The problem repeatedly seems to come down to a decision of “cost now, money saved later” versus “money saved now, much bigger cost later”.
The choice always seems to be the latter
The problem repeatedly seems to come down to a decision of “cost now, money saved later” versus “money saved now, much bigger cost later”.
The choice always seems to be the latter
someguy3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
I highly doubt in this scenario. Water is not that expensive even shipped. Building anything let alone a city? Fucking insane. Think about every house business and industrial builiding. It’s unreal.
NotSteve_@piefed.ca 3 weeks ago
There won’t be an explicit decision to up and leave to create a new city, don’t get me wrong. What I expect is that these cities will continue to make the cheapest, politically convenient attempts at solving the issue which will only lead to it being more and more expensive to live there comfortably. People will naturally leave to other neighbouring cities or towns that are in less of a dire situation
Not right now but as it becomes scarce in the area, that cost will go up exponentially. As the cost rises, people who can’t afford it will start leaving - lowering the incentive to ship water out that way (a
smaller market). That further pushes up the cost forcing more people to leave until it snowballs into a ghost city
someguy3@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No. Shit. Sherlock.
Do you understand that you recycle water? Set up the system like Vegas and your toilet flush today is your drinking water tomorrow. It doesn’t go poof into the ether JFC. That means you only have to ship in the losses JFC. Piping in water losses is fucking easyyyyyyy. Relocating millions of people is harrrrddd. JFC you people have no idea how things work. Water prices will go up yes, quite a lot when you consider it’s close to free right now. It’s not going to be a expontially increasing graph until the end of time like you’re talking.