11 ms·

Generally, it's a good article, but it lands on a sore point for me with many environmentalist articles - treating "water use" as if water disappears when used.

by beat 7y ago

Generally, it's a good article, but it lands on a sore point for me with many environmentalist articles - treating "water use" as if water disappears when used. Generally, water doesn't cease to exist - it just gets temporarily stored.

JofArnold 7y ago
Whilst that’s true, it’s not how it’s experienced. Take for instance Mexico City which has been using up its groundwater at a tremendous rate; sure, the water hasn’t been destroyed in the chemical or atomic sense, but the lack of it locally is very real.
- beat 7y ago
  I agree, but that makes it a much different sort of argument.
ghostly_s 7y ago
The type of water use we're talking here - saturating it with detergents, dyes, etc. -- makes it unpotable, at which point it is, best-case, going through a very expensive treatment process before it can be returned to the water cycle, which you can be certain the manufacturers are not footing the full cost of; or more likely in the places where garment manufacturers set up, is just being dumped into the environment, destroying ecosystems and the health of those unlucky enough to be stuck with its fallout. So you're right, water can't be "used up", but the amount of it being used in industrial processes is a very good proxy for environmental harm.
- petre 7y ago
  Very expensive? You just let it sit and evaporate.
  - foobar1962 7y ago
    And after the water evaporates, how is the concentrated chemical sludge treated? Does it get removed for safe disposal? Does it get left to sink down and contaminate the ground water? That’s the problem.
- beat 7y ago
  Yes, but. That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation does. The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy.
  - ghostly_s 7y ago
    > That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation does. Actually, it does.[1] > The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy. The main reason you see all water use lumped together is because the water users do not collect or share figures on discrete uses. Environmentalists would love to have that data. 1. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-resources/water-quality-of-runoff-from-beef-cattle-feedlots https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-res...

by beat 7y ago

JofArnold 7y ago

Whilst that’s true, it’s not how it’s experienced. Take for instance Mexico City which has been using up its groundwater at a tremendous rate; sure, the water hasn’t been destroyed in the chemical or atomic sense, but the lack of it locally is very real.

beat 7y ago
I agree, but that makes it a much different sort of argument.

ghostly_s 7y ago

The type of water use we're talking here - saturating it with detergents, dyes, etc. -- makes it unpotable, at which point it is, best-case, going through a very expensive treatment process before it can be returned to the water cycle, which you can be certain the manufacturers are not footing the full cost of; or more likely in the places where garment manufacturers set up, is just being dumped into the environment, destroying ecosystems and the health of those unlucky enough to be stuck with its fallout. So you're right, water can't be "used up", but the amount of it being used in industrial processes is a very good proxy for environmental harm.

petre 7y ago
Very expensive? You just let it sit and evaporate.
- foobar1962 7y ago
  And after the water evaporates, how is the concentrated chemical sludge treated? Does it get removed for safe disposal? Does it get left to sink down and contaminate the ground water? That’s the problem.
beat 7y ago
Yes, but. That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation does. The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy.
- ghostly_s 7y ago
  > That same argument gets used for, say, raising cattle, where the water used is quickly cycled out as organics (mostly urine). It doesn't produce the kind of toxic waste that something like a large fabric dyeing operation does. Actually, it does.[1] > The argument also doesn't distinguish what the water is used for. Even things like cooling get written off as water "consumed". It's an appeal to emotion, and reeks of fallacy. The main reason you see all water use lumped together is because the water users do not collect or share figures on discrete uses. Environmentalists would love to have that data. 1. https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-resources/water-quality-of-runoff-from-beef-cattle-feedlots https://www.ag.ndsu.edu/publications/environment-natural-res...