5 ms·

The article is about residential consumption. IT doesn't matter that it's "a small fraction of the problem": it's still a problem and we need to tackle all of t

The article is about residential consumption. IT doesn't matter that it's "a small fraction of the problem": it's still a problem and we need to tackle all of them, not just go "well farming's clearly the bad guy, let's ignore everything else until we locked that down". Go after everyone currently making the problem worse. I.e. exactly what we're doing. Plenty of articles to be found about new rules being put in place for industry and agriculture.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
If you reduce residential use to zero (clearly impossible, but what's a thought experiment for anyway?), you've reduced water consumption overall by 7-10%. That means that every single problem you faced before is still with you, despite having performed the impossible. Low hanging fruit, and all that ....
- juve1996 4y ago
  That's a huge percentage. 10%! If that's true then it's a no brainer even if other things are more egregious
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    Do you not understand that this thought experiment reduced residential usage to ZERO ?
    - juve1996 4y ago
      So split it in half. Imagine living in a world where we say "it's pointless! don't do anything, it's all out of your control." That's what we always say. Imagine saying to someone losing weight "don't bother, losing 2 lbs this week is meaningless when you're 100 overweight." Defeatist ideology. I get it, you want to be "right" while the problems continue. A classic problem with engineers - think of everyway it is meaningless or doesn't work, instead of "how can I make this work?" The solutions are not mutually exclusive. If the deficit is 2% then a 2% reduction in household use can be effective. Even if it's 4%.
      - kortilla 4y ago
        > Imagine saying to someone losing weight "don't bother, losing 2 lbs this week is meaningless when you're 100 overweight." You’re not gripping the math here. The correct analogy is, someone is obese and is constantly gaining weight. They are running a 1000 calorie surplus and 100 calories of that comes from breakfast. You’re sitting here arguing about taking 20-30 calories away from breakfast because that’s the only meal you help prepare. It’s nearly completely worthless, doesn’t address the fundamental problem, and you’re convinced it will “help”.
        juve1996 4y ago
        You're not gripping reality here. It always helps. Using less water means we have water for longer. Running at a deficit of 10% vs 5% would make an enormous difference. It would extend the water we have now as we identify ways to mitigate the problem. If it's wasted water it's wasted water. That "slight difference" could be 20 extra years. A drought could end in that time frame. That 100 calories saved could mean 20 lbs, the difference between getting a back surgery or not because it's too dangerous at weights above X (this is real, btw.) It matters. Even if it doesn't seem like it to you.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Reducing agricultural use by 1% would essentially be equivalent to reducing domestic use to zero. Which one do you think we should strive for, given that per-capita domestic use has been dropping for nearly 3 decades in cities across the southwest already, by as much as 33% ?
        kortilla 4y ago
        It’s not a deficit by reducing residential. How are you not getting that?

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago

If you reduce residential use to zero (clearly impossible, but what's a thought experiment for anyway?), you've reduced water consumption overall by 7-10%. That means that every single problem you faced before is still with you, despite having performed the impossible. Low hanging fruit, and all that ....

juve1996 4y ago
That's a huge percentage. 10%! If that's true then it's a no brainer even if other things are more egregious
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  Do you not understand that this thought experiment reduced residential usage to ZERO ?
  - juve1996 4y ago
    So split it in half. Imagine living in a world where we say "it's pointless! don't do anything, it's all out of your control." That's what we always say. Imagine saying to someone losing weight "don't bother, losing 2 lbs this week is meaningless when you're 100 overweight." Defeatist ideology. I get it, you want to be "right" while the problems continue. A classic problem with engineers - think of everyway it is meaningless or doesn't work, instead of "how can I make this work?" The solutions are not mutually exclusive. If the deficit is 2% then a 2% reduction in household use can be effective. Even if it's 4%.
    - kortilla 4y ago
      > Imagine saying to someone losing weight "don't bother, losing 2 lbs this week is meaningless when you're 100 overweight." You’re not gripping the math here. The correct analogy is, someone is obese and is constantly gaining weight. They are running a 1000 calorie surplus and 100 calories of that comes from breakfast. You’re sitting here arguing about taking 20-30 calories away from breakfast because that’s the only meal you help prepare. It’s nearly completely worthless, doesn’t address the fundamental problem, and you’re convinced it will “help”.
      - juve1996 4y ago
        You're not gripping reality here. It always helps. Using less water means we have water for longer. Running at a deficit of 10% vs 5% would make an enormous difference. It would extend the water we have now as we identify ways to mitigate the problem. If it's wasted water it's wasted water. That "slight difference" could be 20 extra years. A drought could end in that time frame. That 100 calories saved could mean 20 lbs, the difference between getting a back surgery or not because it's too dangerous at weights above X (this is real, btw.) It matters. Even if it doesn't seem like it to you.
        PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
        Reducing agricultural use by 1% would essentially be equivalent to reducing domestic use to zero. Which one do you think we should strive for, given that per-capita domestic use has been dropping for nearly 3 decades in cities across the southwest already, by as much as 33% ?
        kortilla 4y ago
        It’s not a deficit by reducing residential. How are you not getting that?