On 15/09/15 22:32, Milos Rancic wrote:
> For the last few years I am thinking about this issue, and as I didn't see
> anybody talking about that, I think we should start a kind of low level
> discussion, as it doesn't require immediate action.
> From what I read, Bay Area is not particularly endangered (although it
> could be in the future). Even so, I am sure all WMF employees have enough
> money to buy bottled water. I know, of course, they are not in the same
> position as Google or Facebook employees, but I think the whole story is
> not about water safety of our headquarters.
> It's about responsibility. WMF shouldn't spend resources unreasonably if it
> doesn't have to. And it's not just about possible "fund for water", which
> could become a standard for every Bay Area employer, but also about the
> environmental harm of the attitude of keeping yourself in hostile place if
> not necessary.

California is not a "hostile place" in terms of water resources. And
according to [1], no long-term trend is evident in the historical
record, and preciptation is forecast to drop by only 10% through to
the late 21st century.

California has by far the cleanest power in the US, and could easily
afford to desalinate its way out of a drought if it chose to do so.
Although it may be more efficient to use groundwater recharge as a
multi-year reservoir instead of allowing farmers to make unrestricted
withdrawals as is currently the case.

-- Tim Starling

[1] Our Changing Climate 2012 Vulnerability & Adaptation to the
Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California - Brochure

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to