hotelbravo722

joined 2 years ago
MODERATOR OF
[–] hotelbravo722 3 points 10 months ago

I have been studying Doughnut Theory. IMO its all about metrics/measurement and Doughnut Theory gives a robust way to measure the actual health of an economy/society. You got your social foundations which you have to ensure everyone gets, and you have your ecological ceilings which are your limits on natural resource use/extraction. So the challenge is how do you build business, finance and law to do that.

[–] hotelbravo722 3 points 11 months ago

I mean water amount on the Colorado river is one problem of the Colorado Compact. There is a whole lot of other problems that make the whole compact nonviable in the 21st century that are going to need to be worked out in some sort of Western States congress.

[–] hotelbravo722 7 points 1 year ago

They have a lot of farm land that they buy alfalfa from but water rights are a bit different. Water rights are based on the "doctrine of prior appropriation" which means the water from the river goes to the body that is able to claim first "beneficial" use for that water, beneficial as defined as economically beneficial. Los Angeles and many Imperial Valley farmers primarily used that to build massive water infrastructure projects to divert massive amounts of water from the Colorado for projected growth. Those rights to that water are locked, however because of the crises on the Colorado river system the entire Colorado River compact is coming into question which has the doctrine of prior appropriation as a foundation to the water legal system in the west.

Just for some additional context the Colorado River Compact is essentially the West's version of the constitution. Its a water treaty governing commerce and political power in the West. Keep in mind the American West is a desert and the only real thing of true value in a desert is freshwater. There is an old west saying "whiskeys for drinking, waters for fighting over", and people did fight over water out here.

[–] hotelbravo722 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It was stupid for them to think that they could get the ridiculous profit margins that these firms where pitching them, but its not a stupid idea. As with any valid agricultural operation Gov is needed. USDA just allowed for crop insurance for vertical farming so there is hope for support on that front. I am working on developing a cheaper way to manufacture tower systems and for them to be recycled. I am born and raised in the American Southwest and we are already experiencing water shortages so I suspect local/state gov support is going to be put into place to subsidize power to vertical farming to make it more viable for farmers. We have lots of sun/wind out here but we don't have lots of water.

[–] hotelbravo722 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It's not unfeasible its just never going to have the high profit margins these companies keep pitching to VC's and banks. Farming is something that is done not because you make a huge profit from it but because you need food to survive.

Vertical farms fit in the niche for regions that have a significant population but have little water and large amount of arid land. They can allow for food to be grown closer to population centers and reduce the need for large water projects that are needed for irrigation farming. There is still going to be a need for irrigation farming for certain staple crops, but vertical farms can be used to grow certain fruiting vegetables and other leafy greens that would generally need a large amount of water in the same arid region.

Building a new food system is going to need vertical farms and other sustainable agriculture techniques, but it cannot be built on the same profit-for-profits sake economic system we currently have.

[–] hotelbravo722 11 points 1 year ago

Its always fun watching the media machine work in real time. COP was a joke to begin with, it was a joke at the end. Nothing in that statement has any real measurements on how/when they are going to stop fossil fuel use and that's because they legitimately don't have one. The profit margins, the societal infrastructure that is built on fossil fuel use make them not want to touch it. They are addicted to constant non-stop GDP growth and nothing gets them there faster then using fossil fuels.

[–] hotelbravo722 1 points 1 year ago

I have hope. My state Doughnut economics group just got funding to publish and distribute our state doughnut portrait and we are looking to expand to local towns/municipalities. The EU also had a degrowth conference to talk about economic/ecological overshoot. It looks dire now but momentum is building for some sort of shift, what that is and how it plays out is still anyone's guess. All I am saying is don't give up hope, fight as if your life depended on it because frankly it does.

[–] hotelbravo722 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Its only popular because the cold war happened and there was a widespread campaign in the US to ingrain neo-liberal economic thinking into the general public. Its no different then people in Europe in the dark ages not being able to see anything besides the divine right of kings as the form of rule. At some point though something comes along forcing us to question it all and thats when the flood gates open. For Europe it was the black plague, for us it was the 08 financial crises.

[–] hotelbravo722 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

It is being discussed but in the context of Economics. Neo-liberal economic theory presupposes an economy that is infinitely growing and infinitely consuming. That is running head-on to the fact that there are natural limits to our consumption. Politicians, financial/business leaders and mainstream economists have skirted by talking about serious issues when it comes to health, society and equality by saying "growth will even it all out". Now growth hasn't even things out its just made inequality worse, our planets biosphere is collapsing and our leaders have no answers, why? Because they have been brainwashed by sudo-science and fairy tales of infinite growth and wealth.

People are discussing solutions to this within the context of Degrowth, ecological economics and doughnut economics. However those theories are not popular to the mainstream because it accepts limits and advocates for things like wealth redistribution and limits on wealth, and the extremely rich/powerful don't like that.

[–] hotelbravo722 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Until we stop people from buying Investment properties shits going to continue going up.

[–] hotelbravo722 24 points 2 years ago (4 children)

So I am currently switching careers into vertical farming and have done a lot of work and research on this subject and here is just a bit of my 2 cents.

  • Vertical farming can be less water intensive then traditional farming. Combined with an aquaculture system it can have negligible to no water loss which is great for arid climates.
  • Hydroponic/Aquaponic systems have a huge upfront cost yet a comparably negligible year over year cost.
  • This method has proven perfect for growing certain fruits, vegitables and leafy greens however has shown so far that its not the best for growing things like fruiting trees or staple crops like corn/wheat.
  • Financing for vertical farms are virtually non-existant. So generally you have to go to private equity for financing. This is a problem as vertical farms are not the most profitable even after recovering $$ from upfront startup costs.

So it has great potential to seriously change our current food system and allow us to keep producing food in spite of drought. However it has a long way to go as a technology and will need serious federal legislation to create financing programs for this method of agriculture so farmers are not saddled with insane debt and growth projections that they will never be able to meet.

view more: ‹ prev next ›