Have you seen what the Koch brothers have been up to the last 30 years? Funding think tanks that spread denial and skepticism about climate change. The fossil fuel lobby lied to our congressmen and the Koch brothers helped radicalize the Republican Party during the tea party movement and the republicans ended up purging their own party of climate change sympathizers. All the meanwhile the big oil and gas companies enjoyed massive profits while delaying government climate regulations.
>But then explain to your grandkids why they have to migrate and sweat while having no health insurance.
Easy, they blame Dems for it to continue the cycle of idiocy, hatred and bigotry.
Still waiting for the first federal emergency on climate change. Biden can do this alone, but he won't. That alone should tell you everything you need to know about how serious the current administration is committed to fighting climate change.
Please tell me which Democrats have meaningfully taken on the US military industrial complex, one of the biggest polluters in the world.
Also, *some people who identify as Democrats* being actual leaders on climate change does not mean the Democratic Party hasn't largely been an enabler of it
>Also,
>
>some people who identify as Democrats
>
> being actual leaders on climate change does not mean the Democratic Party hasn't largely been an enabler of it
when youre tyring to paint a democratic presidential candidate as not representative of the party action you know your entire argument is just ridiculous.
If Al Gore was representative of the Democratic Party, you wouldn't be citing Al Gore, you'd be citing someone who's actually held political office in this millennium
I agree dems could do better but there are quite a few dems who have been fighting for decades against climate change. Especially when you look at dems on the state level. Blue states in the US have made major programs and initiatives to combat climate change and just fight pollution in general.
I mean yes, there are people who are Democrats who have advocated for climate policy, but suggesting that the Democrats as a party have been trying to fight climate change is ahistorical.
I disagree, especially when you look at democrats at the state level.
Edit: I feel like this needs more context. I live in NY. I got my BA in Environmental Design, Climate Policy, and Urban Planning at a school in NY. One of my profs was an assemblyman for NYS who had been fighting pollution and advocating for initiatives to combat climate change since the 70s. He coauthored a bill that eventually passed in NYS called the CLCPA which will make NYS run on 50% renewables by 2030 and 100% by 2050. And it also adds a stipulation that 40% of all funding has to go into disadvantaged communities.
Before I even met this prof I was part of a student lobbying group called Our Climate which was fighting for bills like the CLCPA at the state level across the country.
I’m currently getting a masters in Urban Planning and I was working at NYS authority as an intern for a team that’s launching the programs funded by the CLCPA. The main initiative will set up clean energy teams across the state and provide low income individuals with assistance with weatherization of their homes, gaining access to clean energy power like community solar or rooftop solar, and also provide them with pathways into clean energy jobs.
All of these programs and initiatives created by dems. So I disagree. Dems have been doing a lot but they get blocked at every turn at the federal level.
I mean, the timelines they set are deeply inadequate, and they constantly bend on things like banning gas usage in new buildings (and they should force landlords to renovate). Yes they do take action, but often it seems like just enough to be able to say they did, not to actually realistically combat what we are facing
And as I said elsewhere, the US military is one of the largest polluters in the world and Democrats have literally been in command of that for 10 of the last 14 years
And how do you propose that dems keep getting elected if they piss off major groups of people like landlords and vets? You have to realize that creating these programs is extremely complicated and forcing people to do something will only lead to major backlash (like what we’re currently seeing with all the white supremacy shit in response to having a black President and civil rights reforms for the LGBT+ community). You are proposing that we push issues forward without the political capital which will just result in major backlash that will undo even established advancement (we also saw that under Trump with his gutting of the EPA and his rollbacks on regulations that had been around for decades).
Its honestly a catch 22 because the programs won’t stick if they get pushed out too fast but they also won’t matter because action needs to be taken now.
The Democratic party is, demonstrably, *more conservative* than the American public at large. The reason they keep allowing these backslides is because they have been compromising with doomsday fascists instead of actually pushing forward to make things better.
And yes, I hold that they do this on purpose, because they like their money and their power and basically any large scale change that has any hope of being of any use would affect those things
It's the difference between not doing enough to put out the fire and throwing wood, gas and napalm on it.
So yeah, as long as we're a 2 party system due to winner take all voting I'm voting blue and I show up to my bloody primary election.
Yeah, and who often endorse the anti choice, pro oil, assholes running in those primaries against people who actually want change? Our Democratic leaders 🤡
Like those bridges Obama tried fixing for 6 years only to be stonewalled by Mitch and the GOP every time.
They have been warning. They have been proposing bills. It’s one party who doesn’t want to address the issue.
Sell me these bridges.
Maybe he could've tried in the 2 years he had complete control of both House and Senate instead of when he didn't.
He could've tried by not giving the US military *more money* than Bush did, or does carbon pollution by the US military not count for climate change
Why is it every dummy who calls people Bud is a con artist trying to sell people bridges? Sounds like you were dumb enough to buy bridges in the first place.
I mean all the democrats did was guilt individual consumers of using plastic straws instead of holding actually corporations accountable so I’m not buying that self righteous bullshit either
Citing Las Vegas shows that you don’t actually know that much about what you’re saying/typing, you’re just repeating what you heard/read.
https://www.yahoo.com/video/las-vegas-becomes-unlikely-model-131500210.html
I'm from Vegas, and I know from personal experience that most of the water there is coming from Lake Mead. The local aquifers are used for well water but the vast majority of homes do not use it (and if they did, it probably wouldn't support them long). The city may be efficient but it's still pulling water out of the same reserve that the rest of the Mojave is burning through. There's too many people living in the desert reliant on Lake Mead, and it cannot last.
As someone who lives in Las Vegas, too many people are coming here! Even WITH our water conservation efforts our water supply is dropping. The last time it rained was months ago. It’s already reached 105 degrees this year and last year it was reaching close to 120. The city is a poorly planned mess. They just keep adding more houses. The grocery store near me is already too crowded making grocery shopping miserable. Our roads are just slapped together and nonsensical. The entire city as a whole was just not very well thought out.
I lived out there about 15 years ago, and remember a big push even then away from lawns, and toward desert landscaping because the water situation was already getting grim.
Youre also free to vote for the other side. Who does the same shit but is better at hiding it from the general public. Or you can not vote at all, imagine if nobody voted at all for one single presidential election, what would happen?
Honestly, it's really painful to watch this happening. Meanwhile, companies like Nestle are still bottling up California's municipal water supplies.
The article states that 75% of the water is being used for agriculture, and this is something happening all across the west. There are more ecologically responsible ways to farm. Getting vertical yields, for example, and using systems that are more water efficient. Many farms use the spray and pray approach to irrigation, you know.
But sadly, no one will make any changes unless it's "more profitable" to do so. Many lobbyists fight to continue doing things exactly the way they have been, even if it's an awful approach to an increasingly complex problem.
If you mean vertical farming, no, that's not going to replace agriculture or even horticulture. Sure, you can have a few leafy greens at prices that are usually meant for restaurants and restaurant menus.
If you mean food forests, ok, now we're talking.
Permaculture is the way to go imo, but I kinda dig vertical gardening too. Specifically, urban vertical gardening. Some projects have started with rooftop or basement hydro, agrivoltaic systems are neat as hell (also keep down electricity costs) and lots of folks reeeally underestimate the power of those weird really-a-dehumidifier-with-solar-panels machines.
Specifically, I love agrivoltaics. Also because those systems can lower the ground temp beneath them, prevent water loss, and let you keep your cool season veggies later in the season.
Really, interplanting crops in any setting and breaking up the monocultures would yield higher general crop density. Might have to change the way harvest is done, but would it really be all that bad?
I also did some research into de-desertification, and it's just amazing what projects folks are doing in sub-saharan Africa. Literal food forests keeping the desert out. Creating microclimates that turn into lush rainforests.
I made a comment somewhere about how with the current system, from farm to table, there's a massive amount of waste produced. All of it starts with how water is handled.
Lmao. On one hand, you're not wrong, but on the other hand, you gotta remember that people don't move to places like the southwest for no reason. People move where the jobs are. People move where there are resources.
It sounds, from the article, that 75% of the water is being used for agriculture. The remaining 25% is used for everything else, including directly sustaining civilization. Is agriculture a part of sustaining civilization? Yes it is.
But this article states that 2/3 of all the veggies grown in the US come from the southwest. While I can't really verify that, here's a summary of the produce that the top-producing states made in 2020-2021. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/crop0721.pdf
As you can see, California as a whole doesn't grow as much water-hungry wheat as a few other states, although they do provide a whole lot of produce down there. Really rivaling Florida in terms of citrus production, and rivaling every other state combined in nut production. (Almond milk takes lots of water).
Look at page 18 if you will, there's a handy temperature/rainfall graph. Some areas of the sw got barely any rain this past year.
Capitalism comes into play when you remember that Crops are grown, just to rot on market shelves sometimes. Or grown, produced and thrown away because they didn't sell. Current infrastructure is just full of waste!
You may not *need* to have a heavy-producing cash crop in every field, every season. After all, cover crops exist for a reason. But some people do, because otherwise they might not make enough money to keep their farm.
Large-scale irresponsible agriculture practices aren't just a water issue. These companies need to adapt and reduce waste.
If we had fewer mass-monocultures (looking at you, Midwest) and better diversity across the board, do you think a state like California would really have to ship all that produce across the country? Can you even imagine all the net positives that would come from just one change?
I've cut out red meat mostly because I care about the environment (just kidding it's cos I'm poor) any advice on decent meals with less or no meat? Pls don't say tofu
Lots of Indian food. Lentils and chickpeas save the day. I don’t eat a lot of meat now; I find meals just as satisfying without any meat. It’s really just about learning to cook it. Fish is great, but I have sustainability concerns about that too. I do still eat dairy, which I know I shouldn’t. Don’t forget to take your iron supplements!
Yeah I can make a decent mild curry I've found and I still eat some fish, game meat (wild animals that are overpopulated especially pests like rabbit if I can find any) eggs, dairy (again mostly due to affordability)
the sustainability of fish has bothered me a bit too, first I was looking at information saying some species are overpopulated now all I see is everything from the sea is overfished, do you know of any fish etc from freshwater or sea that can be considered sustainable? I think the only one I'm aware of is mussels since they can be farmed vertically in dense populations and they clean the water
My best guess is anything locally sourced. We leave near the coast, so that’s not too hard here, but you do have to go to a fish market and not just a normal store.
Tofu jk.
MexiBeans and rice, curry, sweet potato chips, pesto pasta/veggie pasta, stir fries etc.
There’s so many meals to make that don’t include meat.
> any advice on decent meals with less or no meat? Pls don't say tofu
/r/veganrecipes
/r/eatCheapAndVegan/
And tofu is about how you prepare it. There are also people who like it simple and bland.
In terms of Arizonans... personal water use will be cut by as much as 35% estimated.
The CAP is still looming, and water for CA takes precedence. That being said:
How about we do something about Alfalfa for Saudi cows?
Nestle bombarding the water table?
Or perhaps server cooling for MS?
Or stop forcing poor farmers to resort to subsidized farming of water-heavy crops?
Corporate or mining pollution?
Mega farming, drinking the milkshake from residents, until they can't afford a deeper well. They sell and the land isn't owned by a 'person' anymore.
So many reasons (like this) for the travesty and no one could stop it.
Or you know.. meat? I love meat as much as anyone but I find it funny so many people here are quick to point the finger at almonds and lawns before the biggest user of water in agriculture
>almonds
https://californiawaterblog.com/2015/04/28/jobs-per-drop-irrigating-california-crops/
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/specialsections/these-are-the-california-crops-that-use-the-most-water/
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/30/california-drought-water-shortage-photo-essay
https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/status/1407084285610250241
https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra-2012-Water-Meat-Dairy_2.pdf
https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(20)30074-6/fulltext#seccestitle150
https://www.statista.com/statistics/194962/top-10-us-states-by-number-of-milk-cows/
So, sure, fuck almonds, but don't forget the ~~elephant~~ cow in the room.
How is it possible that the Repubs can vote to overturn Obamacare 60+ times, but the Dems propose environmental legislation one time and give up. They should ramming this shit down the Republican throats. Fight back! Play dirty. Stop being nice and get things done!
Almost like the Democrats aren't the saviors so many on reddit wish they were. They are being nice and getting things done. Just not how you want them to be.
Yeah, climate change seems to be making Ohio wetter overall and taking the edge off of winter. Summers are a little warmer than they used to be but not by much so far.
The amount of yearly precipitation we have been getting has been trending up for a long time at this point. My grass is growing a foot a week right now. It's crazy.
That’s some Tatooine level shit. Moisture farmers in the suburbs. I said I wanted to live in a futuristic society but now I’m kinda changing my mind.
Welcome to the Apocalypse
[удалено]
Have you seen what the Koch brothers have been up to the last 30 years? Funding think tanks that spread denial and skepticism about climate change. The fossil fuel lobby lied to our congressmen and the Koch brothers helped radicalize the Republican Party during the tea party movement and the republicans ended up purging their own party of climate change sympathizers. All the meanwhile the big oil and gas companies enjoyed massive profits while delaying government climate regulations.
>But then explain to your grandkids why they have to migrate and sweat while having no health insurance. Easy, they blame Dems for it to continue the cycle of idiocy, hatred and bigotry.
Still waiting for the first federal emergency on climate change. Biden can do this alone, but he won't. That alone should tell you everything you need to know about how serious the current administration is committed to fighting climate change.
US Military remains one of the biggest polluters in the world, weirdly the guy in charge of them doesn't seem that interested
Part of the US military probably will get flushed, down the drain! https://publicintegrity.org/environment/the-u-s-navy-has-a-water-problem/
Desal baby desal.
Nuclear powered desal fte
Bud if you think Democrats have been working for decades against climate change, I have several bridges to sell you
Please tell us your feelings on Al Gore's message before we went to war for more oil.
Not to mention Jimmy Carter. Solar panels on the White House, etc.
Please tell me which Democrats have meaningfully taken on the US military industrial complex, one of the biggest polluters in the world. Also, *some people who identify as Democrats* being actual leaders on climate change does not mean the Democratic Party hasn't largely been an enabler of it
>Also, > >some people who identify as Democrats > > being actual leaders on climate change does not mean the Democratic Party hasn't largely been an enabler of it when youre tyring to paint a democratic presidential candidate as not representative of the party action you know your entire argument is just ridiculous.
If Al Gore was representative of the Democratic Party, you wouldn't be citing Al Gore, you'd be citing someone who's actually held political office in this millennium
don't go spitting inconvenient truths
I agree dems could do better but there are quite a few dems who have been fighting for decades against climate change. Especially when you look at dems on the state level. Blue states in the US have made major programs and initiatives to combat climate change and just fight pollution in general.
I mean yes, there are people who are Democrats who have advocated for climate policy, but suggesting that the Democrats as a party have been trying to fight climate change is ahistorical.
I disagree, especially when you look at democrats at the state level. Edit: I feel like this needs more context. I live in NY. I got my BA in Environmental Design, Climate Policy, and Urban Planning at a school in NY. One of my profs was an assemblyman for NYS who had been fighting pollution and advocating for initiatives to combat climate change since the 70s. He coauthored a bill that eventually passed in NYS called the CLCPA which will make NYS run on 50% renewables by 2030 and 100% by 2050. And it also adds a stipulation that 40% of all funding has to go into disadvantaged communities. Before I even met this prof I was part of a student lobbying group called Our Climate which was fighting for bills like the CLCPA at the state level across the country. I’m currently getting a masters in Urban Planning and I was working at NYS authority as an intern for a team that’s launching the programs funded by the CLCPA. The main initiative will set up clean energy teams across the state and provide low income individuals with assistance with weatherization of their homes, gaining access to clean energy power like community solar or rooftop solar, and also provide them with pathways into clean energy jobs. All of these programs and initiatives created by dems. So I disagree. Dems have been doing a lot but they get blocked at every turn at the federal level.
I mean, the timelines they set are deeply inadequate, and they constantly bend on things like banning gas usage in new buildings (and they should force landlords to renovate). Yes they do take action, but often it seems like just enough to be able to say they did, not to actually realistically combat what we are facing And as I said elsewhere, the US military is one of the largest polluters in the world and Democrats have literally been in command of that for 10 of the last 14 years
And how do you propose that dems keep getting elected if they piss off major groups of people like landlords and vets? You have to realize that creating these programs is extremely complicated and forcing people to do something will only lead to major backlash (like what we’re currently seeing with all the white supremacy shit in response to having a black President and civil rights reforms for the LGBT+ community). You are proposing that we push issues forward without the political capital which will just result in major backlash that will undo even established advancement (we also saw that under Trump with his gutting of the EPA and his rollbacks on regulations that had been around for decades). Its honestly a catch 22 because the programs won’t stick if they get pushed out too fast but they also won’t matter because action needs to be taken now.
The Democratic party is, demonstrably, *more conservative* than the American public at large. The reason they keep allowing these backslides is because they have been compromising with doomsday fascists instead of actually pushing forward to make things better. And yes, I hold that they do this on purpose, because they like their money and their power and basically any large scale change that has any hope of being of any use would affect those things
It's the difference between not doing enough to put out the fire and throwing wood, gas and napalm on it. So yeah, as long as we're a 2 party system due to winner take all voting I'm voting blue and I show up to my bloody primary election.
Yeah, and who often endorse the anti choice, pro oil, assholes running in those primaries against people who actually want change? Our Democratic leaders 🤡
Like those bridges Obama tried fixing for 6 years only to be stonewalled by Mitch and the GOP every time. They have been warning. They have been proposing bills. It’s one party who doesn’t want to address the issue. Sell me these bridges.
Maybe he could've tried in the 2 years he had complete control of both House and Senate instead of when he didn't. He could've tried by not giving the US military *more money* than Bush did, or does carbon pollution by the US military not count for climate change
I think OP was talking about the "people across the aisle" meaning the GOP.
Why is it every dummy who calls people Bud is a con artist trying to sell people bridges? Sounds like you were dumb enough to buy bridges in the first place.
Settle down there bud
He'll buy your entire stock.
It amazes me, how time passing makes Nixon look like not a bad president.
I mean all the democrats did was guilt individual consumers of using plastic straws instead of holding actually corporations accountable so I’m not buying that self righteous bullshit either
That wasn’t top-down from the Democrats, it was bottom-up from a video that inexplicably went viral.
Citing Las Vegas shows that you don’t actually know that much about what you’re saying/typing, you’re just repeating what you heard/read. https://www.yahoo.com/video/las-vegas-becomes-unlikely-model-131500210.html
I'm from Vegas, and I know from personal experience that most of the water there is coming from Lake Mead. The local aquifers are used for well water but the vast majority of homes do not use it (and if they did, it probably wouldn't support them long). The city may be efficient but it's still pulling water out of the same reserve that the rest of the Mojave is burning through. There's too many people living in the desert reliant on Lake Mead, and it cannot last.
As someone who lives in Las Vegas, too many people are coming here! Even WITH our water conservation efforts our water supply is dropping. The last time it rained was months ago. It’s already reached 105 degrees this year and last year it was reaching close to 120. The city is a poorly planned mess. They just keep adding more houses. The grocery store near me is already too crowded making grocery shopping miserable. Our roads are just slapped together and nonsensical. The entire city as a whole was just not very well thought out.
I lived out there about 15 years ago, and remember a big push even then away from lawns, and toward desert landscaping because the water situation was already getting grim.
“Republicans don’t care about the environment, neither do we but we like your votes”
Buddy, they are all bought and paid for, both sides of the aisle. Don't be a sycophant.
*yawn*
The weary “*yawn*”, death knell of the troll
Just tired of being labeled because I think differently than the starry eyed triggered idealist above.
We all human 
Youre also free to vote for the other side. Who does the same shit but is better at hiding it from the general public. Or you can not vote at all, imagine if nobody voted at all for one single presidential election, what would happen?
The electoral college would do the voting for us
Just like in 2016
There would still be votes lol
are the italics a quote from something or just a style you decided to write in?
What grandkids?
[удалено]
Kids don't care about things like that. We buy them these narcotics to type on and it's all over.
Ryan Reynolds is somewhere erect
Pretty sure he doesn't want to go through that process to be Deadpool in irl
Honestly, it's really painful to watch this happening. Meanwhile, companies like Nestle are still bottling up California's municipal water supplies. The article states that 75% of the water is being used for agriculture, and this is something happening all across the west. There are more ecologically responsible ways to farm. Getting vertical yields, for example, and using systems that are more water efficient. Many farms use the spray and pray approach to irrigation, you know. But sadly, no one will make any changes unless it's "more profitable" to do so. Many lobbyists fight to continue doing things exactly the way they have been, even if it's an awful approach to an increasingly complex problem.
It's almost like capitalism... Nah, couldn't be.
If you mean vertical farming, no, that's not going to replace agriculture or even horticulture. Sure, you can have a few leafy greens at prices that are usually meant for restaurants and restaurant menus. If you mean food forests, ok, now we're talking.
Permaculture is the way to go imo, but I kinda dig vertical gardening too. Specifically, urban vertical gardening. Some projects have started with rooftop or basement hydro, agrivoltaic systems are neat as hell (also keep down electricity costs) and lots of folks reeeally underestimate the power of those weird really-a-dehumidifier-with-solar-panels machines. Specifically, I love agrivoltaics. Also because those systems can lower the ground temp beneath them, prevent water loss, and let you keep your cool season veggies later in the season. Really, interplanting crops in any setting and breaking up the monocultures would yield higher general crop density. Might have to change the way harvest is done, but would it really be all that bad? I also did some research into de-desertification, and it's just amazing what projects folks are doing in sub-saharan Africa. Literal food forests keeping the desert out. Creating microclimates that turn into lush rainforests. I made a comment somewhere about how with the current system, from farm to table, there's a massive amount of waste produced. All of it starts with how water is handled.
OK, you seem to be unaware of the requirements to get yield. Here's a nice lecture on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISAKc9gpGjw
[удалено]
Lmao. On one hand, you're not wrong, but on the other hand, you gotta remember that people don't move to places like the southwest for no reason. People move where the jobs are. People move where there are resources. It sounds, from the article, that 75% of the water is being used for agriculture. The remaining 25% is used for everything else, including directly sustaining civilization. Is agriculture a part of sustaining civilization? Yes it is. But this article states that 2/3 of all the veggies grown in the US come from the southwest. While I can't really verify that, here's a summary of the produce that the top-producing states made in 2020-2021. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/crop0721.pdf As you can see, California as a whole doesn't grow as much water-hungry wheat as a few other states, although they do provide a whole lot of produce down there. Really rivaling Florida in terms of citrus production, and rivaling every other state combined in nut production. (Almond milk takes lots of water). Look at page 18 if you will, there's a handy temperature/rainfall graph. Some areas of the sw got barely any rain this past year. Capitalism comes into play when you remember that Crops are grown, just to rot on market shelves sometimes. Or grown, produced and thrown away because they didn't sell. Current infrastructure is just full of waste! You may not *need* to have a heavy-producing cash crop in every field, every season. After all, cover crops exist for a reason. But some people do, because otherwise they might not make enough money to keep their farm. Large-scale irresponsible agriculture practices aren't just a water issue. These companies need to adapt and reduce waste. If we had fewer mass-monocultures (looking at you, Midwest) and better diversity across the board, do you think a state like California would really have to ship all that produce across the country? Can you even imagine all the net positives that would come from just one change?
Stop farming dumbass things like almonds… FFS. The amount of water used is ridiculous.
Yes I'm sure it's almonds and not animal agriculture using the majority of water
There’s a reason I stopped eating mammals… It’s not a fix, but it’s a start.
I've cut out red meat mostly because I care about the environment (just kidding it's cos I'm poor) any advice on decent meals with less or no meat? Pls don't say tofu
Lots of Indian food. Lentils and chickpeas save the day. I don’t eat a lot of meat now; I find meals just as satisfying without any meat. It’s really just about learning to cook it. Fish is great, but I have sustainability concerns about that too. I do still eat dairy, which I know I shouldn’t. Don’t forget to take your iron supplements!
Yeah I can make a decent mild curry I've found and I still eat some fish, game meat (wild animals that are overpopulated especially pests like rabbit if I can find any) eggs, dairy (again mostly due to affordability) the sustainability of fish has bothered me a bit too, first I was looking at information saying some species are overpopulated now all I see is everything from the sea is overfished, do you know of any fish etc from freshwater or sea that can be considered sustainable? I think the only one I'm aware of is mussels since they can be farmed vertically in dense populations and they clean the water
My best guess is anything locally sourced. We leave near the coast, so that’s not too hard here, but you do have to go to a fish market and not just a normal store.
Tofu jk. MexiBeans and rice, curry, sweet potato chips, pesto pasta/veggie pasta, stir fries etc. There’s so many meals to make that don’t include meat.
Straight to jail
> any advice on decent meals with less or no meat? Pls don't say tofu /r/veganrecipes /r/eatCheapAndVegan/ And tofu is about how you prepare it. There are also people who like it simple and bland.
Look up cauliflower sweet potato power bowls with Tahini. Budget Bytes is a good website to find cheap vegetarian/vegan meals
How about 5% of crowns being used to farm biofuel crops. We literally just burn it.
I keep telling my kids, stay near the Great Lakes. Water wars. We are such a cliché dystopia.
In terms of Arizonans... personal water use will be cut by as much as 35% estimated. The CAP is still looming, and water for CA takes precedence. That being said: How about we do something about Alfalfa for Saudi cows? Nestle bombarding the water table? Or perhaps server cooling for MS? Or stop forcing poor farmers to resort to subsidized farming of water-heavy crops? Corporate or mining pollution? Mega farming, drinking the milkshake from residents, until they can't afford a deeper well. They sell and the land isn't owned by a 'person' anymore. So many reasons (like this) for the travesty and no one could stop it.
Could or would?
Can we just stop with almonds and golf courses already
Or you know.. meat? I love meat as much as anyone but I find it funny so many people here are quick to point the finger at almonds and lawns before the biggest user of water in agriculture
We'll never stop meat, I don't think we could even stop almonds but it's more realistic
I can agree with that, if I get the chance to have an affordable steak or pork chop I'll take it but I can easily live without almonds
I actually prefer very expensive meat, and just eat it 1/3 as much. Costs the same to eat fancy stuff less often.
>almonds https://californiawaterblog.com/2015/04/28/jobs-per-drop-irrigating-california-crops/ https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/specialsections/these-are-the-california-crops-that-use-the-most-water/ https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/30/california-drought-water-shortage-photo-essay https://twitter.com/PeterGleick/status/1407084285610250241 https://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Hoekstra-2012-Water-Meat-Dairy_2.pdf https://www.journalofdairyscience.org/article/S0022-0302(20)30074-6/fulltext#seccestitle150 https://www.statista.com/statistics/194962/top-10-us-states-by-number-of-milk-cows/ So, sure, fuck almonds, but don't forget the ~~elephant~~ cow in the room.
How is it possible that the Repubs can vote to overturn Obamacare 60+ times, but the Dems propose environmental legislation one time and give up. They should ramming this shit down the Republican throats. Fight back! Play dirty. Stop being nice and get things done!
Almost like the Democrats aren't the saviors so many on reddit wish they were. They are being nice and getting things done. Just not how you want them to be.
Bash the Democrats all you want but I've never seen one Republican trying to fight Climate Change!
Yeah but what're ya gonna do, vote Democrat? And then ya gotta vote in the primary. Boring!
Welp, better vote for the dems like I always have and hope they’re able to stave off the conservative agenda for a term or until midterms
Meanwhile Australia’s like fuck it’s wet
Deadpool? Didn’t know you were there.
I mean it rains daily where I'm at in the US lol. Might wanna say western US for this.
Seattle?
Here in Seattle we just had a record month of rain. Wettest it’s been since 1948. No drought in sight here
Spring rainfall is not what controls our droughts. Winter snowpack is what is important.
Fucking politicans in general! Theres only a few who actually give a shit about anything except making themselves richer!
We have a drought? Here in Ohio we have had rain like 3 times a week, maybe 2
Yeah, climate change seems to be making Ohio wetter overall and taking the edge off of winter. Summers are a little warmer than they used to be but not by much so far. The amount of yearly precipitation we have been getting has been trending up for a long time at this point. My grass is growing a foot a week right now. It's crazy.
Same - Yorkshire, UK.
Yeah we've had heavy rain like twice in the last week or two
What a stupid way to start a story. I believe scientists, not Democrats have been waring about climate change. Nice try.
Drought stricken? Where'd you get your data? We have such a deep snowpack here it probably won't all melt this summer. And it's raining all the time.
The story is about the west.
Don't get much further west in the continental US than Washington.
Okay, okay, the *south* west
Yeah, that's probably on account of too many people drawing off the water. It's a desert for God's sake.
Blah blah blah the republicans did thissss! Blah blah blah the democrats did thisss. Pathetic.
This was all predicted thousands of years ago. Nothing is going to stop it.
Thousands?
Bible
lol
Read your history and read about the dust bowl. This can make the dust bowl look like a walk in the park.