Transparency: How Much Water Do You Use?
- Posted by: GOOD , Fogelson-Lubliner
- on March 17, 2009 at 10:21 pm
As we become more and more aware that we may be using water at an unsustainable pace, the idea of water footprints—the amount of water an individual uses—is becoming more common. Water footprints can be hard to calculate, depending on how far up the chain of production you go, since everything you eat and buy used some water to produce (to feed cows for beef, for example, or to use in the factory that made your cell phone). With our latest Transparency, we give you some examples of how much water is used in some of your daily activities, so that you can begin calculate your footprint and try to reduce your gallons.
To help put things in perspective, think about this: your standard trash barrel holds 32 gallons and a mid-sized passenger car—if pumped full of water—has room for a little more than 800 gallons. So, the difference in the amount of water it takes to produce a pound of chicken and a pound of beef is enough to fill almost two whole cars.
A collaboration between GOOD and Fogelson-Lubliner.
SOURCES: Department of Energy; H2OConserve; IEEE Spectrum; The Water Footprint Network
UPDATE: The folks at Fogelson-Lubliner have updated the graphic slightly. You can view the original here.
DISCUSSION: 79 Comments
No bath .. Yeah right !
the bath misses 30 gallons, interestingly that is used the same amount as a normal shower
Gallons? What’s a gallon? Good visualization as always, but get with the times!
Who showers in the morning AND takes a bath every night???
I for one appreciate the gallons. And as for the bath, come on, you just took a shower in the morning.
More seriously, though, it’s too bad the “low-impact” alternative to the outrageous steak is still an animal product, chicken. As the graphic makes clear, while this saves a significant amount of water over beef, it’s still hugely wasteful compared to a plant-based alternative – of which there are plenty. It would have been good to show people an even greater total savings with practical “extremes”, the understanding being that there’s a spectrum of possibilities in between (which is where the chicken “alternative” really is).Otherwise, great work.
i really should take less baths/showers. it’s like the one thing i do that i feel guilty about. but we don’t want to be like in the dark ages where the average person got one shower in their entire lifetime! ew. lol.
This is an amazing visual take on the breakdown of water usage in our lives.
Is it just me or does anyone else believe that this is gross misinterpretation and representation of data? The wonders of statistics and mathematical manipulation, you can play with the numbers and facts to prove even the most far-fetched or farcical statement!A little example is the world accepted direct water consumption per person per day is in the region of 18 gallons per day, yet this graphic states it’s around 115 gallons per person per day… hmm…
Nuclear energy at 255 gallons per day per household? I just about choked on my dentures. As anyone with a primary school education knows (or SHOULD know) Nuclear power CONSUMES no water. Water (usually a nearby river) is used for heat-exchanged cooling of parasitic heat and some water is heated to steam by the reactor to drive the turbine, generating the power. The steam is released to the atmosphere and condenses, completing the cycle without contamination. 255g/d/h? Poppycock! I’m all for showing the ‘unintended consequences’ of consumption, but this is slops over the edge from clever in to ‘propaganda’ and ‘big lie’ territory.
I believe in saving water. I grew up on a farm in IN with well water and when It was precious as gold in our household. If you used to much you could not take a bath at night. but I don’t believe this diagram is quite accurate. For one, I think most people take a shower either morning or night not both.
yeah this diagram is crap. not useful at all, there are so many factors ignored it makes the data completely irrelevant to itself so you cant compare anything. thank you for making up some numbers for a fancy looking diagram so id waste my time hurting my brain wondering why anyone would think this is worth seeing.
Fogelson Lubliner you fail at life
Following the logic of this graphic, one notes ( 1 ) beef is the biggest by far, so much so the graph designer ‘cheated’ at the bottom, spreading out the green dots; ( 2 ) there is displayed water-reducing methods for lots of little picayune uses, but the big one, the change that would save the most water – not eating meat — is ignored. There is a token change from burger to salad, yes.
RE: The guy talking about nuclear energy. Yes, you’re right that water used in nuclear power generation enters the atmosphere as steam and becomes a part of the water cycle, but come on, that’s true of everything on the graphic. Over time, all water will flow through the water cycle. What is your angle? Why choose nuclear energy?
Just a comment: Water is the most recyclable substance on our planet! The point here should be the environmental costs of getting the water to where it is useful. How many barrels of oil or tonnes of coal(which are non replacable resourses in the short term) get consumed in providing you with that 300g fillet?
We need to stop letting cows drink so much money. The horror…..
just dont eat meat!
Using your own logic, it takes 3.612 x 10²º gallons (virtually, of course) to eat a fish. BAD Hippies!
Okay, the salad listed as an alternative for lunch lacks protein, therefore is NOT a direct substitute for the burger.
So, chicken and beer instead of steak and wine? Yeah, you can count me out.
How does beef take up a crapload of gallons (assuming a good bit of those gallons are what the cow drinks) and cereal not, that milk comes from essentially the same cow.
who the fuck cares how much water is used unless ur paying per the bottle for it to wash my face
The next question should be: “How much oil does it require to transport these?”
“beef is the biggest by far, so much so the graph designer ‘cheated’ at the bottom, spreading out the green dots”
No, if anything, the designer made his point less powerful by spreading them out. Humans perceive numbers as larger if they are thinner in one dimension.
“Using your own logic, it takes 3.612 x 10²º gallons (virtually, of course) to eat a fish. BAD Hippies!”
Seriously? No. The amount of water it takes for a pound of beef is calculated by dividing the amount of water required to feed the cow, and to feed the crop used as cow feed, by the number of pounds of meat on the cow. You’d be saying that every fish is reliant on drinking 3.6e+20 gallons of water. (Not to mention, the oceans are salt water, and desalination isn’t cost efficient and scalable enough to be an option to offset our water usage).
Think about your metaphors before you post, I implore you.
We put a brick in our toilet, so it uses 6 liters instead of 18 ! And we don’t even flush just for peeh + we only shower every 2 days (sometimes even 3) Plus the water used in my sink is doubled as plant food (for my natural dish soap is a great natural insecticide and the food residu is just extra nutrition for plants… Plus most of my plants are food, directly in my living room/solarium ! Just keep up the good work on keeping the word going , wether the graph is “exact” or not