MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Malthusian Specter Pushed Back Further: Crops Engineered to Use 25 Percent Less Water

Yet another limit to growth recedes into the distance

PhotosynthesisBrianStaufferUniversityofIllinoisBrian Stauffer/University of IllinoisHumanity is approaching "peak water" according to some researchers who argue that people are using more water than ecosystems can sustain without significant deterioration and degradation. The World Bank estimates that more than 70 percent of freshwater is used for agriculture. Furthermore, feeding a population of 9 billion in 2050 will require a 50 percent increase in agricultural production and a 15 percent increase in water withdrawals.

The good news is that researchers associated with the Realizing Increased Photosynthetic Efficiency (RIPE) project have engineered crop plants to use 25 percent less water while maintaining their yields. Water evaporates from plants through openings on their leaves called stomata through which they obtain carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to fuel photosynthesis. The researchers boosted the levels of a photosynthetic protein (PsbS) to conserve water by tricking plants into partially closing their stomata. This does not impair photosynthesis since the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 25 percent during the past 70 years, enabling the plant to absorb enough carbon dioxide without fully opening its stomata.

"Evolution has not kept pace with this rapid change, so scientists have given it a helping hand," explained RIPE Director Stephen Long in a press release.

And thus does yet another limit to growth recede into the distance.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JeremyR||

    Of course the question is, will the technology be allowed to be used?

    You go to the store, almost every other food item has a "GMO Free" label on it. And Europe is much, much worse at this than we are.

    The first world won't be paying the price of GMOphobia, it will be Africa mostly. And the poorer parts of Asia.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Why would I want to eat genetically engineered food that does not have a good track record for centuries like regularly grown food?

    If GMO food is that great it will box out regular food from the market.

    I doubt it though. You cannot grow GMO food without permission and licensing fees.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If you don't want to eat GMO food, then don't. Nobody fucking cares what you do.

    That's the nice thing about the market: people buying the things they like support a wide variety of different products. That's why Coke doesn't "box out" Pepsi from the market, they both coexist in the same aisle in the supermarket.

    If you're going to waste time and electrons posting your inane bullshit here, maybe you could do us all a favor and try to be less boastfully ignorant about it.

  • gormadoc||

    Too bad. Almost all corn in the US is GMO corn and most of our foods contain corn in some amount, most in sweeteners, thickeners, or flours. Liquors often use corn; bourbon must use corn. A lot of mass-produced beer uses corn as a way to help increase the alcohol content without affecting the taste. You are probably eating GMO corn whenever you eat something.

    Regular food actually has a shitty track record for things like disease, hardiness, and consistent production. That's why GMO foods are good.

  • gormadoc||

    I should also mention that if you often eat meat, pretty much all land animals are raised on corn. Even farm-raised fish can be fed with corn.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    My biggest issue is why we make special distinction between GMO foods and just regular old techniques for crop hybridization.

  • DiegoF||

    Or between GMO foods and high-tech genetic manipulation that does not involve hybridization, which is not so classified. It's a ridiculous, arbitrary distinction for a ridiculous, arbitrary concept. The whole thing was invented to match the myths, neuroses, and superstitions of a bunch of weirdos.

  • Longtobefree||

    Because feelings trump science.

  • DenverJ||

    ^this^ who cares what the science says? Who cares if millions of poor people can eat and millions of poor children don't go blind? I need to signal that I am a caring mother and therefore spend money i don't need to in order to buy GMO free, gluten free, etc. Because I'm a MOM WHO CARES!!!

  • Radioactive||

    thinking on the other hand?...not so much!

  • Loss of Reason||

    ^this^

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    bourbon must use corn

    But not too much corn. The only 100% corn bourbon on the market tastes like ass. If anyone wants a half-empty bottle, let me know.

  • gormadoc||

    Yeah, you need wheat and rye for it to be good. Just corn is just bad moonshine that sat in barrels.

  • Sevo||

    "Why would I want to eat genetically engineered food that does not have a good track record for centuries like regularly grown food?"
    ^
    looney tunes

  • Rod Flash||

    "If GMO food is that great it will box out regular food from the market."

    It probably would if it was allowed in the market. And as others point out, where it's been allowed it has boxed out "regular" food.

  • Morbo||

    You know what agricultural scientists used to do before GMO? They'd take a handful of seeds, bombard them with radiation, plant them, and see what kind of interesting mutations cropped up.

    It was a complete crap shoot and completely uncontrollable. They had no fucking clue what might show up.

    GMO, on the other hand, is very controllable, and only edits a few genes at a time. The scientists know what to expect and how the plant is likely to behave after the gene splicing takes place.

    And yet, there was nary a peep about the first method, despite the ZOMGRADIATION! involved. The completely controllable method is feared, and the completely uncontrolled one isn't even remarked on.

    Odd, that.

  • Radioactive||

    no, you forget the mutant vegetable uprising from 1957...thousands of irradiated zucchini & rutagabga roaming the streets is search of BRAINS, this has been suppressed by the MSM... GMO is much worse than RMO since the resultant muto-veggies are not only mobile but grow to enormous sizes

  • Wizard4169||

    And never forget the scourge of tomacco!

  • Loss of Reason||

    But selective breeding and mutation breeding is ok right?

    "Though poorly known, radiation breeding has produced thousands of useful mutants and a sizable fraction of the world's crops...including varieties of rice, wheat, barley, pears, peas, cotton, peppermint, sunflowers, peanuts, grapefruit, sesame, bananas, cassava and sorghum"

    Though the centuries we have always modified our food. Now that it's genetically engineered or bioengineered it's a bad word but selective breeding did the same thing.

    I guess all those people that died because we couldn't give them golden rice since it was a GMO deserved it right?

  • IceTrey||

    What they are doing now is not the same. They used to mix the dna of different species. Now they are using dna from the same species or as in this case enhancing what is alreadu there. Instead of breeding many generations in hopes of a mutation that would produce the effect they just snip snip and done

  • ||

    What they are doing now is not the same. They used to mix the dna of different species. Now they are using dna from the same species or as in this case enhancing what is alreadu there.

    The two methods are, by no means, mutually exclusive.

  • mtrueman||

    "You go to the store, almost every other food item has a "GMO Free" label on it. And Europe is much, much worse at this than we are."

    He's not exaggerating. In Europe they put the label directly on almost every other food item directly. Not on the jar, box, bag, or bottle, but on the VERY FOOD ITSELF! Some day the Africans will pay dearly for this madness.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Look up golden rice. They already have.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Humans: Geniuses in our own mind.

  • IceTrey||

    Well the people who do this stuff ARE geniuses so...

  • SQRLSY One||

    Yeah man, but those super-geniuses who invented heavier-than-air flight VIOLATED GOD'S WILL!!! If God had meant for humans to fly, He'd have given us wings on our bodies!!! Aircraft need to be DESTROYED AS THE ABOMINATIONS that they so obviously are, that we might once agian live according to God's Will!!!

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Some of us can glide by spreading our scrotum.

  • Radioactive||

    Is that a mutually shared scrotum? what is the plural of scrotum? anyone?

  • Mickey Rat||

    So your testicle volume to scrotum surface area is quite small, then?

  • SQRLSY One||

    The humans who are geniuses in their own minds have said things like,

    "I doubt it though. You cannot grow GMO food without permission and licensing fees."

    If Government Almighty HAS SPOKEN, and HAS denied you your permissions and licenses, then WHO ARE YOU self-styled geniuses, to put FREE MARKET DECISIONS of un-coerced buyers and sellers, ABOVE that of HIGH AND MIGHTY Government Almighty?!?!

    Mere free-market mortals, BOW AND PRAY to Government Almighty!!! KNOW yer place, and stay IN yer place, Government Almighty dammit!!!

  • Kivlor||

    Pretty sure he means Monsanto tries to prevent a lot of farmers from planting without a license. Due to Corporations coupled with Government you can't buy GMO seed, plant, grow, and keep part of your crop for next season. You have to sell it all or they will literally send thugs to shake you down.

  • Morbo||

    Meh, it's part of the agreement you sign when you buy the stuff. Don't like it? Go make your own GMO seed or just don't use it.

  • Bubba Jones||

    The case law was a man who replanted seed and then used roundup on the crops.

    If you want to replant like regular seed, you need to weed it like regular seed. Though this hasn't actually come up.

  • ||

    With less water needed, in some cases, cheaper sources of water could be used.

    This water wheel can pump over 43,000 litres of water a day and requires no electricity: It requires no electricity to operate and does not emit any pollution either. The Barsha Pump can pump 43,000 litres of water a day and costs nothing to operate.

  • IceTrey||

    The point is there is no water to pump.

  • SQRLSY One||

    But has Al Gore and the EPA approved it? What if the river or stream water is not PURE, and it has 1 in ten trillion molecules of poisonous dissolved C-O-2 in it!??!? What then!?!?!

  • Red Tony||

    Then we'll still be freaking friends.

  • Ecoli||

    It's a pity it only works in metric. We could use something like that in the US.

  • Radioactive||

    how much to manufacture, ship, install, maintain and eventually dismantle and recycle? who covers those costs? fucking unicorns?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    You eat these crops, you'll morph into a camel.

  • BigT||

    So the women will have bigger humps?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm getting pretty aroused here.

  • Longtobefree||

    Yes; but you cannot look at them, or comment on them - - - - - - - - -

  • chemjeff||

    I like big humps. I cannot lie.

  • Rod Flash||

    I'ma get get get get you drunk
    Get you love drunk off my hump

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    Hey, not all camels have big humps. There are many camels with small humps, and some of them have a great personality.

  • Radioactive||

    intellectual camels with horn rimmed glasses?

  • SIV||

    Carbon emissions are making this planet a literal Garden of Eden.

  • Alcibiades||

    True, the greening of the planet continues apace.

  • Hugh Akston||

    In the Garden of Eden, Adam laid with Eve, not the birds of the air.

  • SIV||

    Ande everybody else with your mom, Hugh.

  • Red Tony||

    (SIV lays with the birds of the ground.)

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Is that why the dodo bird is extinct?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    SIV pretends like all these chicken jokes are not bothering him, but I see some cracks in the shell.

  • Radioactive||

    hence the irrational fear of tar?

  • Mickey Rat||

    ...and great was his mirth
    For on all of the Earth
    There were only two balls
    And he had'em.

  • John Rohan||

    This article puts a lot of faith in an experimental crop. And even if this could be used on all crops with no significant drawbacks, 25% savings won't be enough.

    But the larger question is, what is the end game here? Shouldn't there be a sane population limit? Even if we could feed everyone, do we really want the Earth to become one giant anthill teeming with humans?

  • Alcibiades||

    "But the larger question is, what is the end game here?"

    Liberty

  • colorblindkid||

    But how do you maintain the sane population limit? Forced birth control? Should we stop trying to save people in third world countries from easily treatable diseases? That would be the only feasible way to quickly stem population growth. Forced birth control will never work in the third world countries where it is needed. Humans are reproducing at a slower rate than any other point in history. It's just that fewer of them are dying.

    Any solution that involves reducing or slowing the global population will inherently involve genocide, gross human rights violations, or the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions. It is a non-starter.

  • BigT||

    As societies increase wealth, birth rates decline, eventually below replacement levels. So by about 2070 the population will level off at about 9 billion. The real problem comes in another couple of hundred years after centuries of negative growth. There might not be enough people to keep the infrastructure operating - maintenance is labor intensive.

    But who gives a fuck, we'll all be in hell.

  • IceTrey||

    Robots, duuuh.

  • Rod Flash||

    I'd guess fusion power and FTL dive.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Fusion power can run lots desalination plants.

    There is no shortage of seawater.

  • JeremyR||

    Yeah, but thanks to NIMBYism, there's a shortage of locations to put desalinization plants.

  • mtrueman||

    If you are a true Libertarian, you will welcome the construction of desalinization plants in your back yard. Coz its faggy to object.

  • mtrueman||

    "Any solution that involves reducing or slowing the global population will inherently involve genocide, gross human rights violations, or the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of millions."

    Teaching the young, especially the girls, to read is probably as humane as it gets. But we have to rule this out anyway because it costs tax payer money which goes in large part to teachers.

  • mtrueman||

    "Should we stop trying to save people in third world countries from easily treatable diseases? That would be the only feasible way to quickly stem population growth. "

    Hitler had lots of ideas about stemming population growth which were eminently feasible. And he hated third world countries as much as you evidently do. How about trying to give more options to girls of child bearing age. With any luck, the more options open, the less likely she's going to choose pregnancy. Start by giving them a basic education and give them all the encouragement to continue on from there.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Shouldn't there be a sane population limit?

    Like a government enforced population limit where we sterilize people once they have too many kids, or some other eugenics and population control? No. There should not be that.

    Even if we could feed everyone, do we really want the Earth to become one giant anthill teeming with humans?

    Sure. Though that won't happen either as the current estimates for max population are that population growth will drop to approximately 0 by 2100 anyway.

  • Alcibiades||

    Maybe even sooner by around 2050 at 10-11 billion.
    By that time humans will be an interplanetary species mining the moon and asteroids.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    We will see.

  • IceTrey||

    Only if there is some incredible breakthrough or the ETs finally show themselves.

  • Alcibiades||

  • Alcibiades||

    foxnews.com/science/2018/02/26/
    mining-for-asteroids-will-be-next-gold-rush.html

  • Alcibiades||

    https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdge/
    DesignerEdgeArticles/ArticleID/15308/Asteroid-
    Mining-Who-Wants-to-be-a-Trillionaire.aspx

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Meh, maybe. Platinum group metals are probably the only thing that might have a tolerable ROI, but as soon as you significantly improve the supply the price falls through the floor.

  • Alcibiades||

    NASA Will Reach Unique Metal Asteroid Worth $10,000 Quadrillion Four Years Early

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/bridaineparnell/
    2017/05/26/
    nasa-psyche-mission-fast-tracked/
    #13ed665b4ae8

    Once the infrastructure is there to mine these resources, all bets are off as to what happens next. One thing is clear, whoever has the ability to carry out the above will reap enormous rewards.

    This is where the next industrial revolution will take place. Quite apart from the raw materials, the zero-g environment will allow the synthesis of completely new classes of materials at levels of purity not possible on earth.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Shouldn't there be a sane population limit?

    As with all things...the market will provide.

  • Alcibiades||

    to Bastiat, Smith, von Mises,
    Hayek be thy name.
    Amen.

  • Hugh Akston||

    If only there were some way to reduce the global fertility rate so the human race didn't breed itself into disaster.

  • Sevo||

    "But the larger question is, what is the end game here? Shouldn't there be a sane population limit? Even if we could feed everyone, do we really want the Earth to become one giant anthill teeming with humans?"

    So when those who hate humanity can't come up with some biologic limit, they fall back on fashion?
    "we", John?

  • IceTrey||

    Either a hard turn toward capitalism or collapse.

  • Longtobefree||

    My favorite solution is to address population and climate change at the same time. We make it illegal for liberals/progressives to exhale, thereby reducing CO2, and also reducing the demand for water and food.

  • DenverJ||

    I agree: fuck those poor brown people. We should keep things the way they are: lots of poor brown people dying from starvation and disease so that first world white people don't have to confront scarcity.

  • Radioactive||

    seems like a suitable solution!

  • Bubba Jones||

    Open borders.

  • ||

    Shouldn't there be a sane population limit? Even if we could feed everyone, do we really want the Earth to become one giant anthill teeming with humans?

    First, arthropods actually do inhabit far more of the planet's surface than man so it would technically be a giant teeming manhill on top of a giant teeming anthill.

    Second, are you volunteering to wipe yourself and all your progeny from the face of the (future) Earth? If not what method would you recommend, leaving it up to a (not so) popularly elected President? Maybe a foreign President cum Prime Minister? How about a President for life from the Far East?

  • Radioactive||

    yes, lets limit the population!!! I hereby nominate you to lead the way the parade into the planet saving chipper.

  • Alcibiades||

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/03.....-c#comment
    CC: Paul Ehrlich, Lester R. Brown

  • Aloysious||

    Clearly, this is a plot to corrupt both photosynthesis and water evaporation. I blame Monsanto and sneaky Russians.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    FRANKENFOOD!

  • ||

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    SFed link

  • ||

    The site seems to be breaking my link.

    The worse kind

  • ||

    I give up... :(

  • Morbo||

    The site requires properly formed XHTML tags for links, which means that the elements have to be in quotation marks.

    So, basically, [a href="http://websitelink.com"]Text here[/a].

    Except replace the square brackets with angle brackets.

  • Morbo||

    *attributes, that is, not the elements themselves.

  • DajjaI||

    The more I learn about plants, the more bad I feel eating them.

  • Longtobefree||

    That's OK; plants aren't food, they are what food eats.

  • Red Tony||

    Eat me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "plants aren't food, they are what food eats."

    Bwahahaha!

    Two point for you!

  • Radioactive||

    does this include melon heads?

  • Chipper Morning Baculum||

    When you are part of the ecosystem, there is no room for cruelty or mercy. There is just energy flow between trophic levels.

  • Radioactive||

    and lunch, don't forget lunch...

  • IceTrey||

    If you haven't heard about CRISPR/Cas-9 google it. Major changes are on the horizon.

  • Longtobefree||

    Hiding in all the science, I think those guys said something about plants NEEDING CO2.
    So maybe we can all start worrying about food, and let global climate warming change go away?
    Second thought; is it a factor in all this starvation that we burn food to run our cars?

  • Sargon of Akkad||

    I have a theory, Ron. Here it is:

    We would have long ago developed this technology, but SJWs in agri-business and academia conspired with each other to keep this technology out of the hands of farmers as a sop to George Soros, climate change hoaxers, and the UN. How long are we going to let these people control our destinies and how long are people who love Jeremy Corbyn, who I also love, going to put up with the reactionary progressive Left? I mean, I'm not saying that I believe UFO sea creatures are conspiring to keep a golden eared corn kernel that can grow in my refrigerator after a single drop of water is added, but you have to admit that it's pretty funny how SJW Antifas keep showing up at my door. I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS THAT LEGACY MEDIA WON'T ASK!!! YOU SOME KIND OF FASCIST! HAIL BERNIE SANDERS AND VLADAMIR PUTIN!!!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Water evaporates from plants through openings on their leaves called stomata through which they obtain carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to fuel photosynthesis. The researchers boosted the levels of a photosynthetic protein (PsbS) to conserve water by tricking plants into partially closing their stomata.

    If only there were some other way to reduce the time needed for the stomata to be open to collect CO2... Nevermind, we're all gonna die from all this excess CO2 we're dumping into the atmosphere. Hey, wait a minute...

  • mtrueman||

    "Crops Engineered to Use 25 Percent Less Water"

    Fukushima was engineered to withstand an 8.1 magnitude earthquake.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    ???

  • mtrueman||

    !!!

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|3.6.18 @ 8:19PM|#
    "Fukushima was engineered to withstand an 8.1 magnitude earthquake."

    Let's start with a reminder:
    mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
    "Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."

    Now let's address this nonsense:
    Fukushima was not damaged by a quake, it was damaged by the tsunami. To confuse the two is to admit you're an idiot: 'The house was designed to survive 200MPH winds! The flood flattened it'.
    More 'bullshit by trueman'...

  • David Nolan Michael Hihn||

    Hihn is so much more entertaining. #ImWithHihn

  • Sevo||

    I'll try to get some bold or italic in for your enjoyment.

  • Sevo||

    BTW, let's look at the morbidity and mortality from the totally bogus equivalence our resident bullshiter proposes:

    "Three Tepco employees at the Daiichi and Daini plants were killed directly by the earthquake and tsunami, but there have been no fatalities from the nuclear accident"
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-
    library/safety-and-security/safety-
    of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx

    "Though there have been no fatalities linked to radiation due to the accident, the eventual number of cancer deaths, according to the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety, that will be caused by the accident is expected to be around 130–640 people in the years and decades ahead."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima
    _Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

    Notice the later *prediction* is based on "the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety"
    Well, well:
    " the LNT [...] is the origin of the commonly used expression "no level of radiation is safe" and the consequent public fear of LLR"
    http://www.solarstorms.org/Threshold.html
    So it looks like we can pretty safely suggest that the prediction is as much bullshit as the typical truman post.

  • mtrueman||

    "the prediction is as much bullshit as the typical truman post."

    It's not a true mtrueman post. It's taken directly from from the predicting assistant editor, or whoever wrote the headline: "Crops Engineered to Use 25 Percent Less Water" But it's good to see you sorting out the bullshit from the unbullshit.You're pathetic attempts to seduce me with your links, however, have failed.

  • ||

    Yeah, they pretty well admit that in both controlled tests and field trials that water wasn't ever a limiting factor for growth in the experiments. So, I think it's also pretty fair to say that it's not well known how well these plants would fair in heat, drought, and/or flooding conditions.

    I also agree that 25% is a big claim with the variance I saw. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a crop manufacturer claimed massive yield increases only to see them evaporate in the hands of a "lay" farmer.

    However, unlike nuclear reactors, I have no qualms about killing off thousands of these plants in order to figure out whether they actually are 25% better or not. Or letting 'first adopter' farmers plant them in their fields to come to their own conclusion (esp. if those fields were previously too arid for growth).

  • Greg F||

    You're pathetic attempts to seduce me with your links, however, have failed.


    Perhaps I could seduce you with this link

  • Sevo||

    "the prediction is as much bullshit as the typical truman post."
    "It's not a true mtrueman post. It's taken directly from from the predicting assistant editor, or whoever wrote the headline: "Crops Engineered to Use 25 Percent Less Water" But it's good to see you sorting out the bullshit from the unbullshit.You're pathetic attempts to seduce me with your links, however, have failed."

    Uh, no, shitbag, you seem to be totally confused, but that is not surprising.
    Look again:
    "Notice the later *prediction* is based on "the linear no-threshold theory of radiation safety"
    Well, well:
    " the LNT [...] is the origin of the commonly used expression "no level of radiation is safe" and the consequent public fear of LLR"
    http://www.solarstorms.org/Threshold.html
    So it looks like we can pretty safely suggest that the prediction is as much bullshit as the typical truman post."
    See anything about "Crops Engineered..."
    No, you don't; it's a good thing for your neighbors that stupidity is not contagious, you imbecile.

  • mtrueman||

    What exactly are you objecting to? I posted:

    "Crops Engineered to Use 25 Percent Less Water"

    Fukushima was engineered to withstand an 8.1 magnitude earthquake.

    If you disagree with these statements, you've yet to make it clear what your problem is.

  • Sevo||

    mtrueman|3.6.18 @ 10:24PM|#"
    It's not a true mtrueman post."
    Oh, and you slimy piece of shit, like the equally shitbag Tony, did you hope that posting this late would mean you WON!!!
    No one is fooled, in spite of your worst efforts.

  • mtrueman||

    I will try to post before 10:24 PM to avoid being slimy.

  • Radioactive||

    and indeed did withstood one, the resultant tsunami....meh not so much...lesson learned... never put your emergency power supply UNDER FUCKING GROUND!!! Stupid fucking Japs...

  • Rich||

    The World Bank estimates that more than 70 percent of freshwater is used for agriculture.

    Hmm. How much gold does the World Bank estimate is in Fort Knox?

  • Radioactive||

    what the fuck else do you want to use it for? most folks certainly don't shower with it...

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The World Bank estimates that more than 70 percent of freshwater is used for agriculture."

    How is the yearly aggregate of *all* freshwater calculated?

    Or does this really mean "70 percent of freshwater *use* is used for agriculture?

    Victor Davis Hanson is always pointing out that CA's water shortage is state policy, not Gaia's policy. CA allows huge runoff and refuses to build more dams for the rising population. There is plenty of water. There is not plenty of will to use it for the benefit of CA citizens.

  • Loss of Reason||

    Also almonds, which are yummy, use a ton of water - 1 almond equals 1 gallon of water

  • buybuydandavis||

    "This does not impair photosynthesis since the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by 25 percent during the past 70 years, enabling the plant to absorb enough carbon dioxide without fully opening its stomata."

    Awesome trolling, Ron!

    Maybe some of the Progressitarians can post this to their twitter feeds and cause a few thousand conniption fits.

  • Radioactive||

    posting not required to produce said conniption fits...naturally occurring phenomena!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online