Water Conservation: Rethinking the Best Ways You Can Make a Difference
Water is another area where we don’t realize how connected many of our daily decisions are to nature.
I often get asked after talks what people can do at home to help the environment, especially to save water. First, off, as Matt Damon has said, stop dumping buckets of clean, filtered ice water over your heads!
Beyond that, the advice we usually give to conserve water—i.e., don’t water your lawn, take shorter showers, turn off the faucet while you brush your teeth—is misleading. These changes are important, but they’re likely not nearly enough. So many other choices we make have so much more to do with water, and we don’t even think about them.
For instance: Was the cotton in that shirt you just bought or the rice in your sushi grown somewhere with abundant water—or in the desert?
Cotton and rice are both extremely water thirsty crops, and we’re growing both right now in the California desert in the middle of a staggering drought.
How much water did it take to make those jeans you’re wearing? Somewhere between 919 gallons (if you believe Levi’s) to 2,900 gallons (if you believe the Water Footprint Network).
In any case, not buying those new jeans would save surprisingly more water than turning off the faucet (which saves 200 gallons/month).
These are interesting tidbits. But for me, the jury is still out on what the biggest ways are that our daily lives demand water, and what the biggest changes are that we can make as individuals to truly make a difference.
That’s why I’ll be leading more research this year into what personal behavior changes could make the biggest impact on water conservation. I’ll be looking at everything from diet choices to clothing sourcing to appliances to transportation and personal habits.
Time: The New Metric of Poverty
How does nature touch the daily lives of the poor? Typical ideas about how conservation can help the poor focus on income. Manage a fishery better, and local fishers can catch more fish and sell them for more income. Improve grazing practices, and there’s more food for both wildlife and cows, which means cattle owners can turn a better profit.
But what may be just as important is how conserving nature could affect how much time the poor have on their hands.
If fish are more abundant near where you live, you can catch them closer to home and spend less time on the water. If forage for your cattle is good near your house, you spend fewer hours herding your cows off to a distant grazing land with good enough grass. If conserving nature in a watershed means clean water is available closer to home, women and children may save hours a day fetching it.
This extra time can be used in other income generating activities, going to school, getting training, engaging more socially or with family, or any number of other things that generally make people feel better off.
The development community has been dissatisfied with the poverty line as our sole means of defining poverty for a long time. Time is increasingly recognized as a key resource, and how much of it we have is being touted more and more by economists and development experts as a good indicator of how well off a person is.
Can we finally get beyond defining poverty based solely on income? That’s another question I’m asking this year with development colleagues, to see if we can redefine poverty based on both time and income.
If we can, we have a richer understanding of poverty in all contexts, and we have a new way to see how conservation can help people out of it.
Nature as Normal
The environment is now a non-issue in politics in the United States. (In the U.S. 2012 presidential elections, “environment” was mentioned exactly zero times in the debates.)
And yet, if the hypotheses I’m testing this year are correct, nature is touching our kids through the classroom window, our clothes, our food… and even our time. If I’m right, then nature is a big part of our daily lives no matter who we are, and we should start acting like it is.
If test scores across the nation are correlated with what’s out the classroom window, I’ll look for schools willing to test this idea directly. Based on what matters with the view, we can experimentally change views and see if test scores respond. If they do, we’ll know a lot about how to better design schools, and you’ll start to see parents asking principals what they’re doing to make sure students have a green view. Nature will become part of the education debate.
What about water? We’ll be able to tell people how they can have the biggest impact on water supplies. People may see that they are most connected to water through the food and clothes they buy, not through the glasses they fill from the tap and the showers they take. Water sourcing—where we only buy foods and clothes from crops grown in water secure regions—may become the next consumer movement.
If we redefine poverty based on both time and income, we may see that people living off of stressed natural resources are even poorer than we thought. Not only do they scrape by on less than a dollar a day, their hours from dawn to dusk are filled with the toil of making ends meet.
But if conservation actions free up some of that time for people to do as they choose, that in itself may make the rest of life more tolerable. Nature then becomes a more important part of development work and our decisions about international aid.
These three areas—education, water and poverty—are key to growing a widespread recognition of how nature is normal. Look for progress reports from me on this research here on Cool Green Science throughout this year and 2015.