6 ms·

I am going to think twice before buying nuts again... It takes 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond! How many almonds' worth of water does it take to: * Flush a

I am going to think twice before buying nuts again... It takes 1 gallon of water to grow 1 almond! How many almonds' worth of water does it take to: * Flush a toilet: 1.6 * Run a dishwasher: 8 * Run a garden hose for 2 min: 20 * Take 10-min shower: 25 * Do a load of laundry: 45 How much water per year does it take to (in billions of cubic meters): * produce all of the almonds in California: 3.6 * provide water to all Los Angeles homes and businesses: 0.86 * provide water to all San Francisco homes and businesses: 0.11

ianlevesque 12y ago
According to the article China consumes most of them.
- lr 12y ago
  I used to think China needed us. Now I think they are using us up the way the US has used up 3rd-world countries for decades.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    China sends the USA iPhones and T shirts, the USA sends them almonds and airplanes (for now). Isn't world trade great? At this point, I don't think either country is exploiting the other, though China could do well to enforce environmental regulations (which would definitely drive up export costs). China doesn't have enough water to grow almonds. Water shortages here make California's water shortages look insignificant.
  - iamcurious 12y ago
    the way the US has used up 3rd-world countries for decades They still have a long way to go before treating you that way.
  - Mikeb85 12y ago
    Nah, first China would have to stage protests in our major cities, then bomb us claiming they're 'liberating us' from our oppressive despots, install Chinese-friendly dictators who give Chinese businesses a monopoly on almond production, then brutally suppress all anti-Chinese dissent claiming that those of us who don't want to succumb to our new Chinese overlords are terrorists. They'd also use us as cheap labour, and allow us to go thirsty while entire cities worth of water gets diverted by Chinese corporations for almond plantations, and then we'd slave away thirstily picking almonds for Chinese businesses to then whisk away back to China. Oh, and the whole while there'd be drones overhead bombing us every once in awhile, probably at family functions just to remind us who's in charge. This would be justified back in China by reminding the public that we're ignorant, violent Christian heathens in the face of their enlightened Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian philosophy, who are plotting to bomb Chinese almond corporations, rape Chinese women and eventually take over China itself (American people who immigrated to China will be 'proof' of this nefarious plot, what with our American cultural buildings that are disguised as unhealthy food outlets but are really terrorist hideouts). They'd also pay and arm our compatriots who succumb to the new order to hunt us down and kill us for objecting to our new almond-loving overlords (until they realise that they're also getting a raw deal, in which case they'd get drone'd and the cycle would repeat itself). Then we could say the Chinese are treating us the way the US has treated other nations.
saiko-chriskun 12y ago
* Produce a hamburger: 660
- acadien 12y ago
  1 hamburger or 1 cow? Genuinely curious, also could you source that? Thanks!
  - raldi 12y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9300929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9300929
    - acadien 12y ago
      Some of the comments made there are pretty interesting, specifically that it's not about the use of water its about the waste. -Ground water can be at least partially recouped through wells. This would be a really interesting number to look up. -Sewage water is wasted as it is dumped into the sea. Anything else? Where does water leave the cycle?
  - ocfx 12y ago
    Meat+Dairy uses the same amount of water as agriculture. People are just using almonds as a scapegoat.
  - coderzach 12y ago
    http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-gallons-of-water-to-make-a-burger-20140124-story.html http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-gallons-of-water... I've seen a lot of different numbers, most of them seem to be napkin math.
nwenzel 12y ago
There's a difference between a) flushing water down the toilet and b) pouring it back into the ground. edit - clarify; Edit2 - add the following I shouldn't have been so short or flippant. There is a difference between using water in a way that renders it basically unusable without cleaning/purifying it through energy intensive processes or massive dilution (dumping into the ocean which is still unusable without desalinization) and using water in a way that allows it to naturally return to the system through evaporation. We talk about agricultural use of water as if that creates some sort of excuse to be wasteful. Will not running the water while brushing your teeth or shaving solve the drought? No. Is it completely wasteful and unnecessary? Yes. I completely agree that ridiculously minor "feel good" measures like only getting a glass of water on request at restaurants will do little to nothing to show love any actual problem. I think it also hurts finding an actual solution because we feel like we're sacrificing so we've dibe our share. Sort of like driving a Prius. Solving the water shortage problem is going to take a lot more than low-flow shower heads. But it's also going to require a lot more than eating fewer almonds. And the fact that agriculture is a big consumer of water isn't a reason or an excuse to be wasteful. If you really want to contribute towards a healthier more sustainable planet, skip that burger and have a salad with some California avocados and sliced almonds on top.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
astrocyte 12y ago
So, essentially they're targeting the least significant portion of water usage because they can do so more easily and they don't really consider this drought to be a big problem... Tax revenue from Agriculture means more. In the mean time, as the state heads towards a brick wall, they'll engage in silly water restrictions so it seems like they did something. Sounds about right for California. When something happens, use it as a reason to raise costs and taxes and do everything in your power to not solve the real issues. Sales tax is up again too right? California really knows how to show its residents love. Tax revenue from almonds is 30x more important than the general comfort of its residents is what I gather. That's just nuts..lol
- prawn 12y ago
  Agriculture has more unified representation than the public. It's easier to reach and mobilise them. The public would feel more helpless in comparison.
  - astrocyte 12y ago
    or.. the public simply doesn't care. In that case, you get the government you deserve and California's government is absolutely nuts. Goes for the broader U.S as well. If people did care, they'd be more involved and wouldn't allow for such a group of clowns to tax them to the hill and piss it in the wind. The brightest people in the world focused on trying to get people to click on ads as their water supply dwindles and their government institutes retard level policies.
    - prawn 12y ago
      I think for many people it's not that they don't care but that they don't know what to do. When it comes to voting, you generally have a vote for a candidate/party that has to encompass all issues. The granularity might be such that you can't easily impact a specific issue. You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever. I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been. It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.
marricks 12y ago
Nope. Don't stop buying nuts. Stop buying meat & dairy: Almonds -- 350-500 gallons; (added in an edit by popular demand, not in source) Eggs -- 573 gallons; Chicken -- 815 gallons; Cheese -- 896 gallons; Pork -- 1630 gallons; Butter -- 2044 gallons; Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons; (gallons of water per pound of food) Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-WaterfootprintFood.pdf http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-Waterfoo... And the meat & dairy industry takes up a whopping 47% of California's water. Source (page 3 [pdf page 9]): http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft... I actually made an account to comment on these posts. No one else seems to be putting things into perspective. We aren't draining ourselves of water from small things like produce and nuts..
- phamilton 12y ago
  To properly normalize, a pound of almonds requires 350-400 gallons.
- astrocyte 12y ago
  Here's an idea for California : Stop trying to hog the economic output of the world. Your state can no longer support it. California : > 3 million illegal immigrants and growing (California policies welcome it) > Continuing to cram people into the major cities (stop) > Stop producing so much water demanding products.. Let another state that has a more adequate water supply and conditions do it > Stop trying to produce 80% of the nation's agriculture. Let other states do it. ^ Solutions that put things into perspective. Why are none of them being pursued? because it attacks tax revenue and money. Money from other sources > people's comfort who live in California. All of that money ($115 billion in annual tax revenue and still in debt up to their ears and no money to fund water solution projects .. corruption, waste) Perspective : California doesn't give a rats ass about its residents. It exists and makes policies to further grow its tax base .. consequences be dammed. Residents always put up with the idiocy. So, screw them (over and over)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

ianlevesque 12y ago

According to the article China consumes most of them.

lr 12y ago
I used to think China needed us. Now I think they are using us up the way the US has used up 3rd-world countries for decades.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  China sends the USA iPhones and T shirts, the USA sends them almonds and airplanes (for now). Isn't world trade great? At this point, I don't think either country is exploiting the other, though China could do well to enforce environmental regulations (which would definitely drive up export costs). China doesn't have enough water to grow almonds. Water shortages here make California's water shortages look insignificant.
- iamcurious 12y ago
  the way the US has used up 3rd-world countries for decades They still have a long way to go before treating you that way.
- Mikeb85 12y ago
  Nah, first China would have to stage protests in our major cities, then bomb us claiming they're 'liberating us' from our oppressive despots, install Chinese-friendly dictators who give Chinese businesses a monopoly on almond production, then brutally suppress all anti-Chinese dissent claiming that those of us who don't want to succumb to our new Chinese overlords are terrorists. They'd also use us as cheap labour, and allow us to go thirsty while entire cities worth of water gets diverted by Chinese corporations for almond plantations, and then we'd slave away thirstily picking almonds for Chinese businesses to then whisk away back to China. Oh, and the whole while there'd be drones overhead bombing us every once in awhile, probably at family functions just to remind us who's in charge. This would be justified back in China by reminding the public that we're ignorant, violent Christian heathens in the face of their enlightened Taoist/Buddhist/Confucian philosophy, who are plotting to bomb Chinese almond corporations, rape Chinese women and eventually take over China itself (American people who immigrated to China will be 'proof' of this nefarious plot, what with our American cultural buildings that are disguised as unhealthy food outlets but are really terrorist hideouts). They'd also pay and arm our compatriots who succumb to the new order to hunt us down and kill us for objecting to our new almond-loving overlords (until they realise that they're also getting a raw deal, in which case they'd get drone'd and the cycle would repeat itself). Then we could say the Chinese are treating us the way the US has treated other nations.

saiko-chriskun 12y ago

* Produce a hamburger: 660

acadien 12y ago
1 hamburger or 1 cow? Genuinely curious, also could you source that? Thanks!
- raldi 12y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9300929 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9300929
  - acadien 12y ago
    Some of the comments made there are pretty interesting, specifically that it's not about the use of water its about the waste. -Ground water can be at least partially recouped through wells. This would be a really interesting number to look up. -Sewage water is wasted as it is dumped into the sea. Anything else? Where does water leave the cycle?
- ocfx 12y ago
  Meat+Dairy uses the same amount of water as agriculture. People are just using almonds as a scapegoat.
- coderzach 12y ago
  http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-gallons-of-water-to-make-a-burger-20140124-story.html http://www.latimes.com/food/dailydish/la-dd-gallons-of-water... I've seen a lot of different numbers, most of them seem to be napkin math.

nwenzel 12y ago

There's a difference between a) flushing water down the toilet and b) pouring it back into the ground. edit - clarify; Edit2 - add the following I shouldn't have been so short or flippant. There is a difference between using water in a way that renders it basically unusable without cleaning/purifying it through energy intensive processes or massive dilution (dumping into the ocean which is still unusable without desalinization) and using water in a way that allows it to naturally return to the system through evaporation. We talk about agricultural use of water as if that creates some sort of excuse to be wasteful. Will not running the water while brushing your teeth or shaving solve the drought? No. Is it completely wasteful and unnecessary? Yes. I completely agree that ridiculously minor "feel good" measures like only getting a glass of water on request at restaurants will do little to nothing to show love any actual problem. I think it also hurts finding an actual solution because we feel like we're sacrificing so we've dibe our share. Sort of like driving a Prius. Solving the water shortage problem is going to take a lot more than low-flow shower heads. But it's also going to require a lot more than eating fewer almonds. And the fact that agriculture is a big consumer of water isn't a reason or an excuse to be wasteful. If you really want to contribute towards a healthier more sustainable planet, skip that burger and have a salad with some California avocados and sliced almonds on top.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

astrocyte 12y ago

So, essentially they're targeting the least significant portion of water usage because they can do so more easily and they don't really consider this drought to be a big problem... Tax revenue from Agriculture means more. In the mean time, as the state heads towards a brick wall, they'll engage in silly water restrictions so it seems like they did something. Sounds about right for California. When something happens, use it as a reason to raise costs and taxes and do everything in your power to not solve the real issues. Sales tax is up again too right? California really knows how to show its residents love. Tax revenue from almonds is 30x more important than the general comfort of its residents is what I gather. That's just nuts..lol

prawn 12y ago
Agriculture has more unified representation than the public. It's easier to reach and mobilise them. The public would feel more helpless in comparison.
- astrocyte 12y ago
  or.. the public simply doesn't care. In that case, you get the government you deserve and California's government is absolutely nuts. Goes for the broader U.S as well. If people did care, they'd be more involved and wouldn't allow for such a group of clowns to tax them to the hill and piss it in the wind. The brightest people in the world focused on trying to get people to click on ads as their water supply dwindles and their government institutes retard level policies.
  - prawn 12y ago
    I think for many people it's not that they don't care but that they don't know what to do. When it comes to voting, you generally have a vote for a candidate/party that has to encompass all issues. The granularity might be such that you can't easily impact a specific issue. You might get all fired up about water rights, but then it's trumped by candidate/party positions on health policy or whatever. I can remember two issue-specific referenda in my voting life in Australia - one about a constitutional preamble tweak and one about becoming a republic. Both were binary decisions when they need not have been. It's also hard for people in the general struggle of life to get informed efficiently. The media they take in generally doesn't delve deep on any issue or has a vested interest in not doing so.

marricks 12y ago

Nope. Don't stop buying nuts. Stop buying meat & dairy: Almonds -- 350-500 gallons; (added in an edit by popular demand, not in source) Eggs -- 573 gallons; Chicken -- 815 gallons; Cheese -- 896 gallons; Pork -- 1630 gallons; Butter -- 2044 gallons; Beef -- 2500-5000 gallons; (gallons of water per pound of food) Source: http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-WaterfootprintFood.pdf http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Hoekstra-2008-Waterfoo... And the meat & dairy industry takes up a whopping 47% of California's water. Source (page 3 [pdf page 9]): http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ftprint_full_report3.pdf http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2013/02/ca_ft... I actually made an account to comment on these posts. No one else seems to be putting things into perspective. We aren't draining ourselves of water from small things like produce and nuts..

phamilton 12y ago
To properly normalize, a pound of almonds requires 350-400 gallons.
astrocyte 12y ago
Here's an idea for California : Stop trying to hog the economic output of the world. Your state can no longer support it. California : > 3 million illegal immigrants and growing (California policies welcome it) > Continuing to cram people into the major cities (stop) > Stop producing so much water demanding products.. Let another state that has a more adequate water supply and conditions do it > Stop trying to produce 80% of the nation's agriculture. Let other states do it. ^ Solutions that put things into perspective. Why are none of them being pursued? because it attacks tax revenue and money. Money from other sources > people's comfort who live in California. All of that money ($115 billion in annual tax revenue and still in debt up to their ears and no money to fund water solution projects .. corruption, waste) Perspective : California doesn't give a rats ass about its residents. It exists and makes policies to further grow its tax base .. consequences be dammed. Residents always put up with the idiocy. So, screw them (over and over)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]