Major Drought In California

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Major Drought In California

 Water is a precious commodity :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-25996522

 

Drought-hit California unable to supply state water

 

California's water agency has announced it may for the first time be unable to deliver water to local agencies, amid a worsening drought.

Two-thirds of state residents and 1m acres (404,500 hectares) of farmland get part or all of their drinking and irrigation supplies from the agency.

A state-wide drought was declared earlier this month, as the largest reservoirs sank to record low levels.

Forecasters have warned 2014 could be California's driest year on record.

The extreme conditions have already caused a wildfire that destroyed homes in the Los Angeles area.

Previous extremely dry years led to catastrophic wildfire seasons in California in 2003 and 2007.

'Drought is real'

It is the first time in the water agency's history that it has predicted a so-called "zero allocation", which will affect around 25m people.

State governor Jerry Brown said the announcement was a "stark reminder that California's drought is real".

He urged residents to conserve water, suggesting they avoid flushing toilets unnecessarily and to turn off the tap while shaving.

Meanwhile a spokesman for the state's farming federation called the news "a terrible blow".

The water originates from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

It is delivered to local agencies via a vast network of reservoirs, pipelines, aqueducts and pumping stations.

The 29 agencies that draw from the state's water-delivery system have other sources, Associated Press reports, although these too have been badly hit.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
One legitimate functions of

One legitimate functions of federal government should be to build infrastructure like interstate aqueducts. We've known for decades that an aqueduct from the Columbia river needed to be built to supply the population, agriculture and industry when the inevitable droughts came to California, but nothing has been done. We also need aqueducts from the Mississippi and Missouri rivers to Texas and the Great Plains to avoid drought disasters. But all we get from Washington is corporate welfare for campaign cash and individual welfare for votes.

The idiots on the left are convinced that only more food stamps(not more water) will produce enough food to feed everyone. The right wing obsessed with keeping poor women from from having abortions while there isn't adequate food supply to feed these future babies anyway. The moron media is too busy covering Justin Bieber to report on another major failure of government.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The US government doesn't

The US government doesn't have the authority to make such a move. Maybe if the left wing idiots got their way the US government could do it, but as things currently stand it isn't an option. And as long as right wing idiots get their way it never will be an option.

Not that it matters. Divert water from the other states and you'll just end up increasing the problem in scale and in severity. California simply can't support the population residing there. There isn't anywhere near enough water.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The US

Vastet wrote:
The US government doesn't have the authority to make such a move.

Sure they do. Obama was bragging how he can do what he wants just this week. Past presidents got interstate railroads and roads built. Past politicians left a legacy of things like the hoover dam, panama canal, California aqueduct. Obama and Jerry Brown's legacy will be to double the number of people dependent of welfare for their survival.

Vastet wrote:

Maybe if the left wing idiots got their way the US government could do it, but as things currently stand it isn't an option. And as long as right wing idiots get their way it never will be an option.

It isn't even an issue for either party. If you talked to most any politician, they wouldn't even know that it's possible to move water thousands of miles to prevent future drought disasters. They're just puppets of special interests.

Vastet wrote:
Not that it matters. Divert water from the other states and you'll just end up increasing the problem in scale and in severity. California simply can't support the population residing there. There isn't anywhere near enough water.

Again you're wrong. It's no coincidence that Western Canada has been having record flooding while California has record drought. The water vapor has been diverted north. It makes a lot of sense to divert this excess water into California where a lot of food can be grown because of the abundant sun and long growing season.

If we had a rational culture of government building infrastructure instead of passing out welfare for votes, humanity could eliminate the problem of drought with a network of long aqueducts.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Sure they do.

EXC wrote:
Sure they do. Obama was bragging how he can do what he wants just this week.

No, they don't. Funny that I know more about your government than you do. Obama can say what he likes. The reality is quite different.

EXC wrote:
Past presidents got interstate railroads and roads built. Past politicians left a legacy of things like the hoover dam, panama canal, California aqueduct.

Roads and rail aren't something any state would fight against. The Hoover dam was desired by all concerned parties to prevent widespread flooding. The Panama canal isn't in the US. And the current delivery of water to California was negotiated with other states, not unilaterally imposed as you are suggesting the current government should do.

EXC wrote:
It isn't even an issue for either party. If you talked to most any politician, they wouldn't even know that it's possible to move water thousands of miles to prevent future drought disasters. They're just puppets of special interests.

Most politicians also aren't smart enough to see the consequences, so it's just as well they aren't rushing to turn the west and midwest US into a desert.

EXC wrote:
Again you're wrong.

Nope.

EXC wrote:
It's no coincidence that Western Canada has been having record flooding while California has record drought.

Ridiculous. Western Canada has not seen a significant alteration in precipitation. The flooding happened because the ground was too frozen to absorb the rain, and because the rain was rain instead of snow, which is what it would have been twenty years ago.

EXC wrote:
If we had a rational culture of government building infrastructure instead of passing out welfare for votes, humanity could eliminate the problem of drought with a network of long aqueducts.

Also ridiculous. If there was a rational government working towards sustainability and prosperity then most of California would be forcibly abandoned. No reason to spend billions of dollars building an infrastructure that will merely make things worse when you can spend less money to move the people away and solve the problem without ruining the water table in multiple places..

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4740
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
California is

California is fucked

http://www.aquafornia.com/index.php/where-does-californias-water-come-from/

They are abusive and should be left to rot. Maybe people will finally understand conservation.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: No, they

Vastet wrote:

No, they don't. Funny that I know more about your government than you do. Obama can say what he likes. The reality is quite different.

Funny how when Bush and Chenney were in power, all we heard from the left was how they steered billions in construction contracts in Iraq and the USA to their cronies.

So now that we have a leftist in office, he can't possible steer contracts to construction companies to help alleviate water shortages. So which is it?

All he can do is pass out billions in cash payouts for the helpless victims just before election time.

Vastet wrote:

to spend billions of dollars building an infrastructure that will merely

Yes. I know, much better to just spend billions passing out unemployment checks to sit your ass and blame the hoarders if you don't have a job.

Vastet wrote:
Also ridiculous. If there was a rational government working towards sustainability and prosperity then most of California would be forcibly abandoned.

Maybe your band of revolutionaries can stop by California and commit mass genocide to take care of the problem since science, engineering and rational action can't possible solve problems.

You also don't know where your food comes from. The fact is places like Canada can't grow much food or much variety of crops because of the short growing season(apparently the ground is still frozen in June). It makes a lot of sense to move water to where a lot of food can be grown. Less water in California means more people in Canada that can't afford to eat.

But then again, maybe mass starvation will speed up your dream having of genocide against 'hoarders'.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:EXC wrote:Sure

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:
Sure they do. Obama was bragging how he can do what he wants just this week.
No, they don't. Funny that I know more about your government than you do. Obama can say what he likes. The reality is quite different.

No, you don't. The Federal Government has been very involved in water projects in the West. We have an entire department tied to the Department of the Interior whose sole purpose of existence is to handle the regulation and construction of water projects. They get over a billion dollars every year. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Reclamation

Naturally, many of the projects have been opposed by environmentalists. Which is why their most recent focus has been the EWA (Environmental Water Account) which is a project that buys up water in order to protect fish instead of provide drinking water. 

While the argument could be made that the feds do not have the constitutional authority (the Constitution only directly says roads and postal infrastructure), that would be an extremely strict interpretation. And building water infrastructure is much closer to their constitutional authority than most of what they do and not an authority that anyone has objected to.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

California is fucked

http://www.aquafornia.com/index.php/where-does-californias-water-come-from/

They are abusive and should be left to rot. Maybe people will finally understand conservation.

 

Show us the way and stop eating. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
EXC wrote:
Sure they do. Obama was bragging how he can do what he wants just this week.
No, they don't. Funny that I know more about your government than you do. Obama can say what he likes. The reality is quite different.

No, you don't. The Federal Government has been very involved in water projects in the West. We have an entire department tied to the Department of the Interior whose sole purpose of existence is to handle the regulation and construction of water projects. They get over a billion dollars every year. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Reclamation

Naturally, many of the projects have been opposed by environmentalists. Which is why their most recent focus has been the EWA (Environmental Water Account) which is a project that buys up water in order to protect fish instead of provide drinking water. 

While the argument could be made that the feds do not have the constitutional authority (the Constitution only directly says roads and postal infrastructure), that would be an extremely strict interpretation. And building water infrastructure is much closer to their constitutional authority than most of what they do and not an authority that anyone has objected to.  

Yes I do, and you proved it yourself. To disprove it you'll have to show the feds making aqueducts or other transferrs against the will of the source state. Good luck. You need it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
0.3 seconds on Google

Vastet wrote:
Yes I do, and you proved it yourself. To disprove it you'll have to show the feds making aqueducts or other transferrs against the will of the source state. Good luck. You need it.

http://www.mydesert.com/article/20140124/NEWS01/301240013/Desert-Water-Agency-lawsuit-dismissed

 

Lawsuits against the federal government, or between states on water issues are common. And contrary to what you said earlier, both the Hoover Dam and the Interstate faced significant opposition. The federal government holds great sway over what water projects are implemented and which are not. And in Supreme Court cases, the Court almost always defers to the federal government in a dispute between two states, such as the current case between Texas and New Mexico, where the Justices requested the federal government weigh in with its opinion.

The relevant Supreme Court case law is Ide v. United States, 263 U.S. 497 (1924), where the Court ruled that the US government could construct canals and ditches, even if the state had appropriated the land for something else. If there is significant opposition from a state on a particular project, the feds might back down, but that is more a political consideration than a legal one. The vast majority of the time, the state objects until the feds throw enough money at them, or offer a concession elsewhere. Such is the reality of horse bargaining in a democracy. According to SCOTUS, the federal government can do almost whatever it wants when it comes to building public water works.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You keep proving I'm right.

You keep proving I'm right. Until the state backs down, for whatever reason, the feds can 't move forward. You haven't shown any scenario in which the state absolutely refused to allow the feds to appropriate their water and the feds did it anyway.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:You keep

Vastet wrote:
You keep proving I'm right. Until the state backs down, for whatever reason, the feds can 't move forward. You haven't shown any scenario in which the state absolutely refused to allow the feds to appropriate their water and the feds did it anyway.

Perhaps you missed the Civil War? The feds won. I wish you were right, but the US is no longer a republic and no state is going to put up that much of a fight. Name one project the feds attempted that was shut down because a state refused. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe there would be any more opposition to the project EXC suggested than there is in any other water project the federal government pursued successfully. Probably far less than there was to the Hoover Dam since fewer people today would even pay attention.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Vastet

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You keep proving I'm right. Until the state backs down, for whatever reason, the feds can 't move forward. You haven't shown any scenario in which the state absolutely refused to allow the feds to appropriate their water and the feds did it anyway.

Perhaps you missed the Civil War? The feds won. I wish you were right, but the US is no longer a republic and no state is going to put up that much of a fight. Name one project the feds attempted that was shut down because a state refused. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe there would be any more opposition to the project EXC suggested than there is in any other water project the federal government pursued successfully. Probably far less than there was to the Hoover Dam since fewer people today would even pay attention.  

So you can't name one and I am right. Just because a state hasn't 'put up much of a fight' doesn't mean a state can't or won't. The very existence of state constitutions shows that US states are far more independent of the feds than the vast majority of their cousins in other nations. The state level legalisation of marijuana is a perfect example of state independence.

You have nothing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
You keep proving I'm right. Until the state backs down, for whatever reason, the feds can 't move forward. You haven't shown any scenario in which the state absolutely refused to allow the feds to appropriate their water and the feds did it anyway.

Perhaps you missed the Civil War? The feds won. I wish you were right, but the US is no longer a republic and no state is going to put up that much of a fight. Name one project the feds attempted that was shut down because a state refused. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe there would be any more opposition to the project EXC suggested than there is in any other water project the federal government pursued successfully. Probably far less than there was to the Hoover Dam since fewer people today would even pay attention.  

So you can't name one and I am right. Just because a state hasn't 'put up much of a fight' doesn't mean a state can't or won't.

A state could try in theory. Since one never has, it makes it quite likely that one wouldn't if the feds tried to build the aqueduct that EXC suggested. The feds can try, they haven't. And history (Hoover Dam, LA Aqueduct, Rio Grande Compact etc.) shows that likely states wouldn't object. If there was some state putting up a tremendous fight against aqueducts, you might have a point that the feds can't build one. However, since no state has and the feds have successfully built every major water project they have tried to build, history shows that they can. Your initial statement that the feds don't have the authority is patently false. Until a state actually decides to make a Supreme Court case out of it, they do have the authority. And everything in the history of cases against the federal government that have been to SCOTUS suggests that the Court would most likely side with the feds. 

 

Vastet wrote:

 

The very existence of state constitutions shows that US states are far more independent of the feds than the vast majority of their cousins in other nations. The state level legalisation of marijuana is a perfect example of state independence. You have nothing.

State legalization of marijuana has not been settled legally yet. Right now, the only reason it hasn't gone to court is because Obama is sympathetic to the legalize movement and has ordered federal agents not to enforce federal law in those states. When we have an anti-legalization President, there will be a showdown and I hold none of your optimism that the Court is going to rule in favor of the states. Historically, the Court has ruled that the federal government has the right to ban and regulate substances that have the potential of interstate commerce, even if it never crosses the border. It would be completely shocking and overturn 100 years of precedence if the Court ruled that they couldn't. Don't get me wrong, I would be jumping for joy, it would be the first real political victory my side has had during my lifetime. It has about as much chance of happening as Ron Paul winning the presidency.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Your claim that my statement

Your claim that my statement is patently false is itself patently false. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your fiction, only pointless conjecture. Until the feds force a state to give up their water against their will all you're doing is blowing hot air.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Your claim that

Vastet wrote:
Your claim that my statement is patently false is itself patently false. You haven't provided a single shred of evidence to support your fiction, only pointless conjecture. Until the feds force a state to give up their water against their will all you're doing is blowing hot air.

Bullshit. Forcing the state "against their will" is a pointless condition that you added on, and has nothing to do with the initial quote I objected to. EXC said 

EXC wrote:
One legitimate functions of federal government should be to build infrastructure like interstate aqueducts.

To which you replied,

Vastet wrote:
The US government doesn't have the authority to make such a move. Maybe if the left wing idiots got their way the US government could do it, but as things currently stand it isn't an option.

That is the only comment which I pointed out you are factually wrong. The federal government does have authority to build infrastructure like aqueducts, as evidenced by the numerous aqueducts and other infrastructure projects that it has built. That the federal government generally performs major infrastructure in partnership with states is simply a political reality, and has nothing to do with whether or not they have the power. There is no state that opposes free federal money to build infrastructure, they have no sane reason to oppose it. It does have the authority and it also has the authority even if the state dedicates the lands to another purpose as the Supreme Court decision I referred you to that you obviously didn't bother to read says. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:
Bullshit. Forcing the state "against their will" is a pointless condition that you added on, and has nothing to do with the initial quote I objected to. EXC said.

Bullshit. It's been THE driving point of every comment I've made.

Beyond Saving wrote:
That is the only comment which I pointed out you are factually wrong.

It is factually accurate, and you've failed to prove otherwise. If a state can in no way prevent the feds from appropriating their water then the feds have the authority to do what they like. But you've yet to prove the feds can do that (if anything you've proved me right), so my statement that they don't have the authority stands.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
Bullshit. Forcing the state "against their will" is a pointless condition that you added on, and has nothing to do with the initial quote I objected to. EXC said.
Bullshit. It's been THE driving point of every comment I've made.
Beyond Saving wrote:
That is the only comment which I pointed out you are factually wrong.
It is factually accurate, and you've failed to prove otherwise. If a state can in no way prevent the feds from appropriating their water then the feds have the authority to do what they like. But you've yet to prove the feds can do that (if anything you've proved me right), so my statement that they don't have the authority stands.

All you are doing is showing a glaring amount of ignorance. The federal government is routinely involved in state water policies. It is actually unconstitutional for states to create a water compact amongst themselves without the consent of Congress. As for the federal government taking water against a states will, they have. There are numerous supreme court cases that have affirmed that federal law preempts state water rights (ESA and the Clean Water Act being two of the most litigated examples) I pointed you towards a single supreme court case earlier, which you obviously didn't bother to read even a summary of. I can point you in the right direction, but I can't fix willfull ignorance. 

 

http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V7_N5/feature1.pdf

http://www.usbr.gov/history/borhist.html http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1168&context=jcwre 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're the only one showing

You're the only one showing ignorance since EXC stopped responding. I've read everything you said and everything you linked to and none of it does anything but prove me right.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Anyone that know a shed

Anyone that know a shed about USA history know that Federal law always trumps state law. We had a war 150 years ago about this and the issue was settled.

Here a federal judge ordering Georgia/Atlanta to reduce water consumption so Alabama can have more:

http://www.southernenvironment.org/newsroom/press_releases/judge_rules_in_tri_state_case/

The Columbia river aqueduct has been blocked in Federal Congress:

http://articles.latimes.com/1990-05-04/local/me-181_1_columbia-river-water

 

I'm ashamed to live in a country that tries to feed itself by passing out food stamps(for votes) instead of building aqueducts. Our best engineers are building messaging apps instead infrasturcture(#starvation). We're well on our way to being a turd world shithole full of children with bloated bellies.

 

 

 

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Still not proving anything

^ Still not proving anything

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  It' California, who gives

  It' California, who gives a shit ?


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
My guess is you'd give a

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:My guess is you'd

EXC wrote:

My guess is you'd give a shit about the time severe hunger pangs started.

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/explainer/2013/07/california_grows_all_of_our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we...

 

 

 

                      Your link is dead.   Besides,  I can grow fruits and vegetables in my suburban backyard.  My grandparents did it for years here in Texas.  What they didn't consume was preserved by canning.  It's not rocket science.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm far more concerned about

I'm far more concerned about bees than california. A few products I'd miss come from california, but nothing essential or unique. Nothing even that I have more than once or twice a year.
And it's not like there's nowhere else that california products can be grown.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: I can

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
I can grow fruits and vegetables in my suburban backyard.  My grandparents did it for years here in Texas.  What they didn't consume was preserved by canning.  It's not rocket science.

For that matter, we can just forage in the forests. Thats what our pre-homosapien ancetors did for millenia. It's not rocket science either, fuck technology to feed ourselves.

So why is the government asking me(with a gun at my head) to pay for food stamps for 40M+ people? We can just tell them all to grow it in their backyard. I'll support your plan if the government does that.

The fact is, we're dependant on technology to support the population levels we presently have. Your solution is just means starvation and war over resources. Tell grandpa to keep his guns loaded at all times.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm far more

Vastet wrote:
I'm far more concerned about bees than california. A few products I'd miss come from california, but nothing essential or unique. Nothing even that I have more than once or twice a year. And it's not like there's nowhere else that california products can be grown.

At a higher price of course. Just millions more hungry kids.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: For that matter,

EXC wrote:

 

For that matter, we can just forage in the forests. Thats what our pre-homosapien ancetors did for millenia. It's not rocket science either, fuck technology to feed ourselves.

 

  Then let them forage in the forest.

 

EXC wrote:
So why is the government asking me(with a gun at my head) to pay for food stamps for 40M+ people? We can just tell them all to grow it in their backyard. I'll support your plan if the government does that.

 

 People can do whatever the hell they want to.   I'm not the government.

 

 

quote wrote:
The fact is, we're dependant on technology to support the population levels we presently have. Your solution is just means starvation and war over resources. Tell grandpa to keep his guns loaded at all times.

 

  Granda pa's dead.   God, you're such a fucking whiner.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Vastet wrote:I'm

EXC wrote:

Vastet wrote:
I'm far more concerned about bees than california. A few products I'd miss come from california, but nothing essential or unique. Nothing even that I have more than once or twice a year. And it's not like there's nowhere else that california products can be grown.

At a higher price of course. Just millions more hungry kids.

California is not a major global food source. Less than 2% of Californias gdp is agriculture based, with most of that agriculture being luxury products as opposed to actual efficiency. Most Canadian provinces grow more real food than California. And while California dries up, other places start to thaw. Nothing was lost.

EXC wrote:
So why is the government asking me(with a gun at my head) to pay for food stamps for 40M+ people?

I doubt you even pay for one. You certainly don't pay for 40 million.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:California is

Vastet wrote:
California is not a major global food source.

C'mon, you don't need to make shit up to make EXC look like an idiot. Of course California is a major global food source. You can bet that every commodities trader in the world pays close attention to what is happening in the California ag industry. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Less than 2% of Californias gdp is agriculture based,

And California's gdp is how large? Larger than most countries. It is about the size of... Canada's. And guess how much of Canada's gdp is agriculture? About 2%. The state of California produces a dollar value roughly equivalent to the entire fucking country of Canada in agriculture products. Calling that insignificant is ridiculous.

 

Vastet wrote:
  

with most of that agriculture being luxury products as opposed to actual efficiency. Most Canadian provinces grow more real food than California.

Luxury? Like milk, beef, fruits, nuts and vegetables? All sound like a pretty important part of a balanced diet to me. Granted, cattle is Californias 5th largest product, yet it has a pretty large impact on Canada's largest product (beef). California produces over $3 billion in calves every year, many of those end up being shipped up to Canada to raise, where the Canadian beef industry produces over $4 billion in beef. You think that Canadian ranchers aren't influenced if California stops producing calves? 

 

Vastet wrote:

And while California dries up, other places start to thaw. Nothing was lost.  

The only thing I agree with, that is how the agriculture industry works. It is very common for any particular commodity to suffer a severe shortage when one of its main production areas is hampered by weather or disease. The result is that commodity becomes very expensive and people eat other things, while the high prices encourage farmers to plant more of whatever crop has a shortage. A lot of money is lost by a lot of people, but no one is going to starve to death in a modern economy because of local production issues. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm not making shit up. The

I'm not making shit up. The only products California grows that the world cares about are luxury products. California does not export beef or milk in any significant quantity, and nuts/soy are luxury products. You need them if you're a vegetarian maybe, but that's a luxury lifestyle so meh.
Canada, on the other hand, is one of the biggest food exporters in the world. California doesn't hold a candle to Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Ontario when it comes to farming. B.C. is similar to California, growing many of the same luxury products, though not all.
Suggesting that California contributes anything like a significant amount of food to the world is patently false. California is insignificant. The dollar value they make is based entirely on the fact that they grow luxury shit they can sell at high cost. It does not suggest that millions of people around the world depend on them for their daily food intake. Because they don't.

The beef you mention is absolute bullshit. The whole Canadian beef industry was gutted by the US government. If California suddenly dried up they'd maybe be desperate enough that we could go back to the way things were 20 years ago. Despite the fact we crushed you in the world courts on 5 or 6 different occasions the US doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves.
In short, no we don't need California for our beef. Fuck California.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I'm not making

Vastet wrote:
I'm not making shit up. The only products California grows that the world cares about are luxury products. California does not export beef or milk in any significant quantity, and nuts/soy are luxury products. You need them if you're a vegetarian maybe, but that's a luxury lifestyle so meh. Canada, on the other hand, is one of the biggest food exporters in the world. California doesn't hold a candle to Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Ontario when it comes to farming. B.C. is similar to California, growing many of the same luxury products, though not all. Suggesting that California contributes anything like a significant amount of food to the world is patently false. California is insignificant. The dollar value they make is based entirely on the fact that they grow luxury shit they can sell at high cost. It does not suggest that millions of people around the world depend on them for their daily food intake. Because they don't. The beef you mention is absolute bullshit. The whole Canadian beef industry was gutted by the US government. If California suddenly dried up they'd maybe be desperate enough that we could go back to the way things were 20 years ago. Despite the fact we crushed you in the world courts on 5 or 6 different occasions the US doesn't give a shit about anyone but themselves. In short, no we don't need California for our beef. Fuck California.

 

Dairy is California's second largest export. $1.3 billion worth- which makes it the 5th largest dairy exporter in the world. Behind the entire EU combined, the rest of the US combined, New Zealand and Australia. Hardly insignificant.

 

They are also a major producer (and exporter to Canada) of onions, celery, spinach, carrots, lettuce, broccoli, strawberries, lemon and tomatoes. Hardly "luxury" products. Those are all pretty standard ingredients.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
We grow all those crops

We grow all those crops ourselves, except perhaps lemons and strawberries. Most of the places I've lived I could find the rest of those crops in my own garden.
As for dairy, exactly how far is it exported? I've never seen a Californian dairy product, so I'm going to guess they might be exported from California but not the US.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:We grow all

Vastet wrote:
We grow all those crops ourselves, except perhaps lemons and strawberries. Most of the places I've lived I could find the rest of those crops in my own garden. As for dairy, exactly how far is it exported? I've never seen a Californian dairy product, so I'm going to guess they might be exported from California but not the US.

 

The vast majority of milk exported internationally from California goes to Mexico, some goes to Japan and China. The $1.3 billion is all international trade. California produces another $5 billion give or take that is consumed in the US.  The vegetables I listed I grabbed from the list of exports based on Canada being the top customer. Sure, you can grow vegetables in Canada, but there is a big difference between growing a handful in a garden and mass production. Soil and weather in Canada sucks for vegetables. You get low yields and high risks of weather problems. Which is why Canada's main production is wheat, rapeseed and beef cattle, while vegetable production is nowhere near high enough to meet local demand and in order to meet that local demand it would require several years, significant investment and repurposing a lot of currently used acreage for the task. 

So yeah, you can bet that if something drastic happened to California, that your grocery trips would get a lot more expensive. Mostly in the vegetable aisle, although if Mexicans were willing to pay enough for milk, Canadian dairy farms might get tempted to export more and raise domestic prices. Commodities are a world market and even if a producer you don't buy from disappears, it can affect your prices and local supply indirectly.

The reason wheat farmers made a shitload of money a few years ago was a shortage in Russia when their wheat production was 30% low. Global production was down 5% and it caused a huge price spike, including here in the US where we are the top exporter of wheat and had a fairly good crop that year.    

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
We have every single ecology

We have every single ecology found on earth in Canada. If a crop won't grow well in southern ontario it'll grow just fine in southern b.c. Statements like "Soil and weather in Canada sucks for vegetables. You get low yields and high risks of weather problems." are simply false. As is "in order to meet that local demand it would require several years, significant investment and repurposing a lot of currently used acreage for the task.". Canada has a total area of almost 10M^2 km. Perhaps 1/5th of that is currently suitable for farming. Less than 1% of the land which would support crops is actually used to do so. There would not be a significant expense in expanding that. In fact it could break even or turn a profit in many locations, and would take a year at most to do so.
Finally, our import/export with the US involves mostly the same crops travelling in both directions. We send the US 1.1B in vegetables and receive 1.8B in vegetables. The entire US. California could drop off the map entirely tomorrow and costs at the supermarket would rise but negligibly. We could import from different countries and we could reduce exports to make up for the loss of California.

Export:
United States 2010 $1,169.3M: Tomatoes, Peppers, Mushrooms, Cucumbers and gherkins, Tomato ketchup, Frozen vegetables, Onions and shallots, Carrots.

Import:
United States 2010 $1,828.2M: Lettuce, Tomato ketchup and other tomato sauces, Cabbage and kohlrabi and kale, Onions, Carrots, Tomatoes.

In 2010, total greenhouse vegetable exports amounted to $629.7 million and total greenhouse imports were valued at $223.6 million. Canada was a net exporter of greenhouse vegetable crops with a positive trade balance of $406 million in 2010.

http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-product-sector/horticulture/horticulture-...

Canadians on average spend a mere $500 dollars per year on California crops. Even a cost increase of 200%, assuming the whole nation does absolutely nothing to reduce the impact, the total loss of California would not significantly affect Canadians. In fact, many farmers are mulling the idea of growing more crops specifically to export to California, so after a year or two the roles could easily be reversed, and Californians may be buying Canadian vegetables.

Now I'm looking forward to Californias inevitable end.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Then let them forage in the forest.

Yes of course. That's how it works with the 'rational responders'.

Don't support any rational public policy to reduce hunger and poverty such as infrastructure projects or mandatory family planning. Then when people worry about how to feed themselves and they say "God help me", they are being irrational, but not you.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4053
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote: Don't support

EXC wrote:

 

Don't support any rational public policy to reduce hunger and poverty such as infrastructure projects or mandatory family planning. Then when people worry about how to feed themselves and they say "God help me", they are being irrational, but not you.

 

 

                                          Think of it as culling the herd.

 

                                        


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I have to throw my hat into

I have to throw my hat into the ring with this argument because, living in the middle of the dust bowl in California, the drought is going to really affect shit.

 

People should give a damn about the "state of affairs" here, no pun intended.  Our Ag business and immigrant issues here are glaringly large and they both go hand in hand which creates one sticky situation politically and socially.  If the drought affected both in a significant enough way, it spells trouble job wise, import/export wise, migration wise (migrants will travel further and risk more just to work on temporary visas meaning more red tape for other states with the INS) and locally people will feel the impact almost immediately.  Of course, this isn't our first drought; we've been under the threat of facing a much more serious drought for many years now and I think it's suddenly starting to hit home being the worst one in recent history.  Now, the trick is getting our government to start taking measures to ensure this isn't going to become permanent or a runaway train where no amount of hole-plugging will keep the dam from breaking, or, in the case of Las Vegas, running dry.  Las Vegas has a finite supply of water and its speculated that the surrounding regions will run out of water by 2050 if not sooner at the consumption rate its at now.  Based on the artificiality of that area, its inevitable that the desert will reclaim the man-made shlock we've erected making everything a distant memory and a failed experiment of greed. 

 

Taking into account the average rainfall of California is roughly 15-50 inches a year, varying by regions of course, the only way to really come back from creating a rapidly approaching parched landscape is to start utilizing recycled water in a major way.  The amount of water that the Earth started out with since the dawn of time is the same amount of water that exists today so, the only sensible option is to harness it better and more efficiently rather than letting your sprinkler spit water on hybernating patches of grass that don't require the amount we use every year or any other carelessly used amount of water we take for granted.  It boils down to common-fucking-sense. 

 

I'm no longer a fan of California and, frankly, I've grown tired of this place to the point of insanity, but if I have to be confined to this asylum for the duration, I prefer to have the lava chocolate cake for dessert after group instead of the luke warm day-old green jello.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: Finally, our

Vastet wrote:
Finally, our import/export with the US involves mostly the same crops travelling in both directions. We send the US 1.1B in vegetables and receive 1.8B in vegetables.

$0.8 billion is pretty significant

 

 

Vastet wrote:

The entire US. California could drop off the map entirely tomorrow and costs at the supermarket would rise but negligibly.

Prices of California's main crops are already going up and expected to increase 10-30% and they are having a drought that is only curbing production. If it just dropped off the map tomorrow it would cause massive shortages. 

 

Vastet wrote:

We could import from different countries and we could reduce exports to make up for the loss of California.

Reducing exports isn't going to be particularly useful. The reason why we exchange many of the same crops is due to differences of when the crops are harvested. Food is a global market and the prices are mostly determined globally. Any major producer that has production problems will cause the price of that commodity to rise, regardless of whether or not you bought from that producer directly. 

 

 

Vastet wrote:

Export: United States 2010 $1,169.3M: Tomatoes, Peppers, Mushrooms, Cucumbers and gherkins, Tomato ketchup, Frozen vegetables, Onions and shallots, Carrots. Import: United States 2010 $1,828.2M: Lettuce, Tomato ketchup and other tomato sauces, Cabbage and kohlrabi and kale, Onions, Carrots, Tomatoes. In 2010, total greenhouse vegetable exports amounted to $629.7 million and total greenhouse imports were valued at $223.6 million. Canada was a net exporter of greenhouse vegetable crops with a positive trade balance of $406 million in 2010. http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/industry-markets-and-trade/statistics-and-market-information/by-product-sector/horticulture/horticulture-...

Yeah, greenhouse vegetables. You can grow in greenhouses anywhere, soil and weather quality are not important factors in greenhouse farming. That is why your greenhouse vegetable production is a substantial portion of your total vegetable production and why I pointed out your soil is not conducive for farming most vegetables, which is why your vegetable production is on 125,000 hectares of land (mostly corn and potatoes) and grains are farmed on over 26 million hectares. 

 

Vastet wrote:

Canadians on average spend a mere $500 dollars per year on California crops. Even a cost increase of 200%, assuming the whole nation does absolutely nothing to reduce the impact, the total loss of California would not significantly affect Canadians. In fact, many farmers are mulling the idea of growing more crops specifically to export to California, so after a year or two the roles could easily be reversed, and Californians may be buying Canadian vegetables. Now I'm looking forward to Californias inevitable end.

"Significantly" is very subjective and as I said before, I don't agree with EXCs hysteria that somehow we are going to run into mass starvation. Prices will rise, people will adjust their eating habits accordingly and farmers next year will adjust what plants they grow to take advantage of higher prices. My sole point was that California is not insignificant and its problems will raise food prices because it is a major producer of a number of crops. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:$0.8

Beyond Saving wrote:
$0.8 billion is pretty significant

On the scale of the nations we are talking about, even a billion is drops in a bucket.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Prices of California's main crops are already going up and expected to increase 10-30% and they are having a drought that is only curbing production. If it just dropped off the map tomorrow it would cause massive shortages.

Not here.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Reducing exports isn't going to be particularly useful. The reason why we exchange many of the same crops is due to differences of when the crops are harvested.

I'd venture it has a lot more to do with locale than the season. If Ontario has a surplus, it's more profitable to send to New York than B.C. The harvest seasons in our two countries are simultaneous. Canada isn't a winter country anymore. Last year our temperatures were actually warmer throughout the winter than most of the northern states, and we were even warmer in Ontario than Texas and Florida quite a few times.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Food is a global market and the prices are mostly determined globally. Any major producer that has production problems will cause the price of that commodity to rise, regardless of whether or not you bought from that producer directly. 

One supplier vanishing will increase prices a little, but nothing truly significant. 10-30% isn't very much.

Beyond Saving wrote:

Yeah, greenhouse vegetables. You can grow in greenhouses anywhere, soil and weather quality are not important factors in greenhouse farming. That is why your greenhouse vegetable production is a substantial portion of your total vegetable production and why I pointed out your soil is not conducive for farming most vegetables, which is why your vegetable production is on 125,000 hectares of land (mostly corn and potatoes) and grains are farmed on over 26 million hectares. 

Way to fail at reading. The greenhouse vegetables were a third statistic not limited to exports to the US and not included in those statistics, which in turn were not a reflection of Canada's actual production capacity. And if we grow enough tomatoes, carrots, and onions to send you 1.1 b worth then you're assertion that most all we have is corn & potatoes crosses into the realm of the absolutely ridiculous. We don't need any of the US, and certainly don't need California, to feed ourselves. Period.

Beyond Saving wrote:
"Significantly" is very subjective

Not in this case. I laid everything out sufficiently to quantify significant, and California simply isn't significant.

Beyond Saving wrote:
I don't agree with EXCs hysteria that somehow we are going to run into mass starvation. Prices will rise, people will adjust their eating habits accordingly and farmers next year will adjust what plants they grow to take advantage of higher prices.

I agree, and never thought you bought into his bs.

Beyond Saving wrote:
My sole point was that California is not insignificant and its problems will raise food prices because it is a major producer of a number of crops.

Except California is NOT significant. Not to the world, and not to Canada. It is significant to the US and Mexico, as per your sources, but that's it. Prices will certainly rise, any loss of production must have a corresponding rise as everyone else can take the markets left open by the loss which creates shortfalls and raises prices, but we are not talking about some magic land that grows half the worlds food. We're talking about 1 state that doesn't even produce half the food in the US. Even taking my ridiculously extreme figure of a 200% rise in prices, the loss of California would impact the average Canadian by $1,000 per year. Far more likely is the higher end of your estimate of 30%, which would impact the average Canadian by $150 per year. That is statistically irrelevant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5402
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:
$0.8 billion is pretty significant
On the scale of the nations we are talking about, even a billion is drops in a bucket.


On the scale of vegetable imports/exports (which is the topic) it is immense. You import 1.8 times more than you export. As modern countries, the amount we spend on food total is insignificant, I never claimed it was. My SOLE claim was that California is a significant player in the world of vegetables. So comparing it to the trillions that countries spend on other products is irrelevant. Vegetable production is insignifcant compared to oil, but that has nothing to do with my point.  

 

Vastet wrote:

 I'd venture it has a lot more to do with locale than the season. If Ontario has a surplus, it's more profitable to send to New York than B.C. The harvest seasons in our two countries are simultaneous. Canada isn't a winter country anymore. Last year our temperatures were actually warmer throughout the winter than most of the northern states, and we were even warmer in Ontario than Texas and Florida quite a few times.

The planting and harvest season from southern California is different from northern California. Ohio's harvest is usually 2 weeks later (for corn & soy- crops I pay regular attention to) than Indiana's harvest and we are neighboring states, and is also usually behind Minnesota and Wisconsin despite being further south. A variety of factors beyond just how far north you are affects when plantings and harvests occur. Local rain patterns, soil types, what other crops are grown in the area (often many Ohio fields are late with corn & soy because they have winter wheat) etc. All of which is fairly predictable and leads to a general pattern of different places providing different foods fresh at different times. For some crops, a variation in quality also plays a role. For example, if you are using tomatoes for ketchup, quality doesn't matter so you buy cheaper tomatoes from whoever had a worse growing season than you might for fresh tomato applications.   

 

Vastet wrote:

 One supplier vanishing will increase prices a little, but nothing truly significant. 10-30% isn't very much.

It is well above inflation and more than enough to change peoples buying habits- which reduces consumption of whatever product. It is also more than significant enough for a farmer to decide one crop over another. It is significant enough for a restaraunt to choose to serve corn as a side instead of broccoli. World ending? Nope. But whatever commodity you are talking about, a 10-30% price change is signifcant, both for those who purchase it in mass quantities and those who profit from it. And when you consider that is only a small expected (hasn't even occured yet) reduction in yield, well if the state disappeared everyone would notice. It wouldn't be insignificant however you want to cut it and it would effect prices in the industry for 3-5 years like similar shocks in other ag industries have. Most recently, the shocks experienced in wheat, corn and coffee.

 

vastet wrote:
 

Way to fail at reading. The greenhouse vegetables were a third statistic not limited to exports to the US and not included in those statistics, which in turn were not a reflection of Canada's actual production capacity. And if we grow enough tomatoes, carrots, and onions to send you 1.1 b worth then you're assertion that most all we have is corn & potatoes crosses into the realm of the absolutely ridiculous. We don't need any of the US, and certainly don't need California, to feed ourselves. Period.

Way to fail at reading. My assertion was that most of your non-greenhouse vegetables were corn and potatoes. Greenhouse vegetables are irrelevant to my point I was defending (that your soil and climate is not conducive to growing vegetable) because greenhouses are not dependent on either. Nor have I ever said you would starve. I have said multiple times that EXC is wrong on that point. The only effects are financial and mostly confined to the vegetable, fruit, dairy and beef industries. But to that extent, California is a substantial player and yeah, your grocery bill going to continue to go up faster than inflation. Fortunately, food is dirt cheap compared to incomes in our countries so even large increases like 30% aren't going to cause significant starvation issues, like such an increase will do in 3rd world countries. 

 

Vastet wrote:

 Not in this case. I laid everything out sufficiently to quantify significant, and California simply isn't significant.

How so? By what measure is the 2nd or 3rd largest producer in the world in a number of products "not significant"?

 

 

vastet wrote:

 Except California is NOT significant. Not to the world, and not to Canada. It is significant to the US and Mexico, as per your sources, but that's it. Prices will certainly rise, any loss of production must have a corresponding rise as everyone else can take the markets left open by the loss which creates shortfalls and raises prices, but we are not talking about some magic land that grows half the worlds food. We're talking about 1 state that doesn't even produce half the food in the US. Even taking my ridiculously extreme figure of a 200% rise in prices, the loss of California would impact the average Canadian by $1,000 per year. Far more likely is the higher end of your estimate of 30%, which would impact the average Canadian by $150 per year. That is statistically irrelevant.

Food is irrelevant to our modern budgets. That doesn't make California irrelevant to the food industry. When you are in the top 3 producers in the world for a number of crops, you are significant. There is a reason why every agricultural trade magazine in the fucking world is focusing on what is happening in California. They don't need to produce half the food in the US to be significant. No one produces that much, of anything, anywhere. And yeah, as people in first world countries, at most we might bitch about the extra $1 it costs for _insert crop here__ and maybe decide on something else since we also have a ridiculous number of options. That is the great thing about being in a first world country where most of us waste more on our cell phone bills than our vegetables, sometimes I overpay for something just because I have a craving. The shortages will be experienced in 3rd world countries where people can't shell out the extra buck. The US spends 6.4% of our income on food and I imagine Canada is probably in the same ballpark. So even if all our food went up 500% we would still get by without starving. In countries where people already pay 35-40% of their income on food, a 10% increase hurts and a 30% increase is prohibitive. Mexico is probably the biggest place to get fucked over by California since they are a major importer from there and also spend around 25% of their incomes on food. You know, shit doesn't have to effect you personally and directly to be significant. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12896
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:On the

Beyond Saving wrote:
On the scale of vegetable imports/exports (which is the topic) it is immense. You import 1.8 times more than you export. As modern countries, the amount we spend on food total is insignificant, I never claimed it was. My SOLE claim was that California is a significant player in the world of vegetables. So comparing it to the trillions that countries spend on other products is irrelevant. Vegetable production is insignifcant compared to oil, but that has nothing to do with my point.  

You're using statistics from the entire US, NOT just California. It is NOT immense, it is insignificant.

Beyond Saving wrote:
The planting and harvest season from southern California is different from northern California. Ohio's harvest is usually 2 weeks later (for corn & soy- crops I pay regular attention to) than Indiana's harvest and we are neighboring states, and is also usually behind Minnesota and Wisconsin despite being further south. A variety of factors beyond just how far north you are affects when plantings and harvests occur. Local rain patterns, soil types, what other crops are grown in the area (often many Ohio fields are late with corn & soy because they have winter wheat) etc. All of which is fairly predictable and leads to a general pattern of different places providing different foods fresh at different times. For some crops, a variation in quality also plays a role. For example, if you are using tomatoes for ketchup, quality doesn't matter so you buy cheaper tomatoes from whoever had a worse growing season than you might for fresh tomato applications.

And you can plant crops in much of B.C. year round, with steady or not steady rainfall depending on specific locations, with great soil and climate. Every province in Canada is a net exporter of food. California is insignificant.

Beyond Saving wrote:
It is well above inflation and more than enough to change peoples buying habits

Just like gas prices, which are far less mandatory than food and yet consumers haven't stopped driving. The economy is quite capable of handling a few shocks without any significant effect on the average person on Earth. Life is change, we adapt, we forget. California is not significant.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Way to fail at reading. My assertion was that most of your non-greenhouse vegetables were corn and potatoes.

Way to fail at reading twice. I proved your assertion false. 1.1b worth of vegetables NOT grown in greenhouses and NOT including corn or potatoes are exported to the US.

Beyond Saving wrote:
How so? By what measure is the 2nd or 3rd largest producer in the world in a number of products "not significant"?

By the measure that shows who depends on Californias crops, compared to the population of Earth. Or even just Canada. You could be #1 and that still wouldn't necessarily make you significant.

Beyond Saving wrote:
That doesn't make California irrelevant to the food industry.

I never said California is irrelevant (or if I did I mis-spoke). I said it was insignificant. There's a huge difference between them.

As for third world, they are FAR more effected by their own policies than all of North America combined. California is insignificant to the third world, which in many cases could quite easily feed themselves if they'd actually work at it. Zimbabwe, as a classic example, used to grow enough food to feed themselves and their neighbours. Now they can't feed themselves. It has nothing to do with anyone overseas, it has to do with idiots in power. If Zimbabwe will be at all effected by the disappearance of California, it is actually almost completely irrelevant compared to how they've mismanaged their own agricultural industry.

Not all nations in the third world are in the same boat, but I'd be willing to bet huge amounts of money that they'd all be a lot better off if farmers from Europe and North America were given the agricultural land to develop and not hindered by local governments or populations.

As I allowed, Mexico could be in for a rough time. As could some Americans. But compared to the Earth entire, all North America is insignificant to the food industry. We simply do not produce so much that we feed everyone. Not even close. There's about 550 million people on our continent. The Earth is nearly 7 billion. We don't, combined, put food on more than half those people's plates. Any food. At all.

The biggest effect that the disappearance of California would have to the world is an opportunity to export food to the US. It would not significantly impact the diet of the average human. It wouldn't effect the diet of the average human at all.

California is insignificant.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.