The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. Life Sciences
  3. The Environment
  4. Forget about carbon, should we be calculating our water footprint?
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Forget about carbon, should we be calculating our water footprint?

  • 2 Replies
  • 7090 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

paul.fr

  • Guest
Forget about carbon, should we be calculating our water footprint?
« on: 22/03/2009 07:56:37 »
FORGET your carbon footprint - it’s your water footprint you should worry about:

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Prof Tim Lang said people needed to wake up to how much water farmers and food factories use in producing staple goods, particularly meat, coffee and milk, saying the threat to Britain’s food chain from its water footprint is just as great as its carbon footprint.

Can you make a footprint in water?

Prof Lang, who coined the term “food miles” more than a decade ago, now believes that overuse of water is the biggest threat facing Britain’s food chain.

The food miles that mean, er, nothing other than that you should buy local because that supports local people, unless they work in import and export, natch.:

“Huge amounts of water is being used as irrigation or fed directly to animals. It is a nightmare. Water stress is huge across huge swathes of the globe. We think that we are liberally supplied by God’s water. But that’s not true.”

So it’s not raining? And don’t drink from the yellow puddles:

According to the World Wide Fund, the production of a simple pint of milk uses up more than 550 litres (968 pints) of water – the equivalent of running six full baths.

Or it raining for, say, five minutes?

A cut [?] of coffee uses up 140 litres (246 pints), while a hamburger uses an astonishing 1,800 (3,168).

Rain, rain, go away…

These figures take into account the amount of water used from the start to the end of the food chain, including the irrigation on the farm, the processing of the food, such as washing the coffee beans, and the cooking of the product. Meat uses so much because of the water needed to irrigate the crops that end up as animal feed.

Irrigation on the farm? Looks like rain…

“We cannot carry on consuming the same amount of meat and dairy that we do currently. We are convinced about that now. It is absolutely madness.”

Mad cows and Englishmen go out in the noon day rain…

The UK has become the sixth largest net importer of water in the world, the environment group WWF estimates, with every consumer indirectly responsible for the use of thousands of litres a day. Only a third of the UK’s total water use comes from its own resources; the rest depends on the water systems of other countries, some of which are already facing serious shortages.

So it’s not about water -it’s about us having too much water and an advantage when it comes to rearing livestock and growing crops?

…While coffee, African-grown vegetables, milk and meat all use up vast quantities of water, Prof Lang points out that some products are far more “sustainable”, including tea, home-grown apples, porridge and British seafood, such as mussels and oysters.

“I have porridge every morning,” he said.

With milk?


* water-footprint.jpg (15.34 kB, 420x264 - viewed 1536 times.)
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 31101
  • Activity:
    10.5%
  • Thanked: 1291 times
  • Best Answer
  • Forget about carbon, should we be calculating our water footprint?
    « Reply #1 on: 22/03/2009 11:33:20 »
    Two thirds of the earth's surface is coveed by water. We are not going to run out of it any time soon. However almost all that water is too salty for growing crops or drinking.
    Given enough energy we can purify water and, in many places, they already do this.
    That means that water has a large carbon footprint. You can't address the two problems independently.
    Logged
    Please disregard all previous signatures.
     

    Offline Karsten

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • 701
    • Activity:
      0%
      • Fortunately still only a game
  • Best Answer
  • Forget about carbon, should we be calculating our water footprint?
    « Reply #2 on: 24/03/2009 01:05:15 »
    Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/03/2009 11:33:20
    (...)However almost all that water is too salty for growing crops or drinking.(...)

    Yes, 96% are too salty, another 2-3% are trapped as sea ice (but seem to be melting and mixing with the salt water). That leaves us with around 1% drinking water. And us civilized people defecate in it!
    Logged
    I got annoyed with looking
    at my own signature
     



    • Print
    Pages: [1]   Go Up
    « previous next »
    Tags:
     
    There was an error while thanking
    Thanking...
    • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
      Privacy Policy
      SMFAds for Free Forums
    • Naked Science Forum ©

    Page created in 0.22 seconds with 32 queries.

    • Podcasts
    • Articles
    • Get Naked
    • About
    • Contact us
    • Advertise
    • Privacy Policy
    • Subscribe to newsletter
    • We love feedback

    Follow us

    cambridge_logo_footer.png

    ©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.