Visual Virtual Water

Images and videos can enable information to be absorbed and retained better than in written form; not only that, the message can be overall clearer and more efficient.

I looked up several videos which would add layers of knowledge to the notion of virtual water and explain its cost through showing it. As expected, I encountered different sources, contrasting points of view and a variety of styles.




I started with a video from the FAO, which was very informative, but really didn't make the most it could from its potential visual communication effects, raising incredibly important points, but in a dull way, lowering its communication potential...it is in fact an infographic slideshow.

 

Water for Food FAO

The main points raised by this moving infographic are:

• water is a renewable BUT finite resource
• agriculture accounts for 70% of total water use
• the world is thirsty because it is hungry

More info: FAO land and water





Another video I found is from RAI (Radiotelevisione italiana, Italy's public broadcasting company), and / but in English.

 

How do we "eat" less water?

It's very brief but to the point. This video mentions:

• 90% of water is needed to produce our food
• the water cost of beef: >15,000 litres for a kilo - for the cows to drink every day, to run the farm, to water the fields to grow their food...

Its description includes: "the production of meat and food products of animal origin, such as dairy products, entails water consumption with today's systems that would be entirely unsustainable if a larger share of the world population ate the same amount of meat as we eat in more developed countries."

It's easy to think of changing habits as unlikely, not worth it or simply too much of a hassle, but putting in into perspective, a global one, may well be one way of encouraging action.





I watched more videos, and the one I enjoyed the most because of its richer content, raising of many questions and touching on many topics, is this video by Robeco, who are sustainability investment engineers.

                                                    Water - our most precious resource


I like this video as it's informative, interactive, interesting, the message is clear and it focuses on many aspects related to water use.

• 97.5% of the Earth's water is salty
• 2.5% is freshwater
• > ⅔ of freshwater is locked in polar ice caps and glaciers
• 0.5% of water is from lakes, rivers and groundwater for agricultural, industrial and personal use
• 0.007% of global water supply is safe for consumption for all and unevenly distributed 
• 15,500 litres of water to produce a kilo of beef 

It goes on to mention water scarcity, listing several "developed" locations on Earth where this lack of water is manifested, such as Spain and Southwestern US, which is a positive feature as it can make viewers relate to this issue more. This is due to the fact that water aid ads often concentrate on far more remote regions, allowing some to think it's a "far-away" issue when, in fact, it concerns everyone.


Population has risen over the years and consequently water use has too, while this resource has remained the same.

Considering the socio-economic effect of a growing middle class and its role in emerging markets being a cause of the rise in demand for water, it directly relates an increase in disposable income with the increase of the consumption of meat: carrying on at this rate, total demand for water will exceed the world's supply by 40% by 2030.


Time to do something!

What can be done?

Technologies can alleviate water scarcity by enhancing the quality of water and its use efficiency,
recycling industrial water, improved infrastructure to reduce leaks, desalination, investing in water solutions as a way of capitalising on long-term growth opportunities as the water industry is expected to grow.

Acknowledging the source of the video, the solutions obviously shifts to sustainable investment, and I think that perhaps that is one of the most effective ways of making a solid change in the way we think of and (mis)use water.


In order to raise awareness of the use and cost of water, is it more important to focus on water as a natural resource, as a human right or as a good which will acquire far higher value in the next few years and that is worth capitalising on for maximised returns?

The way the economy drives much of the globe's dynamics, and despite my own opinion, I think the latter is more likely.



What do you think of these videos' different approaches?
Which one is most effective for you, what improvements should be made, what aspects of water scarcity and virtual water should be highlighted?

Shades of Water

Water is available on Earth in various forms and sources: oceans, lakes, rivers and streams, snow, glaciers, precipitation, fog, wetlands, underground aquifers...

This post is an opportunity to investigate a little, and clarify the terminology which categorises different types of water and virtual water, to understand how they are affected from human use.

Part of the range of terms attributed to water are divided in colours which somewhat reflect the state of the water in question and are typically attributed to different sources, kinds and uses.

These are: blue, green, grey and black water.

Blue water

Rockström et al. refer to blue water as liquid water in rivers and aquifers, in addition to groundwater, as considered by Hoekstra et al., and lakes and dams, according to Falkenmark et al.

Green Water

Rockström et al. explain green water is "naturally infiltrated rain, attached to soil particles and accessible to roots".

Blue and green water are closely linked in two ways, mainly: the moisture present in the soil perculates restoring the underlying aquifer, and blue water can be used to supply the lack of green water through irrigation (Rockström et al.)

There are two water complementary flows: the blue water flow through rivers, wetlands and underlying aquifers or groundwater and the green vapour water.

The green water flow is from natural systems (crops, forests...), it evaporates back into the atmosphere and comes back in form of precipitation.

The cycle can then start again.

Green and blue water flows (Falkenmark & Rockström)

Grey Water

Jefferson et al. define grey water as arising "from domestic washing operations. As such sources include waste from hand basins, kitchen sinks and washing machines, but specifically exclude foul or black water sources (toilet, bidets and urinals)." [...] usually generated by the use of soap or soap products for body washing and as such, varies in quality according to, amongst other things, geographical location, demographics and level of occupancy."

Grey water is collected from sinks, showers, baths, washing machines, dishwashers and can be distributed with different means, such as distribution of water directly from the sink into the toilet as flushing water, or by treating it and making it suitable for irrigation.

In addition, grey water as its own footprint, which the water footprint website defines as "The volume of freshwater that is required to assimilate the load of pollutants based on natural background concentrations and existing ambient water quality standards. It is calculated as the volume of water that is required to dilute pollutants to such an extent that the quality of the water remains above agreed water quality standards."



Black Water

Black water is water which has come into contact with fecal matter, which contains harmful bacteria and pathogens.
Unlike grey water, coming into contact with this type of waste means that the water is not able to be reused, for example in irrigation, without the risk of contamination.

Waste water has its quality affected due to human use, from domestic use (grey and black water) to industrial or commercial production.

As mentioned before, we are living within the context of  a water crisis: using as little water and as efficiently as possible is vital.

Water-efficient solutions are available and at times in place. 

The image below is an example of a greenhouse village which shows the potential of what can be achieved already.
It is decentralised from an energy and water supply and with a waste and water treatment. This means it is an independent, closed loop system where there is no waste or entropy: everything is a valuable input.

Water is supplied by collecting rain water and is kept in a cycle by treating grey water from the home, which is used for irrigating the greenhouse, itself is a source of energy; black water waste gets treated too and provides soil conditioner.

This introduction to different types of water will be useful when I delve into the cost of meat, in my upcoming post.

In the meantime, more information on types of water, water footprint, virtual water and more and can be found from the water footprint website.

Plastic and water-saving law strikes again!

After my post about legislation as a way to regulate the use of water, and my thoughts on the importance of bottom-up pressure in order to support effective legislative change, an instance of the success of new law implementation came to mind.

In October 2015 a new law was implemented in England.
It requires "large shops in England to charge 5p for all single-use plastic carrier bags."

Such a simple, straight-forward law, already in place in many nearby countries such as Ireland, Wales and Scotland, was viewed as a potential source of chaos and angered customers by some, but one year on, the results have been very promising.

At the end of July, figures indicated there was a drop of 85% in use of plastic bags since the previous year's law implementation, or an astonishing 6bn fewer plastic bags.
All thanks to a 5p charge.

In addition to the benefits of reduced use of plastic bags, it meant that over £29 million made from sales of bags which were sold at a 5p charge were given as donations to charities and community groups.

As an estimated and unimaginable 8 million tons of plastic end up in our oceans each year, this is a relatively positive start in terms of reducing waste and pollution.

This legislative action has resulted in the number of plastic bags found on beaches reduced by almost half.


This infographic shows additional data on plastic bans around the world.




Source: reusethisbag.com

The plastic charge law saved a remarkable amount of plastic from being used. But...water?

As discussed in my initial post, everything we use has a water cost.

This tax implementation, in fact, saved water twice: the virtual water from the production of additional plastic bags production, and water from being polluted with the plastic that would have been used and ended up in the sea, on beaches, on the ocean floor had the law not been put into place.

It takes 24 gallons / >109 litres of water to produce 1lb / >450g of plastic.
The plastic bag charge can be seen as a victory in terms of reducing the use of water as a positive, collateral advantage.

Within this context, change happened once people were nudged into being more careful about using plastic, with a fee...

A study showing that the charge in Wales had become even more successful after its implementation (Poortinga et. al) supports the positive outcome of what can be an example of behavioural economics, a complement paradigm of "rational-man economics" as a way of "internalising externalities through the mechanism of price" (Dietz et al., 2011 : 74)


This law worked in Wales and it's proven to work well in England too.
It is currently compulsory for large businesses only, but if the law was to be extended to cover small businesses, the benefits could evidently be even greater.

Nevertheless, plastic bags and the pollution and water cost they hold constitute a small part within the multitude of the habits we have that are harmful to our environment.

The bag charge success could be taken further, and act as equally beneficial within the context of other similarly omnipresent "convenient" single-use containers, such as coffee cups or plastic bottles.

However, calls for charge on coffee cups was recently rejected in the UK, so more work needs to be done to achieve laws which will efficiently reduce pollution.

The need to be nudged into making better choices when it comes to convenience items remains, yet the bag charge law equally remains the best example of its success.

Individual vs Legislative Approaches to Use of Water - Part 2

(Continued from part 1)

After consulting a variety of documents I read through DEFRA's (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) report from March 2016, "Enabling resilience in the water sector" added on Water UK's website. 
In relation to next year's deregulation plan, point 73 is centred on promoting markets, and water is considered as an asset delivering benefits, improving incentives and facilitating markets.

The document states that "The sector needs to adapt to ensure that it can continue to meet the needs of people, businesses and the environment – and the Government’s framework needs to adapt too." (Water.org.uk)

The sentiment is that as the population continues to grow, and the effect of climate change will put more pressure on the delivery of access to water at the same level as it is now, there will be the need to make water supplies more resilient. 
However, there are no indicators that legislation may be stricter specifically in terms of water use in the first place, except perhaps during emergency periods, such as droughts, with water restrictions put in place on those occasions (point 13). 

Another minor sign that attention will be given to reducing leakage to a minimum, and efficiently reusing water and helping customers in using water efficiently is included in the last paragraph from point 20 (DEFRA, 2016).

 

UK drought, The Guardian, 2011

The paragraph on "Boosting business resilience" in Part 2 states that: "Without a step change in our national approach, lack of access to adequate water supplies could lead to some businesses being unable to operate while farmers and growers could lose crops or have lower quality crops. If enough power stations had reduced operations due to lack of cooling water, this could affect the national grid particularly if other generation sources were unavailable." (DEFRA, 2016).

The focus, once again, is on boosting business resilience, which is seeking a solution to conditions becoming harder and more challenging; supporting businesses to be resilient, enabling collaboration between businesses and water companies... but what about farmers shifting to growing crops which are less water intensive? If other generation sources of power were to be unavailable, wouldn't that be an opportunity to push for investment for renewable energy production, such as solar energy, for which no water is needed, unlike during the extraction of coal?

"Long-term planning and investment" being mentioned as "essential to securing the water sector's resilience" show the evident colonisation of water as something that can be, and is, a source of or intrinsic to production for human use and advantage.

The conclusion confirms the "business as usual" attitude: "[...] continue to meet the needs of people, businesses and the environment." [...] "continue to work with the water industry, regulators, consumer groups and other water users to deliver, and ensure that our policy framework enables the transition to a more resilient water sector."

As regulations don't show any shift towards a less water-intensive production system, there should be more pressure on politicians to encourage, promote and invest in renewable energy and more efficient use of water, to minimise waste in forms of leakage and lower the overall need for water in the agricultural industry as well as commercial production.

To reach that stage there must be pressure put upon politicians who are likely to have economic interests above environmental ones, who value short-term gains over long-term resource availability.

This thought process identifying the issue from a legislative point, has made me realise that my personal conclusion closes off in a loop, coming back to personal and individual action.

Understanding the elements which determine high use or high saving of water is vital, yet if the majority of individuals who are more likely to suffer the consequences of lack of access to safe water do not put pressure on policy-makers, legislators and members of the government, it is unlikely that meaningful change is going to take place before drastic measures will have to be adopted.

Individual vs Legislative Approaches to Use of Water - Part 1

As you can tell by my previous post, I believe in everybody's power to make the most at having their voice heard.

Many people feel that what they can do when it comes to climate change or environmental depletion may be worthless, however I am of the opinion that when each person's initiatives and actions are combined, the results can be truly meaningful and an aid to spur positive change in mindset which can result in a lower virtual water footprint.

At the same time, my eyes and mind remain wide open: all it takes is one conversation to challenge my views and encourage me to think differently.

I had one of these conversations with a fellow student who also selected the Global Environmental Change module I'm taking at university as part of my Environment and Sustainable Development course. His views revolve around true powerful change lying in policy-making.

A metaphorical cookie was dropped in my mind and enabled me to consider a top-bottom approach point of view many times, and within different contexts, since. This is my initial surface scratch of finding out what is going on at that level, divided in two posts.

It's fair to think that for virtual water most people would at least partially concede that our current use of water is simply unsustainable long-term.
On a planet where as little as 1% of fresh water is readily accessible and such great need for it is due to our great levels of relentless and constant production, something should be done, right?

While most people I know do not really think of global water use and resources' availability, especially because they are simply unaware, if they were aware, one argument could be that if such great use of water occurs but plays such a big part in the planet's depletion of basic sources, how is it possible? How is it allowed? How is it legal?

My attention shifted towards water policies and regulations.

Trying to look at it from a political ecology perspective, I find that when it comes to water and its use, our societal system is made up of intricacies which link very different fundamental natural components - water in my case - which comes in different forms and is seized from a variety of geographical locations and in variable quantities according to local accessibility and potential.

This natural basic element is harnessed because of its primary use in our anthropocentric age, both for direct consumption and as a necessity in production and industry sectors.

This control and management of water is itself directed and determined by our system which links the environment, social and economic facets of our society within a capitalist, neoliberal ideology.

For my legislation-related search, I started off by looking into water privatisation in the UK and its effects since it took place in 1989, described as generally contrasting to the aim of increasing the efficiency of the water system.
Then I realised I should search regulations and their enforcements on an even bigger scale, at a higher, industrial level.

The Ofwat website, the economic regulator of the water sector in England and Wales, seemed to be a good start for my search.

The legislation section gives an insight of how efficient water use and regulations aimed at reducing the use and consumption, as well as the general management, of water has to fit within several bureaucratic structures.

Legislation covers different areas including environmental standards, economic regulation of the sector, water supply, flood and drought protection and adaptation.
In addition to that, Ofwat has to comply with different Acts of Parliament and European Directives. What readily comes to mind is that addressing these regulations in post-Brexit UK will probably be even more of a challenge, as water basins have no borders, after all.

What does this mean for use of water in the UK?
There is a lot of uncertainty, a term that we now hear on a daily basis.

Something which will contribute to this unpredictable condition is that in April next year England will be following Scotland's footsteps in terms of deregulating, "giving businesses, charities and public sector organisations more choice over their water and waste water retail supplier." (Business Water.org). 
A course of actions described as a positive shift as increased competition is likely to improve customer service. 

(to be continued in Part 2)

Your Clothes' Water Footprint

Aside from needing to fuel ourselves every day with food which includes a very changeable amount of virtual water, another of our quotidian actions consists of wearing some sort of clothing. A couple of recent extracurricular activities shifted my attention back to virtual water within this context.

The weekend was spent away, and I was able to view an exhibition on fashion through the decades at the Nordiska Museet in Stockholm.
Perhaps unsurprisingly for generally environmentally-forward Sweden, the ecological aspect was threaded into the curating of the exhibition, providing viewers with awareness of the water cost of something as common as a pair of jeans, estimated to be an incredible 12,000 litres according to their source.

 

Virtual water cost of jeans - Nordiska Museet, own photo

Every day we have the opportunity to see or, especially in urban centres, are extraordinarily surrounded by advertisements which encourage us to admire, desire and purchase new items of clothing, to the point where we've come up with the expression retail therapy, an established pastime for many.

This fast fashion culture, comprising the speed of production and consumption of fashion, has turned into a regular purchasing habit for many, meaning we have never gone through so many items of clothing and so quickly, and the link to environmental effects and the use of water is profound.

Similarly to food production, the environmental cost of clothing is due to many factors we need to take into consideration.

From the need of water resources during the initial stages relating to growing the materials, such as cotton natural fibres, to the making or processing of materials such as tanning leather, up to the final stages where clothing is sprayed with chemicals, each garment quickly tallies up to vast amounts of water use and water pollution caused during such production.


Let's take cotton, the world's most widely used natural fibre: it makes up for almost half the fibre used to make clothing and textiles globally, and adequate water provision is necessary for its vigorous growth.

This National Geographic video infographic efficiently shows how cotton is a very thirsty crop and every garment requires a lot of water and energy to be washed and dried post-purchase. Take a look.

 

How Your T-Shirt Can Make a Difference

As the video suggests, thinking of it on a global scale really helps to attempt to imagine the amount of pressure our planet is under, when it comes to manufacturing and taking care of all of our clothing.

The fashion industry's virtual water cost lies, in this case, in the growing of the cotton and the finished product aftercare.
However, while the National Geographic video's solution aims to tackle the issue of taking care of garments by advising to skip drying and the ironing, it omits the issue of all this water used and polluted during the dying of garments.

During the production of cotton items of clothing the fashion industry uses enormous amounts of both energy and water, as well as generating waste and pollution.

Manufacturing water uses include:

• cooling of machinery (which uses a lot of energy to operate);
• cleaning and rinsing products, parts and vessels;
• as a lubricant;
• as a solvent or reactant in a chemical reaction.

Add to that water used for washing garments during production, de-sizing, rinsing and dyeing...

Considering all these steps, the total virtual water needed for the production of a simple T-shirt or a pair of jeans is really high:

Source: The Shocking Facts About How Much Water We Use to Make Everyday Products

That's the estimated water cost of a single T-shirt!

Your Water Footprint

And here's what a pair of jeans' water footprint looks like according to Stephen Leahy's sources.


The use of chemicals used to turn raw materials into textiles and during the dyeing process end up in water streams causing further pollution, and the same goes with the detergent used once clothes have been purchased and are washed at home.

From a legislation viewpoint, a study of the water footprint assessment of a pair of jeans and the influence of agricultural policies on the sustainability of consumer products concluded that, in that case, the impact of the policy was greater for the condition of the basin's water resources, rather than for the water footprint of the cotton produced to make a pair of jeans, highlighting the need to look at local context (Chico et al.)

Meanwhile, there is a search for alternative sources of fibres to produce clothes in the future, alongside optimisations in terms of more water and energy-efficient home appliances.

So we have adverts telling us to buy new clothes on a weekly basis, keeping demand high, water being used for the growth of clothing raw materials, water used in the manufacturing process, becoming polluted and going back into water systems creating more issues for ecosystems downstream and water used for washing and taking care of the already water-intensive clothes.


While fashion, as a way of expressing our deep cultural values, is an industry that is here to stay, having its need of resources in mind can help us make more informed choices.

Without even delving into social cost of new clothing, a Trucost report exposed how most global industries would not even be profitable, were environmental costs to be taken into account.
This makes me think that as well as pushing for better regulations which consider the fashion industry's effect on the use of limited resources, we, as consumers, also need to make the best decisions possible in order to reduce our water use individually and collectively.


After attending "Thread: Rethinking Fashion, Conscious consumerism: Using our consumer purchasing power to create good" at King's Cross Impact Hub on Tuesday, the other event tying in with water usage, it was reassuring to see that many entrepreneurs have environmental and social sustainability at the forefront and as one of the major features of their clothing brands, whether it was using organic, fairtrade cotton or renting out clothing to avoid items being unused.

Other ways of acquiring clothes can help reduce the environmental pressure of the production of new clothes: purchasing second hand clothes, going to charity shops, trading and exchanging clothes with friends, making the most of clothes we already own before buying more and mending clothes in order to extend their use.


Everything you are wearing needed thousands of litres of water to produce.

How do you think the fashion industry could be more sustainable?
Is the search and use of alternative materials enough to alleviate the strain on resources or should a shift in consuming patterns be addressed seriously?

What is virtual water, and how can it be tangible?

The first time I read about the water cost of elements which comprise the tangible (objects, materials, food) and abstract (services) threads which interconnect into a web-like form of our everyday life, was through an article linked to the National Geographic newsletter I had subscribed to.

It had a focus on food items, and explained how different types of food not only have a carbon footprint, but a water cost.
As someone at an initial stage of enjoying unveiling how the way we live impacts our surroundings, it was a remarkably surprising discovery.

After a few years of further independent findings, and numerous mind realisations later, during one of the first lectures of my Urban Environmental Planning and Management in Development module - a.k.a. "ES2" - last year I learned this water cost is commonly referred to as virtual water, or embedded water.

Professor Tony Allan was the one to come up with the notion of virtual water.

Water experts Hoekstra and Chapagain define virtual water as “[…] the total volume of freshwater that is used to produce the goods and services consumed by the people […]”.

Everything we do is linked to the use of water.

That's a significant notion I have been absorbing since my learning about it.

On top of using water directly, such as when having a shower, drinking water, using a washing machine of flushing the toilet, we rely on different volumes on water being used during the production process of what we eat, the clothes we wear, the objects we use and services we take advantage of on a day-to-day basis.

The impact of this water usage is meaningful. According to the World Economic Forum’s 2015 Global Risk Report, the water crisis in the biggest global risk based on its impact to society.

The main global sources of fresh water constitute under 1% of all water on Earth, and climate change is simply contributing to further accentuate the issues of lowering fresh water global stocks.

What can be done to prevent this crisis from reaching an even more critical stage?
What are governments doing to prevent countries from running out of water or preventing water pollution?
Finally, but very importantly, what can we - as consumers - do?

Within this blog, and over a number of weeks, I am going to keep in mind these different scales when looking into virtual water in a variety of contexts (regulations, food production, clothing production, pollution...), with a particular focus on what we can do as consumers as bearers of steering powers within a capitalist society with production - at least partly - determined by supply and demand.

Fortunately there are a number of ways the world’s population can reduce its water footprint, including using production techniques which require less water, on a higher scale, while raising awareness of water scarcity issues and actively shifting our consumption patterns towards goods which require lower amounts of water for their production, on a relatively smaller scale point of view.


So let's start with something graspable: a compelling image to really link how this virtual water business is, in fact, very tangible.

Amongst global water consumption, food accounts for a particularly high share.
This infographic from FAO gives a sense of the virtual water needed for commonly consumed food and drinks, at least in the majority of Global North regions, including the UK.

Source: FAO

Unsurprisingly, the most remarkable food example to catch my eye is the last one, the hamburger.

2,400 litres of water for a single burger?

It's a good representative case as it portrays the concept of virtual water well.
The amount of water needed to produce a single hamburger is very high due to the fact that it includes the water used behind the scenes.
It's the water needed for the whole range of processes which make up its production, such as the water needed to grow and produce the crops that the animal eats in order to then be able to turn it into meat.
Added to that are the gallons of water the animal needs to drink daily while growing, the water needed for servicing, and other water-using steps which I will look into to more detail in upcoming posts.

In the meantime, take the opportunity to familiarise yourself and gain insight on how daily habits have a water cost and contribute to the demand for water for your country, or countries where the goods you use are imported from, with the aforementioned National Geographic interactive infographic.  

By also using this National Geographic water calculator you will be able to see how much water you use in your household and how you could pick up habits that could enable you to save litres of precious water every single day.
Your home's taps, white goods' efficiency, diet, transport habits, energy sources, shopping patterns... it all counts and adds up in terms of water use.

Here is an additional one: Water Calculator: including direct use (sanitation, kitchen) and indirect use of water (driving, electricity, shopping, waste management, diet).

And if you're curious to find out about the virtual water needed for more everyday foods such as bread, bananas, sugar, pork, milk and bio-fuel with a range of staple items, the interactive Water Footprint carousel will provide more facts that may astonish you.

How tangible do you now find the concept of virtual water?

Having had an introduction to this concept, who do you think is responsible for making sure we take meaningful steps to address issues surrounding water use and availability?
Where should we focus to reduce our use of virtual water and alleviate the pressure on global water stocks?