Yeah there are parts of the water equation–one already here clearly out of balance–that are complex. One step which japhroaig rightly names is “use less water” and the lovely folks at Greywater Action have been on the job for lo these many years (15+) with constructive, reality-tested practices re dry toilets (aka “composting toilets”) and greywater recycling.
I’d like to requote a quote that rainwater and greywater activist Brad Lancaster stated in a recent interview: it’s time we stopped crapping in the water cycle and started crapping in the carbon [i.e. soil] cycle. Why the hell are we crapping in potable water? Monumentally stupid. At the very very least, there should be a way to encourage peeing outside, onto the carbon part of municipal compost piles if it’s unfeasible for urban dwellers to have their own compost setups and dry toilets in their living space.
Tough nut to crack: storage of reverse osmosis “waste water” or the evaporated solids leftover from some DIY solar water distiller meant to provide enough for one person to survive, per day, on some minimal yield ala http://diy-alternative-energy.com/build-a-solar-water-distiller/ . Clearly what I’m outlining is a worst-case scenario, and all the non-mission-critical stuff like lawns, swimming pools, etc. have long been cut from the user loop. Yes japhroaig is right, keeping it out of aquifers or what’s left of them is paramount. Perhaps the solids could be incorporated somehow into building materials? My chemistry class marks were only average, so while I know salt in cement weakens cement, I don’t know if there’s another way to make building blocks out of such wastes mixed with other/different constituents.
One thing no one has mentioned so far: conserving energy = conserving water.
Just moving the water around to make energy costs energy [to be used making more energy–crikey what a treadmill]. Coal-fired power plants use an insane amount of water to produce electricity. Nuclear power plants are actually the second-largest consumer. Here’s what I could find on short notice as an explainer, my apologies for advertising on it that I have no stake in and have nothing to do with:
So many facets on the well and truly fouled up water cycle. Don’t even get me started on the suicidal activities of fracking… using up the last potable water to get petroleum out of the ground so we can inject toxic untreatable industrial waste water into the ground where it will, as water does, seek its own level and contaminate all other good water that it touches.
Cue David Byrne please…
"… Water flowing underground
Into the blue again
After the money’s gone
Once in a lifetime
Water flowing underground
Thread-level, yes. Is there a mechanism to collect all likes everywhere to show which threads are getting such attention? Because then thread-level may not be the most important POV.
How interesting, that China is importing alfalfa from California to feed their dairy cows, when the majority of feed for our cows, and especially our beef cattle, is the much-worse-for-them soy and corn.
A lot of conservatives spend a lot of time outdoors, and there is a reason that “conservative” and “conservation” share a root.
The conservative narrative is that environmentalists are really communists in disguise who are using environmental arguments as a cover for their economic agenda. Conservatives value the natural world, but fail to see the tension between that and their big business boosterism.
I suspect this is because conservatives don’t really believe big business is so great, but because professing that belief drives liberals crazy, and conservatives love to drive liberals crazy.
Note how consilient this theory is with @timquinn’s theory about pre-consciousness and political speech.
Also a ton of great reasons why they are totally different words. Politics and politeness share a root too. In can’t say I find the semantics enlighening in this case.
I also believe you’ve misunderstood me - I was saying that conservatives that don’t go outside are doing the blaming referred to by @macunningham - and not all conservatives regardless of their outdoor loving feelings say such things, as you have inferred/understood.
My brush was not so broad, but I can see where I may have miscommunicated.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree about this. I think the etymologies “conservative vs. conservation” to be well-worth considering in thinking about these problems, and I think despite your intentions, “politics vs. politeness” is another very fruitful comparison.
I don’t know that my response really contradicts this. I can certainly acknowledge that a lot of conservatives that don’t value nature will blame environmentalists for whatever. I think my response just contributed a perfectly compatible explanation for why conservatives who do value nature could still be anti-environmentalist.
I think my comment must have come across as more adversarial than intended, as I was more agreeing with or expanding on what you said than disagreeing with it.
I see the root. What does that -mean-? I don’t agree it gives someone wearing a big C on their jacket a better voice on the matters. And I’ve not met many republicans who admire sarah palin for her brilliant mind, while out doing fieldwork in wild areas.
Yes, you do think it is another fruitful comparison, and you have been extreeeeemly polite. Be well.
Back when “conservative” meant conservative, sure. But the word as used in the political context now means the opposite. It’s like when “bad” meant “good” a few decades ago.
That the concept of “conservation” is likely compatible with the value system of a “conservative”, and that therefore the clash of values between “conservatives” and “conservationists” probably come down to something other than the environment.
I doubt many conservatives admire Sarah Palin for her brilliant mind in the first place, as much as the fact that she’s a regular person and thus (to their minds) more trustworthy and has more common sense than a “beltway insider”. Most of the conservatives I know are big on the outdoors and mildly anti-intellectual in the “I know what’s right for my family better than some egghead in Washington” way.
It doesn’t quite mean the opposite, I don’t think, but you’re right that what we call conservatives don’t consistently advocate for existing systems that seem to work mostly all right.
I think the “bad” comparison isn’t very good, because I think “bad” was meant similarly to how marketers use the term “decadent”. That is, “bad” in regards to an external value system that the listener is meant to understand they should not be taking entirely seriously in the first place.
If liberals and conservatives ever find common ground on conservation it will likely be by appealing to the “I want things to be exactly the same way they were back in my grandpappy’s time” part of the GOP mindset. After all, the reason we have the National Parks system is because Republican Teddy Roosevelt got all teary-eyed at the idea that his descendants might not have a chance to enjoy any of America’s unspoiled wilderness. (Even if his idea of enjoying that wilderness frequently involved shooting it.)
Fair enough, consider me a skeptic rather than an opponent, no offense intended. I agree there is a certain amount of “I could be Vice President too” personal identification there which is probably a lot of the rest of her base. My experience of her base, and this is my personal experience as experienced with conservative folks who work in and love nature, was mostly that she was ‘‘hot’’ and also pissed off yankees. I’m not sure any conservative can really defend her actual record of environmental conservation. I have to agree that the ability for any of us to achieve her level of success is something that people who one “can fool most of the time” might also identify with her for. Thank you for clarifying, and don’t stare too long into the abyss that is Sarah Palin™.
