On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in
California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs.

Before you fret about what that reduction would do to the population,
take a look at the rate at which Americans waste food. As well,
consider the volume of produce from California that is exported (at
a cost to the US taxpayer, due to subsidies to allow CA to compete
with 3rd world countries on price).

California's agricultural production could be reduced considerably
with no negative effect on Americans, but that would free up water
for other uses.

And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the
production is stopped.

Let the desert go back to desert.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 18-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

however, what a 50% reduction in agriculture in
California means to the nation as a whole, and to our needs for foodstuffs.

Before you fret about what that reduction would do to the population,
take a look at the rate at which Americans waste food.

Why? It's our food, we can waste it if we want. Fact is that the US is the
largest exporter of food aid to other nations on the planet, and has been
for a long, long time.

As well,
consider the volume of produce from California that is exported (at
a cost to the US taxpayer, due to subsidies to allow CA to compete
with 3rd world countries on price).

Which brings money to the US and stimulates the economy.


California's agricultural production could be reduced considerably
with no negative effect on Americans, but that would free up water
for other uses.

Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have
in mind? Supporting your plastic boat? That's an inefficient use of a
valuable resource. Your recreational desires are way down the priority list.


And then there's the issue of what happens to the ag lands once the
production is stopped.

Let the desert go back to desert.

Why? We have the capability to make it bloom, so why shouldn't we?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Which brings money to the US and stimulates the economy.

It cost more to produce than you make by selling and that
stimulates the economy? Never studied economics did you.

Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have
in mind?

How about letting Californians live without artificial water shortages
caused by agriculture taking the vast majority of what is available.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 20-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Ah, and we finally come to the real agenda...what "other uses" do you have
in mind?

How about letting Californians live without artificial water shortages
caused by agriculture taking the vast majority of what is available.

Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
======================
Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on
swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?
======================

Fair enough. But I think a "simultaneous" bashing of agriculture is
appropriate. On the swimmings pools et al, Scott, I suspect you are
absolutely right.

frtzw906

A Usenet persona calling itself BCITORGB wrote:

Weiser says:
======================
Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on
swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?
======================

Fair enough. But I think a "simultaneous" bashing of agriculture is
appropriate.

Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are?

I believe that the needs of agriculture for water have been well defined by
hundreds, even thousands of years of cultivation of crops, and that you have
little credibility when it comes to criticising agriculture.

On the swimmings pools et al, Scott, I suspect you are
absolutely right.

So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.

In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to us on
how much of it comes from California.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

Weiser says:
====================
Why? What do you know about agriculture? Anything? Have you ever grown
anything for profit? Have you ever grown anything other than Bluegrass
and
weeds? Why would you presume, in your ignorance, to dictate to
agriculture
what it's water needs are?
=======================

I have grown nothing but, I never knew that one had to have given birth
to a child to become an OBGYN. That little bit notwithstanding, as you
guessed, I know nothing about agriculture. But the issue at hand is
not agricultural but, rather, economic.

As you point out, it would be ignorant to me to "dictate to agriculture
what it's water needs are". So I don't.

I do, however, point out that there are too many cases where industries
(and in the initial post, by way of example, I just grabbed
agri-busness out of a hat; I could well have picked any number of other
industries.) do not pay the full price for the commodities they
consume. If I remember correctly, the issue was less about
agri-business and more about subsidies to industries.

The environmental costs of California's agricultural use of water are
nowhere reflected in costs to the firms producing oranges in the
desert. That's a subsidy: from the citizens of the USA (it's their
water) to the firm.

Weiser says:
==================
So, when all the pools and artificially supported landscaping in
California is gone, then you can feel free to talk about rationing
agriculture.
===============

At this point, I have no desire to be argumentative. I'd be interested,
though, if you have these figures, how the total California acreage in
lawns compares to total agricultural acreage. Further, what might the
gallons/acre comparisons be between lawns/swimming pools versus
agricultural fields?

Weiser says:
======================
In the meantime, I suggest that you begin auditing your eating habits
and
determine the actual origin of every calorie you consume. Get back to
us on
how much of it comes from California.
==================

Too right, Scott! At this time of year, if it's not from California, it
is very likely from Mexico. And I'll be the first to admit that I am
the beneficiary of the water-related subsidies we're talking about. So,
while I have a chance here in the forum, I'd like to thank the people
of California and the USA for taking some jingle out of their jeans and
transferring that jingle into mine (and the shareholders of the
agri-busnesses).

So, as I do my audit, as you suggested, I am well aware of the fact
that I am aiding and abetting the destruction of California's water
resources. If, on the other hand, the price of Calfornia oranges
reflected the "true" cost of production, I might seek out substitute
products like BC-grown apples.

Cheers, and thanks again for your largesse,
frtzw906

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

I believe that the needs of agriculture for water have been well defined by
hundreds, even thousands of years of cultivation of crops, and that you have
little credibility when it comes to criticising agriculture.

Turning desert into farmland is not the same thing as farming in an area
that has a natural level of rainfall and water that supports agriculture.
Around here, we farm without draining rivers dry.

It's you that clearly knows nothing about _real_ agriculture.

Mike

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?

You're an idiot. Agriculture wastes most of the water and contributes
little to the economy and the guilty are the non-agricultural users.

Yeah, right.

Mike

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

Californians need to be on a water diet. They waste enormous amounts of
water. Before you start bashing agriculture, how about taking on swimming
pools and Bluegrass laws?

You're an idiot. Agriculture wastes most of the water and contributes
little to the economy and the guilty are the non-agricultural users.

Yeah, right.

Anyone who says that agriculture contributes "little" to the economy is just
too stupid to bother arguing with.

Buh-bye Netwit.
--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser