3 ms·

I've never really understood the outrage over this point either - in my country, at least. I could appreciate the criticism if we were discussing livestock in

I've never really understood the outrage over this point either - in my country, at least. I could appreciate the criticism if we were discussing livestock in the Sahara or Golf courses in Nevada - but when its aimed at grass-reared cows or chickens in Britain, one of the rainiest places on Earth* , it doesn't compute for me. * only a slight exaggeration

coaxial 8y ago
My understanding is that this water needs to be produced, that is taken from a source, processed, cleaned, pumped into pipes, etc. It means that you eventually have to divert and dry up rivers, lakes, or underground reserves to produce the water. This can destroy ecosystems because they're not getting the water anymore. It is possible to use more water than comes it and thus empty the buffer. The other issue is that it displaces water. For example, California has a water problem. Most of the water used to grow vegetables is then shipped away in the produce to far away where they're consumed: the water will never make it back to California. It puts even more strain on an already tapped out water supply. Finally, used water becomes polluted. Some chemicals are very hard to remove from water (some fertilizers, antibiotics, antidepressants...) and so the water is not exactly as it was, it's degraded.
- detritus 8y ago
  Nice answer, thanks - although as I say, I mean more when the argument is raised here in Blighty. Where we're concerned, farm run-off is a problem, but an understood and solvable one. I wonder if, in the future, our trade might increasingly become more of a dualistic swap between Northern cold and wet countries and their water-based product, to more equatorial countries, dripping in solar energy. Atoms for electrons.
- lozenge 8y ago
  Blue water is clean piped water. Green water is water that naturally falls on crops. Both are usually included in the water footprint.

coaxial 8y ago

My understanding is that this water needs to be produced, that is taken from a source, processed, cleaned, pumped into pipes, etc. It means that you eventually have to divert and dry up rivers, lakes, or underground reserves to produce the water. This can destroy ecosystems because they're not getting the water anymore. It is possible to use more water than comes it and thus empty the buffer. The other issue is that it displaces water. For example, California has a water problem. Most of the water used to grow vegetables is then shipped away in the produce to far away where they're consumed: the water will never make it back to California. It puts even more strain on an already tapped out water supply. Finally, used water becomes polluted. Some chemicals are very hard to remove from water (some fertilizers, antibiotics, antidepressants...) and so the water is not exactly as it was, it's degraded.

detritus 8y ago
Nice answer, thanks - although as I say, I mean more when the argument is raised here in Blighty. Where we're concerned, farm run-off is a problem, but an understood and solvable one. I wonder if, in the future, our trade might increasingly become more of a dualistic swap between Northern cold and wet countries and their water-based product, to more equatorial countries, dripping in solar energy. Atoms for electrons.
lozenge 8y ago
Blue water is clean piped water. Green water is water that naturally falls on crops. Both are usually included in the water footprint.