8 ms·

> noted that it would be harder to reach its internal target if its calculations included “secondary” use—water used in generating the electricity to power its

• triceratops 1y ago
  > are we going to include the water used to grow the almonds you ate? Beef too. It uses the same amount of water but people eat 30x as much annually.
  • macinjosh 1y ago
    Beef is more nutrient efficient though and has better macros for human consumption. It has 4 times more protein, less fat, and no carbs. Seems to me at least Americans could do well to eat more beef and less products created from processed almonds mixed with refined vegetable oils and sugar. Beef and milk are harvested ready to eat. Vegan substitutes are all highly processed. Processed food consumption is associated with greater cancer and diabetes risk.
    • WolfeReader 1y ago
      Factory-farmed beef is the worst source of pollution in the food industry. We definitely need less of that.
      • mikkupikku 1y ago
        "Factory-farmed beef" doesn't even exist. All cows get raised in fields for their first 12-18 months. The ""factory-farming"" is just a feed lot they get taken to for 3-6 months to eat grain before slaughter. If you want to talk about pigs or chickens, that's an entirely different story. Those do get raised full life cycle in factory-like industrial facilities. But those aren't cows.
        • wyre 1y ago
          You're going to have to cite strong sources or else this is either heavy cope or straight-up denial. It is inconceivable that American's consume as much beef as they do, yet production has been able to scale without resorting to factory-farming. Every other commodity food is factory farmed. It's asinine to think beef is immune to that.
          • mikkupikku 1y ago
            Bro, get out of the city or just look at a map, America is absolutely enormous. There is no shortage of land to let cows graze on. Feedlots for cattle aren't even necessary at all, they're only used to increase profit. What's really asinine is that you have such strong opinions about a subject you know nothing about and demand that other people do research for you.
            • wyre 1y ago
              Cope harder, bro. Show me sources. Cattle is a massive industry and it should not be hard to find sources proving me wrong. Calves live on pasture for the first few months, but are then transferred to backgrounding farms, that are technically still pastures, but are fed a highly supplemented diet and have less room to roam. STFU about me not knowing what I'm talking about. Feedlots are absolutely necessary at the levels that American's consume beef. It might look like there isn't a shortage of pasture for cows, but the truth is there is not enough land to transition to 100% grass-fed with American's level of consumption. [1] [1] https://grazingfacts.com/land-use https://grazingfacts.com/land-use
              • mikkupikku 1y ago
                > Calves live on pasture for the first few months, but are then transferred to backgrounding farms, that are technically still pastures, but are fed a highly supplemented diet and have less room to roam Glad to see you finally looked it up and saw that I was right. Your attempt to save face is amusing though. From "factory farmed" to "the pastures are a bit small" is funny. And no, feed lots aren't necessary. They make beef cheaper by making cows bigger, therefore making the industry more profitable, but if you did away with them Americans would still be eating enough beef to make urban vegan weenies seethe.
    • gruez 1y ago
      Pork and chicken have better feed conversion ratios and water consumption
      • macinjosh 1y ago
        ok!
      • bryanlarsen 1y ago
        Cattle water consumption should be meaningless. If a cow is drinking water from a surface water source and breathing/sweating/peeing it out in a pasture, that's the same process that would be happening if humans didn't exist. It isn't meaningless due to industrial farming. Chickens and pigs are even more likely to be industrially farmed than cattle are. If we lowered our meat consumption by about 90% then we wouldn't need to industrially farm meat and the 10% would be much more ecologically justifiable. Then the problem is that the soy we've replaced our meat with is industrially farmed...
        • hansvm 1y ago
          The problem is the assumption that cows (and other similarly intensive animals) would exist in the same quantity. You'd expect something like 5x less cow-like biomass without people intervening.
        • triceratops 1y ago
          If humans didn't farm them there'd be far fewer cows alive and drinking water.
          • bryanlarsen 1y ago
            And far more bison. Not the same, but similar.
    • triceratops 1y ago
      > It has 4 times more protein, less fat, and no carbs Compared to an almond? Who the fuck eats almond steaks? It's a nonsensical comparison. If you want less fat and more protein per calorie, chicken beats beef. Chicken also has a lower water and carbon footprint. > Vegan substitutes are all highly processed Beans aren't "highly processed". Learn to cook and you'll understand that there are options besides processed food for vegetarians and vegans.
    • Faelon 1y ago
      Not all processed foods are created equal. Almost all of the elevated health risk from processed foods comes from processed meats and sugary drinks. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/well/eat/ultraprocessed-foods-harmful-health.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f... Whole grain breads are ultra-processed, and I don't think many are arguing against those. Beef has absolutely devastating effects on human health including elevated cancer risk, diabetes risk, dramatically higher incidences of heart disease (the greatest killer of Americans). Plant-based substitutes are scientifically shown to lead to better outcomes. Better yet, soy based whole foods are excellent for human health, contrary to the bro-science talking points. Turns out, beans are good for you! https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/the-bottom-line-on-ultra-processed-plant-based-meat/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/the-bottom-line-on-ultra-proce... https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/health-benefits-soy https://www.uclahealth.org/news/article/health-benefits-soy This book is science, front to back, cementing the idea that animal products are not ideal for human health. https://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/1642503045 https://www.amazon.com/Food-Revolution-Your-Diet-World/dp/16...
    • AstroBen 1y ago
      I highly recommend you read up on the actual research of what you're talking about. It points to the exact opposite of basically every sentence you wrote
  • rtaylorgarlock 1y ago
    And cheaper cow production, focused on grain-feeding, uses even more water than grass feeding; after spending a month in Switzerland, it's wild to see how addicted we Americans are to cheap beef.
    • vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
      We need our protein or we will die immediately.
      • triceratops 1y ago
        Do we need beef protein? What's wrong with chicken or eggs or beans? And also, what? You'll die if you don't eat meat today? Because that's what "immediately" means. That's news to all the world's vegetarians.
        • artursapek 1y ago
          Yeah people who eat beef are actually healthier than vegetarians.
          • triceratops 1y ago
            Define "healthier".
          • litenboll 1y ago
            Source?
          • ben_w 1y ago
            The difference in life expectancy between the USA (where beef is heavily consumed) and India (where you may get lynched on suspicion of eating it) is 78.39 - 72 = 6.39 years at birth. Most people attribute this difference to the GDP/capita ($89,600 vs. $12,132 PPP) or the number of doctors per capita (36.082 vs. 7.265 per 10k), not the diet.
  • xboxnolifes 1y ago
    Only 30x? Y'all eat a lot of almonds.
• Faelon 1y ago
  Tangential to the point, I think we should be careful about the almond talking point. Insofar as it is used for milk, almond milk uses almost half as much water as dairy milk, uses 1/18 the land and emits 1/5 the amount of carbon. As food, it is eaten in such a vanishingly small quantity compared to other water-hungry foods (meat) as to be insignificant. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/environmental-footprint-milks https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/environmental-footprint-m...
  • avalys 1y ago
    “Almond milk” is not milk. You know what else is less carbon-intensive than milk? Candy corn. But that is also _not milk_, and so equally irrelevant!
    • sixo 1y ago
      Almond milk is an economic substitute for dairy milk, making the comparison appropriate. No need to be dense about it.
    • zemvpferreira 1y ago
      I don’t drink ‘almond beverage’ but given the amount of uses it has substituting milk (and the amount of people that accept them) it seems like a very relevant comparison. Maybe I’m not sofisticated enough but I’m yet to see a candy corn mlik latte be ordered.
      • throwaway-42808 1y ago
        But that's such a good idea though
      • jodrellblank 1y ago
        > I’m yet to see a candy corn mlik latte be ordered. Not exactly the same, but can I interest you in a caramel-waffle-oat-milk latte? https://mightydrinks.com/cdn/shop/files/Barista-CW.png https://mightydrinks.com/cdn/shop/files/Barista-CW.png
• elygre 1y ago
  It sounds like we know the water usage for growing almonds. It feels reasonable that we should have the same detail of information for data centers.
• jasonlotito 1y ago
  We can. We do. It depends on what you are trying to count. If you think there is a single number that will answer everything, no. Are you going to include all the water ancestors used? After all, without that water, I wouldn't be here. You seem to think there is only one way to count. That's completely wrong. The important thing is whether you are clear about what you are counting and why. Your comment is odd. But let me be the first to give you permission to count things how you want. Just make sure you explain the criteria and reasoning. Have a good day.
  • imgabe 1y ago
    There is an honest way to count and that is to count the water directly used by the person or process in question. There are many other ways to count to make big scary number for clickbait article. I suppose we could also count all the water used by data center employees to take showers as "data center water usage" but that is dishonest. Those are people who exist and they are going to take showers whether they work at the data center or not. Likewise, the power company is going to generate electricity regardless of whether a data center is there or not. The power company has various means of generating electricity available which use more or less water. The amount of water used in generating electricity is attributed to the power company, not the data center.
    • iepathos 1y ago
      Kind of surprised I have to point this out. Power companies do not generate the same amount of power regardless of whether that power would be consumed on their grid or not. They increase generation based on demand. Whether that power comes from high water consumption generation is based on location which determines which power sources are available in the local grid. A major part of why indirect water consumption from power generation is included in the standard WUEsource - water usage effectiveness metric - is because it makes it clear what the impact will be when assessing data center location and size. In other words, it's important to choose locations near power generation that doesn't consume water heavily. Yes, the amount of water used in generating electricity and the efficiency there is controlled power companies choices for power generation at their locations. Data centers control the location they are built in and without an estimate of indirect water usage they cannot strategize locations with lower environmental impact. Contrary to your belief that it is about clickbait, it's actually just about how to accurately evaluate environmental impact of data centers backed by science and basic logic.
• whatever1 1y ago
  Like the emissions we can have various scopes and different targets per scope.
• jppittma 1y ago
  That's a fair point. If you want to calculate the real total water usage of any person, you must first invent the universe. You have to cut it off somewhere.
• user3939382 1y ago
  Oh right are almonds actively extracting money from you because their business model is exploitative?
• sxp 1y ago
  To put this in context, it takes about 1 gallon of water per 1g of almond [1]. And in California's dry climate, this water comes from groundwater that doesn't renew as fast as it's depleted. So the next time someone chastises you for your non-low flow showerhead that uses more than 2 almonds of water per minute, remember to put the numbers in context. 1. Numbers from a pro-almond group: https://www.almonds.org/why-almonds/growing-good/water-wise https://www.almonds.org/why-almonds/growing-good/water-wise
  • ricardbejarano 1y ago
    I don't know why, but the fact that a "pro-almond group" exists chuckled me up.
    • Ekaros 1y ago
      There is corruption for everything money touches... I actually wonder if there is not single moderately sized industry that does not have some interest group...
      • dylan604 1y ago
        If there is and you name it, the interest group will be formed.
      • ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
        Industry advocacy groups ≠ corruption. They're basically necessary to do business in an advanced society that has rules governing every aspect of life. Those rules (even if good) often have unintended consequences and advocacy groups can help ensure that their industries are considered when rule-making.
        • bitmasher9 1y ago
          Lobbying as practiced by these advocacy groups is basically American flavored corruption. If the system were in place anywhere else we’d call it corruption, but it’s our system so we call it Lobbying.
• RA_Fisher 1y ago
  > are we going to include the water used to grow the almonds you ate? That’s a good idea. Like nutrition facts but for everyday economic climate decisions.
• yapyap 1y ago
  > Because agriculture is going to dwarf anything that data centers use Will it though
• 827a 1y ago
  Yes: my understanding is that it’s rather common practice to at least make a best-effort estimation of all these secondary impacts. It’s also absolutely true that “agricultural usage dominating data center usage” is a dirty little secret that a lot of people are very, very incentivized to keep secret. Amazon can’t outright say that, because uh whutabuht mah poor farmers.
  • ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago
    [flagged]
    • 827a 1y ago
      Sure, but: 1. Farmers oftentimes make zero effort to reduce their water usage. There's water reduction strategies they could employ, if they cared, but instead the vast multi-farm conglomerates invest their efforts in securing below-market, oftentimes monopolistic, control over water rights in their area, so they can use use an excess amount. Meanwhile, data center operators are (rightly) expected to engineer extremely sophisticated multi-millions of dollar systems to reduce their usage by even single digit percentages; an amount that some farms might consume in just one day. 2. Not all crops are built the same. Some, we rightly question "why are we growing this". Almonds are the canonical example; they consume utterly insane amounts of water, and the end result is: Almonds. A non-critical food that sits in some back corner of your grocery store. But, farmers like them because they sell for magnitudes more per pound than the more staple crops; its niche produce like almonds that can be the difference between a farm being profitable and unprofitable each year. 3. Many regions in the US have a climate that is just close enough to being able to grow things, like Alfala and Rice, year-round, so long as you utterly drench them in artifically-sourced water during the dry season when we shouldn't otherwise be able to grow them. There's a massive difference in natural sustainability of the seasonal farms in, say, the American midwest, versus the year-round industrial mega-farms of California. Having grown up around farms my whole life: More people need to realize that the aw shucks poor farmer routine is just a play these usually extremely wealthy people use to justify any greedy, shitty behavior they can. Monopoly on water rights? Oh, so you want to starve? Yeah that's what I thought, as they sip a $400 bottle of wine in Nappa. Farms are quite possibly the most subsidized industry in all of America; while near-universally all farmers will fight tooth and nail for the elimination of subsidies and handouts for everyone else, if you even insinuate you'll take away their handouts, its war and "you're all going to starve" because you "don't appreciate farmers". They complain about America outsourcing all of its labor to other countries, while farming itself has become one of the most automated, labor-eliminating industries in the country, massive mega-conglomerate farms are now ran by three people piloting remote tractors and drones from their barn.
• Chris2048 1y ago
  What does that mean though: "water used"? The only actual use of "water" is an E = mC^2 conversion to raw energy, or a chemical/location change such that it's locked-up/removed from availability permanently. The water normally continues to exist, so presumably it's some other resource we are using. This may seem pedantic but it's not - raw groundwater, or unprocessed grey water is not potable as in "water a person uses" for drinking, which is a subset of the water a person uses overall (directly in showers etc, or by proxy in bought products, building materials etc). In each case, water is more of a "carrier" for some other resource or property. If in CA the almonds go through a lot of water (is this due to perspiration? i.e. their cooling mechanism?), the water will still create clouds that I presume increases rainfall elsewhere? In fact, the water now holds more energy (from solar) that might be useful somehow. Similar comments around "land usage", entirely depends on opportunity loss otherwise.
• raxxorraxor 1y ago
  At least that is generally the case for calculating the ecological footprint of a person. I am critical of this metric though, since the water isn't really lost in many cases. Especially if datacenters use water never meant for consumption. If you look at it as a power generation problem it become much more plastic. That is of course as long as the water doesn't get expended in regions that lack it. Although if you want to compare datacenter usage to agriculture, you could say that one is more essential than the other. Even if modern agriculture is a high tech industry that uses datacenters.
  • LPisGood 1y ago
    I generally find criticism of water waste misplaced. Water’s lifecycle is cyclic. The water isn’t lost unless it is being salted or otherwise poisoned. The real waste is the energy required to produce, clean, and transport the water that is being “wasted.”
    • pas 1y ago
      aquifers deplete, the water table lowers, wells dry up sustainability, availability and maximum marginal price matters, just as with electric power generation
      • chemotaxis 1y ago
        Depletion of local water resources is a good thing to measure. But by and large, this is not what we're measuring. Instead, we're coming up with absurd statistics that imply any water put to beneficial use just disappears forever. If your tap water comes from a river and flows back to a river, leaving it running mostly just wastes energy.
• thayne 1y ago
  Does Amazon control the generation of this electricity? If so, then I definitely think it should be included, because it is something that Amazon has control over, and could possibly reduce water use. If it is the power company, then the relevant metric is the amount of power consumed, as it would be up to the power company to find a more water-efficient way to produce power.
• didibus 1y ago
  I find this loses the point, because agriculture is essential. If we preserve water it's because we want to keep enough of it for essentials like agriculture and such. Not that agricultural practices shouldn't better conserve water, but it's the usage of water for non-essential things that I think most people find wasteful.
  • CamperBob2 1y ago
    It's not essential that almonds be grown in California.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• Finnucane 1y ago
  I'd rather have the almonds than another data center.
• amelius 1y ago
  OK but rain water != tap water.
  • CGMthrowaway 1y ago
    It's not rainwater. (it's not tapwater either)
• rcpt 1y ago
  Knee jerk reaction for me every time I see "almonds" One gallon of cow milk uses more water than one gallon of almond milk.
  • Clent 1y ago
    Almond milk is 2% almond. Cow milk is 100% cow milk. An gallon of raw almonds requires a massive amount of water. Using numbers to create illusions of comparison is the marketing equivalent of parsley in your tooth.