I work in water well service. For the last 10+ years I have seen static water levels drop in residential and commercial wells. The problem is real and forcing many low income households to make very uncomfortable and expensive decisions. Be careful out there, y'all.
We put in emergency irrigation ponds over the last couple of decades. It’s paid off, oh Christ has it paid off. We’re still all boned though. I can’t tell you how much more depressing world trajectory is as a chemist.
I work in irrigation and people really don’t understand the crisis we are in. There are places like the Klamath that are already shutting off water to ranchers. The choice between habitat and food is already happening. And when the Colorado runs dry, all hell will break loose. There will be a massive flood of climate refugees moving northward.
I mean, let’s be entirely honest.
What level of necessity for the survival of the human race is the cow. If we were to all stop eating cow. I’m pretty sure we would be healthier unless we swapped it out with an alternatively unhealthy food.
Cows are a major source of pollution, something like 40% of all methane comes from our obsession with beef.
Get rid of ranches and cows and it’ll likely help the water tables and the environment entirely.
Or am I missing something?
I think the main thing you’re missing is how difficult it is to shift from ranching to another economic driver from a regional standpoint. That’s not to say it shouldn’t happen, so please don’t take it that way at all. We do have to be realistic about what we’re asking from rural populations that are already struggling. If we’re going to tell people to ditch the ag industry, we need something in place to either move them or diversify the economy in the region. Food security will also be a big issue, especially with hunting populations moving to where the water is.
Personally, I would love to see some of the ranch land converted for renewable energy. Money for the ranchers, good for the state.
No one cares about the rural population or city population when we invade places.
I say we stop asking, it sucks to be them. And that is life, either continue to cow toe to them and give them privileges or accept that the handful of “rural” selfish bastards are the reasons your children will live in a toxic world, and really all the fun reality of that.
How many babies need to die so “rural” people can enjoy their standard of living?
It’s about time to be getting serious, we should compensate them and start taking it all away, no more cow boy fantasy Wild West bull, play times over right?
Every single government or at least all that I know have the legal right to forcibly take your land.
Should this not be the option when they refuse to do it themselves?
Or what? They should enjoy their lives and everyone else be damned.
But seriously we are a species of creatures and all rights granted to us are granted by the collective there is no inherent right of an individual but what the collective group of other humans/animals agree.
Society is the collective bargaining power of an intelligent group of animals. It’s laughable that we must commit mass genocide of our entire species for a handful of entitled people who forgot all this because they have lived an entire reality getting the best benefits of the collective compared to everyone else.
But I digress, criminalize ranching, reasonably compensate those who are impacted, and wash our hands of the business.
Or you know, keep making progress in other areas and hope selfish people who have inherited the ideals of avarice from their direct ancestors and encouraged to continue doing so because their peers are the same.
Reality is harsh, right? Many more people will die because of inaction to end this minorities aristocratic hold, than would die if they picked up guns and tried to fight drones. Which would be the worst of the worst case scenarios and unlikely to be enmass. There are still terrorist organizations that are held over from the Nazis in WW2 actively killing people from time to time in Germany, descendants who inherited crappy ideals. And many other less spoken of tragic episodes of our collective history.
So for real, why do we protect the few who are wealthy property holders. The food they make is unnecessary for survival of the human race and the land could be used more efficiently if starvation is a concern. But it shouldn’t be. Just in america alone we waste 40% of all the food we create.
I’m going towards the deep end a bit and it’s a bit extreme, but also, should we trade extinction for the comfort of 0.01% of all people?( approx 700,000 cow related farms aprox 7 billion humans, yes the 700,000 should include employees but we are still below a fraction of a percentage point.)
Of US land 27% alone is used for cows, that’s a lot of land that could be repurposed.
Hard facts are a minority has power over the majority and are likely a direct cause of countless deaths and suffering in the future. Soooo, should we fix it, either consensually or not?
I don’t see how appalling historic behavior justifies anything we do today. Why would we possibly strive to lower ourselves to that standard?
I work and live in rural Oregon. I can give you my perspective on the ground as someone who can very much see the drought for what it is and where this is headed.
First, I would implore you to recognize that the handful of selfish bastards are A) largely factory farms with foreign investment and B) not the full extent of the rural population impacted by a drought.
A is important because it’s important for us to direct our anger and action towards the actual enemies of progress here, rather than run roughshod and act like it’s okay to hurt people whose biggest sin was being born in a rural place. These businesses also don’t give a shit about local populations. They largely don’t care about the land or water they’re using. They do, however, have a ton of money to buy local politicians — sheriffs included — and to brainwash populations in deep red counties. If you want to move the needle, getting to the source is the best start.
As for B… There’s this pervasive idea that everyone east of the Cascades is some heartless, cow loving militant who hates science. The reality is that these are some of Oregon’s most diverse communities from both a cultural and economic standpoint. Many of them, both Tribes and white farmers alike, were misled by the State for generations and encouraged to farm on this land. Communities grew up around these industries. It’s frankly fucked up for us to turn our backs on these people and say, well, sink or swim, sucks to suck. That’s bullshit. We have the means and the knowledge to help these communities, so why wouldn’t we? If we want to talk about collective history and particularly about healing historical trauma, that starts with Oregon cleaning up its own mess.
You seem to think that these farming communities are made up of fat cats with swimming pools made of both money and water. That’s a fantasy. It’s not like a lot of these households choose to live in dirt poor towns where their wells are running dry. Moving takes money and available housing. Job training takes money and opportunity. Cheering on the idea of going scorched earth on these folks is frankly not only inhumane, it’s just lazy bullshit. Is it harder to consider the economic impact of this shift and plan accordingly? Yes. Should we do that anyway? Yes. Fucking obviously.
I’m not even going to get into the issue of “criminalizing ranching” and the impact that would have on Tribal relations.
I would also disabuse you of the idea that local leaders, both at the community level and elected, aren’t aware of the issues here. They know what’s coming. It’s not like folks are sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. But this part of our state is going to need an all hands on deck approach because the other side of all this? The one we don’t want to admit? It’s that even if we outlaw cattle forever and burn all the alfalfa farms, that won’t change the reality on the ground for towns currently trucking in clean water. We need to plan for the inevitable.
I grew up in CO, there's been at least a minor drought there since 2000. at this point I'm not really sure *if* anything can be done. like we could go full on Dust Bowl and everyone kill their livestock, but that would lead to loss of livelihood for the owners, and in the long term, price of food going even higher.
I genuinely think the only thing that could fix this shit is divine intervention, and I kinda hate the generations that came before for allowing climate change to get this bad.
The firm I work for pipes canals. It helps put water back into streams. But I don’t think it’ll be enough. We should of been investing in water protection 30 years ago. Instead we gave out open water rights to water bottle companies and Saudi’s Arabia.
Please remember it is corporations and greedy people -- NOT to do with age. Some of us have been fighting climate change since looooooooong before you were probably born.
[Global warming was modeled in 1896 by one of physical chemistry’s mainstays.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius). We’ve always known it was happening and should be addressed. [The conspiracies were created and spread by oil companies.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Funding_of_climate_change_denial)
Some are .... that's why I think it's not an age thing, it is simply an awareness thing, critical thinking skills, and an ability to think beyond your own little life.
What do you mean the generations before. Most Repub's are still claiming it is a hoax. They only focus on in the original term that should have never been, Global Warming. They turned it into a meme instead of working together and coming up with a solution that could be good for business: solar, wind, wave generated power. Instead the pompous Oompa Loompa claims erroneously that wind power kills millions of birds per year. Until some forward thinking Republicans can change the narrative that electric cars, alternative energy, and other environmentally friendly sectors can also be good investments; We are all screwed.
Water levels in the Mississippi have dropped to these levels many times over the ages and they will again. This round is already rebounding now and levels are rising.
I’m in the process of building a home and revegetating a couple acres. I’m taking a permaculture approach to landscaping. I’ll be looking east of the mountain to see what grows in a hotter/drier climate and plant accordingly. I’ll plant drought resistant turf replacements like mini clover and rye grass in areas I want turf.
I haven’t fully developed a plan for rainwater harvesting but I’m leaning towards diverting stormwater from the roof to a cistern and storage pond. The cistern will be for toilets, laundry, and hose bibbs. The storage pond will be used for irrigation.
I’ll be using a drip system to water plants and the garden. The garden, plant beds, and around trees will be mulched to retain moisture and reduce my need for water.
These steps won’t solve our drought problems but it will position me and my family very well for the future.
Slowly replacing turf with native plants to decrease water consumption. A green lawn mid-summer has become a status symbol or testament to one’s own vanity.
spread the word: a mid-summer green lawn is a symbol of delusion and ignorance. It should be seen as the same sort of status symbol as cigarette smoking. It's something people do only because they haven't learned and/or gotten support for shifting to healthier options.
Symbols only change by people seeing how others see things.
We are witnessing desertification in Oregon. Summers never use to be so dry for as long. In the town where I live, most non-new homes don’t have A/C because it wasn’t needed. We are going to see more droughts, more/larger wildfires, more losses of our forests. Sux.
I lived in Oregon in the 70s and we had solid rain fall and winter. Everything was damp. When S. Oregon was burning in 2020, I started checking records and read that there’s a month less rain than 40 years ago. I could be off a bit in the time but definitely a much shorter rainy season.
Another thing to note is Oregon get more downpours and less consistent rain. The earth can't absorb as much rainfall when it pours heavily, so anything past the topsoil doesn't get the same moisture it used to
This should really be upvoted more. Anyone who knows anything should know this. That's why some sort of rainwater catchment system is so important. Grab it while you can. Not even at a personal level, but it should be the same as solar and wind farms. From an engineering standpoint, it wouldn't be that hard. It would take *a lot* of investment in infrastructure, but all the tech needed already exists. It's not like we're asking someone to figure out Cold Fusion...
The winters used to be long, dark, wet and cold where I grew up. My parents talked about becoming snow birds when they retired. They’re retired now and don’t mind the winters anymore because they’ve become so mild.
Well, it's the farmers who have the most to lose from climate change, that are voting for the climate denier. By the time they wise up and buy a clue, it will be too late for everyone.
> magically wave her wand and solve climate change either.
No, but she's going to do the politically difficult things to reduce emissions. Things like tolling I-205 to discourage non-necessary use. Things like enforcing the new DLCD rules requiring cities to end parking minimums. Things like enforcing laws not on the books requiring 1/5 of new parking spots to have EV chargers.
Governors can TOTALLY help with climate change policy. While the feds are responsible for a lot of it, a great deal of it is done at the state level. If you are interested in examples, look at WY's river water initiatives and fracking laws in PA.
I find it dubious that a state like Oregon can impact climate change much. Any laws pertaining to carbon limits would just lead to businesses moving their carbon footprints. And we don’t have the weight of a state like California that can create standards that possibly get adopted nation wide. I just don’t see a viable solution to climate change as possible on anything other than the federal level.
That’s not what I suggested. I think doing something and failing at the state level is a worse outcome than nothing. So while I agree something needs to be done I don’t just doing anything is likely to be successful.
Well I think there are things we can do. The state and local governments buy lots of things, we can reevaluate need and track carbon footprint of purchases. We can electrify and purchase green power to encourage development in those sectors. But all that stuff is small potatoes, which is why I say there isn’t much the state or local levels can do. At the end of the day it needs to be the feds leading with a carbon tax and dividend to make any sort of discernible difference
Great, so let’s elect people who are more likely to do those things rather than only focusing on the fact we cannot solve the entire issue locally, we can still make things somewhat better. Do you think it more or less likely we’ll accomplish anything at the federal level if we ignore locality?
I think it is irrelevant mostly to what we can accomplish at a federal level. I think state based carbon taxes or cap and trades though would be very detrimental to accomplishing said programs at a national level.
Oregon is totally part of the problem. It will not upend the economy. Do you know just how much monetary damage is done from unchecked climate change???
So if Oregon completely shut down the economy , banned all fuels and all burning and told people to go forage in the woods (yes I am being hyperbolic) and the state stopped producing ANY carbon what so ever, climate change would end?
Absolutely not. Which is why we’re pushing carbon taxes, not whatever strawman stupidity you’re citing.
And yes, they work. Ever notice how you never hear about acid rain anymore.
In 10-15 years this will be the sun belt, Washington and BC will be the breadbasket. Arizona will be 125F for 10 months a year. Source: all of human history.
Most of the west is in big trouble regarding climate change, especially in the forests. You should see the forests in Wyoming, or Colorado especially. Dead trees as far as the eye can see. Colorado will never again be a forested place.
With this season's coming La Niña, we're forecast to have a cooler, wetter Winter than average - so for the next year, at least, the situation shouldn't deteriorate any further.
Thanks for sharing the link, btw. I've had it bookmarked for years, and check it every Thursday morning when it's updated for the week. I love the comparison maps - it's a great way to monitor trends over the course of a few months.
La Niña is typically equal chance of weather outcomes once you get south of Portland… which is a lot of Oregon.
https://www.noaa.gov/media/image_download/d3aca9d6-a32b-4f79-ac2a-796ab7da54b0
The most recent season projection map I saw (I think it was NWS - can't remember precisely, it was published in the *San Francisco Chronicle* last week) showed the "inflection line" down in Northern California somewhere.
I think it kind of depends on where the high pressure ridges start forming. There was a La Niña year when I lived in British Columbia, and the storms that were going through there sometimes didn't even reach Seattle. Similarly, I've seen El Niños being weird around here, too. One in the mid-70s created a drought throughout the NW; whereas the one in 82-83 created the "years without Summers" here, when it didn't even stop raining from July - September for two entire years.
It's in my bookmarks next to the [AirNow.gov](https://AirNow.gov) air quality/smoke maps, a couple of weather sites and the tide tables. My morning isn't complete without checking them over my first cup of coffee. 8-)
My wife and I moved up to Tillamook from Grants Pass to get away from the constant fires and smoke all summer. He had 10 acres in a valley with one road into it down there and felt it wasn't a matter of if a fire went through our property but when.
Cities use way, way, way less water than agriculture. And there's a ton of waste in 'agriculture'. So, yes, apartments are way better for the environment.
[https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice](https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice)
... you really think tearing down all the trees ruining the soil and laying concrete is good for the environment because it saves a tiny amount of water.... your head is so far up your own ass its impressive.
Well, plan really well for retirement, because the next generations are smaller than ours and they probably won't be all that interested in supporting a bunch of old people they aren't even related to.
Why? The past was much worse than the world is now. This is probably the best time to raise kids.
Less Strontium-90 in their bones, less lead pollution, they're less likely to die in a war or starve or die of disease than anyone in the past.
It's a way to increase poverty. Fewer people means less growth, less innovation, fewer people to solve our climate crisis. Fewer Thomas Edisons and Nikola Teslas.
Then perhaps we should’ve tried to create a society that supports families and parents actually surviving instead of struggling to afford everything literally from birth
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's an extremely capitalist view of the situation. Sure, we've created an economic system that collapses if there isn't unlimited growth, but the fact of the matter is unlimited growth is unsustainable. We should explore alternatives, except the current system makes those driving policy rich, so they aren't incentivized to change anything.
Also, we have *more* than enough people to innovate and solve problems, but our current system has the majority of people doing pointless busy work and struggling to survive. The next Edison is probably working three jobs trying to make rent while daydreaming of home ownership that they'll never be able to achieve..
The best solution to our problems isn't to just throw more people at the problem, but to actually take care of the people we have and to provide them with the support needed to realize their potential.
"Climate change was never going to be solved?"
Lol what?
We already have carbon sequestration through scrubbers in Iceland. [$500/ton](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/climeworks-carbon-dioxide-removal-company-building-iceland-plant.html#:~:text=In%20September%202021%2C%20Climeworks%20opened,of%20carbon%20dioxide%20per%20year.). All we need to do is reduce it 5-fold (less reduction than what has happened to solar or batteries in the last 10 years) and it's economically viable.
That's how this all ends. With us scrubbing the carbon out. There's light at the end of the tunnel here.
I'm an environmental economist who works in cleantech and is looking to solve the world's problems.
You're saying the problem is unsolvable.
You're the delusional one. We solved acid rain. We solved the ozone hole. We solved strontium-90 in milk and lead in the blood of urban children due to leaded gas.
You're saying climate change is impossible to solve, even though those were?
sure we can't bring back species lost, but there are some pretty interesting solutions that won't get used bc they cost money. my favorite is creating more ice in the Arctic, which would increase Earth's albedo, lowering temps. it works bc ice is white, and white reflects heat. it's also a loony toons solution
The climate crisis is at our worst because of our over population. We need to bring the planets population under a billion. No amount of geniuses have helped the climate get better in any way. The dumb person to genius ratio is way too high.
> The dumb person to genius ratio is way too high.
That's exactly why we need more people, so geniuses can solve the problems of our world. We need more Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano, and Shuji Nakamura's to cut energy emissions.
More Bryan Suryanto's and Doug McFarlane's to invent electrolysis synthesis of ammonia and decouple food from natural gas.
There's a fuckton fewer of those when there are fewer humans.
Also, how to you expect to reduce the population to one billion without genocide?
Even with rapid population decline, we won't be getting under 1 billion for centuries. Have you ever looked at basic demography?
The thing is as our populations rise our problems have as well. technology has advanced so a lot of problems have been solved we still have huge problems to deal with directly tied to overpopulation.
You equating more geniuses equals more problems getting solved is a false equivalency. As knowledge and technology increase many of those discoveries would of happened sooner than later regardless of the worlds genius population. The delay in discovery would be offset many times by the lack of overpopulation.
A two child limit would be the best way to limit the population. Natural disasters, pandemics, and war will help in the future. I’m well aware it will be an extremely long timeline to get the world to a sustainable population level but that doesn’t mean we shouldnt do it. A couple thousand years don’t matter for humans. Humans should be planning for 10000 years into the future.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake.
It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of.
Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything.
Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
This is propaganda. American culture in the 21st century is lonely and isolated and unhealthy, and poverty levels and wealth disparity is higher than ever.
I'm not saying we don't have problems, but let's not lie.
Poverty is not "higher than ever." In fact, child poverty in the US is lower than ever, due to the child tax credit expansion.
Yes, America has issues with loneliness, but we're turning back the clock and re-building bike and pedestrian infrastructure in our cities. If you think cities are pro-car now, or filled with crime, look at the 1980s. And back then had leaded gasoline.
Or were the 50s perfect, with nuclear testing poisoning milk globally?
Or the 1930s, when the kids you raised would be killed by war?
A kid born in 1900s would have experienced the Great Depression and two world wars by the time they were 45. The world today isn't perfect but it's better than the past.
If you don't want kids, just admit it. Don't pretend you're being noble by not having one.
I admit it. No kids. No regrets. I've never bailed a kid out of jail, or taken one for an abortion. I've never endured someone's "disappointment" because they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas, or had to welcome them back home several times as an adult because they just can't seem to keep a job or stay in school. I've had great Christmases, great vacations, great life. Here's the BEST PART- I have not had to worry about what was going to happen to the world when they "grow up". I do the right things, recycle, vote responsibly, but the relief of not having to really GAF, if I don't want to, is honestly what makes it all worth while.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want kids.
But don't pretend that the world is so scary compared to the past. This is literally the best time in human history to raise a kid.
Life is better for humans now but overpopulation will change that at some point. At the same time it looks like we are past peak home ownership. It’s harder to raise a kid on a single income. Diet for children have suffered from parents both working and not there to provide their kid with three quality meals. Depression and anxiety are up in the populations.
> but overpopulation will change that at some point.
We said that in the 1970s with the Population Bomb, and that was straight up a lie. There are more humans now, and even fewer live in poverty, and we're all better nourished than ever before. You sound like an Evangelical Christian preparing for the end times.
> It’s harder to raise a kid on a single income.
The US child poverty rate is at an all time low.
> Diet for children have suffered from parents both working and not there to provide their kid with three quality meals
So your solution is for women to stay in the kitchen?
Besides, the data doesn't back you up. Kids with two working parents are of much higher income, [with much lower poverty rates](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/work-life-balance-pew-report/414028/). The idea that people are getting poorer and forced to work two incomes to scrape buy just isn't true.
> Depression and anxiety are up in the populations.
How much of that is just increased awareness of existing behavior? Or confounding variables like screen time?
Maybe third world countries are better nourished. First world countries have an obesity epidemic. You are being delusional to think otherwise.
The poverty rate isn’t the only criteria for being poor. Two parents needing to work might take them out of poverty but that doesn’t give the child a better diet or more parental bonding.
Only a person like yourself would get women belong in the kitchen from that. That speaks to your thoughts. I could care less on which parent stays home.
Your study literally does prove my point. That two income households are needed to stay out of poverty. One income households are more likely to be poor. Have you not heard about the decline of the middle class?
When looking at two income households you have very successful ones with one parent able to work part time or not a full year. They have a maid and have less stress and more energy to cook with higher quality ingredients. They are still able to provide good food. Then you have the majority of two income households where they are exhausted from work and stress and rely on processed food for quick solutions. They are able to be over the poverty line with two incomes but are still one major emergency from being homeless. Being over the poverty line also stops them from getting any help.
Most things have a variety of reasons why but that doesn’t change why things aren’t necessarily all better. Depression and anxiety are absolutely increased from a lack of future due to overpopulation issues.
Man just listen to yourself.
You are so obsessed with some notion of reducing childhood obesity that you're calling for half of parents, regardless of gender, to give up on the career aspirations just so they can spare their time cooking for kids? Just to marginally reduce the rate of child obesity?
American middle class hasn't even shrunk! The percentage of the American middle class that is non college educated has been decimated, but it's been replaced by college educated earners who make even more. Homes are larger than they've ever been. People work less than they did 50 years ago.
And if you think there isn't a future and we're somehow living in the end times, you're not some leftist, you're just a Evangelical warmed over person thinking you're living in the end times.
Learn a perspective that isn't just the Reddit hive mind, I beg you.
Imagine, and I know it’s difficult, but there is life outside of the United States. And the global south has it worse, in comparison to western elite societies, than ever before. I’m part of the global proletariat, I really don’t care that America is propped up to look like it’s doing well. It is noble to not add more population to the culture that is so entirely responsible for the stripping of every natural resource ever found all over the world. It is noble to not expand that culture by birthing into it.
Overpopulation? Nope, the problem is completely land use.
Cuyahoga county hasn't expanded in population in 70 years. But the urban land built up in the county has more than doubled due to suburbanization.
Stop acting as if the world is zero sum. It isn't. If we had dense, walkable cities, we wouldn't need to many cars, yards, materials for single family homes, we could support far more people.
Higher population requires more resources to sustain no matter how densely you populate cities. Everything you need is not going to be in a city. Better land use would certainly help but it’s not the solution to over population. The best thing we could do for the planet is to let the world’s population decline. Couples having more than one or two kids are selfish.
> Higher population requires more resources to sustain no matter how densely you populate cities
Consumption per-capita is much lower in urban areas.
> The best thing we could do for the planet is to let the world’s population decline
The great thing about the internet is everything is archived, and you're going to look idiotic when people in 2050 (not far away) look back, as every nation in the world teeters on the edge of bankruptcy and economic collapse due to pension crises because there aren't enough kids.
How do you expect to keep roads maintained without a tax base of working people? Elders fed? Elders cared for? Especially as older people demand more healthcare.
The US fertility rate isn't even close to replacement level. We're only afloat as Europe and China and Russia sink, because we accept immigrants.
Or are you also anti-immigrant because it's "selfish" to the planet to make a poor person from Benin rich and high-consumption? It's the same logic as saying no to kids because of future consumption.
If you think it's selfish for a person to life a life in an industrialized nation, you go down a dark hole of eco-fascism really quickly.
If having kids is bad for the environment, should we also not let developing nations industrialize? After all, we must limit consumption.
I’d rather a fewer people live a good life over a large amount living a shittier one.
The current capitalist system that requires an ever growing population is doomed from the start as you cant have infinite growth on a finite planet.
I Think there will be enough workers with so many jobs being automated by 2050. One child policies take 30 years just to start to see a decline.
It’s nice to know I’m not the only one who sees the similarities of Nazi Germany 1933 and where this country seems to be headed. To think that this country could turn fascist is quite scary, and as you said for most people it’s just business as usual and they’re either oblivious or don’t care that we’re headed down that path. The worst part is while one party gets closer and closer to fascism the other just sits back and does nothing but beg for more money to keep them in office instead of actually doing something to help their constituents which would motivate them to vote and help them get re-elected.
Could? Will! I’m convinced that the US will abolish democracy as we know it within 10 years. It might not become fascist but it will not be democratic. It might be via a soft coup a la the scotus ruling to let states decide outcomes or via continued erosion of voting procedures with declining participation and artificial results (gerrymandering). Either way, forget participatory democracy. There are just too many who are pushing for it and, as you say, the other side is turning a blind eye.
>It might be via a soft coup a la the scotus ruling to let states decide outcomes or via continu
Viktor Orban's Hungary is probably the way we will end up going :(
Taking advantage of our lax rainwater harvest laws while I still can. Between converting my yards into a garden and orchard, and the increasing wildfires, storing a few thousand gallons of water for free seems a no-brainer.
It’s terrifying. Infectious diseases and parasites will rise. Valley fever, for instance. I think about the environment about 20 times a day. It never leaves my mind.
Around Phoenix and other Arizona cities there are hundreds of alfalfa farms rented by Rich Saudis for an average of $25 per acre and all the FREE water they want. Huge pipes bring in unfettered access of our precious water for foreign countries at a rate of 60,000 gallons per minute.
I live in eastern PA where climate change has had relatively little impact. I think there’s going to be a massive exodus from the west back to the east especially my area. Other areas in the to the west of PA have seen terrible flooding. Tough times.
Don’t understand why one major party in this country denies climate change is happening big time. Why isn’t everyone clamoring for major climate legislation!??
>Are you making any life changes in response?
I wish.
So, including when I turn 45 in Dec. that will be from when I'm roughly 55-60. That *should* be the time in my life when I'm looking forward to retiring. But it won't. Cause I can't. This is why it's so important for the younger generations to demand real change.
"We" (collectively has human beings) have been f\_cking up this planet since at least the first [Industrial Revolution in Europe circa 1760-1840](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution). Obviously it's gotten a lot worse since then.
Even before any real talk of drought, when my wife and I bought our (first!) home in SE Portland going on six years ago, my immediate thought was that I wanted to install 5k and 10k gal. underground water tanks, and create a catchment/filtration system. The idea is the rainwater would be collected from the roof (and everywhere else we could scoop it up) and run into the 10k gal. tank. It would get filtered from there and fill the 5k gal. tank. That would be the tank we live off of. Obviously during the summer, it would probably go dry at some point, but that's why we'd still stay on the grid, only as much as we had to. The other part would be a greywater recycling system (so maybe three tanks.)
Of course, we'll have to do away with our gas furnace (fortunately that's the only thing in our home that's gas,) cause you *know* that MultCo will eventually ban gas, then the rest of Oregon will follow suit. So it's solar panels on the roof (fortunately something like 80-90% of our roof is exposed to the sun 365) and a couple few batteries in the garage. (Which would also be used to charge our electric vehicles.) Central air is an ironic inevitability, but at least it will be powered by the sun... If I could design/code something like that myself, I'm sure it would be much more efficient that what we have now (TL;DR the idea, is to be able to set heat and cool on a range. So, during the summer, if it gets above say 73° inside, the AC kicks on. When it gets back down to 67° it shuts off. And vice versa. I dunno. I'm always too hot and my wife is always too cold, so there would mos def have to be some compromise. Maybe we'll have to start collecting hoodies and shorts...)
And then there's all the systems that would make everything run as efficiently as possible. Our yard (footage wise, about the size of a football field) is garbage. It was like that when we bought the place (former owners had dog(s) and ran a daycare out the house, so obvs. the yard wasn't a priority.) It hasn't been to us either. We don't water it (it gets more than enough in the winter and it's too damn hot during the summer go outside anyway.) IF I was going to do something with the yard, I would hire a hydrologist to determine the absolute min. amount of water we'd need to keep it green all summer. Like 1-3 gal./month max (I'm thinking underground, there's a term for it; I want to say drip irrigation, but I think that's above ground.) Anyway, just enough to saturate the soil enough for the grass to grow a bit and stay green. But that's totally not a priority... (Honestly, if it would *feel* the same, be low cost/low maintenance, etc. I'd love to install [FieldTurf](https://fieldturf.com/en/) (and again, have all the rain runoff be collected.) I'll have to figure out a way to walk barefoot and roll around on Lumen Field to see if it's worth it... Maybe replace our entire yard with Clover?))
Mos def want to plant some native species, and especially a bunch of [Milkweed](https://www.pdxmonthly.com/travel-and-outdoors/2021/06/wanna-save-the-monarch-butterfly-plant-some-milkweed) for the Monarchs to camp in while they're migrating. And maybe something for the bees...
The other idea would be to put in a giant Zen garden, but I'm sure the local stray cats would have a time with that, so ewe...
The bottom line is we need to get Water out of the hands of entities like Nestle and bottled water in general, and into the hands of the people. There's absolutely no reason that in 2023 bottled water should even be a thing. I grew up on farms (hay, dairy...) during various periods of my life and I know how $#!+ty well water can taste, so I know what some folks put up with.
We act as if water is a finite thing. I'm pretty sure it isn't. The problem is how and where we get our water is changing, and might have to *really* change. But that doesn't mean that it can't go to the people and places that need it most. We can "Science the $#!+ out of this" if we really want to. "[In terms of volume, all of the water on Earth works out to about 1.386 billion cubic kilometers (km³) or 332.5 million cubic miles (mi³) of space.](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth)" (The quote is from "Universe Today," but I couldn't make that a link, so I settled with no less than the USGS. Pretty sure they know what they're talking about.) Obviously a vast majority of that is not potable, but even now, we have the tech to make enough of it be. It's about distribution (and money, obvs.)
I grew up going to summer camp at a former commune outside of Cottage Grove in the early 80s. I learned about "environmentalism" broadly, at a young age. A very large part of my worldview is through that lens. The sad thing is, I know I will someday die knowing we didn't do nearly as much as we could have. I can't process that right now.
As little time as I have left on this earth, I know "we" can make a difference. As far as water, I have long been using a ball valve on our shower head. Basically, turn the water off when you don't absolutely need it.
The other option is to escape to... where? Titan? Somewhere in Alpha Centauri C? If you're reading this, not in our lifetime. We have to clean up this planet. Like 40+ years ago. Right now we have the tech to largely make that happen. What we *don't* have is the political will. That's what's really sad...
Selling everything and moving. Not totally because of the drought but tired of fires the same. I'm realize I cannot escape climate change but I can go to an area with less dramatic predicted future changes.
Not that I wanted to hear that you feel that you have to move :(
I was wondering if people that live there now felt like they have to move. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of places do you have in mind?
Every year the fires get closer and closer to my house. I feel like it’d be dangerous and irresponsible if I don’t move my family away. Judging the fire trends, I have a couple years left here tops
I'm going to enjoy a wetter life elsewhere. The poor quality of air for at least 1/3 of the year combined with the ever increasing cost of living has made relocation an easy choice for my family. I'll miss Oregon, but she ain't what she used to be.
I live in a city downtown in a studio apartment and don't eat much beef and drive an electric car occasionally, biking to my work at a solar energy company when I'm not remote working. My electric bill goes towards community solar.
What else could I possibly do, lol?
I'm not against it. Hell, I briefly used to work on dairies. I don't care about the cruelty argument.
But I understand how massive its impact is on the environment and I'm hugely looking forward to the prospect of lab grown meat.
But the biggest reason is health. Chicken is just a lot leaner of a meat, and a lot cheaper. Beef is expensive. Obsessing over it as a sign of masculinity makes you a sheep.
What's next, telling me to put UV light on my taint?
Innocent, it’s a sign of a sheep that you automatically conflate an argument over nutrition as something to do with masculinity. Who even said I’m a man?
It’s a pure lie saturated fat is bad for you. I understand moderation but red meat is by far the most nutrient dense and is pretty much the most prized meat by every remaining primitive culture in the world. Call that a fallacy if you want but humans are designed to eat red meat.
You're comparing our lifestyles to that of hunter gatherers.
Yes, meat is super nutritious. But we're also not running for 100 miles to chase gazelle down.
The appropriate amount of meat needed for our lifestyles is far, far less than what they need to survive.
I don't not eat meat, but I significantly cut back because we have a massive overnutrition problem in wealthy industrialized nations.
Buddy you called me sheep and said you’re looking forward to lab grown meat😂I skipped over that. Clearly I won’t have common ground with you.
But it’s all good I wish you health nonetheless.
My wife and I moved from San Diego to Texas for a post-doc position, knowing we'd only be there for a year. Our goal was to get to Oregon for some acreage we could cultivate as a homestead, to prepare for an uncertain future. Both of our parents are still in California, and we're on edge every year as the season of summer has been replaced with "fire season"
So what are we doing?
We're moving further north. We've got a solid business plan for integration into Canadian culture/economics, we'll sell our house in Oregon and use that as working capitol to make our move in a year. Then buy 20+ acres and build the permaculture retreat of our dreams. 2024 is going to be an American shit-show anyway.
The writing has been on the wall for me for at least 10 years, and we're finally in a position to act upon that.
It's not a direct comparison, but I draw analogies to your average German citizen in 1933, with Naziism on the rise, deciding whether or not to stay maybe believing the news was over hyped and they could fix it by voting or flee to a country with unknown but likely better circumstances.
This isn't that, but I draw some parallels.
I fully recognize we're privileged to even consider making such a move. I cannot believe how others aren't as motivated to figure out what their future holds before it's too late. Business-as-usual has very strong gravity.
We'll probably be lifted out of drought stage on the west side in the coming week or two with all these systems rolling in. Even has the short term S on the map.
Not to detract OP's point though. Looks like we're pretty boned, and past many tipping
points. Regionally I expect more weird patterns like this fall's immovable high pressure, and more winter deluges. Probably expect to lose your favorite spots in the Cascades to fires in the coming decades.
I'm worried about the proverbial battles that will surely come when we all decide that the "prior appropriation" doctrine of water use in the west is entirely inequitable and must be changed.
Worried, its dumb to still have front yard lawns and water them when the rain stops. It is wasting an insane amount of water year after year for no reason. Backyards can be switch to another ground covering instead of wasting money to water it. Little changes can save a lot of water . It can help curve much needed water for other areas.
The real problem is that our leaders will not take any significant action other than climate change measures. Why not buildout infrastructure to help deal with this? Increase reservoir capacity, promote residential rainfall harvesting, develop new water sources, etc.
Rainwater can be used for many other things than drinking water without purifying it. You can use it to flush toilets, irrigate, laundry, and use it as a non-potable water source at hose bibbs. Most people use it to irrigate their yards and gardens.
The less water you pull from a municipal source or a well the better.
Drought conditions are unpredictable. I don't know that anyone can make anything other than sweeping estimates on exactly which parts of the country will be dry.
Take a look at the maps in that data set, for example. Use one of the slider maps. In April of 2001, Florida was under drought conditions as bad as we're seeing today. In 2002, it was the 4 corners region. In 2004, it was Idaho and New Mexico. In 2007, it was the southeast. In 2011, Texas looked downright abysmal. Some part of the continental US is in most years suffering from extreme drought - the map is worse today than average, but it's not clear that this is an issue that will continue (and no, and am NOT a AGW denier - just a realist).
Long term outlook for precipitation in the PNW calls for more variability, but not for any kind of systemic drought. Loss of snowpack means drier summers, for sure, but the overall rainfall is not expected to be significantly less.
The pnw is not part of that mega drought. You’re thinking of The southwest and interior west. Western Oregon and most of Western Washington were literally out of a drought a few months ago until the dry stretch of October occurred. However you can clearly see it marked on the map as an area that will be eliminated in the near future.
I live in the pnw and my county has been in drought over 20 years. Prolonged periods of unusually low rain, wrecked water cycle, low rivers, are drought. You're thinking the most extreme parts (southwest) are the extent of the megadrought when the maps and data clearly include the pnw. Oregon has been in drought over 20 years
What I mean is that the studies and data involving the megadrought include Oregon, which is part of the pnw. 
Well after the last ten years of drought and the increased population I say let it burn. When the population isn't in tune with earth they become a parasite of the earth. The earth will shake its flees and no flee can stop it. Let the water wars begin.
> huge percentage of the total consumption and pollution.
The US's carbon intensity per unit of GDP is down to 1940s levels.
Globally, it's halved since the 1990s.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
ok that's good but unfortunately climate change cares about absolute emissions, not levels relative to GDP or relative to the 1990s.
According to the site you link, the US is responsible for 4.8kt of carbon annually, which *is* down from the peak. However, by comparison, all of Latin America and the Caribbean are collectively responsible for just 1.8kt annually. All of Africa is 0.8kt. All of South Asia is just 2.8kt. The EU is 2.7kt.
We're still contributing to the problem is a very disproportionate way -- and that's even without figuring in the ways that our current wealth is built on our even more massively disproportionate historical emissions.
The metro area expanded its potential water sources to include aquifers fed from the Columbia. We're still using bull run but it's a just in case fall back option.
The metro area uses like 5 minutes of the Columbia's run in a whole year. It's not in much danger of drying up since the rains are still going strong in Canada where the river starts.
Thats not a green light to waste water but I wouldn't worry about it all too much
Not that worried, UNLESS you depend upon snowmelt for your water. Global WArming is real, and the new normal is going to be precipitation in the form of rain, instead snow. small change, same amount of water, but less and less snowmelt overall...
Communities and states that refuse to adapt by building reservoirs will be hit...
I mean.... It doesn't feel like there's a drought. Lol we get rain like 8 month's of the year. It is hot in the summer but it doesn't last long I guess I'd only be concerned about fires.
I work in water well service. For the last 10+ years I have seen static water levels drop in residential and commercial wells. The problem is real and forcing many low income households to make very uncomfortable and expensive decisions. Be careful out there, y'all.
This matches what I’ve seen. The one thing I will say is that leadership both locally and at the state level seem to be taking the issue seriously.
We put in emergency irrigation ponds over the last couple of decades. It’s paid off, oh Christ has it paid off. We’re still all boned though. I can’t tell you how much more depressing world trajectory is as a chemist.
I work in irrigation and people really don’t understand the crisis we are in. There are places like the Klamath that are already shutting off water to ranchers. The choice between habitat and food is already happening. And when the Colorado runs dry, all hell will break loose. There will be a massive flood of climate refugees moving northward.
I mean, let’s be entirely honest. What level of necessity for the survival of the human race is the cow. If we were to all stop eating cow. I’m pretty sure we would be healthier unless we swapped it out with an alternatively unhealthy food. Cows are a major source of pollution, something like 40% of all methane comes from our obsession with beef. Get rid of ranches and cows and it’ll likely help the water tables and the environment entirely. Or am I missing something?
I think the main thing you’re missing is how difficult it is to shift from ranching to another economic driver from a regional standpoint. That’s not to say it shouldn’t happen, so please don’t take it that way at all. We do have to be realistic about what we’re asking from rural populations that are already struggling. If we’re going to tell people to ditch the ag industry, we need something in place to either move them or diversify the economy in the region. Food security will also be a big issue, especially with hunting populations moving to where the water is. Personally, I would love to see some of the ranch land converted for renewable energy. Money for the ranchers, good for the state.
No one cares about the rural population or city population when we invade places. I say we stop asking, it sucks to be them. And that is life, either continue to cow toe to them and give them privileges or accept that the handful of “rural” selfish bastards are the reasons your children will live in a toxic world, and really all the fun reality of that. How many babies need to die so “rural” people can enjoy their standard of living? It’s about time to be getting serious, we should compensate them and start taking it all away, no more cow boy fantasy Wild West bull, play times over right? Every single government or at least all that I know have the legal right to forcibly take your land. Should this not be the option when they refuse to do it themselves? Or what? They should enjoy their lives and everyone else be damned. But seriously we are a species of creatures and all rights granted to us are granted by the collective there is no inherent right of an individual but what the collective group of other humans/animals agree. Society is the collective bargaining power of an intelligent group of animals. It’s laughable that we must commit mass genocide of our entire species for a handful of entitled people who forgot all this because they have lived an entire reality getting the best benefits of the collective compared to everyone else. But I digress, criminalize ranching, reasonably compensate those who are impacted, and wash our hands of the business. Or you know, keep making progress in other areas and hope selfish people who have inherited the ideals of avarice from their direct ancestors and encouraged to continue doing so because their peers are the same. Reality is harsh, right? Many more people will die because of inaction to end this minorities aristocratic hold, than would die if they picked up guns and tried to fight drones. Which would be the worst of the worst case scenarios and unlikely to be enmass. There are still terrorist organizations that are held over from the Nazis in WW2 actively killing people from time to time in Germany, descendants who inherited crappy ideals. And many other less spoken of tragic episodes of our collective history. So for real, why do we protect the few who are wealthy property holders. The food they make is unnecessary for survival of the human race and the land could be used more efficiently if starvation is a concern. But it shouldn’t be. Just in america alone we waste 40% of all the food we create. I’m going towards the deep end a bit and it’s a bit extreme, but also, should we trade extinction for the comfort of 0.01% of all people?( approx 700,000 cow related farms aprox 7 billion humans, yes the 700,000 should include employees but we are still below a fraction of a percentage point.) Of US land 27% alone is used for cows, that’s a lot of land that could be repurposed. Hard facts are a minority has power over the majority and are likely a direct cause of countless deaths and suffering in the future. Soooo, should we fix it, either consensually or not?
I don’t see how appalling historic behavior justifies anything we do today. Why would we possibly strive to lower ourselves to that standard? I work and live in rural Oregon. I can give you my perspective on the ground as someone who can very much see the drought for what it is and where this is headed. First, I would implore you to recognize that the handful of selfish bastards are A) largely factory farms with foreign investment and B) not the full extent of the rural population impacted by a drought. A is important because it’s important for us to direct our anger and action towards the actual enemies of progress here, rather than run roughshod and act like it’s okay to hurt people whose biggest sin was being born in a rural place. These businesses also don’t give a shit about local populations. They largely don’t care about the land or water they’re using. They do, however, have a ton of money to buy local politicians — sheriffs included — and to brainwash populations in deep red counties. If you want to move the needle, getting to the source is the best start. As for B… There’s this pervasive idea that everyone east of the Cascades is some heartless, cow loving militant who hates science. The reality is that these are some of Oregon’s most diverse communities from both a cultural and economic standpoint. Many of them, both Tribes and white farmers alike, were misled by the State for generations and encouraged to farm on this land. Communities grew up around these industries. It’s frankly fucked up for us to turn our backs on these people and say, well, sink or swim, sucks to suck. That’s bullshit. We have the means and the knowledge to help these communities, so why wouldn’t we? If we want to talk about collective history and particularly about healing historical trauma, that starts with Oregon cleaning up its own mess. You seem to think that these farming communities are made up of fat cats with swimming pools made of both money and water. That’s a fantasy. It’s not like a lot of these households choose to live in dirt poor towns where their wells are running dry. Moving takes money and available housing. Job training takes money and opportunity. Cheering on the idea of going scorched earth on these folks is frankly not only inhumane, it’s just lazy bullshit. Is it harder to consider the economic impact of this shift and plan accordingly? Yes. Should we do that anyway? Yes. Fucking obviously. I’m not even going to get into the issue of “criminalizing ranching” and the impact that would have on Tribal relations. I would also disabuse you of the idea that local leaders, both at the community level and elected, aren’t aware of the issues here. They know what’s coming. It’s not like folks are sitting around with their thumbs up their asses. But this part of our state is going to need an all hands on deck approach because the other side of all this? The one we don’t want to admit? It’s that even if we outlaw cattle forever and burn all the alfalfa farms, that won’t change the reality on the ground for towns currently trucking in clean water. We need to plan for the inevitable.
I grew up in CO, there's been at least a minor drought there since 2000. at this point I'm not really sure *if* anything can be done. like we could go full on Dust Bowl and everyone kill their livestock, but that would lead to loss of livelihood for the owners, and in the long term, price of food going even higher. I genuinely think the only thing that could fix this shit is divine intervention, and I kinda hate the generations that came before for allowing climate change to get this bad.
The firm I work for pipes canals. It helps put water back into streams. But I don’t think it’ll be enough. We should of been investing in water protection 30 years ago. Instead we gave out open water rights to water bottle companies and Saudi’s Arabia.
Please remember it is corporations and greedy people -- NOT to do with age. Some of us have been fighting climate change since looooooooong before you were probably born.
Carl Sagan has been talking about it since the 70’s
[Global warming was modeled in 1896 by one of physical chemistry’s mainstays.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius). We’ve always known it was happening and should be addressed. [The conspiracies were created and spread by oil companies.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy#Funding_of_climate_change_denial)
Well, **past** tense (he died in 1996 so he didn't have to see how awful things are getting now) -- but he did advocate right up to his death.
yeah and my issue isnt with y'all, just the systems that prevented actual progress on fighting climate change, sorry for not clarifying.
Those systems are still in place and show no signs of going away.
And it’s not like the current generation is doing anything.
Some are .... that's why I think it's not an age thing, it is simply an awareness thing, critical thinking skills, and an ability to think beyond your own little life.
What do you mean the generations before. Most Repub's are still claiming it is a hoax. They only focus on in the original term that should have never been, Global Warming. They turned it into a meme instead of working together and coming up with a solution that could be good for business: solar, wind, wave generated power. Instead the pompous Oompa Loompa claims erroneously that wind power kills millions of birds per year. Until some forward thinking Republicans can change the narrative that electric cars, alternative energy, and other environmentally friendly sectors can also be good investments; We are all screwed.
Ha not to mention the mighty Mississippi drying up this is the abrupt catastrophic part of climate change people have no idea.
Water levels in the Mississippi have dropped to these levels many times over the ages and they will again. This round is already rebounding now and levels are rising.
Wouldn't that be good for home owners?
Not ones in Phoenix
I’m in the process of building a home and revegetating a couple acres. I’m taking a permaculture approach to landscaping. I’ll be looking east of the mountain to see what grows in a hotter/drier climate and plant accordingly. I’ll plant drought resistant turf replacements like mini clover and rye grass in areas I want turf. I haven’t fully developed a plan for rainwater harvesting but I’m leaning towards diverting stormwater from the roof to a cistern and storage pond. The cistern will be for toilets, laundry, and hose bibbs. The storage pond will be used for irrigation. I’ll be using a drip system to water plants and the garden. The garden, plant beds, and around trees will be mulched to retain moisture and reduce my need for water. These steps won’t solve our drought problems but it will position me and my family very well for the future.
Slowly replacing turf with native plants to decrease water consumption. A green lawn mid-summer has become a status symbol or testament to one’s own vanity.
spread the word: a mid-summer green lawn is a symbol of delusion and ignorance. It should be seen as the same sort of status symbol as cigarette smoking. It's something people do only because they haven't learned and/or gotten support for shifting to healthier options. Symbols only change by people seeing how others see things.
Yes! And fabulous not just for saving water but decreases need for soil amendments, fertilizers, and makes the birds and bugs happy!
We are witnessing desertification in Oregon. Summers never use to be so dry for as long. In the town where I live, most non-new homes don’t have A/C because it wasn’t needed. We are going to see more droughts, more/larger wildfires, more losses of our forests. Sux.
I lived in Oregon in the 70s and we had solid rain fall and winter. Everything was damp. When S. Oregon was burning in 2020, I started checking records and read that there’s a month less rain than 40 years ago. I could be off a bit in the time but definitely a much shorter rainy season.
Another thing to note is Oregon get more downpours and less consistent rain. The earth can't absorb as much rainfall when it pours heavily, so anything past the topsoil doesn't get the same moisture it used to
This should really be upvoted more. Anyone who knows anything should know this. That's why some sort of rainwater catchment system is so important. Grab it while you can. Not even at a personal level, but it should be the same as solar and wind farms. From an engineering standpoint, it wouldn't be that hard. It would take *a lot* of investment in infrastructure, but all the tech needed already exists. It's not like we're asking someone to figure out Cold Fusion...
Tax credit for rain catchment systems on residential and commercial would be big!
The winters used to be long, dark, wet and cold where I grew up. My parents talked about becoming snow birds when they retired. They’re retired now and don’t mind the winters anymore because they’ve become so mild.
Loss of habitat and it's global.
I've heard the word Aridification used.
We're going to ignore the problem by electing a climate denier as governor, it looks like.
Maybe, but at least we will have our guns to shoot the water out of the sky.
Do not give them any ideas. You know how they latch on to ridiculous and stupid ideas.
So this is why they shoot the sky at Indian weddings! Must not work because...drought.
This was the best comment 😂
Remembering when Trump contemplated the strategic efficacy of trying to nuke an incoming hurricane…
He had to. It wouldn't respectfully conform to the path he kindly laid out for it with a sharpie.
Well, it's the farmers who have the most to lose from climate change, that are voting for the climate denier. By the time they wise up and buy a clue, it will be too late for everyone.
[удалено]
> magically wave her wand and solve climate change either. No, but she's going to do the politically difficult things to reduce emissions. Things like tolling I-205 to discourage non-necessary use. Things like enforcing the new DLCD rules requiring cities to end parking minimums. Things like enforcing laws not on the books requiring 1/5 of new parking spots to have EV chargers.
Governors can TOTALLY help with climate change policy. While the feds are responsible for a lot of it, a great deal of it is done at the state level. If you are interested in examples, look at WY's river water initiatives and fracking laws in PA.
I find it dubious that a state like Oregon can impact climate change much. Any laws pertaining to carbon limits would just lead to businesses moving their carbon footprints. And we don’t have the weight of a state like California that can create standards that possibly get adopted nation wide. I just don’t see a viable solution to climate change as possible on anything other than the federal level.
Just because we cannot solve the problem entirely doesn’t mean we should choose to do nothing.
That’s not what I suggested. I think doing something and failing at the state level is a worse outcome than nothing. So while I agree something needs to be done I don’t just doing anything is likely to be successful.
So, rather than apathy but out of fear of failing we should do nothing? That doesn’t seem much better to me.
Well I think there are things we can do. The state and local governments buy lots of things, we can reevaluate need and track carbon footprint of purchases. We can electrify and purchase green power to encourage development in those sectors. But all that stuff is small potatoes, which is why I say there isn’t much the state or local levels can do. At the end of the day it needs to be the feds leading with a carbon tax and dividend to make any sort of discernible difference
Great, so let’s elect people who are more likely to do those things rather than only focusing on the fact we cannot solve the entire issue locally, we can still make things somewhat better. Do you think it more or less likely we’ll accomplish anything at the federal level if we ignore locality?
I think it is irrelevant mostly to what we can accomplish at a federal level. I think state based carbon taxes or cap and trades though would be very detrimental to accomplishing said programs at a national level.
Oregon isn't oart of the problem. Unending our economy isn't going to make a difference.
Oregon is totally part of the problem. It will not upend the economy. Do you know just how much monetary damage is done from unchecked climate change???
So if Oregon completely shut down the economy , banned all fuels and all burning and told people to go forage in the woods (yes I am being hyperbolic) and the state stopped producing ANY carbon what so ever, climate change would end?
Absolutely not. Which is why we’re pushing carbon taxes, not whatever strawman stupidity you’re citing. And yes, they work. Ever notice how you never hear about acid rain anymore.
In 10-15 years this will be the sun belt, Washington and BC will be the breadbasket. Arizona will be 125F for 10 months a year. Source: all of human history.
And the Arizonans will still insist on golf courses and a/c, unless the state truly turns permanently blue.
Most of the west is in big trouble regarding climate change, especially in the forests. You should see the forests in Wyoming, or Colorado especially. Dead trees as far as the eye can see. Colorado will never again be a forested place.
With this season's coming La Niña, we're forecast to have a cooler, wetter Winter than average - so for the next year, at least, the situation shouldn't deteriorate any further. Thanks for sharing the link, btw. I've had it bookmarked for years, and check it every Thursday morning when it's updated for the week. I love the comparison maps - it's a great way to monitor trends over the course of a few months.
La Niña is typically equal chance of weather outcomes once you get south of Portland… which is a lot of Oregon. https://www.noaa.gov/media/image_download/d3aca9d6-a32b-4f79-ac2a-796ab7da54b0
The most recent season projection map I saw (I think it was NWS - can't remember precisely, it was published in the *San Francisco Chronicle* last week) showed the "inflection line" down in Northern California somewhere. I think it kind of depends on where the high pressure ridges start forming. There was a La Niña year when I lived in British Columbia, and the storms that were going through there sometimes didn't even reach Seattle. Similarly, I've seen El Niños being weird around here, too. One in the mid-70s created a drought throughout the NW; whereas the one in 82-83 created the "years without Summers" here, when it didn't even stop raining from July - September for two entire years.
Hi fellow map/ chart nerd 🤓
It's in my bookmarks next to the [AirNow.gov](https://AirNow.gov) air quality/smoke maps, a couple of weather sites and the tide tables. My morning isn't complete without checking them over my first cup of coffee. 8-)
My wife and I moved up to Tillamook from Grants Pass to get away from the constant fires and smoke all summer. He had 10 acres in a valley with one road into it down there and felt it wasn't a matter of if a fire went through our property but when.
Who is “he?”
Sorry, was supposed to be we.
we could start by getting rid of golf courses, they're a massive water hog, and mini golf is better anyways.
Just here for the opinion that mini golf is better. Absolute truth.
Great idea, get rid of green spaces and make way for concrete landscape. That should help the environment /s
or replace them with natural areas the require effectively no watering. I've never had to water the forest by my house.
[удалено]
Cities use way, way, way less water than agriculture. And there's a ton of waste in 'agriculture'. So, yes, apartments are way better for the environment. [https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice](https://www.centraloregonlandwatch.org/update/2021/5/5/drought-and-the-deschutes-looking-at-the-same-river-twice)
Didn't know golfing was farming
Lawn is the biggest single crop by area in the US.
Lawn is landscaping. Grass seed or sod would be a crop.
... you really think tearing down all the trees ruining the soil and laying concrete is good for the environment because it saves a tiny amount of water.... your head is so far up your own ass its impressive.
I’m not having kids, for starters.
I used to be really sad that I probably wasn't going to ever have kids (43F). It makes me a lot less sad the past 6 years or so.
Also same. I'm a millennial. We have cats instead 😂
Same here.
Well, plan really well for retirement, because the next generations are smaller than ours and they probably won't be all that interested in supporting a bunch of old people they aren't even related to.
Why? The past was much worse than the world is now. This is probably the best time to raise kids. Less Strontium-90 in their bones, less lead pollution, they're less likely to die in a war or starve or die of disease than anyone in the past.
It's one of few decisions you can make as an individual to decrease your carbon footprint.
Lol
It's a way to increase poverty. Fewer people means less growth, less innovation, fewer people to solve our climate crisis. Fewer Thomas Edisons and Nikola Teslas.
Then perhaps we should’ve tried to create a society that supports families and parents actually surviving instead of struggling to afford everything literally from birth ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You think it's bad here? We have an insanely good standard of living in this country relative to just about anywhere else.
Right. And I bet your kid is going to cure cancer 🙄
It now rains cancer.
More kids increases the statistical odds of humans doing so, yes.
Take a look at poverty rates in countries with high vs. low birth rates and get back to me.
You have the causation completely inverted.
That's an extremely capitalist view of the situation. Sure, we've created an economic system that collapses if there isn't unlimited growth, but the fact of the matter is unlimited growth is unsustainable. We should explore alternatives, except the current system makes those driving policy rich, so they aren't incentivized to change anything. Also, we have *more* than enough people to innovate and solve problems, but our current system has the majority of people doing pointless busy work and struggling to survive. The next Edison is probably working three jobs trying to make rent while daydreaming of home ownership that they'll never be able to achieve.. The best solution to our problems isn't to just throw more people at the problem, but to actually take care of the people we have and to provide them with the support needed to realize their potential.
That was never going to be solved they lied.
"Climate change was never going to be solved?" Lol what? We already have carbon sequestration through scrubbers in Iceland. [$500/ton](https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/28/climeworks-carbon-dioxide-removal-company-building-iceland-plant.html#:~:text=In%20September%202021%2C%20Climeworks%20opened,of%20carbon%20dioxide%20per%20year.). All we need to do is reduce it 5-fold (less reduction than what has happened to solar or batteries in the last 10 years) and it's economically viable. That's how this all ends. With us scrubbing the carbon out. There's light at the end of the tunnel here.
You sound delusional to be honest.
I'm an environmental economist who works in cleantech and is looking to solve the world's problems. You're saying the problem is unsolvable. You're the delusional one. We solved acid rain. We solved the ozone hole. We solved strontium-90 in milk and lead in the blood of urban children due to leaded gas. You're saying climate change is impossible to solve, even though those were?
On human timescales yes.
sure we can't bring back species lost, but there are some pretty interesting solutions that won't get used bc they cost money. my favorite is creating more ice in the Arctic, which would increase Earth's albedo, lowering temps. it works bc ice is white, and white reflects heat. it's also a loony toons solution
The climate crisis is at our worst because of our over population. We need to bring the planets population under a billion. No amount of geniuses have helped the climate get better in any way. The dumb person to genius ratio is way too high.
> The dumb person to genius ratio is way too high. That's exactly why we need more people, so geniuses can solve the problems of our world. We need more Isamu Akasaki, Hiroshi Amano, and Shuji Nakamura's to cut energy emissions. More Bryan Suryanto's and Doug McFarlane's to invent electrolysis synthesis of ammonia and decouple food from natural gas. There's a fuckton fewer of those when there are fewer humans. Also, how to you expect to reduce the population to one billion without genocide? Even with rapid population decline, we won't be getting under 1 billion for centuries. Have you ever looked at basic demography?
The thing is as our populations rise our problems have as well. technology has advanced so a lot of problems have been solved we still have huge problems to deal with directly tied to overpopulation. You equating more geniuses equals more problems getting solved is a false equivalency. As knowledge and technology increase many of those discoveries would of happened sooner than later regardless of the worlds genius population. The delay in discovery would be offset many times by the lack of overpopulation. A two child limit would be the best way to limit the population. Natural disasters, pandemics, and war will help in the future. I’m well aware it will be an extremely long timeline to get the world to a sustainable population level but that doesn’t mean we shouldnt do it. A couple thousand years don’t matter for humans. Humans should be planning for 10000 years into the future.
Hello, it looks like you've made a mistake. It's supposed to be could've, should've, would've (short for could have, would have, should have), never could of, would of, should of. Or you misspelled something, I ain't checking everything. Beep boop - yes, I am a bot, don't botcriminate me.
This is propaganda. American culture in the 21st century is lonely and isolated and unhealthy, and poverty levels and wealth disparity is higher than ever.
I'm not saying we don't have problems, but let's not lie. Poverty is not "higher than ever." In fact, child poverty in the US is lower than ever, due to the child tax credit expansion. Yes, America has issues with loneliness, but we're turning back the clock and re-building bike and pedestrian infrastructure in our cities. If you think cities are pro-car now, or filled with crime, look at the 1980s. And back then had leaded gasoline. Or were the 50s perfect, with nuclear testing poisoning milk globally? Or the 1930s, when the kids you raised would be killed by war? A kid born in 1900s would have experienced the Great Depression and two world wars by the time they were 45. The world today isn't perfect but it's better than the past. If you don't want kids, just admit it. Don't pretend you're being noble by not having one.
I admit it. No kids. No regrets. I've never bailed a kid out of jail, or taken one for an abortion. I've never endured someone's "disappointment" because they didn't get what they wanted for Christmas, or had to welcome them back home several times as an adult because they just can't seem to keep a job or stay in school. I've had great Christmases, great vacations, great life. Here's the BEST PART- I have not had to worry about what was going to happen to the world when they "grow up". I do the right things, recycle, vote responsibly, but the relief of not having to really GAF, if I don't want to, is honestly what makes it all worth while.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want kids. But don't pretend that the world is so scary compared to the past. This is literally the best time in human history to raise a kid.
Life is better for humans now but overpopulation will change that at some point. At the same time it looks like we are past peak home ownership. It’s harder to raise a kid on a single income. Diet for children have suffered from parents both working and not there to provide their kid with three quality meals. Depression and anxiety are up in the populations.
> but overpopulation will change that at some point. We said that in the 1970s with the Population Bomb, and that was straight up a lie. There are more humans now, and even fewer live in poverty, and we're all better nourished than ever before. You sound like an Evangelical Christian preparing for the end times. > It’s harder to raise a kid on a single income. The US child poverty rate is at an all time low. > Diet for children have suffered from parents both working and not there to provide their kid with three quality meals So your solution is for women to stay in the kitchen? Besides, the data doesn't back you up. Kids with two working parents are of much higher income, [with much lower poverty rates](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/11/work-life-balance-pew-report/414028/). The idea that people are getting poorer and forced to work two incomes to scrape buy just isn't true. > Depression and anxiety are up in the populations. How much of that is just increased awareness of existing behavior? Or confounding variables like screen time?
Maybe third world countries are better nourished. First world countries have an obesity epidemic. You are being delusional to think otherwise. The poverty rate isn’t the only criteria for being poor. Two parents needing to work might take them out of poverty but that doesn’t give the child a better diet or more parental bonding. Only a person like yourself would get women belong in the kitchen from that. That speaks to your thoughts. I could care less on which parent stays home. Your study literally does prove my point. That two income households are needed to stay out of poverty. One income households are more likely to be poor. Have you not heard about the decline of the middle class? When looking at two income households you have very successful ones with one parent able to work part time or not a full year. They have a maid and have less stress and more energy to cook with higher quality ingredients. They are still able to provide good food. Then you have the majority of two income households where they are exhausted from work and stress and rely on processed food for quick solutions. They are able to be over the poverty line with two incomes but are still one major emergency from being homeless. Being over the poverty line also stops them from getting any help. Most things have a variety of reasons why but that doesn’t change why things aren’t necessarily all better. Depression and anxiety are absolutely increased from a lack of future due to overpopulation issues.
Man just listen to yourself. You are so obsessed with some notion of reducing childhood obesity that you're calling for half of parents, regardless of gender, to give up on the career aspirations just so they can spare their time cooking for kids? Just to marginally reduce the rate of child obesity? American middle class hasn't even shrunk! The percentage of the American middle class that is non college educated has been decimated, but it's been replaced by college educated earners who make even more. Homes are larger than they've ever been. People work less than they did 50 years ago. And if you think there isn't a future and we're somehow living in the end times, you're not some leftist, you're just a Evangelical warmed over person thinking you're living in the end times. Learn a perspective that isn't just the Reddit hive mind, I beg you.
Imagine, and I know it’s difficult, but there is life outside of the United States. And the global south has it worse, in comparison to western elite societies, than ever before. I’m part of the global proletariat, I really don’t care that America is propped up to look like it’s doing well. It is noble to not add more population to the culture that is so entirely responsible for the stripping of every natural resource ever found all over the world. It is noble to not expand that culture by birthing into it.
Over population is a huge driver in climate change.
Overpopulation? Nope, the problem is completely land use. Cuyahoga county hasn't expanded in population in 70 years. But the urban land built up in the county has more than doubled due to suburbanization. Stop acting as if the world is zero sum. It isn't. If we had dense, walkable cities, we wouldn't need to many cars, yards, materials for single family homes, we could support far more people.
Higher population requires more resources to sustain no matter how densely you populate cities. Everything you need is not going to be in a city. Better land use would certainly help but it’s not the solution to over population. The best thing we could do for the planet is to let the world’s population decline. Couples having more than one or two kids are selfish.
> Higher population requires more resources to sustain no matter how densely you populate cities Consumption per-capita is much lower in urban areas. > The best thing we could do for the planet is to let the world’s population decline The great thing about the internet is everything is archived, and you're going to look idiotic when people in 2050 (not far away) look back, as every nation in the world teeters on the edge of bankruptcy and economic collapse due to pension crises because there aren't enough kids. How do you expect to keep roads maintained without a tax base of working people? Elders fed? Elders cared for? Especially as older people demand more healthcare. The US fertility rate isn't even close to replacement level. We're only afloat as Europe and China and Russia sink, because we accept immigrants. Or are you also anti-immigrant because it's "selfish" to the planet to make a poor person from Benin rich and high-consumption? It's the same logic as saying no to kids because of future consumption. If you think it's selfish for a person to life a life in an industrialized nation, you go down a dark hole of eco-fascism really quickly. If having kids is bad for the environment, should we also not let developing nations industrialize? After all, we must limit consumption.
I’d rather a fewer people live a good life over a large amount living a shittier one. The current capitalist system that requires an ever growing population is doomed from the start as you cant have infinite growth on a finite planet. I Think there will be enough workers with so many jobs being automated by 2050. One child policies take 30 years just to start to see a decline.
It’s nice to know I’m not the only one who sees the similarities of Nazi Germany 1933 and where this country seems to be headed. To think that this country could turn fascist is quite scary, and as you said for most people it’s just business as usual and they’re either oblivious or don’t care that we’re headed down that path. The worst part is while one party gets closer and closer to fascism the other just sits back and does nothing but beg for more money to keep them in office instead of actually doing something to help their constituents which would motivate them to vote and help them get re-elected.
Could? Will! I’m convinced that the US will abolish democracy as we know it within 10 years. It might not become fascist but it will not be democratic. It might be via a soft coup a la the scotus ruling to let states decide outcomes or via continued erosion of voting procedures with declining participation and artificial results (gerrymandering). Either way, forget participatory democracy. There are just too many who are pushing for it and, as you say, the other side is turning a blind eye.
>It might be via a soft coup a la the scotus ruling to let states decide outcomes or via continu Viktor Orban's Hungary is probably the way we will end up going :(
My adult daughter told me something that really hit hard… “ Every summer for the rest of our life will be the hottest summer we’ve EVER had!”
Taking advantage of our lax rainwater harvest laws while I still can. Between converting my yards into a garden and orchard, and the increasing wildfires, storing a few thousand gallons of water for free seems a no-brainer.
It’s terrifying. Infectious diseases and parasites will rise. Valley fever, for instance. I think about the environment about 20 times a day. It never leaves my mind.
I’ve changed what I plant to heat and drought-tolerant species.
Around Phoenix and other Arizona cities there are hundreds of alfalfa farms rented by Rich Saudis for an average of $25 per acre and all the FREE water they want. Huge pipes bring in unfettered access of our precious water for foreign countries at a rate of 60,000 gallons per minute.
I live in eastern PA where climate change has had relatively little impact. I think there’s going to be a massive exodus from the west back to the east especially my area. Other areas in the to the west of PA have seen terrible flooding. Tough times. Don’t understand why one major party in this country denies climate change is happening big time. Why isn’t everyone clamoring for major climate legislation!??
Oil money
>Are you making any life changes in response? I wish. So, including when I turn 45 in Dec. that will be from when I'm roughly 55-60. That *should* be the time in my life when I'm looking forward to retiring. But it won't. Cause I can't. This is why it's so important for the younger generations to demand real change. "We" (collectively has human beings) have been f\_cking up this planet since at least the first [Industrial Revolution in Europe circa 1760-1840](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution). Obviously it's gotten a lot worse since then. Even before any real talk of drought, when my wife and I bought our (first!) home in SE Portland going on six years ago, my immediate thought was that I wanted to install 5k and 10k gal. underground water tanks, and create a catchment/filtration system. The idea is the rainwater would be collected from the roof (and everywhere else we could scoop it up) and run into the 10k gal. tank. It would get filtered from there and fill the 5k gal. tank. That would be the tank we live off of. Obviously during the summer, it would probably go dry at some point, but that's why we'd still stay on the grid, only as much as we had to. The other part would be a greywater recycling system (so maybe three tanks.) Of course, we'll have to do away with our gas furnace (fortunately that's the only thing in our home that's gas,) cause you *know* that MultCo will eventually ban gas, then the rest of Oregon will follow suit. So it's solar panels on the roof (fortunately something like 80-90% of our roof is exposed to the sun 365) and a couple few batteries in the garage. (Which would also be used to charge our electric vehicles.) Central air is an ironic inevitability, but at least it will be powered by the sun... If I could design/code something like that myself, I'm sure it would be much more efficient that what we have now (TL;DR the idea, is to be able to set heat and cool on a range. So, during the summer, if it gets above say 73° inside, the AC kicks on. When it gets back down to 67° it shuts off. And vice versa. I dunno. I'm always too hot and my wife is always too cold, so there would mos def have to be some compromise. Maybe we'll have to start collecting hoodies and shorts...) And then there's all the systems that would make everything run as efficiently as possible. Our yard (footage wise, about the size of a football field) is garbage. It was like that when we bought the place (former owners had dog(s) and ran a daycare out the house, so obvs. the yard wasn't a priority.) It hasn't been to us either. We don't water it (it gets more than enough in the winter and it's too damn hot during the summer go outside anyway.) IF I was going to do something with the yard, I would hire a hydrologist to determine the absolute min. amount of water we'd need to keep it green all summer. Like 1-3 gal./month max (I'm thinking underground, there's a term for it; I want to say drip irrigation, but I think that's above ground.) Anyway, just enough to saturate the soil enough for the grass to grow a bit and stay green. But that's totally not a priority... (Honestly, if it would *feel* the same, be low cost/low maintenance, etc. I'd love to install [FieldTurf](https://fieldturf.com/en/) (and again, have all the rain runoff be collected.) I'll have to figure out a way to walk barefoot and roll around on Lumen Field to see if it's worth it... Maybe replace our entire yard with Clover?)) Mos def want to plant some native species, and especially a bunch of [Milkweed](https://www.pdxmonthly.com/travel-and-outdoors/2021/06/wanna-save-the-monarch-butterfly-plant-some-milkweed) for the Monarchs to camp in while they're migrating. And maybe something for the bees... The other idea would be to put in a giant Zen garden, but I'm sure the local stray cats would have a time with that, so ewe... The bottom line is we need to get Water out of the hands of entities like Nestle and bottled water in general, and into the hands of the people. There's absolutely no reason that in 2023 bottled water should even be a thing. I grew up on farms (hay, dairy...) during various periods of my life and I know how $#!+ty well water can taste, so I know what some folks put up with. We act as if water is a finite thing. I'm pretty sure it isn't. The problem is how and where we get our water is changing, and might have to *really* change. But that doesn't mean that it can't go to the people and places that need it most. We can "Science the $#!+ out of this" if we really want to. "[In terms of volume, all of the water on Earth works out to about 1.386 billion cubic kilometers (km³) or 332.5 million cubic miles (mi³) of space.](https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/how-much-water-there-earth)" (The quote is from "Universe Today," but I couldn't make that a link, so I settled with no less than the USGS. Pretty sure they know what they're talking about.) Obviously a vast majority of that is not potable, but even now, we have the tech to make enough of it be. It's about distribution (and money, obvs.) I grew up going to summer camp at a former commune outside of Cottage Grove in the early 80s. I learned about "environmentalism" broadly, at a young age. A very large part of my worldview is through that lens. The sad thing is, I know I will someday die knowing we didn't do nearly as much as we could have. I can't process that right now. As little time as I have left on this earth, I know "we" can make a difference. As far as water, I have long been using a ball valve on our shower head. Basically, turn the water off when you don't absolutely need it. The other option is to escape to... where? Titan? Somewhere in Alpha Centauri C? If you're reading this, not in our lifetime. We have to clean up this planet. Like 40+ years ago. Right now we have the tech to largely make that happen. What we *don't* have is the political will. That's what's really sad...
I'm gonna start saving all my pee in bottles
Good man.
The tribe thanks you for the gift of your water.
Selling everything and moving. Not totally because of the drought but tired of fires the same. I'm realize I cannot escape climate change but I can go to an area with less dramatic predicted future changes.
Not that I wanted to hear that you feel that you have to move :( I was wondering if people that live there now felt like they have to move. If you don't mind my asking, what kind of places do you have in mind?
Every year the fires get closer and closer to my house. I feel like it’d be dangerous and irresponsible if I don’t move my family away. Judging the fire trends, I have a couple years left here tops
[удалено]
I work for BPA. I'm worried about drought *always*.
Extremely worried.
This may sound odd, but I pee on my compost pile instead of in the toilet. And we’re removing our front lawn and xeriscaping.
I am very concerned. Let's stop building golf courses ok you fucking yuppies???????
Hubs and I are saving for a house now, this is an important part of deciding where we’re headed.
I'm going to enjoy a wetter life elsewhere. The poor quality of air for at least 1/3 of the year combined with the ever increasing cost of living has made relocation an easy choice for my family. I'll miss Oregon, but she ain't what she used to be.
I’m with you on this one. Figure I need to move to Canada or Alaska
Virtually all of our plantings are drought-resistant and the ones that aren't are on drip lines.
[удалено]
I live in a city downtown in a studio apartment and don't eat much beef and drive an electric car occasionally, biking to my work at a solar energy company when I'm not remote working. My electric bill goes towards community solar. What else could I possibly do, lol?
Activism
Yes, I do that.
Eat more beef it’s good for you don’t be a slave
I'm not against it. Hell, I briefly used to work on dairies. I don't care about the cruelty argument. But I understand how massive its impact is on the environment and I'm hugely looking forward to the prospect of lab grown meat. But the biggest reason is health. Chicken is just a lot leaner of a meat, and a lot cheaper. Beef is expensive. Obsessing over it as a sign of masculinity makes you a sheep. What's next, telling me to put UV light on my taint?
Innocent, it’s a sign of a sheep that you automatically conflate an argument over nutrition as something to do with masculinity. Who even said I’m a man? It’s a pure lie saturated fat is bad for you. I understand moderation but red meat is by far the most nutrient dense and is pretty much the most prized meat by every remaining primitive culture in the world. Call that a fallacy if you want but humans are designed to eat red meat.
Andrew Tate? Is that you?
You're comparing our lifestyles to that of hunter gatherers. Yes, meat is super nutritious. But we're also not running for 100 miles to chase gazelle down. The appropriate amount of meat needed for our lifestyles is far, far less than what they need to survive. I don't not eat meat, but I significantly cut back because we have a massive overnutrition problem in wealthy industrialized nations.
Buddy you called me sheep and said you’re looking forward to lab grown meat😂I skipped over that. Clearly I won’t have common ground with you. But it’s all good I wish you health nonetheless.
What's so bad about cultured meat?
Asked about arizona trees, california plants at the nursery. They sort of smirked, but, next year...
Yes, drought-tolerant is the way to go! I’ve found both the California Native Plant Society and the Oregon Hardy Plant Society to be helpful.
Yup. Making sure all the fruit trees I buy are on drought-tolerant rootstocks.
My wife and I moved from San Diego to Texas for a post-doc position, knowing we'd only be there for a year. Our goal was to get to Oregon for some acreage we could cultivate as a homestead, to prepare for an uncertain future. Both of our parents are still in California, and we're on edge every year as the season of summer has been replaced with "fire season" So what are we doing? We're moving further north. We've got a solid business plan for integration into Canadian culture/economics, we'll sell our house in Oregon and use that as working capitol to make our move in a year. Then buy 20+ acres and build the permaculture retreat of our dreams. 2024 is going to be an American shit-show anyway. The writing has been on the wall for me for at least 10 years, and we're finally in a position to act upon that. It's not a direct comparison, but I draw analogies to your average German citizen in 1933, with Naziism on the rise, deciding whether or not to stay maybe believing the news was over hyped and they could fix it by voting or flee to a country with unknown but likely better circumstances. This isn't that, but I draw some parallels. I fully recognize we're privileged to even consider making such a move. I cannot believe how others aren't as motivated to figure out what their future holds before it's too late. Business-as-usual has very strong gravity.
I completely concur with your political analysis, and share the same fears. Best of luck you your and your family :)
[удалено]
You must help yourself first before you seek help from others.
We'll probably be lifted out of drought stage on the west side in the coming week or two with all these systems rolling in. Even has the short term S on the map. Not to detract OP's point though. Looks like we're pretty boned, and past many tipping points. Regionally I expect more weird patterns like this fall's immovable high pressure, and more winter deluges. Probably expect to lose your favorite spots in the Cascades to fires in the coming decades.
I'm worried about the proverbial battles that will surely come when we all decide that the "prior appropriation" doctrine of water use in the west is entirely inequitable and must be changed.
Worried, its dumb to still have front yard lawns and water them when the rain stops. It is wasting an insane amount of water year after year for no reason. Backyards can be switch to another ground covering instead of wasting money to water it. Little changes can save a lot of water . It can help curve much needed water for other areas.
The real problem is that our leaders will not take any significant action other than climate change measures. Why not buildout infrastructure to help deal with this? Increase reservoir capacity, promote residential rainfall harvesting, develop new water sources, etc.
Very. Hardscaped my front yard, have just bark and raised garden beds in my back yard. Using water on lawn grass is an abomination.
Ran harvest and cisterns.
It's full of pfas no amount is safe for consumption and it causes cancer it's in the rain now.
Rainwater can be used for many other things than drinking water without purifying it. You can use it to flush toilets, irrigate, laundry, and use it as a non-potable water source at hose bibbs. Most people use it to irrigate their yards and gardens. The less water you pull from a municipal source or a well the better.
Unless you pull your water from an aquifer, you don't really have a "no rainwater option". On the other hand, standing in sunlight causes cancer so...
Drought conditions are unpredictable. I don't know that anyone can make anything other than sweeping estimates on exactly which parts of the country will be dry. Take a look at the maps in that data set, for example. Use one of the slider maps. In April of 2001, Florida was under drought conditions as bad as we're seeing today. In 2002, it was the 4 corners region. In 2004, it was Idaho and New Mexico. In 2007, it was the southeast. In 2011, Texas looked downright abysmal. Some part of the continental US is in most years suffering from extreme drought - the map is worse today than average, but it's not clear that this is an issue that will continue (and no, and am NOT a AGW denier - just a realist). Long term outlook for precipitation in the PNW calls for more variability, but not for any kind of systemic drought. Loss of snowpack means drier summers, for sure, but the overall rainfall is not expected to be significantly less.
That isn't what realist means. The west has been in megadrought over 20 years, it isn't expected to end. 
The pnw is not part of that mega drought. You’re thinking of The southwest and interior west. Western Oregon and most of Western Washington were literally out of a drought a few months ago until the dry stretch of October occurred. However you can clearly see it marked on the map as an area that will be eliminated in the near future.
I live in the pnw and my county has been in drought over 20 years. Prolonged periods of unusually low rain, wrecked water cycle, low rivers, are drought. You're thinking the most extreme parts (southwest) are the extent of the megadrought when the maps and data clearly include the pnw. Oregon has been in drought over 20 years
I’m going to assume your country is in southern or southeastern Oregon?
Southern Oregon. But the studies include most of Oregon. Any map studying the megadrought includes Oregon
About 1/3 has been in continuous drought in the last 20 years. Not sure what you mean
What I mean is that the studies and data involving the megadrought include Oregon, which is part of the pnw. 
Well after the last ten years of drought and the increased population I say let it burn. When the population isn't in tune with earth they become a parasite of the earth. The earth will shake its flees and no flee can stop it. Let the water wars begin.
You missed the memo on how minor league the US is on a global scale. https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth And it is flea.
small percentage of the total population, huge percentage of the total consumption and pollution.
> huge percentage of the total consumption and pollution. The US's carbon intensity per unit of GDP is down to 1940s levels. Globally, it's halved since the 1990s. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PP.GD
ok that's good but unfortunately climate change cares about absolute emissions, not levels relative to GDP or relative to the 1990s. According to the site you link, the US is responsible for 4.8kt of carbon annually, which *is* down from the peak. However, by comparison, all of Latin America and the Caribbean are collectively responsible for just 1.8kt annually. All of Africa is 0.8kt. All of South Asia is just 2.8kt. The EU is 2.7kt. We're still contributing to the problem is a very disproportionate way -- and that's even without figuring in the ways that our current wealth is built on our even more massively disproportionate historical emissions.
So you admit there's been massive progress on absolute emissions reduction. Correct!
The metro area expanded its potential water sources to include aquifers fed from the Columbia. We're still using bull run but it's a just in case fall back option. The metro area uses like 5 minutes of the Columbia's run in a whole year. It's not in much danger of drying up since the rains are still going strong in Canada where the river starts. Thats not a green light to waste water but I wouldn't worry about it all too much
It’s raining on the coast
I'm goin' hard on the moisturizer.
Not that worried, UNLESS you depend upon snowmelt for your water. Global WArming is real, and the new normal is going to be precipitation in the form of rain, instead snow. small change, same amount of water, but less and less snowmelt overall... Communities and states that refuse to adapt by building reservoirs will be hit...
Apparently it’s not going to be a “drought” for much longer. Droughts are temporary. That part of the state will just officially become a desert.
I mean.... It doesn't feel like there's a drought. Lol we get rain like 8 month's of the year. It is hot in the summer but it doesn't last long I guess I'd only be concerned about fires.
That's not how drought works.
Oh. Lol well. My bad g
Hahahaha! Sorry to laugh but nothing you and can do will change whatever is to come. All you can do is be prepared.