4 ms·

I don't really see the point of this argument, isn't this true for basically _all_ water usage?

bluGill 7y ago
Exactly. Water is used, but not lost. Except for cases where more is drawn from an aquifer than replaces it (a very real problem, but not one that quantity of water used in beef touches in a useful way), the water is just passed on down the line. Thus the whole argument doesn't make sense. It is a big number that vegetarians like though because they can make it sound bad while the more complex truth is too complex to understand (and doesn't support their bias as well).
- jerf 7y ago
  I find understanding this sort of thing is much easier to look at from an energy perspective than a materials perspective. Water is "used" when entropy is dumped into it that makes it less suitable for usage. It takes energy to turn it back into useful pure water. Nature provides a lot of energy that turns it back into pure water, but it may not do it as quickly as we use it, or where we want it, or when we want it. And sometimes the problem is that it dumps fresh water on us far in excess of our desires. It's still not a perfect perspective, because the exact nature of what's in the water can be an issue (i.e., urine is "bad" for most uses, but may fertilize well, etc.). But it's at least closer to the truth than the mindset that water is poured into a cow and disappears from the universe entirely. If goodness and pureness was a one-time consumable item that way, the way some people seem to conceive of it, the ecosystem would have run out of it billions of years ago. It is a renewable resource.
sp332 7y ago
Not really. If you put water on plants, most of it evaporates. Example: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-fashion-blog/2014/oct/01/cotton-production-linked-to-images-of-the-dried-up-aral-sea-basin https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable...
- Jedd 7y ago
  That still very much fits the 'it's not gone' definition. Evaporated water will come down again as precipitation. Your example (cotton) is a truly horrendous crop / textile, but that story sounds like a combination of very poor crop choices for the environment and spectacularly poor resource management. Also, if you apply water at or beneath the ground/mulch layer, overnight, then your loss to evaporation is very low. Similarly, even suspended drip irrigation (think grapes or other trellis grown plants) versus mist or sprinkler systems. Lawns, coming back to TFA, are almost exclusively irrigated by sprinklers, and because they're primarily residential (ie. no automated irrigation systems) they're often watered by hand during the day -- so incur a high evaporation loss.
- sp332 7y ago
  Late edit: sorry DrRobinson, I lost track of the thread and wasn't really disagreeing with you.

Exactly. Water is used, but not lost. Except for cases where more is drawn from an aquifer than replaces it (a very real problem, but not one that quantity of water used in beef touches in a useful way), the water is just passed on down the line. Thus the whole argument doesn't make sense. It is a big number that vegetarians like though because they can make it sound bad while the more complex truth is too complex to understand (and doesn't support their bias as well).

jerf 7y ago
I find understanding this sort of thing is much easier to look at from an energy perspective than a materials perspective. Water is "used" when entropy is dumped into it that makes it less suitable for usage. It takes energy to turn it back into useful pure water. Nature provides a lot of energy that turns it back into pure water, but it may not do it as quickly as we use it, or where we want it, or when we want it. And sometimes the problem is that it dumps fresh water on us far in excess of our desires. It's still not a perfect perspective, because the exact nature of what's in the water can be an issue (i.e., urine is "bad" for most uses, but may fertilize well, etc.). But it's at least closer to the truth than the mindset that water is poured into a cow and disappears from the universe entirely. If goodness and pureness was a one-time consumable item that way, the way some people seem to conceive of it, the ecosystem would have run out of it billions of years ago. It is a renewable resource.

sp332 7y ago

Not really. If you put water on plants, most of it evaporates. Example: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable-fashion-blog/2014/oct/01/cotton-production-linked-to-images-of-the-dried-up-aral-sea-basin https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/sustainable...

Jedd 7y ago
That still very much fits the 'it's not gone' definition. Evaporated water will come down again as precipitation. Your example (cotton) is a truly horrendous crop / textile, but that story sounds like a combination of very poor crop choices for the environment and spectacularly poor resource management. Also, if you apply water at or beneath the ground/mulch layer, overnight, then your loss to evaporation is very low. Similarly, even suspended drip irrigation (think grapes or other trellis grown plants) versus mist or sprinkler systems. Lawns, coming back to TFA, are almost exclusively irrigated by sprinklers, and because they're primarily residential (ie. no automated irrigation systems) they're often watered by hand during the day -- so incur a high evaporation loss.
sp332 7y ago
Late edit: sorry DrRobinson, I lost track of the thread and wasn't really disagreeing with you.