4 ms·

Yes, the actual savings of water from restaurants only serving on request is negligible. But it reminds people we're in a fucking drought. Maybe — just maybe —

by rosser 12y ago

Yes, the actual savings of water from restaurants only serving on request is negligible. But it reminds people we're in a fucking drought. Maybe — just maybe — that awareness goes home with them, and they don't run the tap while brushing their teeth before bed that night. Or they take a 3 minute shower instead of a 10 minute one the next morning. Yes, these things are all token by themselves, and yes, residential use is utterly dwarfed by agricultural use, but every damn bit helps.

tomjen3 12y ago
Or more likely people get pissed at the restaurant for trying to cheat them.
- rosser 12y ago
  How exactly am I being cheated by having to ask for water?
wdr1 12y ago
Those things aren't the problem. 80% of the water use in California is agricultural. If not serving water helped people think "hey! this land isn't sustainable on its own!" then maybe it would do something. But the other stuff is just theatre so politicians look like they're doing something.
ars 12y ago
There are much much better ways to remind people. And how many people (as a percent of population) go to sit-down restaurants anyway? And even those that go will have a waiter ask: Would you like some water? And that's about the extent of it. It's not going to remind anyone of anything.
DannyBee 12y ago
"Yes, the actual savings of water from restaurants only serving on request is negligible. But it reminds people we're in a fucking drought. Maybe — just maybe — that awareness goes home with them, and they don't run the tap while brushing their teeth before bed that night. Or they take a 3 minute shower instead of a 10 minute one the next morning. " Which in turn does literally nothing to help. If you were to take all urban water use in california to 0, we'd run out of water in 10% longer a time period. So instead of a year, a year and a month. Of the 10% of total water used by urban folks, 53% goes to landscaping. So uh, killing all the sprinklers wouldn't even buy you an extra month if you were going to run out of water in a year. (there are other issues, like most homes in sacramento not having water meters until recently, and in fact, the state has only mandated that water meters exist everywhere by 2025, but ...) But sitting around pretending that conservation by urban people is going to make any difference in this drought, is just a silly game politicians are playing because most people don't understand where the water is going. Meanwhile, we keep paying taxes to build tunnels to divert more water to unsustainable agricultural use.
mapt 12y ago
Every damn bit doesn't help when you spend the entire political capital attempting to secure gains amounting to a few percent of the problem. Corporations in general love participationism because it doesn't force them to change anything about the way they operate. Instead, the issue becomes about the general public, and whether it has the moral fiber to correct for the problematic way the corporation is doing business. That's why you got the campaign to recycle and attacks on littering and ads like the infamous 'Crying Indian' back in the 70's - Coca-cola didn't want to have a market-based solution to recycling, legislated bottle fees, applied to its products. So instead it successfully created a vast cultural infrastructure where we spend enormous amounts of time and money shaming each other over its refuse, meticulously recycling its refuse, or rebelling against same. The rebellion is part of the solution to Coca-Cola's problem, not society's problem, because it keeps the attention focused on bitter cultural distinctions and the ethics of the individual.
BurningFrog 12y ago
> Maybe — just maybe Then again, maybe not. I agree this might raise people's awareness and they will save more water in their daily life. But it might also serve as an alibi. I did my part by not having water for lunch. Glad that problem is taken care of! How do you know what the actual reaction will be? What was it last time California had these restrictions? I also think we have a limited amount of self sacrificing community spirit within us. If people are using more of it to voluntarily save water, they will spend less of it on other issues. That model doesn't scale far.

by rosser 12y ago

tomjen3 12y ago

Or more likely people get pissed at the restaurant for trying to cheat them.

rosser 12y ago
How exactly am I being cheated by having to ask for water?

wdr1 12y ago

Those things aren't the problem. 80% of the water use in California is agricultural. If not serving water helped people think "hey! this land isn't sustainable on its own!" then maybe it would do something. But the other stuff is just theatre so politicians look like they're doing something.

ars 12y ago

There are much much better ways to remind people. And how many people (as a percent of population) go to sit-down restaurants anyway? And even those that go will have a waiter ask: Would you like some water? And that's about the extent of it. It's not going to remind anyone of anything.

DannyBee 12y ago

"Yes, the actual savings of water from restaurants only serving on request is negligible. But it reminds people we're in a fucking drought. Maybe — just maybe — that awareness goes home with them, and they don't run the tap while brushing their teeth before bed that night. Or they take a 3 minute shower instead of a 10 minute one the next morning. " Which in turn does literally nothing to help. If you were to take all urban water use in california to 0, we'd run out of water in 10% longer a time period. So instead of a year, a year and a month. Of the 10% of total water used by urban folks, 53% goes to landscaping. So uh, killing all the sprinklers wouldn't even buy you an extra month if you were going to run out of water in a year. (there are other issues, like most homes in sacramento not having water meters until recently, and in fact, the state has only mandated that water meters exist everywhere by 2025, but ...) But sitting around pretending that conservation by urban people is going to make any difference in this drought, is just a silly game politicians are playing because most people don't understand where the water is going. Meanwhile, we keep paying taxes to build tunnels to divert more water to unsustainable agricultural use.

mapt 12y ago

Every damn bit doesn't help when you spend the entire political capital attempting to secure gains amounting to a few percent of the problem. Corporations in general love participationism because it doesn't force them to change anything about the way they operate. Instead, the issue becomes about the general public, and whether it has the moral fiber to correct for the problematic way the corporation is doing business. That's why you got the campaign to recycle and attacks on littering and ads like the infamous 'Crying Indian' back in the 70's - Coca-cola didn't want to have a market-based solution to recycling, legislated bottle fees, applied to its products. So instead it successfully created a vast cultural infrastructure where we spend enormous amounts of time and money shaming each other over its refuse, meticulously recycling its refuse, or rebelling against same. The rebellion is part of the solution to Coca-Cola's problem, not society's problem, because it keeps the attention focused on bitter cultural distinctions and the ethics of the individual.

BurningFrog 12y ago

> Maybe — just maybe Then again, maybe not. I agree this might raise people's awareness and they will save more water in their daily life. But it might also serve as an alibi. I did my part by not having water for lunch. Glad that problem is taken care of! How do you know what the actual reaction will be? What was it last time California had these restrictions? I also think we have a limited amount of self sacrificing community spirit within us. If people are using more of it to voluntarily save water, they will spend less of it on other issues. That model doesn't scale far.