81–90 of 218 posts
Sorry but I don't believe it, it's 90% corn syrup
A can of Coke is almost entirely aluminium and water; a bottle of Coke is almost entirely plastic and water.
Here's what I'm curious about: how much water is used for every liter of drinking water ? It seems clear that a "liter of water", which could be all kinds of polluted, is NOT the same as a liter of bottled or tap water. A liter of drinkable water has to undergo some filtration process, etc. and I'd be extremely interested in seeing how much water is used in that process. That would help put the headline's figure in c…
Don't forget you drink the same water you bathe with. At scale it's producing a lot of water.
PS: Now a lot of water is lost after filtration by leaks/breaks in water pipes. But, that's mostly an economic choice as water is really cheap replacing pipes is expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/wheres-califo...
It's much less than other crops and the description says it's assuming irrigation is the only source of water, that's not usually the case. It's probably not the case with almonds at all, unless you aim for rotten roots. It's a desert tree.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's much less than other crops and the description says it's assuming irrigation is the only source of water, that's not usually the case. It's probably not the case with almonds at all, unless you aim for rotten roots. It's a desert tree.
You should tell that to California last summer who ended up with that exact problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per volume of the end product, coffee is worse, black tea is better. Coffee: ~1100 liters of water per liter of coffee. Black tea: ~270 liters of water per liter of tea. Source: The water footprint of coffee and tea consumption in the Netherlands , http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/ChapagainHoekstra2...
Another nice comparison: Milk: ~1000 liters of water per liter Chocolate: ~17000 liters of water per kg Beef: ~15000 liters of water per kg Sheep Meat: ~10000 liters of water per kg Pork: ~6000 liters of water per kg Butter: ~5500 liters of water per kg Chicken meat: ~4500 liters of water per kg Wine: ~400 liters of water per liter Beer: ~300 liters of water per liter source: http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another nice comparison: Milk: ~1000 liters of water per liter Chocolate: ~17000 liters of water per kg Beef: ~15000 liters of water per kg Sheep Meat: ~10000 liters of water per kg Pork: ~6000 liters of water per kg Butter: ~5500 liters of water per kg Chicken meat: ~4500 liters of water per kg Wine: ~400 liters of water per liter Beer: ~300 liters of water per liter source: http://www.imeche.org/policy-and-press/re…
Well this is highly misleading. Products that are measured VERY differently are grouped together.
Of course that wine produced in dry climate requires a lot of water.
Producing a cow, chicken or pig will take a lot of water, probably not much of a difference if animal is located at northern/southern parts or in some shed at equatorial region.
I don't understand what is misleading. Data of water pollution should be of more concern than how much water something needs to thrive.
This data shouldn't influence your decision of what to consume. Data of pollution should.
If you're worried some categories are incorrect then at least you have a lower bound there. Add the water footprint of food that cow or pig eats and then you'll get more accurate. It's no-brainer that raising 60 billion land animals yearly takes a lot of water but it's a silly statistic. The pollution of water that the process creates is more important and a much more relevant statistic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You keep using this word "used", I do not think it means what you think it means... Energy is one of those strange things, where consumption is not necessarily destruction. You 'used' a joule of energy when you heated up your coffee this morning, then dumped the waste heat to the rest of your kitchen, where it became an input for another part of the cycle. The energy did not go away when you consumed it, and in this…
Energy is about the only resource where this doesn't hold true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My opinion on this is totally uninformed. A quick search for 'global aquifer depletion' yields "Scientists had long suspected that humans were taxing the world’s underground water supply, but... major aquifers [are] indeed struggling to keep pace with demands from agriculture, growing populations, and industries such as mining." ... "The situation is quite critical" ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/…
You're both right ... the water is still in the system but no longer in the aquifers (instead it's in the oceans, air, lakes, streams, etc). Apparently, a small amount of water is lost to space (but that will increase as the sun grows hotter). When another extinction-level comet smashes into the earth, it will replenish the water we've lost. Ain't I a ray of sunshine this morning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't destroy water, but you can most definitely destroy fresh water. Or else you could have the same argument for just about anything ("I didn't really break your cup, all the pieces are still lying on the floor.")
What if I heated the earths atmosphere and then boiled all the earths water. What would you drink then? I'd drink soda.
You keep using this word "used", I do not think it means what you think it means... Fresh water is one of those strange things, where consumption is not necessarily destruction. You 'used' a glass of water that you drank this morning, then excreted it over the rest of the day as urine and water vapor where it became an input for another part of the cycle. The water did not go away when you consumed it, and in this ca…