Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: Stalagmite suggests climate disruption may have changed monsoons http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/12/the-weekly-carboholic-stalagmite-monsoons/ Think - it ain't illegal yet... Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:52:31 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Brian Angliss http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/12/the-weekly-carboholic-stalagmite-monsoons/comment-page-1/#comment-58851 Brian Angliss Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:27:40 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=5413#comment-58851 I think you might be interested in this interview by Andy Revkin of the NYTimes, Lex: <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/book-explores-world-of-flying-toilets/" rel="nofollow">Book Explores World of "Flying Toilets"</a>. It's not about water per se, but rather how sanitation is hardly universal. I think you might be interested in this interview by Andy Revkin of the NYTimes, Lex: Book Explores World of “Flying Toilets”. It’s not about water per se, but rather how sanitation is hardly universal.

]]> By: Lex http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/12/the-weekly-carboholic-stalagmite-monsoons/comment-page-1/#comment-58544 Lex Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:01:20 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=5413#comment-58544 Or, the waste water could be evaporated in concrete pools and the salt never goes back to the sea... Or, the waste water could be evaporated in concrete pools and the salt never goes back to the sea…

]]> By: Lex http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/11/12/the-weekly-carboholic-stalagmite-monsoons/comment-page-1/#comment-58466 Lex Wed, 12 Nov 2008 23:34:44 +0000 http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/?p=5413#comment-58466 The stalactite story is pretty neat. Kruetzer has it all wrong on multiple levels. For one, he's obviously stuck in the short-term thinking mindset: we want this now, and fuck my grandchildren. For two, he's arguing from a position that the only model of efficiency is economic efficiency. That was fine 150 years ago, but it doesn't cut it anymore. I'm not suggesting that we should throw economic efficiency out the window, but we'd be well served to start measuring efficiency based on resources consumed and waste generated. Moreover, there's the little matter of externalized costs that, if they're calculated in, tend to blow arguments like his right out of the water. And then there's Brian's math... Desalinization is something we will have figure out, but it won't be easy and there will be negatives. So perhaps there needs to be a very serious effort at water usage efficiency. While i think that concerns over toilet-to-tap programs are overblown, even they are attacking the problem backwards. How about starting with not using water for toilets? Composters are not only already quite good (and stank free), but could easily be made better...and they also disperse the waste so that there isn't one giant toiletbowl somewhere in town (granted, then there won't be anything to name after G.W. Bush...trade offs). They also turn your poop into something useful: toilet-to-salad, if you will. 2.5 gallons to sink a turd is ridiculous. And outside of the toilet water, nothing you pour down a drain is all that dirty. We could be recycling our water inside our own homes without too much trouble. But when we do come to the point of desalinization there are things we should look into like phytoremediation of the brackish water. Studies suggest hydroponic vegetables can handle very high EC (electrical conductivity, or how much salt is in the water) so long as a portion of the root system is exposed to low EC water. Of course, we'll need to be in a position where we need to desalinate as little water as possible for the whole idea to work decently...which goes back to the argument for efficiency in resource use/waste generation. The stalactite story is pretty neat.

Kruetzer has it all wrong on multiple levels. For one, he’s obviously stuck in the short-term thinking mindset: we want this now, and fuck my grandchildren. For two, he’s arguing from a position that the only model of efficiency is economic efficiency. That was fine 150 years ago, but it doesn’t cut it anymore. I’m not suggesting that we should throw economic efficiency out the window, but we’d be well served to start measuring efficiency based on resources consumed and waste generated. Moreover, there’s the little matter of externalized costs that, if they’re calculated in, tend to blow arguments like his right out of the water. And then there’s Brian’s math…

Desalinization is something we will have figure out, but it won’t be easy and there will be negatives. So perhaps there needs to be a very serious effort at water usage efficiency. While i think that concerns over toilet-to-tap programs are overblown, even they are attacking the problem backwards. How about starting with not using water for toilets?

Composters are not only already quite good (and stank free), but could easily be made better…and they also disperse the waste so that there isn’t one giant toiletbowl somewhere in town (granted, then there won’t be anything to name after G.W. Bush…trade offs). They also turn your poop into something useful: toilet-to-salad, if you will. 2.5 gallons to sink a turd is ridiculous. And outside of the toilet water, nothing you pour down a drain is all that dirty. We could be recycling our water inside our own homes without too much trouble.

But when we do come to the point of desalinization there are things we should look into like phytoremediation of the brackish water. Studies suggest hydroponic vegetables can handle very high EC (electrical conductivity, or how much salt is in the water) so long as a portion of the root system is exposed to low EC water.

Of course, we’ll need to be in a position where we need to desalinate as little water as possible for the whole idea to work decently…which goes back to the argument for efficiency in resource use/waste generation.

]]>