Comment by tptacek
3 hours ago
Even that 765 is like 0.04% of the water needed to irrigate Nebraska's ethanol corn crop alone. And ethanol is basically an agricultural proof-of-work function.
3 hours ago
Even that 765 is like 0.04% of the water needed to irrigate Nebraska's ethanol corn crop alone. And ethanol is basically an agricultural proof-of-work function.
Also even in the totally fake scenario where that water completely evaporates, it's just gonna rain on Iowa a bit more.
I guess it has to be said: it is not guaranteed that the water rains in the "right" spots for it to be useful freshwater again anymore. Dumb example: maybe the wind currents mean that the water simply comes back down downstream.
One shouldn't assume that evaporated water comes back into the system in the place you want it to. Water management orgs try to reduce loss from evaporation for a reason!
You can’t eat your algorithm.
So while pointing to agriculture and saying look there - those guys & gals way more than us it’s a red herring because we need food.
Sure improve efficiency of ag, but a better comp for water usage should be made. Reasonable people tune out.
you can't eat ethanol either, you burn it to create more global warming
That's why they talked about ethanol.
How does it compare to the water used growing alfalfa for export to Saudi Arabia?
"... and keep your hand up if your ethical, water saving stance means you've become vegan."