3 ms·

"1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; " These lawns are 50% of urban use, which is 10% of total water use. While it is not a great sign o

"1 - the lawns in ruby hills and atherton are still green; " These lawns are 50% of urban use, which is 10% of total water use. While it is not a great sign of conservation efforts, The problem is that by pretending that it's a real problem, we keep avoiding the real problem - our agriculture is simply unsustainable in it's current form. IE it enables people and politicians to avoid the real problem, by selling a line to people that it's their non-conserving neighbors that are the problem, when it simply isn't. California needs to have a long and hard discussion about what should be happening in agriculture. Not a long and hard discussion about lawns in atherton. The oft-repeated "well, it helps people understand they need to conserve" is clearly false. It not only doesn't do that (hasn't for years!), it enables a smoke screen over the real issue. Now, instead of hearing on the radio that "politicians are seriously considering what to do about our agriculture issues", i hear, "politicians have enacted lawn watering restrictions to help ease the drought". That's what focusing, at all, on urban usage, does.

x0x0 12y ago
Yes and no. 50% of urban use times 10% of total use is still 5% of use, and it's very easy to cut. That still makes it worthwhile pursuing. It's the same as Obama talking about gas usage. We should have higher fleet mileage via higher cafe standards -- but refill the air in your tires often too, because it's easy savings. And we're going to be able to hear the farmers screaming and moaning from orbit. Cutting waste in cities helps make the case.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Sorry, but after watching what happens when you push on this, it just becomes "the solution" and "the thing people should care about", when people should care about this minimally, and something else (agriculture) maximally. Yes, it's easy to cut. We can't cut it to 0. So let's say we can cut it in half. Great, so a 2.5% savings overall, by cutting water use here in half. Getting the same savings from agriculture would take cutting 32x less water. Obama is wrong. If you focus people on the wrong problems, they obsess about the wrong problems. Humans just don't work in a way that this turns out well, and as a result, it's better to focus them on the actual problem, even if they can't personally do anything about it.

x0x0 12y ago

Yes and no. 50% of urban use times 10% of total use is still 5% of use, and it's very easy to cut. That still makes it worthwhile pursuing. It's the same as Obama talking about gas usage. We should have higher fleet mileage via higher cafe standards -- but refill the air in your tires often too, because it's easy savings. And we're going to be able to hear the farmers screaming and moaning from orbit. Cutting waste in cities helps make the case.

DannyBee 12y ago
Sorry, but after watching what happens when you push on this, it just becomes "the solution" and "the thing people should care about", when people should care about this minimally, and something else (agriculture) maximally. Yes, it's easy to cut. We can't cut it to 0. So let's say we can cut it in half. Great, so a 2.5% savings overall, by cutting water use here in half. Getting the same savings from agriculture would take cutting 32x less water. Obama is wrong. If you focus people on the wrong problems, they obsess about the wrong problems. Humans just don't work in a way that this turns out well, and as a result, it's better to focus them on the actual problem, even if they can't personally do anything about it.