The Water Footprint

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.

States Seeking Federal Funds for Rail

In contrast to the Alabama highway project I highlighted recently (See "Federal Highway Funding Going to 'Wrong Places'"), many other states are seeking to capitalizing on federal funding opportunities to maintain, upgrade, and expand their rail networks. I hope to see more reports of this type of state and local government recognition that "balance" in transportation options is a worthy investment and a characteristic that residents find both useful and desirable.

"States Seek Slice of Rail Funding", Wall Street Journal, August 25, 2009

"Maryland Seeks $360 Million for Rail Upgrades", Baltimore Sun, August 25, 2009

Federal Highway Funding Going to "Wrong Places"

In my post about obstacles to public transportation in the U.S., I talked about incentivizing alternative transit options for commuters. A corollary to that concept is promoting transportation policy through funding. But federal highway funding policy threatens to keep the country locked in the status quo for some time to come.

The PBS segment highlighted in this report from Next American City magazine discusses a particular project included in the Appalachain Highway Development System, a federal program that matches federal to state dollars $4:$1 for included highway projects. As highlighted in the video clip, authorization for the Northern Beltway around Birmingham was included in federal legislation and largely bypassed local planning and projection processes. From the comments of Birmingham's Mayor Larry Langford, its clear the project faces some pushback from local government: "Yes, we can get from point A to point B but now what we are doing is cycling traffic around because of the grandiose idea that ‘we need more interstates.’ No, we don’t need more interstates—we need high-speed public transportation. But we’re always spending our money in the wrong places."

Aside from these specific issues, including the demolition of homes along the beltway's proposed route, projects such as this raise questions about the effectiveness of federal funding priorities. It seems clear from Mayor Langford's comments, as well as those of a local real estate developer, that Birmingham could use federal assistance in a number areas within the city itself. Rather than helping to fund urban renewal projects or stimulate economic growth within Birmingham, federal funds - 80% of 3.3 billion dollars, according to PBS - will instead go to highway project cutting through undeveloped portions of the surrounding countryside.

All of this is occurring at a time when the Obama administration, at least in words, is attempting to dramatically alter the general transportation policy of the United States. Certainly an appropriate starting place would be examine who federal transportation are allotted and awarded and how those programs affect the decisions of state and local lawmakers.

Health Care Reform, Government Intervention, and Zombies

Paul Krugman's column in today's N.Y. Times directly confronts government intervention critics. Countering the variety of claims, many of which are unsubstantiated and vague, that a government-sponsored insurance plan would spell dire consequences for the health care system, Krugman asserts that a lack of government regulation is to blame for many of the issues making current headlines. Because of these failures, Krugman asserts that the government-is-bad, Reagonomic philosophy should have already died. Instead, it lives on a "zombie doctrine" and remains a powerful, even if just rhetorical, argument in the debate over health care reform.

Krugman's column also reminds me of the need to cut through the emotionally-charged language and political lingo to examine the real nature of possible solutions along with their probable benefits and consequences. Perception without insight can be deceptive, and many of our public figures capitalize on that idea. (See "A Soapbox Moment.") Therefore, we as the public must be conscious of what we hear, resist the urge to take it at face value, and examine the ins and outs of these important issues on our own.

Public Transportation Funding

This article highlights an issue I raised in a recent post regarding public transportation in the United States. In the midst of a push from the federal government to expand public transportation in many areas, transit agencies are having difficulty funding daily operation of existing services. As I noted in my previous post, funding issues can and will strike at crucial aspects of public transportation - cost effectiveness to the rider, convenience to the rider, and reliability - three issues that are absolutely necessary for building public support and use of any transit system.

Expansion projects certainly fit within the "economic stimulus" package, and beginning to change the transportation profile of the U.S. is an admirable goal, the federal administration must be sure existing transit agencies are able to maintain services, quality, and value. Otherwise, the foundation necessary for expanding transit options in this country will be sorely lacking.

LA's Water Use Restrictions

I wanted to share an L.A. Times article that I came across recently. In discussing Atlanta's water issues ("The Future of Atlanta's Water Supply"), I talked about the need for municipalities to implement and enforce certain water conservation measures. L.A. is demonstrating its commitment to water conservation. The article particularly highlights the city's brigade of officers who patrol and enforce residential water use restrictions. According to the article, the city's water conservation scheme has allowed it maintain basically the same total water usage over the past 25 years while adding over a million people to the population. With those results, L.A. is certainly setting an example other metropolitan areas should mimic, particularly those in water-scare regions.

Considering the Usefulness of the Carbon Footprint Concept

Chuck Plunkett published an editorial in the Denver Post this past Sunday entitled, "Prius effect: energy efficient cars undercut the appeal of light rail." Today, Post contributor Ed Quillen responded with an opinion piece, "Fallacy of the carbon footprint." I want to take a look at both of these articles for two fairly distinct reasons. First, as Quillen clearly hints, I want to discuss the admitted narrowness of Plunkett's analysis and how that limitation, at least in my mind, does much to discredit an attempt at a well-reasoned argument. Secondly, I want to think about how effective the concept of the carbon footprint actually is, as it is being used in studies like that relied on by Plunkett.

Plunkett's premise is that as the fuel efficiency of automobiles improves, transit options such as light rail become less appealing. Plunkett admits that his analysis focuses on one perceived benefit of light rail - environmental effects - though I believe he attempts to bury this admission. Furthermore, as Quillen points out, that singular focus is not even fully analyzed. The study Plunkett utilizes seems limited to energy consumption of the transportation modes themselves without accounting for all the incidental environmental effects. In Plunkett's defense, these are almost too numerous to name, let alone account for in a statistical study; however, the failure to even acknowledge them is unacceptable. What about comparing the environmental effects of highway versus rail infrastructure? What about the effects on watersheds of all the impervious surfacing needed to accommodate a metropolitan area moved by cars (or buses)? Plunkett also does not broach the subject of how his automobile carbon analysis would change in citywide standstill traffic. How would all of those cars essentially idling for minutes at time effect the per passenger per mile analysis? Given all these glaring absences, I cannot understand how Plunkett can make the statement that light rail is "a transit option our environment can no longer afford," unless, of course, he's powered by the same agenda as Randal O'Toole of the Cato Institute, who contributed the data utilized by Plunkett.

Aside from Plunkett's limited environmental analysis, he ignores other benefits of light rail and public transportation. When all car commuting expenses in a city like Denver are accounted for - gas, car maintenance, parking, etc. - light rail can be an enticing option economically for many commuters. This is particularly true if employers are providing or subsidizing the cost of transit passes. And what about safety? Look, we all know that transit proponents will throw out some exaggerated traffic fatality statistics. However, I think it is safe to assume that more people die every year in the United States in personal automobile accidents than in light rail, commuter train, or bus accidents. There are a host of other benefits I could mention - productivity during commuting, potential time savings, etc. The take home point here is that, as regular readers know, I value inclusive and well-rounded analysis of any issue. For me, Plunkett's argument falls fatally short of that mark.

Quillen raises the same questions in his response to Plunkett's article. He does so in a way that challenges the concept of the carbon footprint, a fixture in the escalating discussion about reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Plunkett's article is evidence that, when one can pick and choose factors for statistical analysis, that person can customize the statistics results to justify almost any conclusion. This is certainly the trap to which calculations like a carbon footprint can fall prey. Like interpreting a work of art, there are a variety of angles and perspectives that are simultaneously legitimate and contradictory. Depending on which set of these are chosen as criteria for a particular analysis, results can widely vary.

I am not advocating discarding the concept for that sake. Rather, I do believe the world needs some sort of index that attempts to quantify the impact of products, projects, and activities on the environment. Such an index must be as inclusive as possible to be truly useful, but this is also where complexity enters the picture. Practicality necessitates a paring down of factors included in the index to those whose impacts are readily ascertainable and quantifiable. Striking this balance between accuracy and practicality leaves a tool that is imperfect but a tool which may still be useful as an indicator for ballparking environmental impact. For some examples of corporate attempts at indexing their environmental impact, see Patagonia's Footprint Chronicles as well as Walmart's proposed sustainability index (and a New York Times article about the index).

I think this is essentially what we have in the carbon footprint concept. The key is remembering that, as a tool only addressing one aspect of environmental impact, the concept is inherently limited and must be utilized with that in mind. Thus, for Plunkett to base his conclusion solely on the per passenger per mile carbon footprint of light rail versus automobile commuting ignores other necessary aspects of the analysis, even if that analysis is limited solely to environmental considerations. And as I stated before, even if his environmental arguments are given credence, the fact that he completely ignores economic or social aspects still, in my mind, dooms his conclusion.

Again, all of this babbling is to remind all of us that we cannot solve our local, national, or global problems with piecemeal analysis or solutions. Realizing that a completely inclusive analysis of all environmental impacts of any one item is nearly impossible, we must also realize the limitations of the practical tools at our disposal and strive to think as inclusively as that practicality allows.

More on Everyday Conservation

This report from The Cleanest Line provides a summary of new paper issued by the National Parks Conservation Association regarding climate change and its effects on species habitats and migration. I won't rehash the details of the report or the paper itself. There's a link to the 50-page report on The Cleanest Line's page.

What I want to highlight is the realization inherent in this report that combating the effects of a changing climate requires comprehensive solutions and collective action. Compartmentalized thinking and segmented action cannot adequately address phenomena that are geographically and philosophically widespread. Finding solutions to the issues raised in the paper will require cooperation among state and federal authorities and private landowners that surround the parks in question.

On a broader thought, in addressing any problem, social or scientific, we can attempt to address the problem by targeting and neutralizing specific symptoms of the problem, but that won't eliminate the problem altogether. For example, improving automobile fuel efficiency and utilizing alternative, "clean" means of energy production are certainly laudable goals in combating carbon emissions. But neither of these solutions address the root cause of increasing emissions - rising consumption. A comprehensive medicine that allays symptoms and attacks the source of the illness will be much more effective in the long-term search for a cure.

Those thoughts really turns me back to The Everyday Conservationist post I made earlier today. Implementing a comprehensive and cooperative solution begins with each of us and the choices we make each day. Confronting these decisions and discussing them with friends and family is a great start to finding solutions that will be effective now and in the future.