When Gov. Jerry Brown of California imposed mandatory cutbacks in water use earlier this month in response to a severe drought, he warned that the state was facing an uncertain future. “This is the new normal,” he said, “and we’ll have to learn to cope with it.”The drought, now in its fourth year, is by many measures the worst since the state began keeping records of temperature and precipitation in the 1800s. And with a population now close to 39 million and a thirsty, $50 billion agricultural industry, California has been affected more by this drought than by any previous one.But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.Few experts say California is now in the grip of a megadrought, which is loosely defined as one that lasts two decades or longer. But the situation in the state can be seen as part of a larger and longer dry spell that has affected much of the West, Southwest and Plains, although not uniformly. “The California drought is kind of the latest worst place,” said Jonathan Overpeck, a director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona.
What the NYT didn't report is that Brown is on record saying the drought is caused by anthropogenic global warming, a unicorn that doesn't even exist. Additionally, he wants households to cut back on water usage by 25% and recently signed legislation that will impose pretty strong penalties on those who don't do Crazy Ole Uncle Jerry's bidding; that, however, ignores the fact that household water usage in this state runs somewhere between 4 and 10% of all water use. Agriculture and industry use the lion's share. That means that even if households cut 25% of water use--we let our lawns die, don't flush toilets after each use, take 5 minute showers, don't fill swimming pools, and in so many other ways act like we're living in the third world--we'd save somewhere between 1 and 2.5% of all the water in California.
I know that in a democracy we get the government we deserve, but come on.
10 comments:
So … households should waste water? i know big ag get's the lion's share, but it's also what generate most of our revenue … everyone should be cutting back, and I don't care if it's lobal warming, or god's roll of the dice, or an episode of randomness. it's pretty serious.
I don't recall talking about *wasting* water. I implied a cost-benefit analysis.
Something to add, if I may, when is the last time CA build a dam to trap water and save it for dry times? I know, a rhetorical question, CA must invest in high speed rails from nowhere to nowhere.
I've read, but haven't independently confirmed, that our last major "water project" was in 1970. Since then Jerry Brown has been governor for 12 of the 45 years, and he's got another 4-year term. Democrats have run both houses of our legislature for the vast majority of those years. Think there's any relationship between those facts? I do.
The fact that I asked the question means that you failed to 'not imply' it enough. I know the percentages; I know that big AG and La are making out like bandits. But that doesn't mean that Jerry is crazy for asking us to cut back. I'm not giving up eaten meat … but, I will flush my toilet less, take showers less often, and only wash full loads of clothes and dishes ...
I would never dream of washing less-than-full loads of clothes or dishes even if I lived where water were plentiful. That would just be wasteful.
Okay, Darren … my point remains then. We agree, but I think you used this post to smack a governor you don't like (and nor do I, this time around) when there are so many better things to bash him for … like continuing to promote high speed rail when he could be using the exact same money the state doesn't have to build resevoirs.
I think true conservatism lies in not wasting resources. Having said that, the prudent and beneficial use of resources should be encouraged. Instead it appears Brown has voiced support for policies that will further eliminate domestic production of food crops while refusing to exact the same or even minimal restraint on northern California urban centers. A couple of articles I have read have pointed fingers at the Left's refusal to build more dams and create more reservoirs even in the face of massive foreign immigration straining the infrastructure. In this light Moonbeam's plans smack of whistling in the dark . California may never be able to come back from this. And make no mistake, the is a manmade, imposed disaster.
I attack Brown's stupid ideas and his manner in dictating them on us.
wow-the same old nonsense regurgitated. anthropogenic global warming is a fact, and it is causing great harm. if california's 1400 reservoirs aren't enought to keep the state out of devastating drought, then one, two, or ten more won't help. factory farming in california was a bad idea from the start.
Post a Comment