• Eheran@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    No idea at what point you talk about where the real savings actually come from, but not anywhere after that colon.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      18 hours ago

      It comes from not using huge amounts of water to grow water-intensive crops in the California desert.

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          18 hours ago

          What?

          are you saying we shouldnt be allowing the Saudi’s to use billions of gallons of water, to grow tons of alfalfa (one of the most water intensive crops there is) in the middle of the desert, in a drought, just so they can ship it all back home to saudi arabia to use as animal feed?

          • futatorius@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            The other end of that is just as bad. The Saudis raise cattle in the desert because their government wants to encourage its citizens to consume more cow’s milk (you can also buy camel’s milk in supermarkets but it’s very much an acquired taste). There are vast structures to provide shade, and misting systems to keep the cattle cool, all of this in one of the hottest desert environments on earth. The farms are manned by low-paid TCNs who live in abysmal conditions. And the water? Saudi Arabia is mining subterranean aquifers at a mad rate, and it’s not in any way sustainable. So both ends of the supply chain are wasteful abominations.