3 ms·
> Maybe filling big pools with water just so you can swim around will be seen as disgusting waste. I have seen that being discussed recently, but I wonder: is
by csdvrx 4y ago
> Maybe filling big pools with water just so you can swim around will be seen as disgusting waste.
I have seen that being discussed recently, but I wonder: is it really a significant waste?
How much water does it consume, compared to say having a garden, or a green lawn?
Most pools have filtration systems and rarely require to be fully emptied then refilled.
It seems a class-based attack on people who can own pools, and therefore a dogwhistle, because the same attack could be made on taking a shower every day.
- lazyasciiart 4y agoLess than a lawn, more than a water efficient garden. https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pool-haters-20140913-sto...
- csdvrx 4y agoMost people don't have water efficient gardens, and may refuse the concept. Also, after reading the article: > But some of those agencies are walking back the rules as they make a surprising discovery: Pools aren’t the water wasters some have made them out to be. So I insist: it isn't a large waste. It's a politically motivated move, and therefore a dogwhistle. I believe it would be better to invite pool owners to reduce evaporation by adopting a system to cover the pool, than to shame them: otherwise, we should shame people having a lawn (and people taking a shower, and people wasting electricity on videogames...)
- bambataa 4y agoThat’s interesting about a pool compared to a lawn, though I was thinking about a municipal pool in a UK context (barely anyone has a swimming pool and lawns don’t need watering). Maybe we’ll reach a point where the idea of using that much water for recreation seems overly indulgent?