On the consumer based industry thing;

I think it would be great thing if we knew/could rate how much potable water/carbon emissions/crude oil was spent in the making of a consumer product through careful labeling. (of course, it is difficult to think of a system that would not be tremendously exploitable) The bottom line is, we need more transparency, and furthermore, the environmental conservatives should be pushing for a much more environmentally symbiotic human lifestyle. Instead we see them pushing for a more consumerism symbiotic lifestyle.

Most of us now recycle, to ‘do our bit,’ which is apparently a good thing for the ‘environment’. This course of action has been pushed readily by the environmentalist movement, but recycling is actually a tremendously wasteful process that gives us a ‘warm fuzzy feeling’ about our management of the waste that is generated by the average family household.

Do you really think that when you buy your milk in a plastic bottle, consume it, and then throw it in the recycling, that you are doing a good thing for the environment? We used to have a system of reusing glass bottles in every household, yet we did away with that. Where are the environmental conservatives calling for the renewal of this far less wasteful and more convenient system?

See my closing paragraph for the conclusion to this.

On the better infrastructure comment;

Why don’t we have a separate water system to supply not necessarily potable water that is safe for use with watering parks or gardens or with industrial applications? Surely it seems that the demand for this water is far greater than for drinking water, and probably from a much more select group of consumers, including the governments responsible for infrastructure themselves….

Dealing with the problems we have with our society at odds with our ecosystem has to really be at an ‘all or nothing’ level. We need to cleverly ensure that the vast majority of housholds/businesses/industry produce nothing but compostable waste, and use completely renewable sources of energy/materials without a major environmental impact. This really would require the sole focus of humanity for decades to realise, and unless someone is proposing that, then we are screwed and I just wish people wouldn’t pussyfoot around trumpeting the virtues of half solutions and acceptable compromises.

What was the topic again?

“Industry is consumer based” - are you saying that consumers are responsible for industry’s use of water, and therefore the stats Serg quotes are inaccurate? If so, while I see the point, I’m not sure I agree. On the one hand it’s like buying fair trade coffee to ensure better wages and conditions to the farmers - we as consumers should choose industries that use less water. The problem is it’s not that transparent - we don’t know how much water Coopers uses compared to CUB during their beer making process, for example.

“Better infrastructure” - sure, that why you have a water tank in your garden Seriously though, what would you like the government to do to improve infrastructure - are you talking about desalination plants, more suitably located reservoirs, better pipelines, higher rebates for talk installations?

“Shedding a tear for the Yarra river” - so long as it doesn’t go below the minimum level to maintain the health of the banks, I presume

So, you’ve told us what’s wrong, what we should have, and how nobody’s doing it - any ideas on how to do it?

As far as using water to, well, water plants is concerned, what is the problem, really? We should have better infrastructre for that sort of thing. Living in a city/state where everything is dead is not ‘good for the environment’

I wouldn’t shed a tear if we utilised the water of the Yarra to keep our parks watered to the point that it is merely a creek before it flows out into the undersalinified Southern Ocean.

Envirnmental coservatism is out of control, as is consumerism, neither of these movements offer the formula to solving our problems with the decline of our planet’s ecosystem.

If something is negligable, for all scientific purposes (measurements) it’s as good as zero.

You asked to be convinced and I started with water… Victorian water restriction policies are a waste of time and achieve nothing. Now, laying a big mofo drain pipe from QLD to VIC, now that’s an idea that solves 2 issues at once :p

Other than that, sorry! I mistook your rant for a request for a debate… Rant away, I know ranting is what keeps us geeks from stabbing people with screwdrivers

You have started an interesting debate, however, and for that I had done no research. I apologise for not reading your mind in advance and preparing my defence.

The energy payback time on solar panels, depending on the material used, is around 2 years, depending on the location (less sun, longer payback time). So I’m burning 2 years worth of fuels now, to save 20+ years of fuel use in the long run. That’s not perfect, I admit. But it’s a hell of a lot better than the status quo.

Negligible means it can be neglected - doesn’t mean is should be neglected.

You servers… Excuses! You need to switch them off mate; and don’t forget to yank those lithium cells out of the mother boards - they leech power too you know. Solar panels: yes they do look green but are they really? Did you consider how much pollution is emitted during the production of solar panels? You, my hippie friend have just sponsored another war!

RE: Negligible…Contradiction…
No, negligible means it makes no difference; or the amount of difference that is not worth the effort; and which will not yield any effect nor is realistic – I do not want to sit next to a stinky Balbo next month!

“We either all save water, or none of us d “
Actually, humans are VERY rational beings, maybe not the type of humans who commit acts of piracy on the high seas; but certainly the kind of humans that live in Melbourne. Instead of bringing forwards deep and meaningful philosophical arguments about human rational, let’s keep this discussion factual (as factual as this vague topic can be).

I’m not sure how you conclude the restrictions are a water of time - if the reservoir levels are dropping, then it’s not a waste of time. Of course clarification of the stats might answer this question…

Meaning that household water usage is even less than what I initially thought. That is, Melbourne water restrictions is a complete waste of time; and is only done to make the government look like they are doing something.

My home servers are off when I don’t use them. Soon, they’ll be solar powered. In the meanwhile, when they are on, they use green power (the really green one - wind, not hydro). The modem/router/wireless access points are always on. The TV is switched off at the wall when not in use, as are the microwave, stereo, and anything else with standby mode - the only exceptions being the oven and alarm clock.

“if all of us, right now and for the next year stopped using water we would not make a difference” and “households are negligible” - don’t they contradict? If it’s negligible, then it does make a difference, albeit a small one.

I refer to my previous comment: the fact that home users use less water than industry doesn’t mean we shouldn’t save water - industry should too. It’s attitudes like “I hardly use any, therefore I should be allowed to carry on” that compound the problem from an education point of view. Next we’ll have small industries saying they shouldn’t need to reduce their water usage because it’s the larger industries that use more.

We either all save water, or none of us do. Humans are like that - we’re not rational, we all want what others have. If we all use less water, we’ll still have what the others have: less water.