LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse

[smac97]

LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse (written by Caroline Tracey, "the climate justice fellow at High Country News")

Some excerpts:

Quote

In the spring of 1848, shortly after the first Latter-day Saints settled in the Salt Lake Valley in what later became known as the Territory of Utah, a plague of crickets swarmed their crops. As the tale goes, they prayed, and God sent seagulls from the nearby Great Salt Lake, whose existence reminded the settlers of Israel and the Dead Sea. “By thousands and tens of thousands, (the seagulls) began to devour them up ... until the land was cleared of crickets, and our crops were saved,” a church elder recalled in an 1880 sermon. By saving the crops, the gulls saved the thousands of settlers.

Today, the Salt Lake Valley remains the headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. But now it’s the Great Salt Lake that needs saving. The West’s megadrought has shrunk the lake to record-low levels, and toxic metals in the exposed lakebed are creating dangerous dust storms. Much of the water diverted away from the lake is used for alfalfa, Utah’s top cash crop, and many alfalfa farmers are Mormons; the LDS Church itself owns over 5,000 acres of farmland in Salt Lake County alone. But even though the LDS scriptures are rich in environmentally minded teachings, many members who consider themselves environmentalists believe their institution is missing an opportunity to live up to its ideals. 

I think "live up to its ideals" here is code for "coopting principles associated with stewardship of the earth and the Word of Wisdom, and telling the members of the Church to adopt vegetarianism."

Quote

Because early LDS culture revolved around farming, founder Joseph Smith emphasized the importance of careful stewardship. One scripture — which famously bans the consumption of coffee and alcohol — states that meat is “to be used sparingly” and “only in times of winter, or of cold or famine.” Adherence to that directive could help preserve the Great Salt Lake. “The drying of the Great Salt Lake is being driven primarily by growing alfalfa, which isn’t for human consumption directly, but feed for animals,” said Ben Abbott, an ecosystem scientist at Brigham Young University and a board member of the faith-based advocacy organizations LDS Earth Stewardship and Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance (MESA). “If we were to follow that clear guidance in scripture to have a plant-based diet, we wouldn’t be in this situation.”
...
Still, Mormon environmentalists, who see reverence for the Earth as essential to spirituality, say they are seeing increasing willingness to embrace environmentalism. Organizations such as LDS Earth Stewardship, founded in 2012, and MESA, which branched off to focus on political advocacy, are part of this change. “Our doctrine is very supportive of conservation, but we felt like the membership and the culture of the church have not been,” said Marc Coles-Ritchie, an ecologist and MESA board chair. But now, he said, “there is a shift and a greater awareness and willingness to try to address environmental problems.” In addition to the Great Salt Lake, MESA has been involved in activism regarding air pollution, climate change and the conservation of Utah Lake. 

"Clear guidance in scripture to have a plant-based diet."  Hmm.

I have some questions about whether going vegetarian would have that big an impact (broadly, not just in Utah).  Regarding the Great Salt Lake, the culprit for it drying up appears to be primarily the increasing population, not "climate change."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The world's saltwater lakes are drying up and scientists have long suspected climate change was to blame. Now, a study reveals another potential culprit: thirsty humans. According to more than 170 years of water records and a comparison of how much water flows in and out of the lake, consumption of freshwater is likely to blame for the shrinking of Utah's Great Salt Lake—and of similar lakes around the world.
...

Previously, many researchers thought the decline—here and in other saltwater lakes—was caused by wet and dry cycles related to climate change, says Wayne Wurtsbaugh, a limnologist at Utah State University in Logan.

To test that notion, Wurtsbaugh and his colleagues recreated the climate around the Great Salt Lake for 170 years, based on historical precipitation, stream level records, and tree ring data. The records showed that precipitation and temperature patterns had hardly fluctuated during the period, meaning that the amount of water flowing into the lake from nearby streams is likely the same today as it was in 1847. Next, the team did some hydrological accounting, creating what's known as a water balance. They compared the amount of water flowing into the lake from rivers, precipitation, and groundwater to the amount evaporating out of the lake; if the lake stayed the same size, the water in and out should balance. It didn't.

Why? Every year, people living in the region (which includes rapidly growing Salt Lake City) divert 3.3 trillion liters of water, not from the lake itself, but from the handful of streams feeding it. With climate staying relatively stable, the team concluded that humans are triggering the decline by consuming streamwater before it replenishes the lake, they reported last week in Nature Geoscience. Although some of that water returns to the lake (for example, by soaking into the ground after irrigation), Wurtsbaugh says the new calculations show that the overall amount fell 39% from 2003 to 2012. This, in addition to long-term stream records, suggests that climate change isn't the culprit.

And here:

Quote

The climate crisis, which has increased average temperatures in northern Utah by 4F since the early 1900s, is further imperilling the lake, fuelling more severe droughts and heatwaves. But studies suggest that only about 9% of the lake’s decline due to evaporation and reduced runoff can be blamed on climate change.

A legacy of water overuse is the main threat to the largest saltwater lake in the western hemisphere, and huge water diversions to irrigate vast operations to grow alfalfa and hay are no longer sustainable in Utah, Abbott said, nor are lush lawns in cities and suburbs.

And here: Don't let vegetarian environmentalists shame you for eating meat. Science is on your side.

Quote

Around the world, we’re being told to stop eating meat. Headlines, think tanks and activists all ask us to change our diet to combat climate change. 

The Washington D.C.-based World Resource Institute suggests that resource management will require Americans to cut their average consumption of beef by about 40%, and scientists from the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom just claimed that “a typical summer barbecue for four people releases more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than an 80 mile car journey." One of the professors points out that “the production of a 100g medium-sized beef burger releases enough greenhouses gases to fill more than 60 balloons.”

The scientists propose a solution: we all need to replace our burgers with “veggie sausages,” swap the cheese for half an onion and replace the butter with “vegetable spread”. Voila: half the emissions. 

I’m a vegetarian myself for ethical reasons, but the climate scientists’ barbecue prescription leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth — and it is not just the vegetable spread.
...
After years of failed global attempts to cut carbon emissions meaningfully, some activists are propagating the idea that everyone on the planet should go vegetarian or even vegan.
...
It’s interesting to note that even environmentalists themselves are loathe to make the major lifestyle changes that would be required to avoid all meat products. A recent survey found that most of the UK Green Party’s elected representatives are in fact meat-eaters, with considerable disagreement on how important vegetarianism is in combating climate change, ranging from those who believe that it’s the biggest personal contribution anyone can make, to more sensible politicians who see veganism is a fad.
...

We’re often told that going vegetarian is the biggest thing that any of us could do, with headlines telling us: "Cut your carbon footprint in half by going vegetarian." Statements like that are misleading for two reasons.

First, that cut isn’t to our entire emissions — just those from food. That means Four-fifths of emissions are ignored, according to an analysis of emission from the European Union, which means the impact is actually five-times lower.

Second, the more optimistic figures about how much of your emissions you can cut are based not just on a vegetarian diet, but on an entirely vegan one where we avoid every single animal product altogether.

A systematic peer-review of studies of going vegetarian shows that a non-meat diet will likely reduce an individual’s emissions by the equivalent of nearly 1,200 lbs carbon dioxide. For the average person in the industrialized world, that means an emissions cut of just 4.3%.

This still overstates the effect, because it ignores the well-established "rebound effect." Vegetarian diets are slightly cheaper, and saved money will likely be spent on other goods and services that cause extra greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S., vegetarians save at least $750 on their food budgets every year. That extra spending will cause more carbon dioxide emissions, cancelling about half the saved carbon emissions from going vegetarian.

It's not you, it's big business:You can't save the climate by going vegan. Corporate polluters must be held accountable.

In a first world setting, the reality is that going entirely vegetarian for the rest of your life means you reduce your emissions by about 2%, according to a study of the environmental impact of Swedish vegetarians. 

To put this into context: either you could go vegetarian for the rest of your life, or you could reduce your emissions by the exact same amount by spending a little more than $3 a year using the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, the first mandatory market-based program in the United States covering several states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Given all of this, it seems downright mean-spirited of the University of Manchester scientists to try to shame people for having a summer barbecue.

It would be a better use of their time to push for more spending on development of artificial meat, which is showing much greater promise than the idea that all the planet’s meat-eaters will develop a taste for vegan alternatives. They should also push for global research and development into green energy.

So it looks like "going vegetarian" isn't a panacea.  It looks like we in Utah need to reduce residential water usage and agricultural water diversions.  That will be hard on the farmers, but the negative consequences of a dried-up Great Salt Lake look to be even harder.

I live in Utah County, so I have a vested interest in this.  

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the "religious" bent in this story?  Do you think the Church ought to address the drying up of the Great Salt Lake?  Do you think the Church should encourage reduced or no meat consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

[JarMan]

The Great Salt Lake isn't drying up. This is easy to demonstrate. But this fact interferes with the apocalypse porn peddler agenda.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the "religious" bent in this story?  Do you think the Church ought to address the drying up of the Great Salt Lake?  Do you think the Church should encourage reduced or no meat consumption?

1) Yes, I think it would be good for the church to address the lake, just as it has addressed and invested time and money into developing Salt Lake City into a more habitable and thriving community.  More tourists, more visitors, more people moving to Utah = more interest in the church and conversions.  Toxic dust storms are not necessarily an attractive option for many thinking about Utah.  Plus this is the church's home.  We should care for it and be stewards over our home. That should matter.  

2) Yes, I do think the church should live up to the principles taught in the Word of Wisdom and encourage sparing meat consumption, and only in times of winter or famine.  Not in a testing our faith kind of way that tea and coffee has become though.  Primarily for reasons of health, but also for environmental impact.  I don't think it will make much of a dent on the Great Salt Lake if latter-day Saints all went vegetarian, as the alfalfa grown in Utah feeds animals that feed the rest of the world.

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

[pogi]

32 minutes ago, JarMan said:

This is easy to demonstrate. 

By all means...

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, JarMan said:

But this fact interferes with the apocalypse porn peddler agenda.

Yes, Brad Wilson, Mike Lee, Tim Hawkes, Blake Moore, John Barrasso, Joel Ferry, and other notable republicans working to combat water issues with the lake, you are all a bunch of apocalyptic porn peddlers! 

https://house.utleg.gov/wp-content/uploads/Great-Salt-Lake-Summit-2022-4.pdf

When Mike Lee, Mitt Romney, and Joe Biden are all on the same page passing bipartisan bills for the Great Salt Lake, you know that your accusations are absurd.  

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse (written by Caroline Tracey, "the climate justice fellow at High Country News")

Some excerpts:

I think "live up to its ideals" here is code for "coopting principles associated with stewardship of the earth and the Word of Wisdom, and telling the members of the Church to adopt vegetarianism."

"Clear guidance in scripture to have a plant-based diet."  Hmm.

I have some questions about whether going vegetarian would have that big an impact (broadly, not just in Utah).  Regarding the Great Salt Lake, the culprit for it drying up appears to be primarily the increasing population, not "climate change."  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here: Don't let vegetarian environmentalists shame you for eating meat. Science is on your side.

So it looks like "going vegetarian" isn't a panacea.  It looks like we in Utah need to reduce residential water usage and agricultural water diversions.  That will be hard on the farmers, but the negative consequences of a dried-up Great Salt Lake look to be even harder.

I live in Utah County, so I have a vested interest in this.  

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the "religious" bent in this story?  Do you think the Church ought to address the drying up of the Great Salt Lake?  Do you think the Church should encourage reduced or no meat consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

Most of the water in the state goes to agriculture, if I understand correctly.  As far as that means the state’s water is being mostly used to feed and produce livestock that we eat, I guess I can see where they are coming from.

But I would be incredibly surprised if the majority of meat that is eaten in the state is raised here. If it’s not, then Utah members’ becoming vegetarians wouldn’t seem to impact agriculture in northern Utah very much if at all.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse (written by Caroline Tracey, "the climate justice fellow at High Country News")

Some excerpts:

I think "live up to its ideals" here is code for "coopting principles associated with stewardship of the earth and the Word of Wisdom, and telling the members of the Church to adopt vegetarianism."

"Clear guidance in scripture to have a plant-based diet."  Hmm.

I have some questions about whether going vegetarian would have that big an impact (broadly, not just in Utah).  Regarding the Great Salt Lake, the culprit for it drying up appears to be primarily the increasing population, not "climate change."  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here: Don't let vegetarian environmentalists shame you for eating meat. Science is on your side.

So it looks like "going vegetarian" isn't a panacea.  It looks like we in Utah need to reduce residential water usage and agricultural water diversions.  That will be hard on the farmers, but the negative consequences of a dried-up Great Salt Lake look to be even harder.

I live in Utah County, so I have a vested interest in this.  

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the "religious" bent in this story?  Do you think the Church ought to address the drying up of the Great Salt Lake?  Do you think the Church should encourage reduced or no meat consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

I would think our Church leaders are looking at the Great Salt Lake evaporation issue; I know BYU researchers have reported and published on it. I don't think they are focusing on or would advocate one single approach -- there is public policy (rules and taxation), economic and market measures (only part of which are agricultural and real estate), and cultural (inasmuch as the first two interventions affect it). "Ought" is a strong word for me to use, but it would be very reasonable to me that they have been looking at it. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The Great Salt Lake isn't drying up. This is easy to demonstrate.

Please do.

[Amulek]

Quote

“The drying of the Great Salt Lake is being driven primarily by growing alfalfa, which isn’t for human consumption directly, but feed for animals,” said Ben Abbott, an ecosystem scientist at Brigham Young University and a board member of the faith-based advocacy organizations LDS Earth Stewardship and Mormon Environmental Stewardship Alliance (MESA). “If we were to follow that clear guidance in scripture to have a plant-based diet, we wouldn’t be in this situation.”

Here's the thing: I like a lot of what environmentalists and conservationists are ultimately all about, but statements like this just don't make any sense to me.

I mean, even if every single person in the state of Utah (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) were to become vegetarian overnight, wouldn't alfalfa still be a cash crop? It isn't like people are just going to stop raising livestock because people in Utah decided to stop eating burgers and started consuming twice as much fry sauce.

Plus, once everyone in the state has switched over to a completely plant-based diet, who's to say that such a major shift in market demand wouldn't just incentivize all of those alfalfa farmers to switch over to another, similarly water intensive crop like wheat instead?

Seriously, I honestly just don't get comments like these. Like, at all.

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I think "live up to its ideals" here is code for "coopting principles associated with stewardship of the earth and the Word of Wisdom, and telling the members of the Church to adopt vegetarianism."

Co-opting the plain wording of the Word of Wisdom?

THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!

Edited January 25, 2023 by The Nehor

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Here's the thing: I like a lot of what environmentalists and conservationists are ultimately all about, but statements like this just don't make any sense to me.

I mean, even if every single person in the state of Utah (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) were to become vegetarian overnight, wouldn't alfalfa still be a cash crop? It isn't like people are just going to stop raising livestock because people in Utah decided to stop eating burgers and started consuming twice as much fry sauce.

Plus, once everyone in the state has switched over to a completely plant-based diet, who's to say that such a major shift in market demand wouldn't just incentivize all of those alfalfa farmers to switch over to another, similarly water intensive crop like wheat instead?

Seriously, I honestly just don't get comments like these. Like, at all.

 

I agree that it is a strange comment.  I wonder if they are thinking big picture, with the "we" being humans in general.   That is the only way this makes sense.  Maybe they are saying that if we want the world to change and have an impact globally, we need to start by doing our part and try to have influence on the rest of the world.  But the Great Salt Lake will be long gone at this current rate before that kind of change will happen, so it is still an odd comment.  But we could start by following our own scriptural guidelines for health, then perhaps not be so ambitious as the single largest cattle farm owner/operator on planet earth.  Perhaps we can start by addressing that seeming conflict of interest and get our own house in order, then perhaps we can have more influence on others.  

Edited January 25, 2023 by pogi

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Here's the thing: I like a lot of what environmentalists and conservationists are ultimately all about, but statements like this just don't make any sense to me.

I mean, even if every single person in the state of Utah (Mormon and non-Mormon alike) were to become vegetarian overnight, wouldn't alfalfa still be a cash crop? It isn't like people are just going to stop raising livestock because people in Utah decided to stop eating burgers and started consuming twice as much fry sauce.

Plus, once everyone in the state has switched over to a completely plant-based diet, who's to say that such a major shift in market demand wouldn't just incentivize all of those alfalfa farmers to switch over to another, similarly water intensive crop like wheat instead?

Seriously, I honestly just don't get comments like these. Like, at all.

 

In term of water to food volume produced even stuff like wheat is more efficient than alfalfa which you need a lot of to create steaks. There is a reason that humans use herbivores that eat stuff people don’t eat to create their meat. This is why cows and pigs are so common. They eat grass and other “trash” vegetation humans can’t process or get nutrition from. Then we switched to a new process of creating meat and now we are growing crops specifically for food animals. It is not really a step in the right direction. When you have serious water shortages that should be the first thing to go.

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

wouldn't just incentivize all of those alfalfa farmers to switch over to another, similarly water intensive crop like wheat instead?

Seems like I remember reading somewhere that wheat uses like half the water that alfalfa does.  That's just something in the back of my mind, so it could be wrong.

[The Nehor]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Seems like I remember reading somewhere that wheat uses like half the water that alfalfa does.  That's just something in the back of my mind, so it could be wrong.

It is not really true. Alfalfa is usually less ‘thirsty’ than wheat. The problem with alfalfa is that we grow so much of it. When you are short on water growing forage crops for animal consumption is not a good use of the limited water supply. Alfalfa takes less water than wheat per acre but produces MUCH less consumable calories per acre.

Once we switched from grazing animals to feeding them food animals became a source of inefficiency in food production. Government subsidies have also artificially kept meat prices low so there is more demand than the market would normally face which means more forage crops have to be grown. It is a mess.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

So it looks like "going vegetarian" isn't a panacea. 

You crack me up.  I am not a vegetarian but you make this conclusion based on ONE article from USA Today?🤣

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the "religious" bent in this story? 

Latter day Saint environmentalists are just as welcome to spin their church doctrine to favor their positions.  Seems like people from all positions like to do this.

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

Do you think the Church ought to address the drying up of the Great Salt Lake?

If they care about Salt Lake City and Utah and plan on staying there for a while I would say they ought to. From what I have read it seem problematic. Of course the  lake has risen and fallen for its entire existence.  I don't know if this is the worst its been since there have been a substantial number of humans living there.  I do agree that the major issue is Utah has to many people for its water resources. So if the church leaders care about Utah sure they should be concerned and involved.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  Do you think the Church should encourage reduced or no meat consumption?

No.  I think that is a personal decision.

[LoudmouthMormon]

Anyone know if Utah is getting good news similar to Colorado?  We're all dancing in the streets here. (And slipping on the ice and falling into snow drifts.)

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyone know if Utah is getting good news similar to Colorado?  We're all dancing in the streets here. (And slipping on the ice and falling into snow drifts.)

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?UT

[JarMan]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

Yes, Brad Wilson, Mike Lee, Tim Hawkes, Blake Moore, John Barrasso, Joel Ferry, and other notable republicans working to combat water issues with the lake, you are all a bunch of apocalyptic porn peddlers! 

https://house.utleg.gov/wp-content/uploads/Great-Salt-Lake-Summit-2022-4.pdf

When Mike Lee, Mitt Romney, and Joe Biden are all on the same page passing bipartisan bills for the Great Salt Lake, you know that your accusations are absurd.  

I'm talking about the media. I subscribe to a news feed that delivers news articles on the Great Salt Lake and it's crazy the amount of fear the media is spreading on this issue. Here are a few headlines to get the gyst:

The Guardian: ‘Last nail in the coffin’: Utah’s Great Salt Lake on verge of collapse

CNN: Great Salt Lake will disappear in 5 years without massive ‘emergency rescue,’ scientists say

New York Times: As the Great Salt Lake Dries Up, Utah Faces an ‘Environmental Nuclear Bomb’

Smithsonian Magazine: Drying Great Salt Lake Could Expose Millions to Toxic Arsenic-Laced Dust

There are easily dozens or hundreds more. It's an endless echo chamber repeating the same absurdities everyone else keeps saying. So, let me put some perspective on the situation.

It's true that the Great Salt Lake reached its lowest level since the arrival of the pioneers of about 4189 feet above sea level in 2022. And it's true that it was up around 4211 as recently as the mid 1980's. This 22 feet drop in elevation corresponds with a decrease in volume from 30 million to 7 million acre-feet and a decrease in area of 1,500,000 acres to 600,000 acres. And it corresponds with a population increase in Utah from about 1.6 million to 3.3 million. Conclusion: population growth is causing the lake to shrink.

This conclusion is incorrect. The lake fluctuations over the last 40 years or so are completely climate-driven. The 1980's saw a pluvial period that is one of the wettest in the last several thousand years. And the millenial drought which has persisted since about 2000 is the driest period in at least the last 1500 years. Put these periods back to back and we see an enormous swing in lake levels. But the lake has been fluctuation wildly over the last 13,000 years or so since it receded from Lake Bonneville. It has been much higher than in the 1980's and much lower than it is right now. It will continue to fluctuate unpredictably because that's what the weather and climate do and the lake level is just a response to changes in weather and climate. It's not scientifically responsible to pick a high point, then pick a low point, and then proclaim that this is a trend that is going to cause armageddon. If we measured temperature on Jan 1 and it was 20 deg F, then we measure it again on Jul 1 and it was 104 deg F it would obviously be ridiculous to claim that the current trend is indicating the world was going to heat up and boil the oceans away. We understand that temperature is cyclical and that we need to look at much longer period to see if there are significant trends.

There's more to support this position than just a discussion of natural fluctuations, though. It turns out that over the last 40 years as population has been growing, water use in the Great Salt Lake Basin has been pretty steady or even slightly decreasing. As cities replace farmland, water consumption goes down because it takes less water to grow people than it does alfalfa. There is one industry, though, that has significantly increased its water consumption and that is the mineral extractors from the Great Salt Lake who have grown their operations significantly. Their increase in use has almost offset the decrease in use that has occurred as farmland turns urban. Another impact to the lake that most people don't know about is the railroad causeway that separates the north arm from the south arm. The impact to the lake from this causeway is actually more than the combined impact of all municipal and industrial use in the basin combined (not including the mineral extractors).

The article in the OP does correctly identify alfalfa as the biggest single water use. Here's a breakdown of the impact to the lake by human impact type: Agriculture - 55%, Municipal and Industrial - 8%, Managed Wetlands - 12%, Mineral Extraction - 12%, Railroad Causeway - 13%. Out of the agriculture piece, alfalfa is the biggest chunk since it tends to be the most profitable crop.

Because of human use, the Great Salt Lake is smaller today than it would be otherwise. But we can quantify this human impact and it turns out that it's about 40%. This means that there is 40% less water flowing into the lake on average each year than there would be without humans. Well, actually that's not quite true because 37% of the human impact happens within the lake. This is the managed wetlands, mineral extraction, and causeway components. So it's really about 30% less water that flows to the lake. This is not insignificant. There is definitely an impact. Today, and for at least the last 40 years, we've had a 60% (or 70%) lake instead of a 100% lake. But we don't have a 0% lake and we're not approaching it. That would require more than doubling all current impacts, which just isn't going to happen. Water use will continue to go down as population continues to grow.

The lake situation is not ideal, but is it a crisis? Less than forty years ago we were in a "crisis" because the lake was flooding. Very little has changed during that time with respect to human impacts. The best course of action here is to implement responsible conservation measures so we can help that 60% (or 70%) number continue to creep up over time. But by and large the lake is gonna do what the lake is gonna do. We don't need wholesale changes in lifestyle or culture or radical government intervention. I think that's what a good chunk of the apocalypse porn peddlers want, though. Oh, and they want to generate clicks. 💰 As for the politicians, they're just responding to their freaked out constituents who are generating all the clicks and I can't really blame them for it.

Edited January 25, 2023 by JarMan

[BlueDreams]

18 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyone know if Utah is getting good news similar to Colorado?  We're all dancing in the streets here. (And slipping on the ice and falling into snow drifts.)

Yes! Apparently we're doing better than you guys: 

 

https://www.ksl.com/weather/snowpack

 

It doesn't mean we're out of the woods by a long shot. Our worst effected areas of drought have reduced in intensity, but because of the severe water deficit, the overwhelming majority of the state is still under drought conditions of some sort. Still need to conserve. Still need to shift how we use water in general, particularly in agriculture. Still in a precarious position. Just less dire than it was a year ago. But still likely a long term problem if the overarching trend stays mostly drier than before for the long term. And most climate science has the moutain/southwest predicted to get drier due to climate change. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 25, 2023 by BlueDreams

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Anyone know if Utah is getting good news similar to Colorado?  We're all dancing in the streets here. (And slipping on the ice and falling into snow drifts.)

Just saw this:

https://www.ksl.com/article/50564767/wet-winter-leads-to-flooding-at-bonneville-salt-flats

The most flooding they have ever seen at the bonneville salt-flats.  There are some pretty amazing pics from it.

[pogi]

 

50 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The lake fluctuations over the last 40 years or so are completely climate-driven.

Water use issues play a role too.  

50 minutes ago, JarMan said:

 It has been much higher than in the 1980's and much lower than it is right now.

How do you know it has been lower if this is the lowest level on record?

50 minutes ago, JarMan said:

It will continue to fluctuate unpredictably because that's what the weather and climate do and the lake level is just a response to changes in weather and climate.

"Unpredictably" does seem rather concerning to me.   If it doesn't change in 5 years, then the lake will be gone if we don't intervene in other ways now.  Cross your fingers! 

50 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Because of human use, the Great Salt Lake is smaller today than it would be otherwise. But we can quantify this human impact and it turns out that it's about 40%. This means that there is 40% less water flowing into the lake on average each year than there would be without humans. Well, actually that's not quite true because 37% of the human impact happens within the lake. This is the managed wetlands, mineral extraction, and causeway components. So it's really about 30% less water that flows to the lake. This is not insignificant. There is definitely an impact. Today, and for at least the last 40 years, we've had a 60% (or 70%) lake instead of a 100% lake. But we don't have a 0% lake and we're not approaching it. That would require more than doubling all current impacts, which just isn't going to happen. Water use will continue to go down as population continues to grow.

Seems like that with the climate changes that are perhaps making the biggest impact, regulation to address human use would make sense.  We don't know how long this drought will go on for with climate change it could be more long-term.  I don't know about you, but I don't want my kids breathing in toxic dust along with the toxic inversions.  Call it fear-porn if you want, but that is what is and will continue to happen if we don't do something to address the issue.

50 minutes ago, JarMan said:

The lake situation is not ideal, but is it a crisis? Less than forty years ago we were in a "crisis" because the lake was flooding. Very little has changed during that time with respect to human impacts. The best course of action here is to implement responsible conservation measures so we can help that 60% (or 70%) number continue to creep up over time. But by and large the lake is gonna do what the lake is gonna do. We don't need wholesale changes in lifestyle or culture or radical government intervention. I think that's what a good chunk of the apocalypse porn peddlers want, though. Oh, and they want to generate clicks. 💰 As for the politicians, they're just responding to their freaked out constituents who are generating all the clicks and I can't really blame them for it.

Yes, they like clicks, but they are also reporting mostly what science and politicians are telling them, but with some flair.   Sometimes "responsible conservation measures" can't happen without government intervention, lifestyle changes, and without generating concern. 

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

The Guardian: ‘Last nail in the coffin’: Utah’s Great Salt Lake on verge of collapse

CNN: Great Salt Lake will disappear in 5 years without massive ‘emergency rescue,’ scientists say

"Scientist say".  At the current rate of annual depletion, it will be gone in 5 years.  That is true.  It is just wishful thinking to hope that the climate and drought are going to just go away in that time.  It could get worse.  Seems like a reasonable policy to treat this like an emergency as we can't predict future climate issues so well.     

1 hour ago, JarMan said:

New York Times: As the Great Salt Lake Dries Up, Utah Faces an ‘Environmental Nuclear Bomb’

Smithsonian Magazine: Drying Great Salt Lake Could Expose Millions to Toxic Arsenic-Laced Dust

 It already is exposing people to this toxic dust.  It will only get worse if it continues to dry.   It will create all sorts of other environmental concerns.

 

[JarMan]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Water use issues play a role too.  

Not in the way you think. Human use has gone down. That means we have partially offset the result of hydrologic causes.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

How do you know it has been lower if this is the lowest level on record?

We have tree rings going back thousands of years, which that are a good proxy for hydrologic conditions.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Unpredictably" does seem rather concerning to me.   If it doesn't change in 5 years, then the lake will be gone if we don't intervene in other ways now.  Cross your fingers! 

Unpredictable is the name of the game when it comes to hydrology. Nothing anybody can do about that. And the lake will not be gone if five years. This is easy to show, as well.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Seems like that with the climate changes that are perhaps making the biggest impact, regulation to address human use would make sense.  We don't know how long this drought will go on for with climate change it could be more long-term.  I don't know about you, but I don't want my kids breathing in toxic dust along with the toxic inversions.  Call it fear-porn if you want, but that is what is and will continue to happen if we don't do something to address the issue.

You're making an assumption about climate change that isn't supported by the science. It turns out that climate change in the Great Salt Lake Basin is causing more water in the lake. Temperatures have been increasing, that is easy to see. But reductions in wind and increased cloud cover have more than offset the increases in temperature. This has caused overall evaporation to go down from the lake surface and overall evaporation to decrease from basin vegetation.

If we were all going to die from toxic dust it would have happened a long time ago. In 1987 the surface area of the lake was about 3,300 square miles. When it receded it left behind minerals, including arsenic. The lake is currently at about 1,000 square miles. That's 2,300 square miles of exposed lakebed. But having thousands of square miles of exposed lakebed is inevitable because of the lake's natural fluctuations. It's impossible to keep the lake full enough to cover 3,300 square miles or even anything close to it. Luckily for us (I live a mile away from the lake) when the lake evaporates, the minerals it leaves behind form a thin crust that prevents the dust from becoming airborne. . . mostly. There is something like 6% of the dry lakebed that doesn't have this crust. If we were gonna have dangerous levels of toxic dust, we would have had it already.

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yes, they like clicks, but they are also reporting mostly what science and politicians are telling them, but with some flair.   Sometimes "responsible conservation measures" can't happen without government intervention, lifestyle changes, and without generating concern. 

"Scientist say".  At the current rate of annual depletion, it will be gone in 5 years.  That is true.  It is just wishful thinking to hope that the climate and drought are going to just go away in that time.  It could get worse.  Seems like a reasonable policy to treat this like an emergency as we can't predict future climate issues so well.     

 It already is exposing people to this toxic dust.  It will only get worse if it continues to dry.   It will create all sorts of other environmental concerns.

Some of the "scientists" who recently made the news with the claim that the lake will go dry in five years are, sadly for me, from my alma mater BYU. This report was not a serious hydrologic study done by serious hydrologists publishing in a serious, peer-reviewed hydrologic journal. They were mostly a hodge-podge of special interests and university social scientists with obviously no training in the field. They absolutely whiffed on the hydrology. My earlier post described taking two points on the lake hydrograph and forecasting that line into the future. That's what these so-called scientists did to come up with the five years. The problem is that this method is not even in the neighborhood of how to project lake levels. As someone who has done extensive modeling on lake levels in Utah, particularly the Great Salt Lake, I can't even tell you how laughable this is.

Edited January 26, 2023 by JarMan

[JarMan]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is not really true. Alfalfa is usually less ‘thirsty’ than wheat. The problem with alfalfa is that we grow so much of it. When you are short on water growing forage crops for animal consumption is not a good use of the limited water supply. Alfalfa takes less water than wheat per acre but produces MUCH less consumable calories per acre.

Once we switched from grazing animals to feeding them food animals became a source of inefficiency in food production. Government subsidies have also artificially kept meat prices low so there is more demand than the market would normally face which means more forage crops have to be grown. It is a mess.

Alfalfa consumes more water than wheat. Along the Wasatch Front alfalfa depletes about 2.7 feet of water per year, and wheat is around 1.8 feet. Alfalfa also produces more calories than wheat. Farmers and scientists are experimenting with different grains that provide an advantage over alfalfa as far as calories produced per unit of water. This is something that could be implemented on a wider scale.

I agree that government subsidies have distorted market signals when it comes to agriculture. This is a nineteenth century practice implemented to settle the west and it still continues because farmers keep holding their hands out.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

LDS environmentalists want their institution to address the Great Salt Lake’s collapse (written by Caroline Tracey, "the climate justice fellow at High Country News")

Some excerpts:

I think "live up to its ideals" here is code for "coopting principles associated with stewardship of the earth and the Word of Wisdom, and telling the members of the Church to adopt vegetarianism."

"Clear guidance in scripture to have a plant-based diet."  Hmm.

I have some questions about whether going vegetarian would have that big an impact (broadly, not just in Utah).  Regarding the Great Salt Lake, the culprit for it drying up appears to be primarily the increasing population, not "climate change."  See, e.g., here:

And here:

And here: Don't let vegetarian environmentalists shame you for eating meat. Science is on your side.

Pet peeve alert: a plant based diet is NOT solely a vegetarian diet. I repeat. A plant-based diet is not the equivalent of a vegan or a vegetarian diet. It can include both of these, but it's basically every diet that is majority plants (thus plant-based). Technically both me and my husband eat plant based diets. I eat eggs and some dairy. My husband eats meat. But he eats it rarely, usually when we're out at a restaurant or at family's....so 1-4 times a month. 

Becoming a vegan isn't necessary to have a big impact. But eating less meat will be necessary for sustainability IMHO. But individual decisions on it are extremely ineffective for the level of change we need. It would need to be more systemic changes that would generally mean we'd stop propping up the meat industry to make its cost abnormally low. I'm not saying that will happen in the next couple years since as soon as you mention it, people tend to jump to hysterics about banning barbques and taking away hamburgers. It wouldn't, it would just reduce meat consumption to healthier levels. what's more likely to happen is clipping it when issues like the Salt Lake begin to be too big to ignore

And yeah, the WoW is basically describing a plant based diet: grains, fruit, herbs, and veggies are mainstays. Meat is a rare and respected gift when needed 

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Anyway, what are your thoughts on the "religious" bent in this story?  Do you think the Church ought to address the drying up of the Great Salt Lake?  Do you think the Church should encourage reduced or no meat consumption?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I think to some degree they are starting to talk about conservation practices or at least principles more openly and often try to do so on their land to some degree. But I do think it wouldn't hurt to talk more about specifics and encourage at the very least individual conscientiousness around eating meat. Some of these efforts could be subtle, like serving less meat at LDS institutions. Others more direct. Who knows, they might get more direct as systems start to fail that prop up the meat industry

 

with luv,

BD