6 ms·

Almonds are a drop in the bucket, compared to the sacred cow(s) that is meat. It's just a tad bit more than NPR's 'trying to lose weight by cutting your finger

Almonds are a drop in the bucket, compared to the sacred cow(s) that is meat. It's just a tad bit more than NPR's 'trying to lose weight by cutting your fingernails'. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-j-rose/how-to-take-long-showers_b_6875644.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-j-rose/how-to-take-long-s... http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/californias-drought-whos-really-using-all-the-water/ http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/californias-drought-whos-... http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry.html http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/sustain/global/sensem/MeatIndustry...

chc 12y ago
I think you're exaggerating a little bit, but meat is a huge culprit that people don't talk about much. The meat and dairy industries make up 47% of California's water usage, while other agriculture uses 46%. A large part of the reason is that there is enormous energy loss in the growing-an-animal part of the food chain — every serving of an animal product comes from many servings of plant products given to the animal. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Fulton%20et%20al%202012.pdf http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Fulton%20et%20al%20201...
- WillPostForFood 12y ago
  It doesn't make up 47% of total water usage, it takes up 47% of water used in the production of goods and services. The definition of water footprint from your link: The water footprint concept has been developed to estimate the amount of water consumed in the production of goods and services.
raldi 12y ago
You're absolutely right. A quarter-pound hamburger costs 1,300 gallons of water, according to the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 The organization that represents California cattle ranchers begged to differ, contesting that it's only 110 gallons: http://blog.calbeef.org/how-eco-friendly-is-beef-infographic/ http://blog.calbeef.org/how-eco-friendly-is-beef-infographic... Even using the latter number, just think about that. Eating one hamburger is like dumping 110 one-gallon jugs of water down the drain -- or leaving your kitchen faucet running full blast for over an hour with the current 1.8gpm flow restrictor mandated by code. Or flushing your code-mandated low-flow toilet 89 times. And if you're talking about a 1-pound steak, multiply all those numbers by 4. Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! But California's beef producers should have to pay market rate for their water. If that means the price shoots up and I have to start eating hamburgers made from Texas cattle, so be it.
- WalterSear 12y ago
  >Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! IMVHO, there are much better reasons to drop meat + dairy from your diet than water. Human taste is a malleable thing - after a while, other things start to taste much more delicious.
  - raldi 12y ago
    Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.
    - SEJeff 12y ago
      And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious. We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
      - mod 12y ago
        He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing. You can agree to agree, I guess.
      - CalRobert 12y ago
        You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
        raldi 12y ago
        I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sbov 12y ago
I wouldn't say drop in the bucket. Doing the math, from what I can piece together: 23 almonds in an ounce, 16 ounces in a pound, 1.1 gallons per almond. 23 * 16 * 1.1 = 404 gallons per pound of almonds. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of meat, but it's still a lot. Almonds alone also supposedly account for 10% of all of California's water use.

chc 12y ago

I think you're exaggerating a little bit, but meat is a huge culprit that people don't talk about much. The meat and dairy industries make up 47% of California's water usage, while other agriculture uses 46%. A large part of the reason is that there is enormous energy loss in the growing-an-animal part of the food chain — every serving of an animal product comes from many servings of plant products given to the animal. Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Fulton%20et%20al%202012.pdf http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Fulton%20et%20al%20201...

WillPostForFood 12y ago
It doesn't make up 47% of total water usage, it takes up 47% of water used in the production of goods and services. The definition of water footprint from your link: The water footprint concept has been developed to estimate the amount of water consumed in the production of goods and services.

raldi 12y ago

You're absolutely right. A quarter-pound hamburger costs 1,300 gallons of water, according to the WSJ: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB120001666638282817 The organization that represents California cattle ranchers begged to differ, contesting that it's only 110 gallons: http://blog.calbeef.org/how-eco-friendly-is-beef-infographic/ http://blog.calbeef.org/how-eco-friendly-is-beef-infographic... Even using the latter number, just think about that. Eating one hamburger is like dumping 110 one-gallon jugs of water down the drain -- or leaving your kitchen faucet running full blast for over an hour with the current 1.8gpm flow restrictor mandated by code. Or flushing your code-mandated low-flow toilet 89 times. And if you're talking about a 1-pound steak, multiply all those numbers by 4. Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! But California's beef producers should have to pay market rate for their water. If that means the price shoots up and I have to start eating hamburgers made from Texas cattle, so be it.

WalterSear 12y ago
>Am I saying you shouldn't eat beef? Of course not -- it's delicious! IMVHO, there are much better reasons to drop meat + dairy from your diet than water. Human taste is a malleable thing - after a while, other things start to taste much more delicious.
- raldi 12y ago
  Fair point! But the last time I mentioned these stats, I was accused of pushing a militant vegan agenda, so this time I wanted to be sure to establish my meat cred.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    And while totally respecting your POV please understand that some of us think things like Beef, Pork/Bacon, and Fisha re absolutely delicious. We can agree to disagree and still be friends, or at least civil adults :)
    - mod 12y ago
      He literally said "it's delicious" in the post they're referencing. You can agree to agree, I guess.
    - CalRobert 12y ago
      You're not even disagreeing, though. The point is that things can be delicious but still merit restraint in their consumption.
      - raldi 12y ago
        I'm not even arguing for restrained consumption! I just think we should charge California producers of these foods market rate for the water they require, even if that means they can't be profitably produced in California anymore, and we have to import them from places that aren't going through a drought.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

sbov 12y ago

I wouldn't say drop in the bucket. Doing the math, from what I can piece together: 23 almonds in an ounce, 16 ounces in a pound, 1.1 gallons per almond. 23 * 16 * 1.1 = 404 gallons per pound of almonds. It certainly doesn't rise to the level of meat, but it's still a lot. Almonds alone also supposedly account for 10% of all of California's water use.