Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by flopto 3726 days ago
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/2015/06/16/new-n...)

4 comments

This talks about a water source, and more specifically a slow-filling source that has been tapped too much. This is where you should apply your concern and effort, to the protection and wise management of easily accessible fresh water sources that are being depleted too rapidly.

If someone talks about water usage (usually in a generic 'it takes X gallons to make a Y, so you should feel bad about doing/using Y' format) without regard to the specific sources then they are trying to bullshit you. If they talk about a specific source and use then keep reading to see if the rest of their argument holds up to scrutiny.

It is still relevant though; because for things like soft drinks that have an extremely low price-to-weight ratio, the only production model that makes sense is a local one. Coca-Cola doesn't just have 3 or 4 factories in the US that make soda; they have one (if not more) in every major city. Some of those cities make use of vulnerable water supplies, and some don't.

But ultimately it's the same conversation - any manufacturing of perishable / low-cost-to-weight ratio (e.g. cement is almost always produced at a factory within 50 miles of where it is used) at industrial scale is being done in a consistent, distributed way at many different locations around the country/world. If those processes damage vulnerable environments, they need to be looked at and modified.

Nitpick:

Concrete (as well as mortar, stucco, and other such products) is made locally, both dry and wet mix. Cement is made in remote areas, typically near the limestone quarries, because the process involves large, dirty, smelly kilns.

But the vast majority of the water used is in the sugar-growing stage and and creation of the packaging. Neither of these things are done even remotely locally.
We "use" water so poorly for agriculture and cities. I lived in Imperial Valley California. They have an open canal through a very dry desert for 100 miles. The canal is made of porous concrete that leaks along the way. It is then used in the farms to produce what I was told is the majority of America's lettuces and vegetables.

They LOVE farming out here since there is virtually no rain or weather events to complicate things. They have everything down to a science and a tight schedule that rarely if ever changes. We use up 90%+ of the Colorado River for this one purpose. We then ship these all across the nation using more resources. Seems a bit wasteful.

So how much water to produce a head of lettuce?

http://www.treehugger.com/green-food/from-lettuce-to-beef-wh...

Answered my own Lettuce -- 15 gallons

Chocolate (One Pound) -- 2847 gallons!!!!!

Where the lettuce has 70 calories and the chocolate has 2500. So about a 5:1 difference in efficiency.
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?

Lots of comets burn up in the atmosphere. The water from that also ends up on the surface. No need to have one actually impact.
What water is that?
The massive pockets of ice that tend to form on giant space rocks. Comets contain a lot of ice.
But this is an issue which varies a lot by geographic region. So it depends entirely where the soft drinks are being produced. Most places don't pull water from aquifers.

Also I have no idea where they are even getting this number. I think they are counting everything from rainwater that falls on the sugar beets, to the, water used by steam engines to produce electricity. But it's hard to tell because they don't explain the figure at all.