(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
spin, you are probably aware that many of your favorite foods and beverages have rather large water footprints: due, in part, to the amount of water required for agricultural irrigation. Case in point: wine.
As you may or may not know, our homebase of Santa Barbara neighbors one of California’s most-celebrated wine regions: the Santa Ynez Valley. Vintners in the valley must make judicious use of the limited water resources at their disposal, and when questioned about their irrigation techniques, they are happy to discuss their conservation efforts. Nevertheless, on average, one glass of wine comes with the relatively high water footprint of 32 gallons (beer, for example, is slightly lower, at 29 gallons per glass).
As we explain in Waterprint, the water footprint totals of foods and beverages are calculated by combining the actual water in the product with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item. The cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food, including insecticides, fuel required for transportation and the manufacture of the item’s packaging.
All this talk of the imbedded water costs behind agricultural irrigation brings me to a new irrigation project recently launched in another of California’s wine producing regions: Paso Robles. As reported by Western Farm Press, in an area east of highway 101—identified as the “Estrella-Creston Area of Concern,” an irrigation-monitoring project has been established with the goal of estimating the regions average annual irrigation water use. The hope is that having precise use numbers will help with future planning and regulatory decisions.
The study will be conducted using data loggers and pressure switches to record when irrigation systems are being used and how much water is being flushed through those drip lines and/or sprinklers. Rainfall data will also be collected over the course of the three-year study, which is being conducted with the complete cooperation of area vintners.
So what do you think? Is there a point at which agricultural and municipal water use meet? What responsibility do water purveyors have to track and monitor local agricultural water use? Is there a way to bring these two competing interests together to map out a better water resource management plan for water-scarce regions like California’s wine country?
To learn more about water footprints, go to www.waterfootprint.org/.
To download our free iPhone/iPad app, go to waterprint.net.
To learn more about the Paso Robles study, go to www.vineyardteam.org/search/search.php?query=battany&search=1
Showing posts with label water efficiency resource management WaterFootprint Waterprint. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water efficiency resource management WaterFootprint Waterprint. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Monday, April 12, 2010
Imbedded Industry
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The first comprehensive study of American industrial water use was recently conducted by a team of scientists (led by Chris Hendrickson) at Carnegie Mellon University. Using computer models to analyze industrial water use, the scientists were able to estimate how much water is used by 400 different industrial sectors. The study was published in the American Chemical Society’s journal, Environmental Science and Technology.
Those of you who’ve been following our coverage of water footprints and virtual water are already aware of the imbedded water costs in various products and services. It comes as no surprise that the Carnegie study concluded that a majority of water use at the industrial level is the result of processing, packaging, and shipping—with irrigation making up a smaller part of the overall total.
According to the study, it takes 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar, and 200 gallons to proceed $1 worth of pet food—and while those are some eye-popping numbers, I suspect I am not in alone in wishing that the study had tied the water amounts to specific units of measurement rather than cost, as prices can vary across communities and be influenced by a variety of other factors. Nevertheless, it’s certainly striking to see that a relatively inexpensive product—i.e. $1 worth of sugar—can carry with it such a large water footprint.
Some other interesting statistics from the study:
* Agriculture and power generation account for 9% of all direct water withdrawals in the US.
* 60% of water use is indirect (i.e. “virtual”).
* The food and beverage industry accounts for 30% of all indirect withdrawals in the US.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
The first comprehensive study of American industrial water use was recently conducted by a team of scientists (led by Chris Hendrickson) at Carnegie Mellon University. Using computer models to analyze industrial water use, the scientists were able to estimate how much water is used by 400 different industrial sectors. The study was published in the American Chemical Society’s journal, Environmental Science and Technology.
Those of you who’ve been following our coverage of water footprints and virtual water are already aware of the imbedded water costs in various products and services. It comes as no surprise that the Carnegie study concluded that a majority of water use at the industrial level is the result of processing, packaging, and shipping—with irrigation making up a smaller part of the overall total.
According to the study, it takes 270 gallons of water to produce $1 worth of sugar, and 200 gallons to proceed $1 worth of pet food—and while those are some eye-popping numbers, I suspect I am not in alone in wishing that the study had tied the water amounts to specific units of measurement rather than cost, as prices can vary across communities and be influenced by a variety of other factors. Nevertheless, it’s certainly striking to see that a relatively inexpensive product—i.e. $1 worth of sugar—can carry with it such a large water footprint.
Some other interesting statistics from the study:
* Agriculture and power generation account for 9% of all direct water withdrawals in the US.
* 60% of water use is indirect (i.e. “virtual”).
* The food and beverage industry accounts for 30% of all indirect withdrawals in the US.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Water Saving at the Corporate Level
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
If you've had a chance to play around with our new iPhone app—Waterprint—then perhaps you already know that it takes approximately 16.5 gallons of water to produce one 12-oz bottle of beer. And while it’s important for the consumer to be aware of their water footprint so that they can make educated choices designed to reduce their overall impact on water resources, for the maker of those products, getting a handle on imbedded water costs can not only lead to better conservation practices, but actually help that business stay afloat.
Case in point: Anheuser Busch.
As one of the world’s largest beer manufacturers, Anheuser Busch InBev (AB InBev) has always been aware of the water-intensive nature of the business. In 2007, the company required 5 liters of water for every liter of beer it produced.
In a statement announcing the company’s goal of reducing water consumption by 30% (3.5 liters of water per liter of beer), AB InBev CEO Carlos Brito says, “We are acutely aware that water is a finite and precious resource and the principal ingredient in our products. Efficient water use is essential to the continued, sustainable growth of our business around the world”.
A few months back we discussed the calculation of water risk (Gauging Risks), and I pointed out that a Water Index has the possibility of affecting the behavior of water-intensive companies. This was certainly the case with AB InBev, who found themselves at the top of a list of 100 companies rated by Ceres in regards to their water risk practices.
Beer is popular around the world—in different surveys it’s held everything from the fifth to top spot—and we’ve looked at efforts by the industry to effectively manage their water resources in several articles, the most recent of which appeared in the magazine last year (Green Beer). This is an educated and proactive industry, and as AB InBev demonstrates, there is no shortage of willingness to reduce water use across the board. In this week’s New York Times, AB InBev's director of environment and sustainability is quoted as saying, “Reducing water use and other natural resources is really part of how we drive efficiency in our operations. It’s simply good business.”
So what do you think? In the absence of concrete guidelines, can water-intensive enterprises rise above mere lip service and actually effect real change when it comes to water use? And is it fair to expect the same results across country lines, or should expectations be tailored to the challenges and concerns of each community touch by these big corporate enterprises? And what role—if any—can individual actions and user demands play in the quest for water efficient commercial practices?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Household Water Use
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country.” It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
As you all know by now, last week Water Efficiency and Forester Media Inc. unveiled Waterprint, our first iPhone application. Waterprint is intended to be a fun and educational tool designed to make users aware of the virtual water imbedded in the products and behaviors typical of daily life in the developed world. We plan on continually updating the application, and part of the process involves you, the user.
In fact, many of the comments I’ve received have revolved around the “household” section of the application. As we explain in the “information” section of the application, “Household water use runs the gamut from toilets to lawns, and all the gallons associated with those activities can be measured and mitigated.”
While we briefly discuss the impact of toilet flushes and running faucets, we plan to expand our coverage of household water use and water efficient fixtures and technologies in subsequent versions of the Waterprint application. After all, the EPA has concluded that the installation of WaterSense fixtures could save a family of four 17,000 gallons a year—and that's a significant amount of water no matter where you live.
When talking about household water use, it’s also important to address the issue of leaks. Leaks, also known as “unaccounted for water,” account for 6 billion gallons of water per day in the US. That 6 billion includes water lost to leaks and damaged conveyance systems. As we point out in the information section of the Waterprint application, 6 billion gallons is “enough water to supply 10 of the largest urban centers in the country.” It’s the antithesis of efficiency and an appalling misuse of one of our most valuable resources—especially in a world where so many communities struggle to supply enough water to fulfill the basic needs of their citizens. And keep in mind that when you factor in the amount of energy required to treat and transport all of that lost water (approximately 3 gallons for every kilowatt) the cost is astronomical, both in terms of actual dollars but also in greenhouse gas emissions and our continued dependence on foreign oil.
We’ve already received a lot of feedback, along with some helpful suggestions and important questions. Please keep sending in your insights, questions, complaints, challenges, and comments. With your help, we are confident that our first iPhone application can become a powerful tool for change
Monday, February 22, 2010
What's Your Waterprint?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Did you know that it takes 30 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee? And that half-pound steak you had for dinner required 774 gallons of water to get from the ranch to your table. Where do these numbers come from, and what do they mean? These total refer to water footprints, and the totals themselves are calculated by adding up the total amount of freshwater used to create a particular item or support a specific activity.
The idea of a water footprint was first introduced by A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung from UNESCO-IHE in 2002. Hoekstra and Hung believed that one should total up both the direct and indirect water used by a particular entity—consumer, community, or commercial/industrial enterprise—so that total amount of freshwater needed to produce the goods and services consumed by that entity could be measured. These measurements include the actual water in the product, along with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item.
The water footprint of foodstuffs, for example, include actions by the farmer, food processor, retailer, and consumer. These tasks that consume actual water include growing, harvesting, delivering, or purchasing a food item. But the cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food. (This includes fertilizers and insecticides, as well as the fuel required for transportation and the packaging that keeps the food safe and fresh as it travels from field to home.)
But what does water footprinting (or virtual water) have to do with water efficiency? Well, as I stated in an editorial on the subject last year, entitled “How Much Is That Droplet in the Window, “efficiency depends upon the ratio of work expended to benefit received. Many times, there are a variety of methods available to achieve a particular end, and knowing which of those many options is less water-intensive can make a big difference. As I’ve stated before, I believe that by redefining how we measure the value of water—by monitoring our “water footprint” and keeping track of our virtual water costs—we can harness new tools to help us protect, and efficiently manage, our resources.”
In keeping with our commitment to provide you with all the information and tools necessary to manage your water resources, I’m excited about our latest venture, the first Water Efficiency iPhone application: Waterprint. Waterprint is a free application that lists and calculates how much water is imbedded in a variety of activities and products, including what you wear, eat, and drink. You can learn more about the application at the Waterprint Web site, and it’s available now at the App Store. If you’re iPhone enabled, please take it for a spin and let us know what you think. We plan to continue to update and improve the application, and, as always, your feedback is a valuable resource for us.
For more on the origins of the water footprint concept (as well as a list of the many water footprint totals we’ve included in our application), go to: www.waterfootprint.org.
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Did you know that it takes 30 gallons of water to produce one cup of coffee? And that half-pound steak you had for dinner required 774 gallons of water to get from the ranch to your table. Where do these numbers come from, and what do they mean? These total refer to water footprints, and the totals themselves are calculated by adding up the total amount of freshwater used to create a particular item or support a specific activity.
The idea of a water footprint was first introduced by A.Y. Hoekstra and P.Q. Hung from UNESCO-IHE in 2002. Hoekstra and Hung believed that one should total up both the direct and indirect water used by a particular entity—consumer, community, or commercial/industrial enterprise—so that total amount of freshwater needed to produce the goods and services consumed by that entity could be measured. These measurements include the actual water in the product, along with all the virtual water embedded in every action associated with the cultivation, collection, and delivery of that item.
The water footprint of foodstuffs, for example, include actions by the farmer, food processor, retailer, and consumer. These tasks that consume actual water include growing, harvesting, delivering, or purchasing a food item. But the cultivation and exportation of food brings with it a variety of embedded water costs, including those associated with the byproducts created by food cultivation (agricultural runoff for example), as well as the items and actions necessary for the production and distribution of food. (This includes fertilizers and insecticides, as well as the fuel required for transportation and the packaging that keeps the food safe and fresh as it travels from field to home.)
But what does water footprinting (or virtual water) have to do with water efficiency? Well, as I stated in an editorial on the subject last year, entitled “How Much Is That Droplet in the Window, “efficiency depends upon the ratio of work expended to benefit received. Many times, there are a variety of methods available to achieve a particular end, and knowing which of those many options is less water-intensive can make a big difference. As I’ve stated before, I believe that by redefining how we measure the value of water—by monitoring our “water footprint” and keeping track of our virtual water costs—we can harness new tools to help us protect, and efficiently manage, our resources.”
In keeping with our commitment to provide you with all the information and tools necessary to manage your water resources, I’m excited about our latest venture, the first Water Efficiency iPhone application: Waterprint. Waterprint is a free application that lists and calculates how much water is imbedded in a variety of activities and products, including what you wear, eat, and drink. You can learn more about the application at the Waterprint Web site, and it’s available now at the App Store. If you’re iPhone enabled, please take it for a spin and let us know what you think. We plan to continue to update and improve the application, and, as always, your feedback is a valuable resource for us.
For more on the origins of the water footprint concept (as well as a list of the many water footprint totals we’ve included in our application), go to: www.waterfootprint.org.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Drops and Crops
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the annual Sourcing USA Summit (a biannual meeting, jointly hosted by Cotton Council International and Cotton Inc., that “gathers global leaders along the cotton supply chain for an open exchange of ideas”), Erik R. Peterson, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies gave a presentation entitled “Outlook for Global Water: Can We Stay Above the Surface?”
Why do cotton growers care about water supplies, and why are their concerns relevant to the rest of us? Considering that agriculture accounts for 70% of water use, it behooves us all to stop and listen to what our farmers and growers have to say. Especially when, as Peterson points out, “the food production target for 2025 will require the flow of more than 100 Colorado Rivers.” Considering the contention and acrimony already surrounding water rights along the mighty Colorado, the prospect of coming up with 100 times the amount it already supplies to the western US is daunting and – hopefully – mobilizing.
With demand increasing and supply decreasing, efficiency and conservation naturally come to the forefront – only those solutions that incorporate smart water use, treatment, and delivery will help us not only sustain our current needs, but adapt to future challenges and opportunities. As Peterson points out, “One flush of a US toilet equals one day’s water use in a developing country. The bottom line is that water policy goes beyond altruism. A far-sighted study will help define the impact of dislocation and will identify areas of competitive advantage.”
Although it may appear at first that municipal water providers and the agricultural industry operate in two separate universes, their mutual dependence on a safe, clean, and reliable water supply binds them together – one cannot operate without considering the actions of the other. It’s often said that water is a shared resource, which makes me wonder if the current balkanization of our water supply – that clear demarcation between ag interests and muni interests – makes sense. Isn’t about time we present a united front against the challenges of scarcity and demand?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
At the annual Sourcing USA Summit (a biannual meeting, jointly hosted by Cotton Council International and Cotton Inc., that “gathers global leaders along the cotton supply chain for an open exchange of ideas”), Erik R. Peterson, Senior Vice President, Center for Strategic and International Studies gave a presentation entitled “Outlook for Global Water: Can We Stay Above the Surface?”
Why do cotton growers care about water supplies, and why are their concerns relevant to the rest of us? Considering that agriculture accounts for 70% of water use, it behooves us all to stop and listen to what our farmers and growers have to say. Especially when, as Peterson points out, “the food production target for 2025 will require the flow of more than 100 Colorado Rivers.” Considering the contention and acrimony already surrounding water rights along the mighty Colorado, the prospect of coming up with 100 times the amount it already supplies to the western US is daunting and – hopefully – mobilizing.
With demand increasing and supply decreasing, efficiency and conservation naturally come to the forefront – only those solutions that incorporate smart water use, treatment, and delivery will help us not only sustain our current needs, but adapt to future challenges and opportunities. As Peterson points out, “One flush of a US toilet equals one day’s water use in a developing country. The bottom line is that water policy goes beyond altruism. A far-sighted study will help define the impact of dislocation and will identify areas of competitive advantage.”
Although it may appear at first that municipal water providers and the agricultural industry operate in two separate universes, their mutual dependence on a safe, clean, and reliable water supply binds them together – one cannot operate without considering the actions of the other. It’s often said that water is a shared resource, which makes me wonder if the current balkanization of our water supply – that clear demarcation between ag interests and muni interests – makes sense. Isn’t about time we present a united front against the challenges of scarcity and demand?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
