michael_nielsen

Those are analytic model results. In reality, temperature has already gone up, yet so have our crop yields (for unrelated reasons). CO2 also has positive effects to consider for ag, although I have read reports downplaying the win.

I know many people will roll their eyes and scoff or become indignant, but it does look to me like market forces are the best way to deal with water allocation -- many ag choices are predicated on "free" water, and can be changed when given a cost signal.

Markets are one way to allocate scarce resources. They work by allocating resources to those that are not just willing but also able to pay. For example, if a rich person has 3 cats and a poor person has 3 children. If milk is scarce, the market will allocate the milk to the cats

This idea that we can just solve this with desalination or "markets" only furthers the reality that we are willing to use up all resources until nothing is left and that's the mentality that has gotten us in this mess right now. This is not the solution.

It isn't being "used up" -- we have unbelievable amounts of energy than can be tapped, and water isn't destroyed by use. A convenient storehouse may be depleted, and we might regret that, but there are many paths forward. "Settle for less" is backwards.

John, please take this in the nicest way possible when I say you don't have a clue of what you are talking about. I may be a new PhD researcher in water resources management, but I know enough at this point to know your understanding is incorrect.

OK, educate me! Given energy, we can desalinate ocean water or condense water out of the air. That is not cost effective versus just drilling a hole in ground in most (but not all) areas, but it puts a floor on the possible catastrophic losses and makes it an economic decision.