Skip to main content

View Diary: The end of world as we know it . . . (186 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the trouble is that agriculture as we're doing it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    too many people, jayden, Bronx59

    now isn't sustainable in terms of the amount of water we're using. That's measurable, and simply true. We are taking water out of the aquifers at a rate too fast for them to recharge, so we have diminishing returns. That's before the effects of climate change, including massive drought.

    I'm not saying everything they're saying is true, but enough of it is.

    if necessary for years; if necessary, alone

    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 10:55:07 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  AND it's not sustainable inenergy use either (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      One calorie of food grown by modern agribusiness methods requires an input of EIGHTY (yes, 80) fossil-fuel calories.

      How long do you think that can continue, at our ever-escalating rate of resource depletion?

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Thu Jan 17, 2013 at 09:45:46 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That level is probably sustainable (0+ / 0-)

        because it amounts to such a small amount of total energy consumption.  People can easily find savings in other parts of their lives, or pay slightly more for food, to make up any scarcity difference required.  Not to mention energy alternatives such as anaerobic digesters and biofuels  that agriculture has always been on the forefront of developing.

    •  It's not sustainable in terms of FREE water (0+ / 0-)

      that is currently being over-consumed in some areas, but with a price on water charged to farm operations that use it (and thus to consumers who buy the food), it becomes possible to make the desalination investments to get water from just about anywhere, such as what they are doing in the middle east now.  Remember, the Erlichs' sound argument that it is overconsumption by the rich, not the poor, that is endangering the planet.  The rich can actually afford to pay more for meat and dairy without endangering the poor's access to food.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site