Yes and no. The vegetables thing was always somewhat silly, because the vegetables on a plate in the US had no possible way of helping someone starving across oceans. [EDIT: 0]
Water and electricity usage, on the other hand, could have more immediate impact on the globe. Fresh water is scarce in many regions, including in the US. Fresh water production and distribution isn't free and has an impact on the environment (see the California aqueduct project and its impact on locations it redirected water from). Electricity isn't free, it requires the consumption of fuels (presently). Consequently a demand on those resources: 1) drives up their costs; 2) necessitates more mining and/or drilling. It's impossible to argue that those actions have no environmental impact.
What's the consequence of this on someone in Peru? Potentially more jobs if they have resources people want. So that's good. Potentially more harm to their environment. Potentially more difficulty in accessing fuels needed for energy production if costs are driven too high (with present market value of oil, a non-issue). (I suppose I should research the Peruvian economy to know what the particular impact might be).
Now, is my 20 minute shower this morning trying to wake up and loosen up some extremely sore muscles going to have any impact? Probably not. Over the course of the year? Potentially. Even ignoring the potential impact of a nation of twenty-minute daily showerers, there's just the personal impact of reduced spending power due to increased spending on water and electricity (water is "free" for me, so my electric bill is my concern).
These are just the things that pop to mind, they can probably all be refuted or decent counterarguments presented for why they're less of a concern compared to X, Y, or Z.
0: That is, telling kids they should finish their vegetables because of starving kids in China was silly/stupid/moronic. By that stage, the vegetables' consumption at the table has no impact on anyone else on the planet. They'll be eaten, or be discarded. The point of impact was in determining where to ship them and where to produce them in the first place. Since production in location X has no impact on production in location Y (for the most part, see my reference to the California aqueduct for a counterexample), the determination of where to sell the produced vegetables is what matters if you want to have a global impact.