3 ms·

A minuscule amount of household water use is for drinking. The prices should be cranked way up on it before bothering with bottled water.

triceratops 5y ago
Why not crank up the prices on bottled water instead? And if household water usage is minimal, why crank up prices on it at all? The reduction in demand won't make a dent in overall usage and it'll hurt a lot of poor people. EDIT: Never mind, you said usage for drinking. I agree, things like lawns are wasteful. You could probably increase rates on households that consume more water.
- austhrow743 5y ago
  A greater percentage of bottled water is drunk. Drinking being the most critical use of drinkable water. If there's a shortage that's the activity you want to most prioritise over others. I didn't say household water use is minimal, I said a tiny portion of it is used for drinking. People use on average like 200L a day and drink like 3. It's mostly used on showering, gardens, washing machines, toilets, pools, dishwashers. Activities that could generally be cut a fair bit. You crank up the price and my showers are definitely getting shorter, my non-existent garden pool and dishwasher would get removed if they existed, id pay attention to the water level setting on the washing machine instead of just leaving it on high, and only flush for shits. I absolutely do not believe people would eat a huge budget hit to keep these activities nor that they're already running at a much higher rate of water efficiency. Demand would plummet and more water would be available for drinking. Everything hurts poor people more. That's how having a financial buffer works. It's basically the definition. Poor people are people who have few or no resources. You want resources to make life less painful. Cutting water use hurts poor people. Allowing things to get so bad that neighbours have water flow issues would hurt them more. It's not going to be the wealthy that go without in any scenario so "trying to fix it will hurt the poor" is a nothing statement.
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > I didn't say household water use is minimal, I said a tiny portion of it is used for drinking. I think you only read the first part of my comment and missed the edit. Also if we're talking about drinking water, transporting it through pipes is way more efficient than putting it in plastic bottles and trucking it all over the place. Sorry, bottled water is a loser whichever way you look at it, even if it's primarily drunk.

triceratops 5y ago

Why not crank up the prices on bottled water instead? And if household water usage is minimal, why crank up prices on it at all? The reduction in demand won't make a dent in overall usage and it'll hurt a lot of poor people. EDIT: Never mind, you said usage for drinking. I agree, things like lawns are wasteful. You could probably increase rates on households that consume more water.

austhrow743 5y ago
A greater percentage of bottled water is drunk. Drinking being the most critical use of drinkable water. If there's a shortage that's the activity you want to most prioritise over others. I didn't say household water use is minimal, I said a tiny portion of it is used for drinking. People use on average like 200L a day and drink like 3. It's mostly used on showering, gardens, washing machines, toilets, pools, dishwashers. Activities that could generally be cut a fair bit. You crank up the price and my showers are definitely getting shorter, my non-existent garden pool and dishwasher would get removed if they existed, id pay attention to the water level setting on the washing machine instead of just leaving it on high, and only flush for shits. I absolutely do not believe people would eat a huge budget hit to keep these activities nor that they're already running at a much higher rate of water efficiency. Demand would plummet and more water would be available for drinking. Everything hurts poor people more. That's how having a financial buffer works. It's basically the definition. Poor people are people who have few or no resources. You want resources to make life less painful. Cutting water use hurts poor people. Allowing things to get so bad that neighbours have water flow issues would hurt them more. It's not going to be the wealthy that go without in any scenario so "trying to fix it will hurt the poor" is a nothing statement.
- triceratops 5y ago
  > I didn't say household water use is minimal, I said a tiny portion of it is used for drinking. I think you only read the first part of my comment and missed the edit. Also if we're talking about drinking water, transporting it through pipes is way more efficient than putting it in plastic bottles and trucking it all over the place. Sorry, bottled water is a loser whichever way you look at it, even if it's primarily drunk.