this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
1066 points (100.0% liked)

196

17333 readers
2 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.


Rule: You must post before you leave.



Other rules

Behavior rules:

Posting rules:

NSFW: NSFW content is permitted but it must be tagged and have content warnings. Anything that doesn't adhere to this will be removed. Content warnings should be added like: [penis], [explicit description of sex]. Non-sexualized breasts of any gender are not considered inappropriate and therefore do not need to be blurred/tagged.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact us on our matrix channel or email.

Other 196's:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I partially agree with your comment.

I'm not saying that we should not improve lawns (by removing them), but rather, that we should also go after the big offenders, and maybe focus on them first because that's where the most immediate gains are.

Every time we have a drought, I see the old drama of taking shorter showers, people filling buckets in the shower to flush their toilets later, etc, all while farmers are planting Alfalfa to export it for cheap. IIRC, alfalfa was the largest consumer of irrigation water, which breaks down the farmers mantra that "we are using water to grow your food".

Even when you consider almonds, which we do eat, it's not a staple food. Nobody will starve if the almond industry collapses. They make a lot of money but mostly for a closed set of farmers. They're also not a large employer on the state.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 years ago

besides, industries like that don't even have to collapse. they should just pay for the commons they use to keep said commons sustainable, which would make their product more expensive, and yes, definitely cause a downturn in business, but they would survive in the end, and so would the rest of us.