4 ms·

And the other stats you ignored? As well as the main point I was making?

• azan_ 9mo ago
  I don't know about other stats, that's why I won't comment on them. But it doesn't matter - your water use stats are still manipulative and make your point much weaker.
  • ossa-ma 9mo ago
    I've adjusted the statistic for you: Adjusted beef consumption: 4.5 million litres of water can be used to produce 300kg of beef -> US (highest beef consumer/capita) consumes 23.3kg of beef , enough to feed ~13 Americans (30 Brits, ~43 Japanese) yummy delicious grass-fed beef yearly!
    • elevation 9mo ago
      These number seem off. A single head of cattle may contain 300kg of edible beef with a hanging weight of roughly twice that. In what world does raising a single bovine consume of 4.5 million liters of water? Neither the cow nor the cow's food retains much water; the water is merely delayed a little in its journey to the local watershed, and in vast parts of the US, local rainfall is adequate for this purpose (power irrigation isn't required for the crops, and cattle may drink from a pond.) Even if a cow drinks pumped well water, the majority of its nourishment will have been itself sustained by local natural rainfall. A datacenter's use of water over any timescale can hardly be compared with a cow's.
      • azan_ 9mo ago
        > Neither the cow nor the cow's food retains much water Isn't it true for datacenters too? The water used by them does not disappear, one could even argue that cows capture permanently more water than datacenters.