From: young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young)
Subject: Re: Combine'd' laziness
Originator: young@plasma
Reply-To: young@clpd.kodak.com
Organization: Clinical Diagnostics Division, Eastman Kodak Company
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:50:52 GMT

In article <C1BuEw.JM0@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> It seems rather obvious that cutting
>rl> back on one's intake of meat, eggs, and cheese, would provide 
>rl> quite a savings vis-a-vis environmental costs.
>
>Rich Young writes:
>ry>It seems to ME that a nearly equivalent benefit could be realized
>ry>in drought-stricken California by cutting back on lawns, fountains,
>ry>and swimming pools.
>
>Russell Lawrence writes:
>rl> Proof?   
>
>From article <1993Jan23.185359.3039@pixel.kodak.com>, by young@clpd.kodak.com (Rich Young):
>ry> By your own numbers, 20% of California's water is not used for
>ry> agriculture, which means it must be used by the human population.
>ry> Now, it is clear that not all of this 20% could be saved, since
>ry> humans must drink water, but the portion wasted on swimming pools,
>ry> decorative fountains and displays, and nurturing of non-native
>ry> decorative shrubs and ground covers by businesses and individual
>ry> property owners could be saved.
>
>The 20% non-agricultural allocation includes industrial and commercial
>uses as well as toilet flushing, bathing, dishwashing, etc.  Would
>you care to tell us roughly how much is used to stock fountains
>and swimming pools, so that we can't gauge the savings more accurately?   

	"...so that we CAN'T gauge...?"  I won't even hazard a guess at
	the arcane meaning of that sentence segment.  As for the other
	stuff, I have nothing which details the water use in California
	in such detail, nor am I sufficiently interested to spend time
	searching for it.  I'm sure you'll be more than happy to educate
	us, however.  After all, without numbers, your argument is equally
	weak...and I did say "might."

>ry> About 25% of California's water is used for livestock, so simply
>ry> "cutting back" wouldn't save all of that water, either.  
>
>It depends on the level of the cuts, don't you think?  If 
>Californian's were to eliminate animal agriculture altogether, ....

	I'm aware of the oddities in your lexicon, Russell, but when did
	the phrase "cut back" become equivalent to "eliminate completely?"

>ry>Frankly, I think growing anything in a desert which requires the
>ry>importation of water is stupid, including dairy cows...and people.
>
>Is your concept of "stupidity" a black-and-white determination, 
>or, are there any shades of grey?  For example, let's assume that 
>you were living in an arid region and had a fixed amount of water at 
>your disposal for all purposes, including food production.  Don't 
>you think it would be smart(er) to spend it on the foods that provide 
>the best nutrition with the least expenditure of water over all?  

	I think it would be smart(er) not to try to build a megalopolis
	in the middle of a desert which uses water as if it were New
	Orleans.  I think it would be smart(er) not to pretend that the
	San Joaquin valley and the Mojave Desert are actually located
	in Mississippi and Alabama.  Californians, of course, don't care
	what I think...or what you think, for that matter.

	The desert is not without water; it is without sufficient water to
	support millions of transplanted rural and urban Easterners who think 
	that they live in Far Western Connecticut, your strawman example
	notwithstanding.


-Rich Young (These are not Kodak's opinions.)