There's a lot of crops that are grown in CA that are not native to the area, and require a lot of water to be viable in that area. Trying to grow a crop native to monsoon areas in a dry area is just unsane.
There's a lot of crops that are grown in CA that are not native to the area, and require a lot of water to be viable in that area. Trying to grow a crop native to monsoon areas in a dry area is just unsane.
And growing a human in that area? Would it not also be a drag on the area? At what point does blame the plants become blame all alien life including human?
(Not referring to your comment, I feel often people tend to handwave themselves out the equation).
> At what point does blame the plants become blame all alien life including human?
I don't think that's what people are saying. The question is why is the cost of growing such water intensive crops in such an arid land cheap enough to make financial sense.
The answer, I expect, is essentially that the costs involved in said water are subsidised in such a way as to socialise them? Would be interesting to understand.
A person can live in that environment on much less water than the crops. Just growing different crops would consume less water.
There is a reason 80%(?) of the world almond crop is grown in California. It has a great climate for almonds, a lot of land, and water to support the trees. We need to trade something for our IPhones besides the promise of future dollars (debt).
I don't think that's true unless they're living in extreme poverty.