(no title)
scatterhead | 2 years ago
The second sentence explains why the nationality matters:
> Some farms are foreign-owned and are shipping the crop to Saudi Arabia, where it's illegal to grow because it takes too much water.
In this globalistic world it's worth considering that stringent policy in one area of the world can be worked around by taking advantage of lax policy in another area of the world. It's not xenophobic to talk about that. It would be ignorant not to.
slg|2 years ago
Saudi owned farms circumventing Saudi laws is an issue for the people of Saudi Arabia. If it is legal in the US, it should be legal for everyone. If you want it to be illegal in the US, it should be illegal for everyone. The owners are and should be irrelevant.
scatterhead|2 years ago
That's a strawman. No one is arguing against that.
How a resource is being used by foreign corporations is an important input to policy decisions.
We're at a point in today's society where the mere suggestion that nationality might be relevant is met with accusations of xenophobia. It's the same way with race or sex.
lisasays|2 years ago
In geopolitics (especially as applied to critical resources) -- and that's what this comes down to, really; not simply greed -- this never the case, of course.
It's always relevant who the owners of are - and what kinds of influence led them to being able to put down stakes where they have.
You might say it's the name of the game, in fact.
morelisp|2 years ago
It is reasonable for a region to decide its natural resources should benefit the people who live there above people who do not live there.
scatterhead|2 years ago