4 ms·
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 k
by 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...