3 ms·
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 di
by 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 agoReducing 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 agoIt’s not a deficit by reducing residential. How are you not getting that?