Awww - poor almond producers feeling the pinch: “ “It’s all about money,” (costs, agriculture)

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by cb73

I remember during the last drought people complaining that almond trees should be cut down to save water. But when it was pointed out that the cartels operating marijuana grows in the forests were not only using more water than that, but were also using illegal pesticides and then dumping into the water supply--no one seemed to have a problem with that.

Funny how that works out, isn't it?

If the almond groves go, or other ag fields, they'll switch to "highest, best use"-housing developments with lawns.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Good luck. I tried pointing this out in the last round of the almond witch trials but it generally falls on deaf ears (blind eyes?).







Ok and what percentage does that represent for the WORLD's almond supply? There's a hint right in this same post. We went over this before.


Disregarding all that, what exactly is your point? What's an "overinvestment" in your mind? Are you suggesting that farming be regulated to control exports and that only crops slated for domestic use be allowed to be grown? Because if so, that's a really naive view of how global agriculture works. You're certainly entitled to that opinion though.

Let's take a look at what "overinvestment" means, in this case. For one thing, it's about REIT's buying up marginal land and planting it with almond trees as an investment scheme. That's where some of California's precious water is going. It's just another example of REIT's run amok, and they're cashing in on the fact that agriculture is the priority use for California's water, and they're probably getting subsidies for that, as well. Are you ok with that?


Water to grow food is ok, someone else said. Food for whom? When water becomes scarce, it may come down to a choice between water for food for Americans vs. water for food for "global agriculture". Who knows what kind of tough choices will have to be made in 50 years or possibly even 20 years. Who knows if agriculture will even be viable in CA in 50 years.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

How much water goes to vineyards to create wine?

The wine industry uses about 3% of agriculture's share of CA water, I just read.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Let's take a look at what "overinvestment" means, in this case. For one thing, it's about REIT's buying up marginal land and planting it with almond trees as an investment scheme. That's where some of California's precious water is going. It's just another example of REIT's run amok, and they're cashing in on the fact that agriculture is the priority use for California's water, and they're probably getting subsidies for that, as well. Are you ok with that?

You're dodging the question and I can't really give you my opinion on something that is predicated on a lot of "probably"s with nothing to actually back it up. My friends who grow almonds here aren't an evil REIT run amok.

Water to grow food is ok, someone else said. Food for whom? When water becomes scarce, it may come down to a choice between water for food for Americans vs. water for food for "global agriculture". Who knows what kind of tough choices will have to be made in 50 years or possibly even 20 years. Who knows if agriculture will even be viable in CA in 50 years.

Ok, but in the here and now?

btw - We export lot's of ag globally.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

The wine industry uses about 3% of agriculture's share of CA water, I just read.

Is wine food?
And what about wine exports?


Is your point that ag should be restricted to only approved crops based on their domestic use and some subjective value "bang for the buck" sort of metric? Or should ag get to continue deciding which products will maximize their investment most, including the cost of water to produce them? Because that's how it works in a semi-free economy. No different than any other industry.

[doc1]

Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer

How much water goes to vineyards to create wine?

Leave wine out of this

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by joosoon

Is wine food?
And what about wine exports?


Is your point that ag should be restricted to only approved crops based on their domestic use and some subjective value "bang for the buck" sort of metric? Or should ag get to continue deciding which products will maximize their investment most, including the cost of water to produce them? Because that's how it works in a semi-free economy. No different than any other industry.

I don’t think it is at all silly to make these observations about how agriculture uses water. In our free-market, capitalist economy and ‘democracy’, yes, businesses get to pretty much expand and market however they want and can find ways to - short of being overtly destructive to society, in which case legislation is empowered to step in and create safety guardrails.

The idea that a luxury product can be produced in its vastly largest part for export by means of gross over-utilization of an essential public resource is frankly anathema to good governance.

You are correct our economic model allows it. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing … nor that we are powerless to limit it.

[1AngryTaxPayer]

Originally Posted by doc1

Leave wine out of this

Ha ha or good beer

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by joosoon

You're dodging the question and I can't really give you my opinion on something that is predicated on a lot of "probably"s with nothing to actually back it up. My friends who grow almonds here aren't an evil REIT run amok.
.

My cousins who converted their entire farm to almonds aren't an evil REIT, either. That was just an example.

[joosoon]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I don’t think it is at all silly to make these observations about how agriculture uses water. In our free-market, capitalist economy and ‘democracy’, yes, businesses get to pretty much expand and market however they want and can find ways to - short of being overtly destructive to society, in which case legislation is empowered to step in and create safety guardrails.

The idea that a luxury product can be produced in its vastly largest part for export by means of gross over-utilization of an essential public resource is frankly anathema to good governance.

You are correct our economic model allows it. But that doesn’t mean it’s a good thing … nor that we are powerless to limit it.

Well, I didn't say it was silly to ruminate on the subject on the internet. That's fine and I wouldn't be here if I didn't think it was worth discussing.



But do we really want to go down that rabbit hole though (i.e. making regulations in that manner)? That's a pretty slick slope to navigate. How would lawmakers even come up with a standard to measure production worth for any resources pumped into consumer products?



Even sticking to just agriculture, would it be something like making sure all food stuffs meet a certain number of calories per growth energy? I'm asking because I can't think of a good way to quantify this. And then how is it enforced? If you're a farmer making decent profit on product X, and the all-knowing government comes along and says, "look, instead of doing what you're doing, you now need to use all your land, water resources, labor, etc. to grow this low profit crop that we can turn into gruel for Unicef to distribute around the world", would you be ok with that? If it were me, I'd subdivide all the farm land and get out of the business.


More to the point of this thread, banning almond growers doesn't solve the multi-faceted water issue. Also, as has been pointed out in every one of these threads, the so-called water footprint for meat is much higher but for some reason the irrational blame always comes back on nut growers. And once more, the idea that almonds are somehow unique in the world of agriculture because they are exported in such high numbers is wrong. We simply grow the majority of the world's almonds here which is why that is.