I got a receipt recently that was over 10ft long. I was buying over 200 items at a chain whose corporate policy requires scanning each item individually, so the receipt had over 200 lines of the same 25 cent purchase over and over again.
What are you going to do with 200 sets of plastic fangs?
||
Hailstones Are Always The Size Of Sports Equipment, Ice Shelves Are The Size Of States and then they break up into Manhattans.
(Anderson already got there 3 years ago.)
|>
Your making a mountain out of a molar.
Rainforests are always multiples of Wales.
7: Last sentence of the linked article: Of course, we could protest and demand ScienceDaily deploy the traditional MilliWales to measure the bergs' surface, but we do like the idea of Manhattans and ice.
7: Wales is a rainforest the size of one Wales.
Given the recent thread on wealth and ostentation, I had to laugh at the first two comments to the post linked in 5:
The last time I was in Los Angeles (4 years ago this month), there was an outdoor ice skating rink set up in front of one of the decadent rich people hotels on the Avenue of the Stars in Century City. It was 70 or so and people were just skating around on it, big as billy-be-damned.
There is no limit to the depravity of rich people.and
They set up an outdoor ice skating rink on the roof of Whole Foods in downtown Austin every year. I have never seen this ridiculousness in person.The second was by heebie-geebie, but unfortunately the first was by neither Tweety or Halford, (by some backwards dude).
9: But smaller than Jimmy Wales's ego.
You'll have to take our fake snow and sunny day ice skating rinks* at Christmas time from my cold, dead hands, you fuckers.**
*They usually set up one in Pershing Square downtown at Christmas, which is nice for kids. I don't remember one on Avenue of the Stars and am there RIGHT NOW.
**Who has the lowest per-capita carbon emissions in the USA? Well, Honolulu. And then, Los Angeles.
12.last: That's because they don't count the carbon other people have to emit in other places because L.A. took all their water.
That's come up a couple of times lately, and I admit I'd really never thought of it in those terms: living in cold places does consume an awful lot of heating energy. If California only weren't a desert, it'd probably be a very sensible place to live (aside from the wildfires/mudslides/mountain lions/LAPD/and so on).
I think it's mostly forms of power generation. Places with a lot of energy from coal or heating oil really have dramatically higher carbon emissions. Plus we've had 50 years of extremely strict air pollution rules, and an actual carbon-emissions-reducing law on the books.
Every thing else being equal , Mediterranean climates rule for energy use and carbon emissions.
an actual carbon-emissions-reducing law on the books
I love AB32 in a big bad way, but you aren't claiming any gains from it yet, are you?
If California only weren't a desert
Parts of California are a desert. The Los Angeles area is not one of them.
Also, to judge from the mounds of it I've been getting at the Greek place*, apparently Mediterranean climates rule if you want to grow parsley.
*Maybe Lebanese or something, but asking just seems rude.
17 -- not really, although there has been both moves by the utilities and other bigtime polluters in anticipation of the new rules.
19: Start smashing the plates, and see how they react. If they object, it's probably not Greek.
18: Insufficiently wet to support its population, then. But mostly I'll keep calling it a desert, because I enjoy annoying Californians. Because they get to live in a pretty place with nice weather that doesn't smell weird, none of which is true of NY.
Los Angeles, where you don't need heating, you pretty much don't need AC, and where your electricity comes from carbon-free Diablo Canyon Nuclear Plant.
Frequently-cold New York is 4th on the carbon list. Nuclear power is the biggest factor, I'm sure. The worst areas on the carbon list are the ones that rely the most on coal for electricity generation.
21: They only use disposable plates.
Texas is disgusting with the coal plants.
I think they might use some coal around here. I've heard rumors.
14: I do think there is a NW Europe/NE USA climate bias (that I fall often fall into if I don't watch myself) that assumes that that general mix of winter and summer temperatures and year-round precipitation is normal.
26: They only use disposable plates.
They sent all the good china to Germany (or was it the Netherlands) thanks to evil people in the United States and England.
Insufficiently wet to support its population, then.
The same is true of New York City, of course.
And, not to get into an old fight with Megan, but there's more than enough water in California (or easily purchase-able from other places) to support both its current population and a lot more people. The difficulty comes when you're also subsidizing rice farming and lettuce growing at super cheap rates, and that makes things a lot more difficult. It's really the weight to be ascribed to existing agricultural interests that's the problem (and I'm not minimizing the human costs of essentially abolishing the California water system for agriculture, which would be enormous and, in fact, have kind of sort of already started).
The same is true of New York City, of course.
No it isn't. New York City is pulling water from an area a fraction of the size that L.A. is.
And you can even refill your Walgreens prescriptions by just scanning the barcode on the bottle!
The same is true of New York City, of course.
Not really, unless you're literally talking about not moving water across county lines, at which point yes, there's not such a thing as a city that has enough water to support its population. But LA and NYC aren't comparable in terms of the difficulty of getting water to them.
Although come to think, NY might be able to support itself waterwise without leaving the city limits by relying on the Hudson. Probably too brackish at the city, though -- you'd need to do intake further upstream.
But LA and NYC aren't comparable in terms of the difficulty of getting water to them.
Why not?
The pacific northwest (Willamette valley/Puget Sound corridor) really should have a lot more people in it.
The pacific northwest is a rainforest the size of a shit-load of Wales.
I mean, the LA aqueduct is about four times longer than the Delaware aqueduct (which is I think the longest one in the New York system), but the Delaware aqueduct is underground the whole way, which seems a lot more complicated.
40: The NYC aqueducts sucking all the water from rivers so that they don't actually reach the ocean.
Oh wait, the Catskill Aqueduct is even longer.
36: Because there's enough in the immediately surrounding area. Here's the map of what we're drinking; some from Westchester, but mostly from the Delaware watershed. And the thing is, the Delaware's still there even after NYC's had its fill. Water supply isn't a development constraint, AFAIK. (Water infrastructure within the city is a mess, but that's a different issue.
41: are you thinking about the Colorado River? The Owens River, from whence LA gets its water, never drained to the ocean (it drains to a lake).
The huge difference between Harrisburg (3.19) and Lancaster (2.09) is really strange.
New York also has delicious water, unlike Southern California.
44: I thought LA took water from the Colorado River, among other sources, and wikipedia appears to agree with me.
43: Who cares? The bottom line is that big cities need big expensive water systems to provide their water. Whether that water comes from 50 miles away or 400 miles away, you still need a big expensive water delivery system (and the LA Aqueduct has been around since 1913 and is not that expensive). It's not like one is obviously more sustainable than the other just because of aqueduct length. The real issue is the total amount of available water supply, which, as I've said, is fine for California cities and population but isn't great for the combination of rapidly growing population+super-subsidized wet crop agriculture.
47 -- the bulk still comes from the Owens Valley, but we do get some from the Colorado and other sources.
a shit-load of Wales.
Waleses?
46: Los Angeles has really good water, actually. Other cities in LA County not so much.
Sometimes, as a front-page poster, my impact in comment thread content is confusing.
Also, to defend CA, it's not the nuclear power that keeps our carbon emissions low, it's hydroelectric plants.
The point is that water supply is just never going to be the limiting factor in NY, but it is in LA. That the cause of that is agriculture is not directly relevant. There's still a shortage, and it's still the case that LA's water use causes environmental destruction on a level that NY's does not and never will.
51: Good to know! What's the good water subset of southern california? I know Santa Barbara and San Deigo are terrible.
55: city of Los Angeles vs. everywhere else, pretty much.
If they get their water from the Owens, it's likely to be super tasty. Otherwise, bad. (Also, the mountains of LA have good water, no?)
54 is the point I was trying to make.
both its current population and a lot more people.
Not if they want cheap meat and non-Mediterranean climate residential landscaping. Although really, the problem is the cheap meat and dairy.
also subsidizing rice farming and lettuce growing at super cheap rates
Rice doesn't deserve its bad rep; I could make a case that it isn't much subsidized. Lettuce, depending where it is grown, can be different. But truck crops aren't really where you spend the water. You spend the water growing grains for animals.
the weight to be ascribed to existing agricultural interests that's the problem
Yes, that weight is a historical artifact, but people have come to rely on the effects of it. Changing that would have pretty severe lifestyle effects (primarily the end of cheap meat), so it shouldn't be gestured at as a solution that is somehow separate from the entire Californian lifestyle.
Mind you, I haven't eaten meat in 25 years, so I don't personally care. But people wave at "water can come from ag" as if it weren't talking about stuff that will effect them. When it does, I'm not sure the willingness is there.
57.last: ah, true. The tap water up at Lake Arrowhead is pretty darn delicious.
The pacific northwest (Willamette valley/Puget Sound corridor) really should have a lot more people in it.
It's a nice place, I'd like to visit again.
I grew up in the bad water region of somewhat-Southern California. I'm always amazed when you can turn on the tap and something palatable comes out.
52: I went to CVS and received, in addition to store brand "fruit slices," a regular receipt of about five inches in length with no coupons or anything. This is probably because I don't have their rewards card.
Happy?
Southern California is clearly an affront against nature, the human race, and the planet Earth. The exact reason why is just detail.
I wasn't unhappy with my confusion. Now I'm unhappy that the mile long receipts have been unsubstantiated.
52: I''ll discuss the OP! I do get excited when I get coupons on my CVS receipt! Experience has taught me, however, that if I take the coupon home, I will wind up forgetting about it, until I find it in a pile of junk and determine that it is expired. So, if the coupon seems to me to be genuinely valuable, I'll buy more stuff immediately, so I can use it.
What's the good water subset of southern california?
If you can, perhaps by going back in time and colonizing a valley in the Sierra Nevadas, you want to get snowmelt off granite outcrops, delivered by gravity to your city. That shit's tasty.
The coastal towns often blend local run-off with groundwater (since local run-off goes away in the summer), which tastes mineralized and yucky.
27: Texas is disgusting with the coal plants.
28: I think they might use some coal around here. I've heard rumors.
The move in major coal-producing from east to west in the US has been dramatic over the past half-century (also the increase in surface over underground). It is almost all about Wyoming which now mines more than 3x the amount from West Virginia--about as much the whole Easterm US combined.
As late as 1973, the Western states represented about 10% of coal production, now it is 60%. And where the underground to surface ratio was 70/30 fifty years ago it has now the reverse of that.
53: OK, yeah, hydroelectric makes up 40% of California's electricity generation, and nuclear only 18%, so it's not justifiable to chalk the low-carbon-emissions situation up to just one or the other.
68: When I was in college, my backyard ran right against the tracks used to move most of the coal east.
That was me reading from the 1999 column in the chart. 2009's numbers are 15.7% nuclear, 34.2% hydroelectric.
The huge difference between Harrisburg (3.19) and Lancaster (2.09) is really strange.
I'm curious as to what parameter this refers to?
I thought Wyoming had dominated coal production forever, because that was the subject of that 25-part John McPhee article about the Union Pacific railroad. Upon further inspection that article was written less than a decade ago. All John McPhee's stuff seems like it's traveled through time from the pre-Tom Wolfe era.
72: Per capita carbon emission in metric tons.
Yes, that weight is a historical artifact, but people have come to rely on the effects of it. Changing that would have pretty severe lifestyle effects (primarily the end of cheap meat), so it shouldn't be gestured at as a solution that is somehow separate from the entire Californian lifestyle.
I agree with that in general (and didn't know that rice had gotten a bad rap).
I also generally agree that the cost of meat is too low, and the meat can and should be raised in more water-efficient ways, which is good not only for water consumption but for a host of other reasons.
I disagree generally that the end of the California beef industry or its substantial reduction would lead to wildly higher beef prices; the beef (and other meat) industry can move fairly easily elsewhere, and the equivalents in grain and production capacity are just not that hard to make up in other places. There's a lot of bullshit from Cal Ag that suggests that it's irreplaceable, which really isn't true (except for within the agricultural communities, of course).
71: And I forgot that natural gas has been on the rise.
I grew up right next to Diablo, so it seems completely normal to me.
74: Nothing that firing up TMI-2 again couldn't fix.
I got called away, but yeah, what Unfoggetarian said in 54.
subsidizing rice farming and lettuce
I cannot stop myself. Here's the macro scale.
There are roughly 9 million irrigated acres in California. By area, the big standouts are:
Alfalfa (=> meat/dairy) hovers around 800,000 acres of that.
Almonds are another 800,000 acres. CA grows more than 90% of the world's almond supply and makes bank on those.
Grapes, another 850,000 acres, table and wine. Very lucrative.
Corn for grain (=> meat/dairy) another 600,000 acres.
(There are 750,000 acres of wheat, but they don't count, because that is all winter grown, double cropped and rainfed. It is like that water and land doesn't even count.)
The other two bogeymen are cotton and rice. Cotton got down to about 200,000 acres (of 9 million) a couple years ago, but has surged back to about 400,000 acres because the world is short on cotton right now. Rice hovers around 500,000 acres, on the rise because Australia's rice exports have been lost to the drought, and SE Asia has had weak rice years recently. Rice farmers will not sell their water these days; they're making good money selling rice.
The rest is various tree crops (the fruit you eat), veggies and direct consumption grains.
Rice cultivation (as it is being practiced at the moment) also has some beneficial effects for wetlands birds. If you care about that sort of thing.
the world is short on cotton right now
Cotton shorts are the best. Soft, breathable fabric.
A good time to corner the market on Egyptian cotton.
But truck crops aren't really where you spend the water. You spend the water growing grains for animals.
How does that square with 79, which says that only 1.6 million of 9 million irrigated acres go into meat/dairy, and lumps various fruits and vegetables into an unitemized remainder of 5 million acres?
the beef (and other meat) industry can move fairly easily elsewhere, and the equivalents in grain and production capacity are just not that hard to make up in other places. There's a lot of bullshit from Cal Ag that suggests that it's irreplaceable, which really isn't true (except for within the agricultural communities, of course).
That'd be fine. I don't have a personal objection to that, but it depends on cheap shipping.
If you look at the giant acreages above (and if you want to know how much water is available to a city by removing it from ag, you can use a rule of thumb of 3ac/acre-year), your policy choices are essentially:
1. Almonds are very lucrative, but not a life necessity. What is the state's policy interest in trading our rivers and cities for world hegemony in almonds?
2. Do we want to base our diet on cheap meat and dairy (that's the alfalfa and silage)? You say it is easy to move, but Texas can't supply it this year. They're culling, for the drought. Which breadbasket do you think will step in? I'm inclined to think that it will drop out completely (or go to chicken or pigs?), and I wouldn't miss it. But I notice that other people put a high importance on meat and may get very politically motivated to block policy decisions that threaten it.
Harrisburg (3.19) and Lancaster (2.09)
Amish people have a wicked low carbon footprint.
Seriously, though, I would have expected Harrisburg to be lower because they get nuclear electricity from Three Mile Island, but maybe that electricity ends up going to Lancaster and Harrisburg gets its juice from coal.
How does that square with 79, which says that only 1.6 million of 9 million irrigated acres go into meat/dairy, and lumps various fruits and vegetables into an unitemized remainder of 5 million acres?
Because those go to direct human consumption, so the water intensity of table crops is vastly lower. Or... you're getting way more food for that water/acreage/sunlight than you are for alfalfa that becomes relatively few calories.
1.6 million of 9 million irrigated acres go into meat/dairy
Oh, also, there are other forage crops, but they're in measley tens of thousands of acres, so I left them in the undifferentiated mass. Sudan grass, alfalfa for seed to grow more alfalfa hay, stuff like that.
OK, but that means "irrigated acres" aren't a very good measure of water use. Can you link to any statistics based on acre-feet or whatever the measure is?
You say it is easy to move
Yes, it is. Alfalfa and other forage crops are one of the most easily-grown agricultural commodities in the world. Obviously transportation costs are a factor, but on a 20 year scale there's no reason to think that the forage crop industry worldwide couldn't adjust to a substantial reduction in the acreage in California given over to forage crops.
That earlier link might just be wrong. This pdf doesn't think Lancaster and Harrisburg are very far apart.
86: Harrisburg is going broke because of some kind of garbage incinerator/power generation/monorail gizmo. Maybe that was as bad for greenhouse gases as it was for municipal finance.
Rice hovers around 500,000 acres
Further to 89, does every irrigated acre "cost" the same amount of water? Part of why rice has the (possibly undeserved) reputation it does is that people (by which I mean me) imagine paddy field wet-rice cultivation, which sure looks like it takes more water than an equivalent surface area of almond trees. I mean, it must, right?
I can confirm that CVS receipts are sometimes longer than the Delaware Aqueduct.
Protip: Fill your prescriptions at the back of the store first, and get the long receipt with all the coupons, then load up on the coupon stuff on the way back to the front of the store, and check out again. Then you don't have to save the coupons and remember to bring them along again.
Irrigated acres is a pretty decent proxy, by the 1:3 rule.
But you are right, I left out the whole concept of water-intensity of food. Which is why I entirely skipped one policy proposal:
Start retiring truck crops lands. I don't think of that as an interesting option because those are the crops that are both lucrative and for direct human consumption in ways that I consider more valuable than almonds.
I think the field crops are the low-hanging fruit, but that's cause I don't care if anyone ever eats another steak again.
If you want to know the big picture water supply for the state, you can find a chart of it here, on page 7. The only piece that could be transferred under an "it'll come from agriculture" model is the unshaded green part on the left (the stippled part is being used multiple times). Notice that that is as big as all of current urban use (the grey part on the inside left). So, yeah. That water's there. But it will come out of a current ag use, which means it will alter the food supply.
2001 was a shitty year to be a wild and scenic river.
on a 20 year scale there's no reason to think that the forage crop industry worldwide couldn't adjust to a substantial reduction in the acreage in California given over to forage crops.
You're still handwaving and I don't get the model. Leave the CAFO's here and ship feed by freight? Move CAFO's to an unused million acres of ag land that could grow a low value crop, then slaughtered meat by freight? Which million ag acres isn't being used for something that people already consuming? What is the next big ag valley? Specifically. How is it being protected from urban needs in the meantime? Maybe warming northern plains will do it.
I mean, this is the core of the bet we have, that you think the food supply is expandable. So maybe we won't settle it.
So, basically, there's more than enough water even under extremely conservative estimates about urban water conservation (i.e., urban conservation efforts don't improve) for a near-doubling of California's urban population, and the major losses would be the almond industry and a forage crop industry that's easy to relocate almost anywhere in the world.
(Obviously, this requires political will to manage the distribution system, but still).
Heh. We're excited for the next update of that chart, since it will have the recent drought. I spent a lot of time with the graphic designers on that chart, btw. If any of you want to propose improvements, we're all ears.
then slaughtered meat by freight?
Have you ever tried to kill a steer with a truck? It ain't pretty.
There are whole mysterious regions known as "the rest of the world" where agricultural productivity gains, including for producing forage crops and beef production, are available. And yes, I'm betting heavily that the food supply is expandable.
Not convinced that the almond industry would take the hit, because they're incredibly well organized. But I lay awake at night pondering questions like, "Would I rather have salmon in the river by my house or the satisfaction of knowing that we crushed another 'stan's fledgling almond industry?".
Yes, that's where the losses would be. But I don't agree with you about the forage crop industry, which is why I think cheap meat is at stake.
And yes, I'm betting heavily that the food supply is expandable.
Yes, with me even. Wasn't it a fancy dinner in 2030 or something?
I believe you owe me dinner at the Harris Ranch Steakhouse if I'm right, and I owe you dinner at some restaurant of your choosing if I'm wrong.
I'll come along! But since I'm dieting, I'll just have the Coke that Megan will owe me by then.
101: You are proposing that we take over vast tracks of Africa and South America.
Should we give them a couple of years to see if we can't convince them to develop an industrial economy capable of providing employment for the hundreds of millions of people currently living on the land in regions where you could get gains in agricultural productivity or should we just send cardboard boxes and corrugated metal sheeting so they can make a shantytown?
paddy field wet-rice cultivation, which sure looks like it takes more water than an equivalent surface area of almond trees. I mean, it must, right?
Maybe not. We've got a study going on that right now, so in a couple years I could tell you with SCIENCE.
Water applied to a crop can run off the ground, can sink into the ground, can evaporate through the leaves, or can transpire through the plant.
Now that rice growers aren't allowed to do flow-through rice any more (not because of water use, but because of pesticide half-lives), it doesn't run out the end of the paddy. It doesn't sink into the paddy, since they're grown in clay ponds. That's why those are rice lands. The study looks at whether the part that breathes through the plant is different for an almond tree (big leafy canopy, remember) and a grass stalk (lots of exposed area in the paddy). But even if it is, we generally don't begrudge a type of crop an extra half a foot of water in the year. If it makes us a tasty food, and the water is efficiently applied, we don't say a thirsty crop shouldn't be grown because it takes 3.8 af/a-y instead of 3.3 af/a-y.
So, the last part is whether there is a lot of evaporation from the ground and the plant surface (that didn't transpire through the plant first), and that is turning out to be surprising. It could go a lot of ways. An widely spaced almond orchard in the full sun where sprinklers wet every surface could evaporate a lot of water per irrigation event. Once the rice canopy fully covers the water surface, it is shaded for months. Maybe that paddy only needs to be topped off a few inches, which is plausibly what the plants are drinking.
The answer to "which takes more water" could be a lot about how well the irrigation is managed, and not so much about the plants themselves.
101: You are proposing that we take over vast tracks of Africa and South America.
NTTAWWT, but China and Arabia are beating us to it.
can evaporate through the leaves
I mean, evaporate off the plant surface and ground without ever going through the plant, because it landed there from the sprinklers.
An widely spaced almond orchard in the full sun where sprinklers wet every surface could evaporate a lot of water per irrigation event.
Can't they use those spike things that run the water directly into the roots?
109: Thanks. I was about to ask about that.
Yep. That's the big savings of drip, that it almost or entirely zeroes out the evap portion of evapotransipiration.
Of course, marmots can steal the water if you put it under the ground.
The real question about California water is, is there enough water to support a growing California population without pissing off the residents of Colorado?
Of course, marmosets can steal the water if you put it on the leaves.
In terms of modern industrial ag, the thing which really freaks me out is the Florida tomato.
It kills me to watch huge overhead sprinklers running at noon at 90F in the Valley. I mutter "they wouldn't waste what they pay for", and the fog rises.
Other evocative thing about rice paddies: much of the CV used to be a winter lake because the soils here naturally become "bathtubs". Someday we should meet up @ the Sausalito Bay Model. Glorious.
almonds are a meat substitute for me, and as good as a tagine with flame raisins.
My neighbors tried to trap a ground hog but got a possum instead. Biologically speaking, they didn't even get the right Order.
Pocket gophers aren't marmots, but they are a threat. They damage canal banks enough for Merced irr to put up owl boxes.
If people would quit comparing us unfavorably to marmots, maybe we'd stop collapsing your canal banks.
||
Paul Krugman continuing to read Unfogged?
|>
The answer to "which takes more water" could be a lot about how well the irrigation is managed, and not so much about the plants themselves.
Intriguing, thanks.
This kind of talk reminds me that I want a garden. However, but I have no land, very little desire to eat vegetables, and hate going outside in the heat.
||
It's a day, so that means yet another GOP politician is paying some rent boy to suck his dick.
|>
125: I'd like a rooftop greenhouse, so I suppose that is a step in the right direction.
I thought the constraint on using Colorado river water for LA was some court case that gave a higher percentage of the water to states like Arizona so they could build mortgage wastelands around needless Phoenix.
Good thing southern California hasn't had any trouble with pointless houses being built in deserts.
51: Good to know! What's the good water subset of southern california? I know Santa Barbara and San Deigo are terrible.
Oh my god Santa Barbara water is so fucking bad. I had no idea I should have been savoring every drop of delicious San Francisco water I drank.
San Francisco water is pretty wonderful. The pure, fresh blood of the freshly stabbed heart of a national treasure is bound to be delicious.
In geological time, neb, it's very fresh. And given how long it took to make Hetch Hetchy, I think that's probably the scale to use.
95
... So, yeah. That water's there. But it will come out of a current ag use, which means it will alter the food supply.
Not very much. Especially at first as farmers getting ridiculously cheap water basically waste a lot of it.
The destruction of Hetch Hetchy killed John Muir, neb. It's no laughing matter.
Yes, Hetch Hetchy is a tragedy. All we did was ruin the fortunes of a bunch of Indian-killing land speculators in the Owens Valley.
John Muir was an Alhambra Valley farmer who killed squirrels.
And it's probably not a bad thing that the Owens Valley doesn't look like Bakersfield. Which makes me think: if we cede the almond industry to Central Asia, can we rename Bakersfield Baku? (Yeah, I know, not actually in a 'stan.)
I give you permission to rename Bakersfield whatever you want.
You have more power than I figured.
Can you give the non-Pittsburgh "burgs" their terminal "h" back? I hate having to remember extra spelling rules.
Alternatively, you could just remove the "burg" from Harrisburg, Wilkinsburg, etc.
141: well, I am a close friend of Paul Krugman's.
142: Gettysburg gets me every time. So annoying, that.
So, I was driving down the Grapevine towards Bakersburg and I thought, it would be a lot nicer if this place looked like the Owens Valley and the Owens Valley looked like this. I don't drive through the Owens Valley very often.
Now that I've mentioned it, I don't think I've been on 395 since something like 1997. I should do something about that, if I have the chance.
I'm going to assume "395" is some kind of drug (reduced tar pot?) and urge you to stay the course.
||
Even though purslane was until recently commonly considered a nuisance plant, a weed, even, and has only lately gained not just respectability but even trendiness, there are no hits of google for "who steals my purslane steals trash".
|>
That has to be a failure of botanists.
147: One of the most beautiful drugs out there. Going north, there's a tough bit with a long steep grade that can be tough on your car - the government has attached warning labels to the packaging - but the high is completely worth it. If you have the time, you can even lace it with some Devil's Postpile.
Especially at first as farmers getting ridiculously cheap water basically waste a lot of it.
A common perception, but twenty years behind the times. The egregious water waste, with the potential for cheap savings, isn't so easy to come by any more.
(If you're going to tell me that "It is too!" then I'm going to need you to get real specific about district, types of crop and irrigation system. No generalizations.)
Oh my god Santa Barbara water is so fucking bad. I had no idea I should have been savoring every drop of delicious San Francisco water I drank.
redfoxtailshrub tried to warn you on her personal blog. Perhaps you simply didn't believe it could be that bad?
Well, I guess it was in the comments, not the main section.
I'd have thought that the 'flow would have gotten used to crummy water in Irvine. Or maybe Don Bren mandated diamond encrusted zillion dollar water filters down there; I guess I haven't had Irvine tap water.
Yeah, water softener is a must have basically from just north of LA until I have no idea as I've never lived there, but I don't remember it being an essential Bay Area thing. In some counties, those giant bags of salt just fly off the shelves.
I remember Long Beach water being pretty bad when I was a kid and visiting relatives, who pretty much all had delivered water for drinking.
Is it Ashland, OR or somewhere in northern California (possibly both) that has those mineral water public water fountains that most people don't like? I actually kind of liked that, after the first taste.
Sigh... now I miss both California and my sense of taste. I thought San Diego water was pretty bad at first, but after a year I stopped noticing it, and since then all water (including Santa Barbara) has tasted the same to me.
142: Can you give the non-Pittsburgh "burgs" their terminal "h" back? I hate having to remember extra spelling rules.
Easier in the US to do it the other way around.
In 1890, the United States Board on Geographic Names decided that the final h was to be dropped in the names of all cities and towns ending in burgh. (Throughout the period 1890-1911 city ordinances and council minutes retained the h.) In 1911, after protest from citizens who wished to preserve the historic spelling, the United States Board on Geographic Names reversed its decision and restored the h to Pittsburgh.
So only Pittsburgh was big enough to stand up to The Man. The old Pennsy train station (now condos) presumably dates from that period as it does not have the "h".
Although Forbes' original letter to Pitt has it:
"Pittsbourgh. 27th Novemr. 1758.
...I have used the freedom of giving your name to Fort Du Quesne, as I hope it was in some measure the being actuated by your spirits that now makes us Masters of the place..."
