I. The Water Footprint
At a recent conference in Stockholm, Dutch engineer Arjen Hoekstra presented his idea of a water footprint. Similar to the carbon footprint concept, the water footprint attempts to quantify impact in terms of water use and pollution. Hoekstra's footprint accounts both for direct use of water as well as "virtual use" - water used to produce goods consumed. While the carbon footprint remains a bit ethereal, water quantities seem more tangible. Thus, the water footprints Hoekstra generated for some common products are astounding and troublesome - a cup of coffee requires 140 liters (almost 40 gallons) of water; 2,400 liters (~634 gallons) for a hamburger; and 10,000 liters (over 2,600 gallons) of water for a pair bluejeans.
As I have noted previously, assessing the real environmental impact of our activities, lives, or the goods we consume requires a comprehensive analysis, one that is not simply limited to carbon or water. However, I qualified that statement by saying that effective measures must be quantifiable and accessible and that concepts like the carbon footprint are one step in making that comprehensive analysis relatively quantifiable. The water footprint is another building block. Some weighty corporations and organizations - The UN, Nestle, Pepsi, the World Wildlife Federation - have bought into the concept. As its use becomes more widespread, the water footprint will permit a more in-depth environmental analysis of activities, products, and services.
The advent of the water footprint is also quite timely. Even if its unidimensional analysis in inherently limited, as I argued in regard to the carbon footprint, the water footprint will help to spotlight the current worldwide water use paradigm, for which "unsustainable" does no justice. Hoekstra contends that his virtual water quantification could help remedy this situation. Thinking in terms of virtual water - the amount of water consumed or polluted in producing particular goods - nations can quantify the water impact of their imports and exports.
Hoekstra's aim seems to be to eliminate agriculture in all arid (or otherwise unsuitable) regions of the world; he would rather see import and export trade offs, measured in terms of virtual water. However, his water footprint, by nature, does not account for other consequences of such a change - the effects on local, regional, and national economics; the environmental impact of then necessarily transporting crops and goods across the globe, just to name a few. Even with those shortcomings, the fact that such conversations are now on the table is encouraging. I do believe that, one day soon, Mother Earth will cast off the bounds of technical innovation that man believes have subdued her. The global community should anticipate and prepare for that series of events, rather than react as they occur.
II. Water in the U.S.
Thinking about water use and pollution, I also want to turn briefly to water in the U.S., a situation some have described as a crisis. On this site, I have specifically mentioned the battle over water supply to Atlanta, and while that particular scenario has made headlines in the past year, it is not unique. In a guest column to the Washington Post, Robert Glennon, a law professor at the University of Arizona, says simply that the "U.S. water supply is running out." He cites several possible solutions - desalinization, reuse of municipal waste water, stringent conservation; he also recognizes that none of these on their own would solve our problems.
Glennon makes two general observations that I want to highlight. First, he characterizes the U.S. water "shortage" in terms of the water:population ratio. In addition to depleting ancient and slow-to-replenish aquifers, U.S. water demand grows as the populations continues to increase. Like many other environmental problems, water issues emanate from the simple concept of carrying capacity - an expression of the population that a particular habitat can sustain. As Glennon points out, there are several means by which to mitigate the U.S. water supply concerns - finding new sources (desalinization); reuse (i.e., reuse of wastewater); reducing use. But none of these represents a singular fix, and they each come with their own drawbacks. Without me saying anything else on this topic, you can all infer that the conversation becomes much more difficult and controversial from this point . . . .
The second of Glennon's points that I want to emphasize is the commoditization of water in the U.S., or, more appropriately, the lack thereof. Certainly, water rights are bought, sold, bartered for, and exchanged by municipalities, corporations, and private parties. But end users pay fees that essentially cover utility providers' operation costs. In other words, the water itself is free. Glennon likens increased water fees to surges in gasoline prices. During the last peak in gasoline prices, sales of fuel efficient cars spiked, public transportation ridership increased, and many people chose to drive less when possible. Glennon posits that increased fees for water usage would spur similar conservation efforts as individual users sought to save money. (This is a concept I have also advocated; see "The Future of Atlanta's Water Supply.")
The take-home point of this post is that water's place an environmental concern should not be overshadowed by other hot-button issues. This is true both in the U.S. and across the globe. As I usually do, I will remind all readers that each of us can do our part to chip away at these crisis situations by being conscious and thoughtful in our daily activities.
Posts
