4 ms·

This is a silly rebuttal. At a restaurant, I assume they fill quite a few more than 48 glasses of water a day. They only have to print the piece of paper once.

by danjoc 10y ago

This is a silly rebuttal. At a restaurant, I assume they fill quite a few more than 48 glasses of water a day. They only have to print the piece of paper once. Most of your pulp wood comes from the south east. https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/rb/rb_srs171.pdf https://srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/rb/rb_srs171.pdf Georgia and Alabama are #1 and 2 respectively. https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/rb_srs194.pdf https://www.srs.fs.fed.us/pubs/rb/rb_srs194.pdf California most likely imported that paper, so no loss. In fact, worrying about water used in paper production is itself entirely ridiculous. Paper production is better known for it's bad smell and release of toxins to the air and water. You must never have experienced the eye watering stench of a paper mill. http://www.greenpressinitiative.org/documents/StateOfPaperInd.pdf http://www.greenpressinitiative.org/documents/StateOfPaperIn... California has water problems, but that's not attributable to their signage.

jjeaff 10y ago
The point isn't that the paper costs more water to print. The point is that drinking water is such a tiny miniscule part of water usage that it is ridiculous to waste time on it. It's all just for show so politicians can pretend they are doing something when they really should be regulating agricultural usage. The water used to water lawns, fill bathtubs, flush toilets, and shower with is less than 10% of water usage. So the drinking water you didn't drink from your glass is a fraction of a percent of that 10%. You would probably serve the public good more by encouraging them to drink water by putting it out by default. Thus increasing water intake and decreasing sugary drink consumption.
- Ductapemaster 10y ago
  While what you say is factually true, I think the thing you are missing is the psychological effect of putting up such signs and having these policies. It gets people in the mindset that this is serious and we can't ignore it. It's very easy to get caught up in the mob mentality when it comes to personal water usage which leads to, I think, feelings of helplessness and an ignorance when it comes to the larger problems like agricultural water usage. If you aren't encountering these sorts of things on a daily basis, you lose sight of the greater issues. However when the entire community is affected, it changes how people act and feel. People are much more likely to stand up and say something when they are personally affected (either by choice or by situation). Even if only a small percentage of people started caring more about conserving water because of these laws, I think it's a good thing.
  - rz2k 10y ago
    There is the popular argument that it takes many more glasses to wash the glass than it contains, but the people quoting this statistic never talk about bread plates or all the cloth on the table. These aren't impossible things to study, to determine the impact and optimize customs more appropriately, even though it seems likely that a minuscule capital outlay in the California water system would take care of drinking water and restaurant laundry and dish washing indefinitely. The same goes for the psychological impact of the regulation. In popular treatments, any social science related statement is valid simply by being said. "Maybe" forgoing water at the table makes people feel that they've "done their part" and they are then more likely to do no more, and "maybe" they use up all of the energy they have to devote toward water issues. Given that dysphagia is notoriously unexpected, "maybe" the health impact of no water at the table far outweighs the zero-effect it has on water consumption. All of these maybes are terrible ways to determine public policy. Instead, take a look at the relevant literature, and do some valid experiments. I think these bad things get entrenched because people likely to get passionate about the issue aren't likely to explore the math, and people who have an intuitive sense of the numbers, don't want to sound crazy by getting worked up enough about the issues to balance out the people who have good intentions. Sure, it doesn't hurt that much to fine restaurants or make people ask for water, but if doesn't do anything productive then the net effect is still negative.
    - Ductapemaster 10y ago
      I really understand your side of things, and the engineer in me wants the same for everything. However, an imperfect solution that can easily be sold and understood has a far more likely chance of succeeding and producing change. It's the classic balance between marketing and engineering. What can be sold vs what can be produced. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I think as the technical audience we are, we always search for the non-ideal parts of a regulation like this and say "well it could be better if...!". It's a totally valid thought process, and an important one, but it has to be tempered by what is actually possible in the political system.
- danjoc 10y ago
  >It's all just for show so politicians can pretend they are doing something when they really should be regulating agricultural usage. Blaming farmers is scapegoating. California doesn't have a water waste problem. Everyone there is trying to save water. California has a water supply problem. Which is inexcusable for a state with that much coast line. After 30 years of drought, only now are politicians deciding to build desalinization plants. They were perfectly happy to collect taxes and spend it on anything other than infrastructure to support the growing population. But go ahead and "conserve" agricultural water. Watch the top soil and all its nutrients blow out to sea.

by danjoc 10y ago

jjeaff 10y ago

The point isn't that the paper costs more water to print. The point is that drinking water is such a tiny miniscule part of water usage that it is ridiculous to waste time on it. It's all just for show so politicians can pretend they are doing something when they really should be regulating agricultural usage. The water used to water lawns, fill bathtubs, flush toilets, and shower with is less than 10% of water usage. So the drinking water you didn't drink from your glass is a fraction of a percent of that 10%. You would probably serve the public good more by encouraging them to drink water by putting it out by default. Thus increasing water intake and decreasing sugary drink consumption.

Ductapemaster 10y ago
While what you say is factually true, I think the thing you are missing is the psychological effect of putting up such signs and having these policies. It gets people in the mindset that this is serious and we can't ignore it. It's very easy to get caught up in the mob mentality when it comes to personal water usage which leads to, I think, feelings of helplessness and an ignorance when it comes to the larger problems like agricultural water usage. If you aren't encountering these sorts of things on a daily basis, you lose sight of the greater issues. However when the entire community is affected, it changes how people act and feel. People are much more likely to stand up and say something when they are personally affected (either by choice or by situation). Even if only a small percentage of people started caring more about conserving water because of these laws, I think it's a good thing.
- rz2k 10y ago
  There is the popular argument that it takes many more glasses to wash the glass than it contains, but the people quoting this statistic never talk about bread plates or all the cloth on the table. These aren't impossible things to study, to determine the impact and optimize customs more appropriately, even though it seems likely that a minuscule capital outlay in the California water system would take care of drinking water and restaurant laundry and dish washing indefinitely. The same goes for the psychological impact of the regulation. In popular treatments, any social science related statement is valid simply by being said. "Maybe" forgoing water at the table makes people feel that they've "done their part" and they are then more likely to do no more, and "maybe" they use up all of the energy they have to devote toward water issues. Given that dysphagia is notoriously unexpected, "maybe" the health impact of no water at the table far outweighs the zero-effect it has on water consumption. All of these maybes are terrible ways to determine public policy. Instead, take a look at the relevant literature, and do some valid experiments. I think these bad things get entrenched because people likely to get passionate about the issue aren't likely to explore the math, and people who have an intuitive sense of the numbers, don't want to sound crazy by getting worked up enough about the issues to balance out the people who have good intentions. Sure, it doesn't hurt that much to fine restaurants or make people ask for water, but if doesn't do anything productive then the net effect is still negative.
  - Ductapemaster 10y ago
    I really understand your side of things, and the engineer in me wants the same for everything. However, an imperfect solution that can easily be sold and understood has a far more likely chance of succeeding and producing change. It's the classic balance between marketing and engineering. What can be sold vs what can be produced. Sometimes we have to compromise, and I think as the technical audience we are, we always search for the non-ideal parts of a regulation like this and say "well it could be better if...!". It's a totally valid thought process, and an important one, but it has to be tempered by what is actually possible in the political system.
danjoc 10y ago
>It's all just for show so politicians can pretend they are doing something when they really should be regulating agricultural usage. Blaming farmers is scapegoating. California doesn't have a water waste problem. Everyone there is trying to save water. California has a water supply problem. Which is inexcusable for a state with that much coast line. After 30 years of drought, only now are politicians deciding to build desalinization plants. They were perfectly happy to collect taxes and spend it on anything other than infrastructure to support the growing population. But go ahead and "conserve" agricultural water. Watch the top soil and all its nutrients blow out to sea.