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)
Saturday, 12 November 2016
Friday, 28 October 2016
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.
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.
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:
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:
That's the estimated water cost of a single T-shirt!
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?
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.
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.
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:
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?
Friday, 14 October 2016
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.
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 […]”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)