In reply to Jeremy R:

I suspect water is a local resource because it is not transported. Consequently, I feel saving water in an area with enough won't change much in the present because of that. Clearly using water wastefully is a disaster in somewhere like sub Saharan Africa because it is already short for the existing population, but in many other areas water is not the critical factor ... yet and that's part of what's missing in the original. It will still boil down to the same choice eventually: restrict population to allow a higher quality of life or restrict quality of life (including water usage) to allow a higher population and, as you say because of continually rising population, that will apply sooner or later on both a local and a global scale wherever you are. I would rather be given the choice of where that balance lies than just sit back and find out where it falls through inaction.

__________

Nige Flickr

In reply to Nigel O:

I don't think anyone is missing the point Jeremy, but the important thing is more about what the goal of producing such numbers. Often it's simply to produce sound bite headlines rather than to (eg) promote discussion over the best locations to produce foodstuffs that have a high water dependency. It also depends on what the foodstuff is and quantities eaten - chocolate looks to be "expensive" in water, but the quantities eaten around the world are small, so the water cost is probably not important. I'd also like to know what the water cost of water is. If you're including the production and transport costs for products, then the production and transport costs of water itself have to be taken into account - drinking water particularly of course. It may well be that the overall cost of good ol' tap water is higher than that of beer :-)

___

Find me on Flickr / All about your camera - The Getting off Auto Index

In reply to Noisette:

Why is it that when someone expresses a view that someone disagrees with they are "wound up" perhaps if ostriches had not buried their heads for 50 years the planet would not be in the dire state it is in now Noisette

http://www.jrs-photography.co.uk

In reply to Jeremy R:

It's not your views I disagree with Jeremy R, we are all entitled to have an opinion, but the way you express them, which I find offensive. I also only pointed out a large error in the Stats & questioned le validity of the others. As is my right.

Best wishes

Hazel in the Gironde estuary, France

In reply to Jeremy R:

Jeremy R said:

Perhaps if ostriches had not buried their heads for 50 years the planet would not be in the dire straight.

From the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-566719/Why-ostriches-DONT-bury-heads-sand--surprising-truths-great-animal-myths.html

I though it was humans to blame for the planet and not ostriches and things have not been good for much more than 50 years, its all very well putting stuff on here to get a response but please don't get cross and rude yourself, when you don't get the reaction you wanted.

Regards Shane

My Photos in Flickr.

Do YOU know how much water we all use in reality