Cav's Place

Several months ago, an article from ENN made me want to write a post about the water footprint, which is something that even many of those from the Western world who do care about their environmental impact tend to pay little attention to. Another, more recent, article offers more details and does a better job of presenting the scale of the problem.

We use freshwater as if we had an unlimited supply of it, which we obviously don’t, and pollute even what we do have. Not only that, but global warming is also gradually reducing the amount we can gather by traditional means, especially in areas which were relatively arid to begin with. This might not be immediately obvious in the colder areas, where rapidly melting glaciers actually increase the supply of water (and likely cause more frequent floods), but that’s just a temporary situation and as soon as those glaciers will be gone those areas will face extreme shortages.
But humans know they live on a blue planet, which means that water does exist and they only need to make it suitable for drinking. To that end, desalinization plants have been developed and are being used to turn saltwater into freshwater. The process poses health and environmental risks, but why would people worry about that when they need the water, right? Yet another example of human shortsightedness, always looking for ways to produce more instead of using less.

As with most environmental problems, a necessary but not sufficient condition which needs to be met in order to reduce the water footprint of the human race is to drastically reduce the population. But until a noticeable number of people will stop thinking with their gonads we need to look for other methods which could at least buy the world, and us, some time and then hope it’ll be enough for that “awakening” to take place.
One such method would be the implementation of water recycling systems. I believe that small-scale ones would be a better idea, each covering only a small group of buildings or even a single building. If they would be efficient enough, the water could even be reused for drinking, therefore drastically reducing the amount of water taken from the environment once an adequate amount is flowing through each such system. If not, it could at least be used for watering plants and washing, and after washing it could go to the toilet.
But speaking of the efficiency of such systems, it would greatly benefit from the reduction of the number and quantity of harmful substances we use and eventually throw down the drain. Of course, the fact that such systems would benefit from less toxins is only a nice side effect, the main beneficiary being the planet as a whole. The water rendered unusable due to the substances dumped in it also counts for our water footprint!
As for the toilets, those are an issue in themselves. Using freshwater to move waste products through the sewers is very wasteful! I’m sure we are capable of coming up with better methods if we’d only try hard enough. After all, some are already making progress. Yes, it will require drastic changes and will be hard to implement, but that’s what you get for using flawed designs for so long.
If you want something easier to do, I would also point out that a significant amount of water is used for entertainment purposes, such as amusement parks or swimming pools. Those are things we could do without, or at least try to replace freshwater with saltwater where possible. It won’t be a popular idea, but few good ones are.
As for informative endeavors, I’ll skip over the awareness campaigns and ask for detailed studies aimed at determining the exact water footprint of each product and encouraging the use of those which have a relatively low one compared to others of the same type. Besides information, considering the fact that their pockets (or bank accounts) are yet another thing humans think with, the encouragement could and perhaps should also take the form of financial incentives. Taxing products with a high water footprint and using the money to subsidize similar ones with a lower one would go a long way.

I’m aware that the above suggestions deal mainly with what governments and corporations could do. That’s because I am still convinced that anybody who cares to know what are the little things they can do in order to help when it comes to environmental issues already does, and those who don’t care now still won’t care even if you try to tell them one more time.
What most who are interested in reducing the environmental damage they cause do has more to do with what options they feel are within their reach than with their own convictions and desires. I for one find myself in the unpleasant position of wishing to do more about this issue but not having access to effective and reasonable means of doing so.
The existing infrastructure has great impact… But that applies to everything and is a topic for another time.

I’m aware that these changes would cause problems for many people in the immediate future, but I can’t say that I care. Humans need to take responsibility for their own actions and face the consequences.
I’m looking at this from an environmental perspective and know that such changes are required in order for this planet to still support life as we know it. Incidentally, we are also a known life form which resides on Earth and would therefore greatly benefit from the results of these actions in the long run.
This world would be so much better for all the creatures who call it their home if humans would occasionally exhibit at least a part of that intelligence they claim to possess. And if they could also add some genuine concern for things other than their own immediate well-being into the mix, I’m quite sure that a lot of problems would get solved.