Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Water

How to Find Out if You Use Too Much Water

By Tara Lohan, AlterNet. Posted March 22, 2008.


What's your water footprint? Add up your water use with the H2O Calculator.
Advertisement

These days the environmental buzz is all about carbon. People, businesses and even countries are talking about their "carbon footprint" -- or the impact of their activities on the environment in terms of the greenhouse gases produced (and measured in CO2). As we evolve in our consciousness about how our consumption affects the world around us, and what we can do to live equitably within the bounds of our planet's resources, we need to consider much more than just carbon.

A next step is water. Many of us in the developed world rarely give it a thought. We turn on our drinking and shower taps, and clean water comes out. We flush our toilets and magically, the waste disappears. We turn on our sprinklers and green lawns abound. We run our dishwaters and washing machines and fill up our pools and hot tubs, often without thought.

As our climate crisis becomes a part of daily consciousness, our energy future will need to match our water future. The two are inextricably linked.

And today, on World Water Day, it is the perfect time to ask: How much water do we use?

A new website, H2O Conserve, allows you to actually calculate how much water you use so you can begin to assess your "water footprint." As their site explains, "Your water footprint takes into account not only the water used in your home, but also the water that is used to produce the food you choose to eat and the products you buy. Your water footprint also includes other factors, such as the water used to cool the power plants that provide your electricity and the water that is saved when you recycle. You may not drink, feel or see this water, but it makes up the large majority of your water footprint."

On a global scale, water consumption varies greatly. It is estimated that, in order to survive, a person needs 4 to 5 gallons of water per day -- this includes water for drinking, cooking and sanitation. The average water use per person per day, just for domestic purposes in the United States and Canada is actually around 150 gallons. In Europe, things are different. With roughly the same standard of living, the average resident of the United Kingdom uses 31 gallons per person per day. And of course, in the developing world, the numbers are a stark contrast. The average person living in Africa uses 5 gallons per person per day, which means that in many areas, people are getting even less water than that -- and often not enough to survive. Globally, a staggering 25,000 people die daily from lack of access to clean water.

While the water consumption rates for the United States seem high in comparison, the amount of water we all use is actually even higher. These statistics consider only the basic domestic water use, but the H2O Calculator gives a more holistic view of what impact we have on our water resources. This includes where our energy comes from, the products we buy, how much we drive, whether we use bottled water, and the kinds of food we eat.

The website also goes a step further -- once you know your shocking number (and yes, you'll probably be shocked by the actual number of gallons you use in a day because it's more like 1,000 and not 150) -- there is a ton of information that helps you figure out how to cut that footprint down. Some things are definitely lifestyle choices, like how far you drive and the vehicle you use to get you there. Or the kind of food you eat -- eating lower on the food chain, less meat and dairy, saves a lot more water.

Some of the tips are also pricey and geared more towards homeowners, like when you're in the market for new appliances, choose Energy Star-rated ones or get a rain sensor for your automatic sprinklers on your lawn (or better yet, use xeriscaping). Of course, replacing toilets, showerheads and faucets with low-flow/flush versions save a lot of water and aren't too expensive. Likewise, setting up rain-harvesting or graywater systems to reuse water (although not for drinking) is a great way to cut back on water consumption without shelling out a ton of money. After all, do we really need to be using potable water to flush our toilets and water our lawns?

But there are also lots of tips for people that may be renters or apartment dwellers and aren't able to change their appliances or install solar panels. Here's a few: Recycle and reuse products in your home; buy whole instead of processed foods; only run the dishwasher when full, and if washing by hand, don't leave the water running; save water you use for boiling, and let it cool and then use it for your plants; be speedy in the shower; and the list goes on. A lot of it is common sense or what you may have heard from your parents or grandparents, but much of us could probably use a reminder.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: water, conservation, water shortage, world water day, water footprint

Tara Lohan is a managing editor at AlterNet.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Anyone want to talk
Posted by: underledge on Mar 22, 2008 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
about overpopulation? If you have 100 chickens and only enough water resources for 20, you have a problem.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anyone want to talk Posted by: Sparks56
» RE: Anyone want to talk Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: Anyone want to talk Posted by: donl51
Population!
Posted by: Sparks56 on Mar 22, 2008 4:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is plenty of water. There is plenty of oil, plenty of air, plenty of everything we need. The problem is there are TOO MANY PEOPLE!!!!! Why is no one talking about population?! There is no way, none, that the Earth can support the numbers that exist today, yet population keeps growing. In the 70's a book was published called "The Population Bomb". It got the dates wrong, but the principle was spot on; the earth can support only so many people and we are quickly approaching that number. (For my money, we've passed it.) Reducing our various "footprints" buys a little time, the only permanent solution is reducing the number of human footpints.
From the 70's eco-movement; "If your cause does not include population control, your cause is a lost cause."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Population! Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: Population! Posted by: donl51
» RE: Ask a franciscan Posted by: bitsfick
» RE: Population! Posted by: Sparks56
Population Pressure
Posted by: ankhet on Mar 22, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too many people is exactly the problem. Too many people who want too much stuff. It's time to start fining breeders, but some countries are handing out bonuses instead. The trouble is, capitalism is essentially a giant pyramid scheme that needs perpetual growth to keep working.
We're doomed beause we won't learn. In Haiti, they're eating mud because there's no food and they're still reproducing. No, this is not a racial comment - moronic behaviour comes in all colours. Our world is headed in the same direction - China is halfway there already and they're still calling it "growth"/ progress.
Two things really p*ss me off these days: the yellow "Baby on Board" tag in cars and anyone carrying a water bottle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Population Pressure Posted by: donl51
If one bottle of beer = 30 gal of water.
Posted by: bitsfick on Mar 22, 2008 7:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the water foot print of 1 shot of Jim Beam? What is the water foot print for a pack of cigarettes? A friend of mine, died young. He died of cancer, you never saw him without a cigarette in one hand and a beer in the other. What is the water footprint for the medical care of all the people like him who abuse cigarettes, and alcohol? While we are on the subject, what is the carbon footprint for all of the above? The human race is going to have to make some serious changes if it is going to survive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Sun Evaporates Sea Water And It Falls as Rain On The Land
Posted by: opmoc on Mar 22, 2008 8:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It then seeps through the earth, refills water tables and forms streams and rivers.

It goes round and round and round. You can't destroy the stuff.

If you live in an area where it rains a lot - it simply does not matter how many gallons of water it takes to make a bottle of beer - because all of it gets returned - even the water in the beer after you have drunk it. Sure it needs to be cleaned up - and that's what sewage plants do.

The water in the Thames serves an exceedingly large number of people. It is continually recycled throughout all the communities the Thames flows past (and surrounding areas). Some of the water will be drunk mumerous times by numerous different people - before it finally ends up in the North Sea. Yet the Thames is now exceedingly clean.

So a lot of this article is nonsense. It all depends where you live. If you live in an area where it doesn't rain sufficiently to support the population and what they do with the water - then sure - you eventually will be in big trouble - particularly if you continue to deplete the water table. The only solution is to move where it rains more than an enough. If you haven't got the financial capability to move - as is true in many parts of the third world then you will die.

In many parts of the world the problem is not lack of water - but lack of clean water. The "rich" west could help solve this problem relatively easily and cheaply but consistently fails to do so - for reasons of policy. The rich west actually wants the poorest people in the world to die - because it thinks its a sensible way to control population levels. The environmental movement is totally complicit in this. Read Eco-Imperialism - Green Power. Black Death

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Tragedy of The Commons
Posted by: Prairie Waif on Mar 22, 2008 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My water footprint fits in with the Canadian average:1499, mostly due to food growing, cleaning, processing.

I remembered a lesson from my Physical Geography Hydrology class at Brandon University. It is a theory called The Tragedy of The Commons.
This speaks to both population and how people want to use resources to their best advantage despite the overall detriment to those using the "commons."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
************************************************
**"The Tragedy of the Commons is a type of social trap, often economic, that involves a conflict over finite resources between individual interests and the common good. The term derives originally from a comparison noticed by William Forster Lloyd with medieval village land holding in his 1833 book on population.

At the beginning of his essay, Hardin draws attention to problems that cannot be solved by technical means (i.e., as distinct from those with solutions that require "a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality"). Hardin contends that this class of problems includes many of those raised by human population growth and the use of the Earth's natural resources.

To make the case for "no technical solutions", Hardin notes the limits placed on the availability of energy (and material resources) on Earth, and also the consequences of these limits for "quality of life". To maximize population, one needs to minimize resources spent on anything other than simple survival, and vice versa. Consequently, he concludes that there is no foreseeable technical solution to increasing both human populations and their standard of living on a finite planet.

From this point, Hardin switches to non-technical or resource management solutions to population and resource problems. As a means of illustrating these, he introduces a hypothetical example of a pasture shared by local herders. The herders are assumed to wish to maximize their yield, and so will increase their herd size whenever possible. The utility of each additional animal has both a positive and negative component:

* Positive: the herder receives all of the proceeds from each additional animal.
* Negative: the pasture is slightly degraded by each additional animal.

Crucially, the division of these costs and benefits is unequal: the individual herder gains all of the advantage, but the disadvantage is shared among all herders using the pasture. Consequently, for an individual herder weighing these, the rational course of action is to add an extra animal. And another, and another. However, since all herders reach the same rational conclusion, overgrazing and degradation of the pasture is its long-term fate. Nonetheless, the rational response for an individual remains the same at every stage, since the gain is always greater to each herder than the individual share of the distributed cost. The overgrazing cost here is an example of an externality.

Because this sequence of events follows predictably from the behaviour of the individuals concerned, Hardin describes it as a tragedy: "the remorseless working of things" (in the sense described by the philosopher Alfred Whitehead).

In the course of his essay, Hardin develops the theme, drawing in examples of latter day "commons", such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, fish stocks, National Parks, advertising, and even parking meters. The example of fish stocks had led some to call this the "tragedy of the fishers".[5] A major theme running throughout the essay is the growth of human populations, with the Earth's resources
article continues at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Tragedy of The Commons Posted by: bornxeyed
the bible
Posted by: wittler youth on Mar 22, 2008 9:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You forgot 'GOD'..want us to breed..lol, breed our way back to a poison stone age this time around.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the bible Posted by: donl51
North East Solution
Posted by: Roverton on Mar 22, 2008 1:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Seattle has cut back on the bottled stuff. If it's good enough for Starbucks, it's good enough for City Hall.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vegetarianism is the solution
Posted by: vasumurti on Mar 22, 2008 8:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Half the water consumed in the U. S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water are also used to wash away their excrement. In fact, U. S. livestock produce twenty times as much excrement as does the entire human population, creating sewage which is ten to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause ten times more water pollution than does the U. S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.

Meat producers are the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contributing to half the water pollution in the United States. The water that goes into a thousand-pound steer could float a destroyer. It takes twenty-five gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but twenty-five hundred gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized by the American taxpayers, hamburger meat would be $35 per pound!

The burden of subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion annually. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water. Every tax dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income. Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and populations twice as large as the present.

Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and 85 percent of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil we've lost, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of deforestation in the U. S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing livestock feed.

One-third of all raw materials in the U. S. are consumed by the livestock industry and it takes three times as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than it does to produce plant foods. A report on the energy crisis in Scientific American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are on a collision course."

Nor can fish provide any help here. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western-style diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

reuse vs. potable?
Posted by: lamar on Mar 22, 2008 11:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was surprised that one of the questions wasn't whether you have a hookup for reuse water for irrigation. While I don't do any irrigation, it struck me as odd that there was no differentiation between reuse water and potable water.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"For water is the source of all life. . ."
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 23, 2008 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Baseline survival intake is about 1 gallon a day of clean water. If you have to hike for days across the desert, you will need a gallon of water per day. For a description of what that's like, see National Geographic.

2) In modern industrialized society, water goes mainly to agriculture and to industry. Less goes to living and working spaces, and to lawns, gardens and golf courses. A 50% reduction in personal water use at home would have no major effect on net national fresh water use. This is why you need government regulations to deal with these large-scale problems.

3) Each gallon of gasoline produced from crude oil uses and pollutes many gallons of water. For some research: Water usage in refineries in New Mexico:

New Mexico refineries presently use from 10.6 to 39.1 gallons of water per barrel of crude oil and generate 6.5 to 25.4 gallons of wastewater per barrel of crude. . . .The cost to clean up existing ponds which were assumed to be hazardous waste TSDFs was also evaluated.Costs for removal and proper disposal of the refinery sludges could be as high as $600,000/acre of pond.

4) Desalination schemes are slightly plausible if powered by solar PV and solar thermal, but the current scheme in the U.S. is to use natural gas and grid-supplied electricity (largely coal-generated) to desalinate water - turning fuel into water.

The option chosen by the Russians and Egypt and Saudi Arabia is to invest in nuclear-powered floating desalination rigs - great. Let's stick a couple of those in the San Francisco Bay, shall we? Desalination may be a last-resort option for basic drinking water supplies - but for industrial agriculture, it's not possible.

(Solar desalination is very doable - see the Solar Desal Cube, portable, capable of purifying 3500 gallons of water a day.)

Lastly, there's a kind of general problem with the whole "personal responsibility" theme, in that it was picked up by the PR industry as a way to excuse the criminal behavior of some corporations and industry associations (as in the tobacco issue). Major water savings can be made in agriculture and industry (the areas that use the most), but it will require hefty up-front investment and renovation - and that means lower short-term profit margins, meaning dissatisfied investors, meaning the CEO gets fired and replaced with a cost-cutting, bonus-earning hero.

That's why we need blanket government regulations to deal with these basic survival issues of water and energy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]