I understand the logic behind all this, but it still seems like its unavoidable. So everyone goes vegan and spares the cattle (meat and leather) industry. To say nothing of all the people that are suddenly out of jobs... but then we all still need wheat and rice. Aren't rice paddies just FLOATING in water? I can't imagine rice is low on the water requirement for production. It is mind-boggling to me.

A certain amount is absolutely unavoidable, but we have also put almost no effort into conservation in agriculture, and we aren't particularly careful to match crop and environment. There's a lot of potential for savings with some minimal investment, and the information does give people some ability to manage their footprint.

I totally understand the point, and I'm not saying we should throw up our hands in defeat and all be eco-pigs. Its just one of those concepts that I find really overwhelming when you break it down into statistics.

I agree, it is pretty startling if you've never thought about it in those terms before (which I definitely haven't!).

in a related story.

http://www.dhmo.org

I've heard about that stuff. SCARY!

I don't know that there's much there that needs to be debunked - you could probably provide a different method of analysis to figure water use, but there's no real way to get around how much water is wasted through input costs. We are far to often, unfortunately, directed to the most obvious, and least effective conservation methods.

There was just a similar study that exposed the misdirection inherent in rating auto efficiency in MPG, rather than GPM - for example, getting all of those 16mpg SUV's to convert to 25mpg mid-sized vehicles would save almost twice as much gas as all the 25 MPG folks into a 40mpg hybrid, but we assume that the higher number must always be better..

I understand the thinking, but articles like this seem to put me over the edge to fall into not-caring-land anymore. It just seems to big a problem to deal with, and anything that I do (stop eating anything that requires water to grow) doesn't seem like it will stop the problem.

And I still love my long showers when it's cold out.

I hear you, but I'm really guilty of throwing away food, and I know that's definitely a thing I can (and should) fix, and this is fantastic reason to do so. There's certainly MORE I can do, like go off the grid, go vegan, bike everywhere on something I make myself out of scrap metal, etc., but I figure even small steps can help if everyone takes one together.

Yeah, and food prices nowadays should help curb waste to some extent.

I figure even small steps can help if everyone takes one together

This is what I think. Which makes me more annoyed at people that insist on berating vegans, bicyclists, etc. for their choices. If everyone did one or two things that worked for them we'd all be doing our part to support the same cause!

One of the things it seems to fail to consider is the functional lifespan of the product. Sure, it may require a bazillion gallons of water to produce a leather bag or a pair of shoes, but those are durable goods which are in turn expected to last and be functional for a long time. So comparing them directly to the amount of water used in a shower, or to produce x amount of food seems pretty invalid to me.

The whole concept of "virtual water" seems goofy to me too.
The phrase alone makes me contemplate the total amount of water contained on Earth and in our atmosphere. It seems like that amount must be fairly constant... we aren't losing water, we're only losing readily accessible, pure, usable water. And some of that can be addressed with technological innovations such as desalination and other purification techniques.

Right, but when you're talking about consumables, I think it's valid. The article is like everything else selling an agenda in that there's dramatization and some unnecessary statements (e.g., the water footprint of durable goods).

Water conservation boils down (ha!) to energy conservation, which does, at least in the dominant technology paradigm, consume non-consumable resources. I suppose I could continue throwing away food in protest of petroleum-based energy production, but there's only so much difference one man can make.

First law of thermodynamics applies- water is neither created nor destroyed. One does not irrecoverably "spend" water making tennis shoes- or any other product.

Tossing uneaten food is not like puting it's virtual water on a rocketship and shooting it off-planet. The only challenge are the constraints (political mind you- not technological) surrounding how to more efficently move it around.

Well ... granted, but water conservation doesn't assume water is destroyed. The energy required to purify water pre- and post-use is.

You're not suggesting that the energy used to purify water is destroyed?

/Issac Newton rolls in grave

OK, non-renewably consumed.

The mass is conserved, the water may not be, depending on the process involved. Cracking water into hydrogen and oxygen, for example is destructive - you no longer have the water that went into the process.

I recommend this book to just about everyone, right after this book. Both are pretty scary and somewhat hopeful, and help to put much of my daily behavior into perspective.