3 ms·
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
by 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 agoSorry, 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.