in a region that is already
| suffering from drought.
|
| https://www.context.news/ai/thirsty-data-centres-spring-up-i...
| doctoboggan wrote:
| Genuinely curious, how much water do data centers consume? I
| would think they might need a good amount of water at startup,
| but any use would be in a closed system. Am I misunderstanding
| their water use? Do they lose a lot of it to the atmosphere
| somehow?
| physhster wrote:
| Some data centers use evaporative cooling, in outside
| chillers. The water use is fairly high.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Is there a reason the price of the water can't be equal to
| marginal cost of getting more water, so the net effect of
| the data center is zero?
|
| Water can be piped in from elsewhere, can be made from
| reverse osmosis from even briney aquifers or seawater or
| even sewage. Is this really an unsolvable problem or is it
| just a mispricing of the water? This makes me skeptical of
| stories like this.
| bobmcnamara wrote:
| Government usually, same as it is with Nestle in the US.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Water is fungible. If they need to pipe in 1 gallon of
| water, who pays the extra cost? The entity that used the
| last gallon? The entity that used the most? Nah. It's
| averaged out across all users.
|
| You also cannot scale up these alternative sources at
| will. They need to be sustainably commercially viable.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Right, so just make Amazon pay whatever is a commercially
| sustainable price. This shouldn't be particularly hard.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| Deregulation is good, they said. Don't be an alarmist,
| they said.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| ? Yeah, actually, deregulated water would mean Amazon
| would have to pay the full price instead of a subsidized
| price for water.
| actionfromafar wrote:
| And if it turns out that Amazon would still "win" the
| price fight over the people who lived there before Amazon
| came there, it's all good?
|
| And who owns the water? Anyone with a plot of land who
| can access the watertable? Anyone with a plot of land
| next to a river? What about those downriver from that
| plot?
|
| "Deregulation" is as meaningless as "defund the police".
| If you scratch the surface it can mean anything between
| total anarchy and "keep only this specific set of laws
| that I believe are good".
|
| What's needed is regulation which promotes a wanted
| outcome.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| That means _everyone_ pays the higher price. Water is
| fungible. You can tax them if you want. But you can't
| expect market forces to do it.
| ketzo wrote:
| Wait, what? Utilities all over the world have rate
| systems that offer higher or lower prices based on who's
| paying. "Water is fungible" doesn't mean that you can't
| charge Amazon more for it than you do the little old lady
| down the street.
|
| I'm not saying that the _current_ rate systems in Mexico,
| or California, or XYZ place are perfect -- far from it!
| But there 's no reason they couldn't be changed to fit
| society's goals.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| Those are the result of heavy regulation, not
| deregulation.
|
| Edit: and they're still drastically biased. Eg farmers
| getting preferential rates for wasteful crops like
| almonds.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| >> Water is fungible
|
| I call bullshit & shenanigans on this. Water is not
| money. A certain grade of crude oil can be fungible, but
| what about after it's used?
|
| There are many types of water: potable clean water being
| essential to human existence, but other less pure types
| can be used in agriculture and industrial applications.
|
| Once water is used, or before it can be reused,
| processing and transportation is necessary, and that
| represents significant cost. The cost of processing or
| transporting money is negligible enough to make it really
| fungible and usable. Water is heavy, wet, and more
| volatile than that quarter in your pocket!
| samatman wrote:
| The existence of various grades of a commodity says
| nothing about whether that commodity at those grades is
| fungible. Mostly it implies the opposite, in fact.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| But you can't then say unqualified that "water is
| fungible". Sewer water is not fungible with potable
| water. Greywater is not fungible with distilled or RO
| water. I'm not convinced that sewer water is fungible at
| all, considering its unknown content!
| samatman wrote:
| People do this all the time actually. "Cotton is
| fungible", "oil is fungible".
|
| The grading is assumed.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| If you want to get overly pedantic, money is not fungible
| either then. Sanctioned currency, dirty money that needs
| laundering, etc.
|
| But that's just being purposefully oblivious to the
| context we are talking about
| hwillis wrote:
| > the price of the water can't be equal to marginal cost
| of getting more water
|
| Increased demand by definition means consumers will pay
| more for the same quantity. Even if the marginal cost was
| flat it is in the producers interest to raise prices.
| You're essentially asking why markets have to do what
| markets do.
|
| > Water can be piped in from elsewhere, can be made from
| reverse osmosis from even briney aquifers or seawater or
| even sewage.
|
| Do you think that costs the same as pumping water out of
| a lake or water table?
|
| > is it just a mispricing of the water?
|
| ...You think a drought is a mispricing of water? As if
| water was more expensive, there would be no shortage? A
| draught is a mis- _cost_ of water; when water becomes
| more expensive than is sustainable.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| > Is there a reason the price of the water can't be equal
| to marginal cost of getting more water
|
| The market is typically not a great place to solve
| conflict. Unless you're the richer party, of course.
| betaby wrote:
| I'm not aware of any single one like that in Mexico.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| Jesus christ. We're a nation run by toddlers.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| Most data centers use evaporative cooling towers, they're
| much more efficient than a closed loop system.
| myaccountonhn wrote:
| This source is specifically about AIs water usage:
| https://savethe.ai/water/
|
| > Having it generate a 100-word email consumes about 500ml of
| water (17 oz).
|
| > 10 to 50 queries consume about 2 litres of water (1/2
| gallon).2
| yimby2001 wrote:
| Right, but you know that's not true.
| cicloid wrote:
| I would imagine you are talking about Queretaro. Google and
| Microsoft also have data centers there.
|
| This is a thing that has been more than a decade in the making,
| mostly because Queretaro does not have seismic activity and is
| only a couple of hours north of Mexico City.
|
| While the water sources are completely different, both regions
| are prone to intense water seasons and, in the last couple of
| years, intense droughts.
|
| More specifically, Queretaro is a semi-desert, so this behavior
| is a bit more expected.
|
| Aside: Coming from personal experience I don't think that
| current agricultural methods are the best and are pron to
| wasting water, at least what I remember from Queretaro
| pier25 wrote:
| Yes, Queretaro state (not the city).
|
| If you check the link in my comment these are not the data
| centers close to the city which everyone knows but newer ones
| in Colon.
| cicloid wrote:
| For all intents and purposes, Colon is considered to be
| part of the ZMQ (Zona Metropolitana de Queretaro)^1
|
| Funny thing the english wikipedia article does not even
| mention it. But yeah, Each of those Cloud providers, have
| at least 3 buildings distributed on multiple industrial
| parks in the metropolitan area and I'm not even mentioning
| the ones from Kio Networks, IBM (SoftLayer). We are one
| step away from having one from OVH and Hetzner.
|
| The only data center I know that is in the middle of the
| city of Queretaro is the one from Triara (aka Telmex, one
| of the many companies from Carlos Slim). Most of them are
| in the outskirts of the urban area.
|
| 1. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zona_metropolitana_de_Quer
| %C3%...
| oldgregg wrote:
| Also Valle De Bravo is the Hamptons of Mexico
| lorenzowood wrote:
| "The Water Knife" by Paolo Bacigalupi
| uAdoofus wrote:
| Interesting article.
|
| Terrible craftmansship in the HTML/CSS department.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| It works well on my phone in dark mode whereas webpages like
| this usually don't.
|
| What exactly are you calling terrible?
| metalman wrote:
| Mexico city is doomed, to what exactly and when, is an open
| question, and perhaps it's where it's position on the doomometer
| compared to anywhere else, is pertenent. It serves "us" as a
| distraction of our own doomomedness and why not, my Mexican
| friends, are (jovialy) derissive about any number of things
| happening in, redacted, redacted, gringredacted, places.
| davidw wrote:
| Just casually throwing in 'overpopulation' when in so many
| places, water for actual human needs like drinking, bathing and
| even washing clothes, is a tiny fraction compared to much more
| wasteful things like grass, America's largest crop.
|
| I live in a dry bit of the American west and municipal usage is a
| small fraction of water usage (about 8%). Agriculture is often
| not very efficient because of old water rules that give water to
| things like hobby farms when real farms downstream don't get what
| they need.
| dralley wrote:
| While that's true it has very little to do with Mexico City's
| specific issues. It's at 7300 feet elevation surrounded by a
| ring of mountains that keep out a lot of the rain and moisture,
| and there's already not that much agriculture going on given
| the limited space.
| davidw wrote:
| I don't know anything about water allocation and provisioning
| in Mexico City, but the article itself doesn't limit itself
| to Mexico city either:
|
| "It exemplifies a future that cities worldwide could face if
| global warming and overpopulation continue."
|
| The city where I live is, I'm sure, very different from
| Mexico City, but we have reduced our water usage while the
| population has grown, thanks to things like xeriscaping. I
| imagine things are more difficult in Mexico City because
| there is less money, and orders of magnitude more people.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > we have reduced our water usage while the population has
| grown
|
| I don't know where you live, but if it is a city like most
| others, you've likely reduced your per-capita water use,
| but not total water use. This is certainly true of most
| cities in the American west. They have made impressive
| (above 30%) reductions in per-capita water use, but they
| have (in many cases) grown by more than that.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| 100% this. or 95%. When you say "grass, America's largest crop"
| I assume you are referring to lawns, but actually I think your
| last point is the crucial one: "...municipal usage is a small
| fraction of water usage (about 8%). Agriculture..."
|
| California has plenty of water for it's people. If you add up
| ALL residential, commercial and industrial use, including all
| outdoor landscape watering, baseball fields, golf courses, etc
| - it all adds up to around 10-20% of the water used (depending
| on rainfall).
|
| Where does the rest (80-90%) of California's water go?
| Agriculture. Half the produce of which is exported to other
| states and countries. Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near
| it's capitol, which is naturally almost a desert? And about
| half of that rice is exported, much to Asia (!!)
|
| California is rather like Saudi Arabia, with the farmers
| pumping out all the water and selling it in the form of
| agricultural produce.
|
| But take a shorter shower please! And you don't really NEED to
| flush that toilet.
| animal_spirits wrote:
| I kind of understand this argument, but I kind of don't. Does
| this argument prefer that there is less food production in
| California?
|
| > It supplies one-third of U.S. vegetables and three-quarters
| of its fruit and nuts. California is the country's biggest
| milk producer, producing nearly 20 percent of the nation's
| milk. And of all crops grown in the U.S., 19 of them -
| including almonds, pistachios, walnuts, raisins, olives,
| plums and table grapes - are grown only in California.
|
| - https://www.perkins.com/en_GB/campaigns/powernews/features/
| c...
| dylan604 wrote:
| There's a lot of crops that are grown in CA that are not
| native to the area, and require a lot of water to be viable
| in that area. Trying to grow a crop native to monsoon areas
| in a dry area is just unsane.
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| And growing a human in that area? Would it not also be a
| drag on the area? At what point does blame the plants
| become blame all alien life including human?
|
| (Not referring to your comment, I feel often people tend
| to handwave themselves out the equation).
| dylan604 wrote:
| A person can live in that environment on much less water
| than the crops. Just growing different crops would
| consume less water.
| njarboe wrote:
| There is a reason 80%(?) of the world almond crop is
| grown in California. It has a great climate for almonds,
| a lot of land, and water to support the trees. We need to
| trade something for our IPhones besides the promise of
| future dollars (debt).
| KoolKat23 wrote:
| I don't think that's true unless they're living in
| extreme poverty.
| Ntrails wrote:
| > At what point does blame the plants become blame all
| alien life including human?
|
| I don't think that's what people are saying. The question
| is _why is the cost of growing such water intensive crops
| in such an arid land cheap enough to make financial
| sense_.
|
| The answer, I expect, is essentially that the costs
| involved in said water are subsidised in such a way as to
| socialise them? Would be interesting to understand.
| netsharc wrote:
| From the survival of civilization scale, most of "almonds,
| pistachios, walnuts, raisins, olives, plums and table
| grapes" are probably luxury items that we can ill afford.
|
| Sure it's a balancing act between "save the planet!" and
| "save the economy!". Guess who's winning so far?
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Strange because you are naming staples that are
| concentrated sources of nutrition and energy that can
| indeed ensure survival, and components of "trail mix" for
| this very reason.
|
| Certainly if you wanna supplant them with other crops
| that support something other than European style cuisine,
| go for it, but if you propose to take away nuts, olives,
| and grapes then you may be a racist or bigot, and we'd
| sooner die than change in that regard.
|
| Fact: a major component of the Ukrainian conflict is that
| nation's ability to supply wheat products to the rest of
| Europe.
|
| I believe that a certain philosophical viewpoint was
| raised by some sci-fi authors, to the effect that wheat
| and other staple crops are the most intelligent sentience
| on Earth, because they successfully domesticated human
| beings, who give them all the best land, water, and
| doting TLC to become fruitful and multiply.
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Fact: a major component of the Ukrainian conflict is
| that nation's ability to supply wheat products to the
| rest of Europe.
|
| This situation came with the territory. By contrast,
| California's agriculture is 100% dependent on massive
| hydroengineering projects.
| AngryData wrote:
| We can afford them, it costs maybe 5% more to grow them
| other places. We just don't anymore because that is 5%
| someone can skim off the top because they don't have to
| pay for environmental destruction and other downstream
| effects.
| joshuaissac wrote:
| Tax water for agricultural usage enough to fund
| desalination plants for their water use. The market
| participants should then adapt by switching to less water-
| intensive crops, or paying the tax and getting the
| desalination plants.
| grantsucceeded wrote:
| pretty sure there is no salt water in the central valley
| either.
| rcpt wrote:
| > tax water for agricultural use
|
| Yeah good luck with this one
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > Does this argument prefer that there is less food
| production in California?
|
| Yes. This scale of agriculture in CA is not historical, and
| is driven by hydro-engineering projects of huge scale
| throughout the American west that began in the 1940s. The
| Bureau of Reclamation's fever dreams were fueled by two
| decades near the turn of the 20th century that were some of
| the wettest in a thousand years, and this has led to a
| crazy situation that is not sustainable in the long term
| (perhaps not even in the medium term).
| throwanem wrote:
| > California is rather like Saudi Arabia.
|
| Perhaps the key insight required to explain the 20th century.
|
| It has the force of truth: now that I see it put so simply, I
| struggle to understand why no one has been able to do so
| before.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| It is a key insight, indirectly. The power of a falsehood
| to sway emotions on
| stevenwoo wrote:
| Cadillac Desert posits this about most of the American
| West, it was sparsely populated prior to the widespread
| usage of pumps for water and dam program (to generate
| electricity to pump reservoir water) of Bureau of
| Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers. Those power plants
| and population growths might have fueled American
| productivity in WW2 but it also was a subsidized
| consolidation of farms under large corporations and rich
| individuals when it was meant to help smaller farmers. It's
| an older book with a 2017 update.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| > California is rather like Saudi Arabia
|
| More true than you may think: the first two syllables rhyme
| with "Caliph" and the Spanish Conquistadores always had
| grand designs on such huge tracts of land, including naming
| the capital city after the Eucharist.
|
| The Reconquista was accomplished at the same time Columbus
| sailed, and Reconquista II: Electric Boogalo has been
| underway for a hundred years...
| bobthepanda wrote:
| When talking about grass, they might be talking about
| alfalfa, which is grown in California for use as animal feed.
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/sep/12/colorado.
| ..
| davidw wrote:
| I'm being a bit tongue in cheek. But we really do dump a
| lot of resources into lawns
| https://legacy.geog.ucsb.edu/the-lawn-is-the-largest-
| irrigat...
|
| That's fine if it's a place for, say, children to play, but
| most of them do not get used that way.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Californian water agencies have offered money to convert
| lawns to rock or low-water gardens for a while now.
|
| The lawns get wrapped up in that residential water usage
| figure mentioned further up the chain, so it isn't a
| whole lot compared to Big Ag.
| davidw wrote:
| Yeah, xeriscaping helps. In terms of municipal uses
| though, watering is a significant chunk in the city I
| live in. Not much compared to ag or actual waste, but
| it's a number the city is happy to push down - and has
| been.
| fakedang wrote:
| It gets better. Grown in California for export to China and
| Saudi Arabia, where they're used for cattle feed.
|
| Also fun fact, a lot of farm managers in Saudi Arabia are
| either Scottish or Australian.
| wnc3141 wrote:
| A big part of depletion of the Ogallala aquifer is due to
| domestic policy to include corn in just about anything -
| including fuel.
| toast0 wrote:
| > Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near it's capitol,
| which is naturally almost a desert?
|
| That's not really accurate. Much of California is
| Mediterranean climate, including all of Sacramento county.
| Yes, there's some desert in California, but most of the
| agriculture happens elsewhere; but it depends on what you
| mean by 'almost a desert', a lot of the central valley is
| classified as arid and that's where a lot of the agriculture
| happens. A lot of people also live in (different) arid parts
| of California though, maybe they should move to where fresh
| water is easier to access :P
|
| Also, the terrain means it's relatively easy to move water
| from the north around the central valley, but difficult to
| move it from the north or central valley to the greater LA
| area. Elsewhere in the thread, people claim water is
| fungible, and it mostly is, but location is important, and
| moving water in Bakersfield to Los Angeles is non trivial.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_California#/media/F.
| ..
| labster wrote:
| GP's statement you quoted is entirely inaccurate. The
| natural state of California's Central Valley is a wetland,
| which is how settlers found it in the 1800s, full of
| swamps, fish, deer, and lakes. And then they set to the
| work of draining all of the swamps so they could grow
| things there. It's an unnatural desertification, and if the
| dams and waterworks were removed, it would return to the
| marshland. Even now, the rice grown near Sacramento is
| grown in land that is periodically flooded by the river.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Did you know CA grows a LOT of rice near it's capitol,
| which is naturally almost a desert?
|
| Rice benefits from flooding for weed control (because it is
| unusually flood resistant), but doesn't consume a lot of
| water (the water from flooding is available for downstream
| use.)
|
| If you want to complain about water-intenaive crops in CA,
| the issue is almonds, not rice.
|
| Also, while there are parts of CA that are desert or "almost
| desert" (desert or semi-arid climate), the area around
| Sacramento is hot-summer Mediterranean.
| rcpt wrote:
| The issue is animal agriculture, not almonds.
|
| For example cow milk uses more water in absolute terms, and
| more water per calorie, than almond milk.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| I'm not so sure. A quick Google search came up with
| wildly varying amounts of water to produce a gallon of
| almond milk, from 23 gallons of water to ~1600:
|
| https://milkyplant.com/en-us/blogs/the-
| latest/environmental-...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/food/2018/sep/05/ditch-the-
| almon...
|
| These were just two of the several sources I found, at
| each extreme. There was similar variation for cow milk.
|
| Considering that it takes roughly 1 gallon of water to
| produce 1 almond, and that 23 almonds wouldn't fill even
| an 8oz cup, I'm guessing that the higher end of the
| spectrum is probably more accurate for almond milk.
|
| It also looks like almond milk has half the calories per
| gallon of skim milk and 1/4 that of whole milk.
| 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
| I think soy milk tastes better than almond milk
| hammock wrote:
| Were you raised on formula by chance?
| p1necone wrote:
| Almond milk has always tasted terrible to me. And most
| western produced soy milk. Warm, freshly pressed soy milk
| is amazing, and the kind of minimally processed bottled
| stuff you get from chinese grocery stores is pretty good
| too.
|
| Soy milk splits when mixed with coffee though, and
| doesn't really have a neutral enough taste, for that I
| find oat milk works great.
| riffraff wrote:
| It's fun cause (sweetened) almond milk was considered a
| delicacy in Italy, and had been supplanted with shitty
| tasting almond milk in recent years, much like almond-
| tasting almonds have been replaced with tasteless ones.
|
| I can't tell if it's a change in cultivar or
| transcontinental transport, but something bad happened
| with almonds in Europe.
| mapt wrote:
| Imported American almonds maybe?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| That 1611 liter figure looks like nonsense the second you
| dig into it, if the link even went anywhere. Random
| google result when you google the quote that responds to
| the source of the claim:
| https://talkveganto.me/en/facts/almond-milk-water-usage
|
| A more reputable source would be
| https://ourworldindata.org/environmental-impact-milks
| which lists almond milk as half the freshwater volume of
| dairy milk, and far better at every other metric (land
| use, greenhouse gas emissions, and eutrophication).
|
| So you'd have to stretch things much farther than you did
| in your post for dairy milk to have an edge over almond
| milk. And even if you somehow did it, then dairy milk
| would have to then beat out soy milk which is even better
| than almond milk in all of these metrics, which it won't.
| If you care about environmental impact, dairy milk just
| isn't going to be in the cards. Let it take the L.
| fakedang wrote:
| You're comparing whole oranges with orange slices. When
| comparing vegan food with animal protein, bother to take
| into account the entire package rather than one part.
| Animals are actually a much more energy intensive source
| of nutrition, and excellent for efficiency in terms of
| calories delivered. Our bodies process more nutrients
| from animal protein, while deriving nutrition from grains
| is a more recent evolution for us. You could easily feed
| entire villages with a couple of cows (as is done even
| today in many parts of the world). And this isn't
| including their value as milk producers and fertilizer
| generators.
|
| On the other hand, almonds are a very niche crop, grown
| for a select few types of customers, but the sheer
| concentration of their agriculture in California - that
| too by a single farming billionaire family, the Resnicks
| - has caused the situation to become dire to such an
| extent never seen before in any other place.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| <2% of input calories become beef calories. <4% of input
| protein becomes beef protein. Animal food products
| require an eye-watering amount more land than plant food
| products, even milk.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
|
| It is always more efficient to grow and eat plant protein
| directly like tofu. And even if it were true that you
| absorb fewer nutrients from something like tofu, then
| aren't you lucky, you get to eat more food.
| AngryData wrote:
| While you are correct, you also have to consider the fact
| that cows are fed alfalfa, which is a crop that requires
| no fertilizer or pesticides and actually produces excess
| nitrogen fertilizer, which otherwise must be produced
| from natural gas. It also takes very little physical
| labor to harvest and store grasses and alfalfa compared
| to human food sources.
|
| The only downside to alfalfa and feeding cows with it is
| the water usage, but for large parts of the country that
| aren't California and get decent rainfall, growing
| alfalfa takes no irrigation. You could maybe also
| consider the land area needed for it, but US cropland
| utilization has been dropping for decade after decade and
| isn't really a concern.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| I eat alfalfa too, and sell some in my shop. But neither
| me or the cows eat only that: we like to diversify our
| intake to stay healthy and (global or local) logistic
| bring us a variety of other food/nutrients.
|
| Sure _some_ cows eat more alfalfa than me but most of
| them never taste a bit of that and only knows corn, soy
| and friends.
|
| Some other superplants in the soy/quinoa category to
| consider: buckwheat and lupinus. Yummy.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > but doesn't consume a lot of water
|
| If the area around Sacramento is "hot-summer
| Mediterranean", wouldn't there be a lot of natural
| evaporation of this water, so you need to constantly
| replenish it to keep the fields flooded?
| genocidicbunny wrote:
| I recall reading that rice field flooding in those parts is
| also helping with recharging the aquifers somewhat, the
| depletion of which has been a major problem in the CA
| central valley. The rice fields hold the water for longer
| than if it just drained into the delta, giving some of it
| time to percolate down.
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| Some responders have challenged my assertion that Sacramento
| is a desert. I concede the point - it's actually classified
| as Mediterranean.
|
| That said, rice consumes a lot of irrigation water:
|
| "In California, there is very little to no rainfall during
| the rice growing season, so this is not usually considered in
| water budgets. On average, about 5 acre feet/acre (AF/ac) of
| irrigation water is applied to a rice field during the
| growing"
|
| https://ucanr.edu/sites/RiceTestSite/files/328501.pdf
|
| Also, rice is not a particularly big water consumer compared
| to other crops - it's just one that came to mind. You could
| pick from dozens of others - Almonds, pistachios, etc.
|
| California simply uses a LOT of water to produce a LOT of
| food, about half of it being exported.
| yimby2001 wrote:
| Are you saying California shouldn't export food? It's one
| of the best food growing environments on the planet.
| fakedang wrote:
| Well if you wish for California to become the next
| Sahelian desert, sure. California is already on track to
| become one adverse climate event away from turning into a
| complete clusterfuck.
| mapt wrote:
| CA's central valley is missing ~140 million acre feet of
| groundwater relative to historical norms, and is pumping
| an additional ~15 million acre feet a year. Ban that and
| desalinate 30 million acre feet of oceanwater at $2000
| per acre-foot and you can have your cake and eat it too
| at a cost of 60 billion dollars a year, expand
| agriculture and develop a sustainable aquifer &
| watershed.
|
| But central valley agriculture only makes $37 billion a
| year.
| ForOldHack wrote:
| I think he is referring to Golf Courses:
|
| "Golf courses in the US occupy roughly 2 million acres, which
| is larger than the state of Delaware but smaller than
| Connecticut."
|
| "California almond growers use between 4.7 to 5.5 million
| acre-feet of water annually, representing roughly 14.4% to
| 16.75% of the state's agricultural water consumption"
|
| WHAT THE H#$%?
| samatman wrote:
| That water grows 77% of all almonds, worldwide.
|
| Is there some better use for roughly 15% of California's
| water consumption?
|
| Are you sure?
| zdragnar wrote:
| Yes, leave it in the ground. It isn't a renewable
| resource on any relevant time scale.
|
| If you want almonds, grow them elsewhere, or switch to
| desalination.
| samatman wrote:
| If "grow them elsewhere" were plausible, California
| wouldn't be growing 77% of them.
| RugnirViking wrote:
| Why? Id truly be interested to know what makes
| Californian geography so massively advantages
| competitively that isn't infrastructure or economics of
| scale
| lesuorac wrote:
| Also exclude cheaper water prices for almond grows then
| residential.
| throwup238 wrote:
| Most California lowlands like the Central Valley sit on
| alluvial plains where water runoff from the mountains
| evaporated over millions of years, depositing nutrients
| dissolved from rock. It's like the Nile river delta but
| over time instead of flooding every year. They were also
| once an ocean, so there's a very deep layer of fossilized
| organisms that provide nutrients too.
|
| There's other reasons like California's climate
| supporting a double growing season for many plants but
| the fertility is what really makes it so economically
| competitive. Farmers still have to use tons of NPK
| fertilizer like everyone else but most of the
| micronutrients are already in the ground so it's a lot
| easier to get high yields with low risk and little micro
| optimization.
| GeneralMayhem wrote:
| The Central Valley is an incomprehensibly vast area of
| incredibly fertile soil, due to its history as a seabed
| and collection basin of all the mineral runoff from the
| mountains. It also has California weather, which means
| one of the longest growing seasons on the planet. Crops
| grown there grow faster and easier than anywhere else to
| begin with, and then on top of that you get to grow them
| twice in one year. It's really kind of unfair when you
| compare to farmers trying to scratch out a crop anywhere
| else.
|
| That said... it's not like California is the only place
| it's _possible_ to grow almonds, or even to grow them
| profitably. It 's just the _most_ profitable place,
| especially if you 're exporting to a US- or Western-
| centric market. And as with everything related to the
| environment, that's because the profits are centralized
| while negative externalities are socialized. We all pay
| the price of the reservoirs depleting and the aquifers
| running dry - maybe not monetarily, yet, but in the form
| of LA needing to ration water in homes, and in the form
| of possibly causing earthquakes [1] - but only a small
| handful of people collect the benefits. And because water
| is available in practically uncapped quantities for such
| an incredibly cheap price, they have no incentive not to
| do so.
|
| How much should society value a change in the risk of The
| Big One happening in the next decade by, say, 1%? Or a
| similar increased risk of thousands dying of thirst in an
| increasingly hot summer? Or even just a extra few weeks
| of water rationing being in place every other year?
| Probably a lot more than what the almond farms are
| collectively paying for their water.
|
| I do actually believe that markets can solve a lot of
| problems - but in order to do so, pricing needs to
| include the entirety of the transaction. Right now, water
| - especially bulk use of water - appears cheap, because
| our future selves or children are unknowingly kicking in
| part of what's being paid. Non-renewable resources like
| this need to be a _lot_ more expensive in places where
| they 're scarce, or else they're going to become
| _extremely_ expensive at some point in the future.
|
| [1] - https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/can-
| climate-af...
| andrepd wrote:
| > And as with everything related to the environment,
| that's because the profits are centralized while negative
| externalities are socialized. We all pay the price of the
| reservoirs depleting and the aquifers running dry - maybe
| not monetarily, yet, but in the form of LA needing to
| ration water in homes, and in the form of possibly
| causing earthquakes [1] - but only a small handful of
| people collect the benefits. And because water is
| available in practically uncapped quantities for such an
| incredibly cheap price, they have no incentive not to do
| so.
|
| Exactly. Capitalism is already a contestable proposition,
| but capitalism with infinite money cheats for some?
|
| Without proper accounting of externalities, capitalism
| does not work even in theory. This means water and all
| natural resources, it means pollution, it means harmful
| products like tobacco or social media, it means big
| cars... So on so on
| eru wrote:
| That's a bit silly.
|
| Almonds are grown in California and not so much
| elsewhere, because with California's broken water
| policies you can grow them there for cheaper than
| elsewhere.
|
| If California were to implement proper water pricing (eg
| via water trading), then the production costs of almonds
| in California would rise. And they might rise above the
| costs in other places, thus leading to a shift in
| production.
|
| Have a look at water trading in Australia to see a good
| example of how that can shape agricultural practices. The
| Australian water trading system ain't perfect, but it's a
| lot better than the Californian mess. And it allowed
| agriculture to grow in dollar terms, despite severe
| limitations on the amount of available water.
| samatman wrote:
| No, almonds are grown in California because of a uniquely
| favorable climate. They're profligate with water because
| they're allowed to get away with it.
|
| If water were priced by auction, which I support, almond
| growers would invest in less wasteful irrigation methods,
| mostly subsurface drip:
| https://wcngg.com/2018/08/02/subsurface-drip-irrigation-
| has-...
|
| More to the point, if water had a market-clearing price,
| California would stop growing so much alfalfa. Alfalfa
| uses half, _half_ , of California's water, and California
| has no unique advantages at all in growing alfalfa.
|
| But to reiterate, your first paragraph is absurd and very
| silly indeed. Lots of places have super cheap water but
| California still grows four out of five almonds on Earth.
| It baffles me that you thought cheap water was a
| plausible explanation for this.
| AngryData wrote:
| They can also grow almonds where it actually rains and
| requires little to no irrigation. Just because
| destructive exploitation of natural resources makes
| producing almonds 5% cheaper, that doesn't mean it is the
| only way or place to grow almonds.
| arbitrary_name wrote:
| Wait, the migrating birds need the wetlands that the rice
| pairs imitate. It's not as bad as you think. The whole
| central valley was wetlands, this is better than draining
| all of it for alfalfa or almonds.
| mapt wrote:
| California right now has an endorheic basin which is
| rapidly subsiding due to groundwater draws, and that
| doesn't really work for agriculture in the long term. We
| need to re-establish a gradient to the ocean, and a
| limited wetland system, to flush out the salts if nothing
| else.
| FuriouslyAdrift wrote:
| The almond lobby is incredibly powerful in California, too.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| Okay, it may seem strange to rob the homeland to feed the
| world, but think geopolitics.
|
| Firstly, the water mostly doesn't leave california. If
| they're exporting dried rice and almonds and things like
| that, most of the irrigation water is staying right where it
| was used, correct? You say water is consumed, as if it goes
| away or vanishes? Evaporated water or underground water is
| also water.
|
| Secondly, you're giving jobs and supporting the local
| economy. Farmers purchase supplies, capital goods, they pay
| property taxes, and first and foremost they employ people.
| They employ large workforces. All that revenue they received
| from selling wherever they sell is stimulating local
| economies.
|
| Lastly, exporting food is great international relations. What
| country will attack you when they depend on you for food?
| What nation will not be grateful for receiving such basic
| sustenance from overseas? And if we would go to war, and if
| you want to shut down all this agriculture, what will we eat
| on the home front? If we can't import food, we'd better have
| infrastructure to support our own needs. Any nation [state,
| county, city] that produces excess food is more likely to
| withstand siege, blockade or attack.
|
| Liquor and soda bottlers can pivot to producing and
| distributing hand sanitizer or bottled water. If beer or Coke
| is bad for you, keep drinking it anyway, because you never
| know when that industry will become indispensable.
| skulk wrote:
| I think your first paragraph misses the mark a bit. Yes,
| the export of almonds probably represents a tiny amount of
| water leaving the system. But this isn't about that, this
| is about water allocation. At the end of the day, if there
| isn't enough water being allocated for daily use ("don't
| flush your toilet") BUT there's enough to export so many
| almonds, something has gone wrong.
| AStonesThrow wrote:
| > something has gone wrong
|
| Wrong for you individually, perhaps, but please note that
| "The Good of the Many Outweigh the Needs of the Few", and
| as citizens of the Western Empire, we are called to make
| sacrifice in order that justice be done in the world. My
| personal private toilet is insignificant and
| inconsequential compared to the almighty almond.
| skulk wrote:
| bah. Eventually, Poe comes for us all.
| vkou wrote:
| Grass is not America's largest crop, but it is by far the
| most wasteful.
|
| Agriculture in general, on the other hand, needs a lot of
| water, and we need agriculture to stay alive. There are
| optimizations you can make with regards to _which_ kind of
| agriculture is done where.
|
| If the only way you can grow almonds is by mining water out
| of an aquifer that will deplete in a decade, maybe we should
| go without almonds. The juice is not worth the squeeze.
| eru wrote:
| > The juice is not worth the squeeze.
|
| Water pricing via water trading would help move these
| considerations of trade-offs to the private sector.
|
| > Agriculture in general, on the other hand, needs a lot of
| water, and we need agriculture to stay alive.
|
| Just as a silly nitpick: you can make food without
| agriculture. And it's not just via wild fishing, but also
| by directly producing edible substances from minerals, like
| producing margarine from coal. See
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margarine#Coal_butter
|
| In general, you are obviously right, though.
| Reubachi wrote:
| The "real farms" (Ie beef, dairy, grains, corns) you mentioned
| are absorbing on the order of 80 percent of the water, not
| commercial and private lawns/grass.
|
| Hobby farms with several cows and a shop that sells maple syrup
| consum eabout 1/10000th a percent of water as for example con-
| agra suppliers, nestle etc.
|
| There is the constantly rotating story of "this one small
| family farm in colorado uses more of california's water than LA
| county". That is a LARGE conglomerate farm which is part of the
| corporate farm problem, not mom and pop farms.
|
| I assure you;In the USA specifically, your families ability to
| eat and provide food for the things we eat WILL be more
| important in the long run than bathing or washing clothes,
| until we decide that beef proteins aren't the msot sustainable.
| hgfrujbguijh wrote:
| that sounds a lot like where i live (bend, or)
| davidw wrote:
| That's where I am
|
| https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/droug.
| .. is really informative.
| bri3k wrote:
| I hate when they promote the use of low-flow toilets which save
| 1-2 gallons when compared to irrigation of farm land measured
| in acre-inches of water. A acre-inch of water is 27,000
| gallons. Corn needs 12 acre-inches to grow to maturity, or over
| 325,000 per acre.
| eddof13 wrote:
| Been in Mexico almost 7 years- it's common knowledge, you don't
| drink the tap water, ever. The destitute who can't afford bottled
| water might be the exception.
| 4fterd4rk wrote:
| The majority of the world has non-potable tap water.
| jajko wrote:
| Try drinking tap water in Africa, India, Bangladesh, most of
| South America and South Asia, in fact most of the 3rd
| world... good luck. Ie India had (maybe still has) high
| infant mortality due to water-transmitted diseases. Once you
| can't effectively 100% separate waste water from natural
| water table or other sources for drinking, everything becomes
| contaminated.
| blovescoffee wrote:
| I've lived here for 3 years and been drinking the tap for about
| a year. I've got lots of friends with "filters" that don't
| actually do anything for microbes, and they drink that water.
| Anyways, very very few people can't afford a garrafon.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| Brita filters most certainly do filter out "microbes". Just
| with low certainty that drops over the age of the filter.
| blovescoffee wrote:
| FWIW I was not referring to brita filters. Two days ago I
| was at a friends house who had a literal fabric filter on
| top of his big water carafe.
| whymauri wrote:
| It's not the microbes in my experience, it's the heavy metals
| suspended in the water.
|
| It's like a 0.1% damage over time effect. A few days drinking
| it? Fine. A few weeks? Still fine. Months? I started feeling
| just a bit more sick until I cut it out for filtered water.
| arrty88 wrote:
| Will any of the feet of snow that dropped on Colorado Cali and
| Utah make it down to CDMX supply basins?
| ahmeneeroe-v2 wrote:
| no, even if we removed every dam and didn't consume a drop of
| water, it would not reach CDMX by natural means.
| marianaenhn wrote:
| Mexico City is having a serious problem right now
| josu wrote:
| An important detail that the article has somehow left out.
| Texcoco, one of Mexico City's main lakes is salty. The Aztecs
| built a system of dams to separate the salty waters of the lake
| from the rain water of the effluents.
| erickhill wrote:
| My goodness my eyes really must suck. Had to zoom into that
| article multiple times in order to read it (especially the photo
| captions).
| hotep99 wrote:
| I live in Mexico City and a large part of this is the odd
| compulsion that chilangos have to put concrete over absolutely
| everything. It rains but there is very little unpaved surfaces to
| absorb any of that water and return it to underground sources.
| I've had friends and family members inexplicably rip out nice
| gardens at their houses and replace it with paved surfaces. My
| in-laws have a large yard that only has a few square meters of
| unpaved ground left. My street has flooding problems during
| intense rains every couple years in large part because no water
| can be absorbed anywhere and if the small street drains get
| clogged with branches it is a disaster.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| The choices are either pavement or grass. Open ground creates
| dust and mud.
|
| The reason why 1st world cities look "cleaner" is because every
| single sq inch is either paved or turfed with grass.
| r00fus wrote:
| Xeriscaping is a thing. Also are other greenery options than
| grass. We had a dust/mud patch, but then planted 100% clover
| (by simply throwing seeds on the ground). Now we have
| completely unmanaged greenery. It's not neat, we don't even
| water it - it's green in the spring, golden/brown in other
| seasons. Easy peasy.
| ForTheKidz wrote:
| Anyone who claims the west is clean has never been to philly
| _ache_ wrote:
| Ok, so nobody seam to talk about the privatisation of water in
| Mexico.
|
| It is at the root of the problem. Coca Cola is the most known
| absurd operator of this industry. National water is too cheap and
| used by private company for nearly nothing. Vicente Fox was a
| president of Coca Cola company in Mexico before becoming the
| president of Mexico, you can guess the << colonisation >> was
| easier by that. (Coca Cola isn't alone, it is just the most
| known, Danone, the French company is also plundering Mexico water
| for example, AI datacenter too, ...).
|
| Coca cola is known to be responsible for the drying of Monterrey
| and San Cristobal de Las Casas.
| thelastgallon wrote:
| It is never mentioned that electricity from fossil fuel
| generation consumes a lot of water.
|
| According to the U.S. Geological Survey, electric power
| generators are the largest source of U.S. water withdrawals and
| account for about 40% of total water withdrawals in the United
| States:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37453
|
| Thermoelectric power plants--including coal, nuclear, and natural
| gas plants--boil water to create steam, which then spins a
| turbine to generate electricity. Cooling water is passed through
| the steam leaving the turbine to cool and condense the steam.
| This step reduces the steam's exit pressure and recaptures its
| heat, which is then used to preheat fluid entering the boiler.
|
| U.S. thermoelectric plants are the largest source of U.S. water
| withdrawals, accounting for more than 40% of total U.S. water
| withdrawals in
| 2015:https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=50698
| tomw1808 wrote:
| I have an honest question here, that is a bit off-topic:
|
| When I look at the pictures, I see most people are overweight
| (some are outright fat and obese). Is that just by accident on
| these particular pictures with a tiny sample size? Or is that a
| problem in Mexico?
|
| I'm from Europe and when I think about Mexico, I do not have
| overweight people in my mind, instead a relatively healthy diet
| of local produce. Is that a misconception?
| wolftickets wrote:
| Yes that is a misconception:
| https://data.worldobesity.org/country/mexico-139/#data_preva...
| tomw1808 wrote:
| wow, that is quite an eye opener. That's terrible really.
| It's like a whole country is addicted to sugar drinks and
| wheat flour (?).
|
| Thanks for sharing
| alecco wrote:
| https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/nov/04/s...
| littlekey wrote:
| It's a very real issue. The main problem is that Coca Cola
| basically took over the whole country. In my experience you
| can't find a dinner table without a liter bottle of coke or
| processed juice. I've gotten strange reactions when asking for
| water, it's just not done most of the time. The other factor is
| that because they (and Nestle I think) use up so much of the
| water supply to produce their drinks in the first place, it
| drives up the price of water in those areas to such an extent
| that you "might as well" just buy soda.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-21 23:02 UTC)