Do YOU know how much water we all use in reality


We're about more than just birds (though obviously we like them a lot).
Wildlife Protection

Do YOU know how much water we all use in reality

This question is not answered

when you see global warming and droughts that affect all animals

All Replies
  • Very interesting reading Jeremy, how on earth have we managed to exist so long.....

  • gaynorsl
    how on earth have we managed to exist so long


    Maybe more efficient collection of rainwater & more de-salination plants Gaynor!

    Quite eye-opening facts in this article!

  • Not sure where they got their info Wendy, but I'd put these statistics down as extremely doubtful. I've worked in a vineyard for 10 years & never have any vines been watered except in their first year when it was done 2 or 3 times by hand from a tractor towing a tank. These vines then live 30, 50 or 100 years & are never watered again! The other stats look very dubious too!

  • Ostriches bury their heads in the sand

    Look on any site that offers the same stats, it is like all the scientists telling us global warming is killing the planet, and one idiot called Trump calling them all wrong.


    are they all wrong

  • You obviously don't understand, what has water to do with growing wine, duh. What about the BOTTLES that are manufactured, the tops or corks, the transport, the storage, every single stage uses WATER.

    It takes 872 gallons of water to produce 1 gallon of wine. But if you look at standard servings of each, the race gets closer with about 28 gallons of waterneeded for 12 fluid ounces of beer and 34 gallons of water needed for 5 fluid ounces of wine.13 Oct 2014

  • Other than as a scare tactic to get people to minimise waste, which is OK I suppose, this article doesn't tackle any issues at all. I suspect, since they quote US sources, it is based on US data, not global. I'm no expert but I think the last estimates I saw, suggested the US use about twice the resources of Europe per capita, which itself is using 4-5x the resources per capita compared to SE Asia. I think the original data is not really about how much water is used for any given crop or whatever, but as a means of estimating what is the total population the planet can support depending upon what quality of life that population demands. Regardless of the quality we want, we are currently over-budget, a fact I suspect the politicians and press would prefer not to discuss, when they can discuss how much water it takes to grow beef burgers instead. If you really wanted the latter, you'd need to discuss the difference between what natural vegetation requires and what different food crops + processing and compare that to local rainfall to have any relevant meaning. I'm not sure it is really relevant how much water it takes to make a beef burger if it all happens in an area of high enough rainfall because no-one transports water just to make them.

  • I suggest you and other watch this, again POINT MISSED, why !!!        If you have one pint of water do you use it in manufacturing or for someone to drink, it can only be used once, watch the video

    By the end of David Attenboroughs film an additional 9000 people will have been born on this planet, that is 216,000 extra by this time tomorrow.  THREE MILLION + by this time next year, and the water level has been the same since the dawn of the Earth.

  • and here

    Remember "There are none so blind as those who will not see"

  • Gosh Jeremy R, you're a bit wound up aren't you. My comments were based on this item in the first report  "1 gallon of wine requires 1,008 gallons of water (mostly for growing the grapes), " & I pointed out, quite correctly, that actually the grape vines are not watered. If you don't like it, tough cooky! We are very aware of the need to conserve water & collect rainwater for garden watering. We also save as much water as possible in our daily lives. However I don't believe everything I read on the internet.

  • I suspect water is a local resource because it is not transported. Consequently, I feel saving water in an area with enough won't change much in the present because of that. Clearly using water wastefully is a disaster in somewhere like sub Saharan Africa because it is already short for the existing population, but in many other areas water is not the critical factor ... yet and that's part of what's missing in the original. It will still boil down to the same choice eventually: restrict population to allow a higher quality of life or restrict quality of life (including water usage) to allow a higher population and, as you say because of continually rising population, that will apply sooner or later on both a local and a global scale wherever you are. I would rather be given the choice of where that balance lies than just sit back and find out where it falls through inaction.

  • I don't think anyone is missing the point Jeremy, but the important thing is more about what the goal of producing such numbers.  Often it's simply to produce sound bite headlines rather than to (eg) promote discussion over the best locations to produce foodstuffs that have a high water dependency.  It also depends on what the foodstuff is and quantities eaten - chocolate looks to be "expensive" in water, but the quantities eaten around the world are small, so the water cost is probably not important.  I'd also like to know what the water cost of water is.  If you're including the production and transport costs for products, then the production and transport costs of water itself have to be taken into account - drinking water particularly of course.  It may well be that the overall cost of good ol' tap water is higher than that of beer :-)

  • Why is it that when someone expresses a view that someone disagrees with they are "wound up" perhaps if ostriches had not buried their heads for 50 years the planet would not be in the dire state it is in now Noisette

  • It's not your views I disagree with Jeremy R, we are all entitled to have an opinion, but the way you express them, which I find offensive. I also only pointed out a large error in the Stats & questioned le validity of the others. As is my right.  

  • Jeremy R

    Perhaps if ostriches had not buried their heads for 50 years the planet would not be in the dire straight.

    From the Daily Mail.

    I though it was humans to blame for the planet and not ostriches and things have not been good for much more than 50 years, its all very well putting stuff on here to get a response but please don't get cross and rude yourself, when you don't get the reaction you wanted.