WWF used to be the World Wildlife Fund, but these days it has a rather different agenda at the forefront of climate alarmism. In their latest ‘report,’ WWF have used the concepts of a ‘Water Footprint’ and ‘Virtual Water.’ The UK Telegraph reports that, “The average person in the UK uses over 1000 gallons of water a day, making the country one of the biggest water importers in the world.” If you haven’t drowned, and have nothing better to do, read more here.
Footer
About Me
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Read morePayPal
I don’t know what your problem is. They are looking at how much water is effectively used by each person. I think this is also called a resource ‘footprint’. It’s useful information.
Er…..the concept of “virtual water” has been around for quite some time, and no, the WWF didn’t create either term.
Is it a feature of posting an article here that the writer may be totally mis-informed or completely incapable of the most basic fact checking, as long as there is some reference to “climate alarmism’?
Paul could have at least looked at Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_water
WWF claim that 38% of water used by the UK comes from its own resources yet it then says 3% [33 gpd of a “virtual” 1000 gpd] consumed.
Where did that approximate factor of 10 go?
Bwahaa ah ha ha
Wikepedia and climate. Wikipedia and fact.
The most corrupt text book the planet has created.
Right by consensus. Anyone can post nonsense and their editors don’t need reputable source, they have a meeting. The editors are not even qualified on content. It’s a social club.
Bwaaha a ha ha. That is not librarianship it’s fraud and of the first water of fraud.
Bwaha a ha ha.
It’s not an encyclopedia, it’s a democracy of people not qualified to judge, it should be under the banner of the UN.
A raggle of gaggle and should be banned as a source.
The WWF media release starts with “While each person in the UK drinks, hoses, flushes and washes their way through around 150 litres of mains water a day, they consume about 30 times as much in “virtual” water embedded in food, clothes and other items – the equivalent of about 58 bathtubs full of water every day.”
I am glad that they are only vitual baths otherwise the British soap opera that started when Aussie Olympic head said in Beijing “Great Britain may have been in lane seven and eight but, um, they seemed to be getting there for a country that has very few swimming pools and not much soap” would not have been entertaining.
By why not use olympic size swimming pools, with a minimum dimension of 50m*25m*2M that’s 2,500,000 litres, but perhaps they have less pools than baths.
Perhaps the WWF means that we should not eat food grown using irrigation or use wood as trees rely on rainwater for growth.
It’s a perfectly straight-foward concept and has been in use for years. Many water poor countries have been utilising it in planning, especially in relation to exports, the use of water resources.
What on earth made Paul think that the WWF created the term??
In the text I said ‘seem to have created’ having not heard the term before. I tend to steer clear of Wiki-ganda on controversial subjects.
The calculation that claims the average Brit uses 1000 gallons of water per day is absurd.
Many of our homes (including mine) are water metered on a pay as you use basis, and water in the UK is recycled.
Michael – I’ve amended the post. Thanks.
Socialist propaganda language… Virtual water, capitalist roader, Anthropogenic global warming, Carbon footprint….
Socialists creating language in their drive to generate funding and exposure….. We all know the ploy, but still they persist.
The title (“WWF Creates ‘Virtual Water’) seems to avoid the distinction that “seems to” seems to mean to you.
If’d you’d never heard the term before, then a little checking might have been in order. I’d suggest that it wouldn’t have taken much more time to do so, than it would have to write what you did. and this is a small sample of what you might have found,
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Scientist_who_invented_virtual_wate_03192008.html
http://www.unisa.edu.au/waterpolicylaw/projects/virtual_water.asp
http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5868&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
http://www.waterfootprint.org/Reports/Report12.pdf#page=25
And virtual water is a “controversial subject”? How did you come to that conclusion having never heard the term before and not having bothered to check it out??
Can we trust Wikipedia? No, unless we know the subject well already. We can, however, follow up the references and see if the Wiki article correctly cites them.
The concept being discussed here is simple enough, is it not? It refers to the *total* water used to produce everything that the average person consumes. I use x cu m per month, metered as I use it, but I consume water in many other ways. Every food and drink item I buy has involved water in producing it, in a very obvious way. The same applies to other goods, but less obviously.
As SJT says, what is the problem?
Sorry, cross-over!
But the links are still interesting for anyone interested in learning more about a concept that is increasingly important in trade (must be that evil socialist propaganda international trade thingy).
Paul said:
“Many of our homes (including mine) are water metered on a pay as you use basis, and water in the UK is recycled.”
And how much water was used to grow the food you eat? How much water to cool the electricity plant that produces your electricity? To produce the soda you buy? To clean the bottles it comes in? Did you even *try* to understand the concept of virtual water before you decided to ridicule it?
Not a thousand gallons! Where does the ‘concept’ lead us? No food, no electricity etc – Marxist Utopia? The world isn’t short of water – two thirds of the planet is covered in the stuff – which scare are you pushing this week – rising sea levels or not enough water?
“Not a thousand gallons!” exclaims the guy who refused to do some basic research. It sounds quite plausible to me if you realize 1 kg of beef needs 15,000 liter of water already. That’s just one of the examples listed in Wikipedia (yeah yeah, liberal bias blah blah, but it’s properly sourced to UNESCO). How much would you deem reasonable then? Based on what?
“Where does the ‘concept’ lead us? No food, no electricity etc – Marxist Utopia?”
Straw man/slippery slope fallacy.
“The world isn’t short of water – two thirds of the planet is covered in the stuff”
Yes. Two thirds is covered with *salt* water. Try drinking it. Or water your crops with it. See how well that works.
“which scare are you pushing this week – rising sea levels or not enough water?”
How many straw men can you build this week?
And how much water was used to grow the food you eat? How much water to cool the electricity plant that produces your electricity? To produce the soda you buy? To clean the bottles it comes in? Did you even *try* to understand the concept of virtual water before you decided to ridicule it?
Why would you wish to calculate a meaningless number in the first place?
What bl@@dy bull s##t.
The average pom must be expanding pretty damn quick, if they are going to hold an extra 1000 gallons of water, each day. Have you ever looked at the size of a 1000 gallon water tank.
Then there is the garbage of 15000 liters of water for a Kg of beef. I’ve produced thousands of Kg of beef, & never had much water.
The old one about lies, & statistics comes in here about now.
The moisture in that bulls feed, passes out the other end, in the form of this rubbish post, & what he drinks comes out near by. So the moisture supplied by the paddock is returned to the paddock, just a little enhanced, The water he drank, being a little more concentrated, at departure, probably seeps back to the river, a few months later.
Is it wrong of me to enjoy the fact that it probably gets into some greenies water tap a little later? Nah, of course not.
So to you greenies out there trying to generate this C##P, don’t bother. My bull can do a better job than you, & he’s worth talking to, as well.
Consumption for DW and me is about 6 cubic litres a month. We are metered. 🙂
well we’ve now found what Queensland’s water footprint is all about:
“QUEENSLAND irrigators took record amounts of water from the Murray-Darling Basin over the past year as other state governments wound back irrigator allocations to combat the worsening crisis in the system.
The Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water reports the state’s irrigators took 1.014 million megalitres from the system in 2007-08 – twice the volume of Sydney Harbour and significantly more than the previous record of 815,000ML set in 2003-04. ”
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24215665-601,00.html
I always wondered where all that water went.
Will someone explain to these metrocentric WWF boofheads that the water supposedly “used” by foreign farmers in producing imported food is not “used” at all. The average six year old farm kid understands that this water is transpired by the plants and is returned to the local atmosphere to fall again as rain or dew. This takes place regardless of whether the plant is pasture, a food crop, a weed, or a natural forest.
So not only does the WWF (and Wankipedia et al) have it’s biology dead wrong, they are also guilty of using a cumulative total of a series of cyclical events.
And the clowns who have attempted to defend this absurdity above have self nominated for a place in the village idiot hall of fame. Good one, fellas, get your snouts into it and lap it all up. But beware, it might taste like the truth but it is pure bull$hit. And you are, indeed, what you eat.
Janama, that means that Queensland irrigators put to productive use, about the same amount of water, as was allowed to uselessly evaporate from the Coorong, over the same time. I guess you would prefer it was not used productively.
Incidentally, on average, we use only about 10% of our Murray Darling water, the rest is allowed to flow across the border, to our southern neighbours. Generous, aren’t we?
“Socialist propaganda language… Virtual water, capitalist roader, Anthropogenic global warming, Carbon footprint….
Socialists creating language in their drive to generate funding and exposure….. We all know the ploy, but still they persist.”
The topic is nonsense, but seems to have had the desired effect.
“The average six year old farm kid understands that this water is transpired by the plants and is returned to the local atmosphere to fall again as rain or dew. This takes place regardless of whether the plant is pasture, a food crop, a weed, or a natural forest. ” – Ian Mott
This will come as something of a surprise to irrigators, especialy those that use bore water. The more they irrigate, the more it will rain!!
Ian may be right about this idea being at the level of the average six year old.
Are you seriously suggesting that plants don’t transpire water, Michael? Are you seriously suggesting evaporation and transpiration are not the root causes of water vapour and the various forms of precipitation?
This blog has seen some particularly bog ignorant statements of pure sophistry but seeking to disprove such a fundamental ecological process by way of such an absurd simplification really takes the cake.
You people will obviously say just about anything to justify your ideological bull$hit. So enough now and be done with you, back under your rock with the slime mould.
How appropriate that this latest manifestation of green misanthropy occurred in England, home of the VAT; the capitalistic idea of multiple layers of enterprise and production is now being subverted to produce a water-footprint critique of modern Western society based on how much water was used at every stage of bringing to you the modern conveniences; the sooner we go back to living under a rock the happier the greens will be.
Ian, basically yes. You’re oversimplifying the water cycle to the point of parody.
Otherwise the use of artesian water should have resulted in a signficant increase in rainfall in in-land Australia.
There are significant weather systems influences on rainfall, otherwise it wouldn’t stop raining in the Top End each Dry season. We have massive amounts of surface water lying around evaporating (and plant transpiration), yet all we get is sharply decreasing rainfall leading to months of nothing but blue sky.
Michael,
You are the one oversimplifying.
On that basis rivers should not be allowed to run to sea to become saline etc.
Water isn’t “consumed”, its just recycled and even you, as smart as you are, can’t possibly believe that you can lay down a strict, accountable proceedure for all.
“On that basis rivers should not be allowed to run to sea to become saline etc.” – SD
Huh?? Environmental flows are very important.
I’m not sure how saying that transpiration=rainfall is oversimplifying is “oversimplification”.
Come on Spanglers – how come water trading exists then? Sounds like a commodity with opportunity use costs to me.
And hey – what’s Mottsa doing here – shouldn’t he be down at Goolwa smacking out the locals. Strange I hadn’t seen anything on TV about a disturbance?
Luke,
Sorry, forgot about the MDB.
How’s that going lately, BTW?
Richard111 said:
“6 cubic litres”
What in the name of science are cubic litres?
Ian Mott:
“I’ve produced thousands of Kg of beef, & never had much water.”
Few private people actually store water in any significant quantities, so I’ll assume you meant you never *used* much water, rather than never *owned* much water. But did you count the water used to grow the grass and other cattle food? And don’t forget, rain counts too. Nobody said that the water had to have a human source or had to be paid for to be counted, you know.
“The average six year old farm kid understands that this water is transpired by the plants and is returned to the local atmosphere to fall again as rain or dew.”
Any farm kid should be able to recognize straw men: Nobody said the water disappears. Let me explain where your argument is wrong. First of all, some of the water remains in the plant cells and as plant sap. But more importantly, there is always a limited supply of *usable* fresh water at a given place and time, some of it in the form of rain, some of it in the form of river flow, some from the water mains, etc. Clearly, once that water is used to irrigate your crops, it’s no longer available to you in that form, and you’ll need to use more of your water source if you want to irrigate more. Of course, eventually the water will evaporate and rain down again, but while it’s locked up in the plants, or floating in the atmosphere, you can’t use it for more irrigation. It’s not a difficult concept, really.
And I really don’t understand why you seem to think keeping track of fresh water usage rates of different products or activities is such a bad idea. You may say “there’s plenty of water”, but how do you know if you don’t keep track? And if there is a (local) shortage, how do you decide which activities should be cut?
Sure, maybe “Virtual Water” is not the best way to measure it, but I have yet to hear a single substantial argument in this thread against “Virtual water” in particular (in fact, there is more substantial criticism on “liberal biased” Wikipedia than I’ve seen here), or a single proposal to a better way of keeping track.
So it seems that you reject the concept of keeping track itself, regardless of the method or measure used. If so, could you explain why you reject it? If not, why not let us know how *you* would do it instead, and why you would do it that way?
spangled drongo said:
“Water isn’t “consumed”, its just recycled and even you, as smart as you are, can’t possibly believe that you can lay down a strict, accountable proceedure for all.”
Perfect solution fallacy: “there’s no perfect solution, so let’s ignore the problem”.
The United Nations is involved in this globalisation of virtual water.
Its web site waterfootprint.org promotes trading in this commodoty and provides the following:
“Some facts and figures
The production of one kilogram of beef requires 16 thousand litres of water.
To produce one cup of coffee we need 140 litres of water.
The water footprint of China is about 700 cubic meter per year per capita. Only about 7% of the Chinese water footprint falls outside China.
Japan with a footprint of 1150 cubic meter per year per capita, has about 65% of its total water footprint outside the borders of the country.
The USA water footprint is 2500 cubic meter per year per capita.”
So just one person in the USA is responsible for one olympic pool size of water each year. How many trips to the bathroom is that?
The ‘facts’ provided by the UN also raise serious doubts over the recent endorsement of various coffee shops around the world by environmental groups certifying coffee as eco friendly.
Due to its temperate climate Tasmania has 12% of the fresh water resources of Australia,
in an area of less than 1% of the total national land mass and 3% of the population. The
average annual surface runoff is around 45,000 Gigalitres (GL) and whilst a lot of it flows through our hydro power stations only about 1% is used for irrigation, drinking water and by industry.
hasbeen – Bill Leake has the water deal about right
[img] http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6210476,00.jpg [/img]
cinders – those figures are for US Grain Fed Beef not your grass fed aussie steer that roams around my area.
Janama, this virtual water is enough to drive any one to drink, but when you consider a 250ml Beer needs 75 litres of virtual water, perhaps a trip to the pub is out of the question.
Its not much better at Macdonalds where a hamburger and an orange juice will cost the earth 2500 litres of virtual water.
Just to walk there will mean swimming as my leather shoes represents 8000 litres.
Luckily the microchip that powers this computer only represents 32 litres. Perhaps someone needs to use a computer to check the maths! We can’t use a sheet a paper and a pencil as it represents over 10 litres of this virtual reality.
The fact that the UN is into so-called water footprints merely confirms that it is pure bull$hit. And it is bullshit for some very simple and fundamental reasons.
First, it deliberately excludes environmental water in a way that gives an impression that non-environmental uses are bad. For example, most farms have shelter belts, riparian areas etc and many have substantial areas of woodland that have been integrated into the agricultural uses.
And despite the fact that the green movement have been preaching ad nauseum that these environmental attributes are essential for sustainable agriculture, they then produce a system of bogus accounting that leaves out the water used by these elements.
If, for example, a 100ha farm had 33ha (33%) covered in native woodland and 67ha of crops, and received 1000mm of rain each year (10ml/ha), then the WWF gonzo accounting method would divide the 670ml of rainfall by the volume of the crop harvest to get a claimed water use/tonne of produce.
But in actual fact, the health and sustainability of the crops produced is dependent on the level of other environmental attributes. And if there is to be anything more than lip service to sustainable agriculture, then the whole of farm water use must be allocated over all of the outputs. And in this case above, the actual water footprint of the sustainable farm would be 50% higher than one that has crops planted to the boundary and no ecological attributes.
The second reason it is bull$hit is because it ignores all forms of water cycling. In the previous post I mentioned cycling through transpiration and we had all sorts of bogus assertions that the delivery of a water increment, either by rain or by irrigation, does not result in moister local micro-climates.
This is so breathtakingly ignorant that most farmers could only shake their heads in disbelief. The mere fact that a breeze is cooler when it passes through an irrigated orchard or crop is evidence of the additional moisture in that air and testimony to the fact that it remains close to the ground for some considerable time. And the presence of this additional humidity then reduces the amount of moisture required by other vegetation.
This is fundamental plant biology, the higher the moisture content of air, the lower the evapotranspiration rate of plants in that air. The water vapour does not have to fall as rain to constitute effective water cycling. By reducing water uptake by nearby vegetation the transpired water produces savings in ground water and stream flows.
But let there be no doubt that on a continental and regional scale, a good heavy rainfall event early in a season is likely to trigger a series of smaller storm events through the rest of the season. To suggest that this is merely coincidental random activity, rather than clear evidence of water cycling, is either plain ignorant or deliberately misleading.
The third reason these water footprints are pure bull$hit is the clearly established fact that crop yields, especially in Australia have a very significant range of variation.
A crop of wheat can be anywhere from 1 tonne per hectare to 7 tonnes, depending on a whole range of variables, of which water is but one. Soil structure, initial fertility, fertiliser use and timing, moisture profile and the timing of subsequent rainfall, row spacing and harvesting conditions and scheduling all have a major bearing on crop yeild.
And this is before we get into the nuances of plant varieties, disease resistance, pest impacts etc. And clearly, the water footprint of a one tonne/ha crop will be quite different to that of a tonne from a seven tonne/ha crop. Indeed, exactly how will the WWF account for the water that is stolen by weeds? And how will they account for the grain eaten by a mice plague or a huge flock of parrots?
The net result is that the WWF water footprint analysis is nothing more than an extremely sloppy, subjective, and ideologically tainted piece of green casuistry that is so far below current best analytical practice that it amounts to serious misrepresentation of fact.
Beowulf,
Then again, we could the MDB as a shining example.
Ian,
Footprints for crops are calculated taking cropping area and yields into account, so your example of the 100ha farm is just plain wrong.
Despite what appears to primarily be an ideological rant against “green casuistry”, underlying it you seem to accept it as a valid idea that could do with with some improving. Perhaps you should focus on that aspect.
No Michael, read the whole post. You cannot just label it an “ideological rant” when it is full of specific variables other than water.
And then please explain to me why you cannot comprehend the fact that crop yields can vary between 1 tonne and 7 tonnes/hectare. The water used to produce that 7 tonnes/ha is nowhere near seven times greater than the volume that produces only 1 tonne/ha.
Indeed, in most cases the main volume of water used by a crop will be rain water which, if supplemented by a much smaller volume of irrigation water, will deliver a disproportionate improvement in crop yield.
Yet, the WWF gonzo accounting system appears to imply that both irrigation water and rain water are discretionary and of equal value. This, again, is pure ignorant bull$hit that renders the whole exercise futile. Rain falls wherever chance and nature chooses and if it lands on crop land then the choice is to either grow something useful with it or leave it for the weeds.
Any gonzo publicity scam that seeks to convince UK or other urban punters to refrain from buying that crop because of the water used by it will not alter the fact that the rain still fell on that crop land.
In fact, what sort of knuckle dragging green neanderthal pervert could seriously suggest that boycoting the produce, thereby leaving the paddock to the weeds, would somehow improve the ethical or ecological status of a distant customer.
So to clarify the point, especially for you, Michael, I do not accept it as a valid idea because it is shot full of bull$hit, within bull$hit, within even more bull$hit. It is nothing more than a device for malicious misrepresentation and fraud.
I guess I suggested it was a “rant” because of phrases like “pure bull$hit”, “ideologically tainted green casuistry” and the fact that you ocntinue to ignore the fact that cropping size and yeild are part of the equation in these calculations. Other elements you mention, such as soil fertility are largely irrelevant to a water footprint. It’s about water use, not the broader question of ecological sustainability, which it is a subset of.
This appears to be in realm of gut reaction rather than considered analysis. I’d hazard a guess that you’ve read none of the research into virtual water, only the UK Telegraph story linked to by Paul?
You still don’t get it do you, Michael. Water use cannot be isolated to mutually exclusive outcomes. Trees reduce wind speed and thereby reduce water use by crops but they can also reduce stream flow, thereby reducing stored water in farm dams. The WWF methodology may only account for specific use but as my earlier post made clear, this is pure bull$hit. The only sensible and logical approach is “whole of farm” use. And even then it would still produce such a broad range of variation that the averages become completely meaningless.
If the water use variance was significantly less, as in, say, the 10% range, then there might be a case for using this approach. But that is not the case and the only conclusion is one of “garbage in, garbage out.
And again, you are wrong as to my exposure to the methodology. I have been riding shot gun on this crap for years. whereas, you have made it clear that you haven’t given it much thought at all.
Virtual water isn’t about ‘the farm’, it’s about trade and larger scale use. Individual farms might want to account for their water in great detail, but it’s impossible to account for every molecule and no one is suggesting that virtual water or water footprints do any such thing. If you’d read the literature and the research you’d be aware that this is openly acknowledged.
Several countries are already using virtual water concepts to help manage their water resources at a national level.
You’re tilting at windmills.
Ian Mott: “The fact that the UN is into so-called water footprints merely confirms that it is pure bull$hit.”
I’m sorry, but judging a concept by who supports it is not helping your credibility.
Your first objection, that natural water uses such as forests and such need to be accounted for as well, seems fair enough, but is not an argument against the concept about virtual water itself, but about how it’s applied. There’s no doubt you could apply it to forests too, and then you could use that to weigh it against the utility value of the forests as well.
Your second objection, that it doesn’t account for secondary effects of rain and irrigation, such as a more moist micro-climate leading to lower irrigation needs, seems unlikely to me. Wouldn’t this show in lower water uses for irrigation, and thus automatically be included into the accounting?
The same for any variation in crop yields, etc, wouldn’t that simply lead to variation in the virtual water accounts? Saying that the variation would lead to meaningless results is nonsense, farmers deal with this variation every year, don’t they? Clearly they have ways to estimate how much resources like fertilizer they will need and how much they can afford for a certain expected yield. Why would water be different as a resource?
“Yet, the WWF gonzo accounting system appears to imply that both irrigation water and rain water are discretionary and of equal value.”
Yes, this is a serious problem. How would you propose to solve it? I’d say it might be possible to improve this by extending the accounting to differentiate by water source. What do you think?
And finally, you seem to assume that people argue that a high virtual water content for a product means it should immediately be boycotted, and you think that’s something only a “knuckle dragging green neanderthal pervert” would say (which didn’t sound ranty *at all* /sarcasm). Of course it is ridiculous. That’s why nobody has been saying that. Ever heard of a straw-man argument?
First of all, it’s obvious that virtual water is only a measure of water *requirements*, so virtual water alone can never be used for decision making. For starters, you’ll clearly need to look at water *availability* as well. Second of all, water usage is only one aspect in the costs of a product, but there are many others. Third, you will need to look at the utility of a product. Only when taking all these factors into account can you make a decision. Making decisions on virtual water alone is ridiculous, and that’s why nobody will advocate it.
Maybe Michael better wander into the kitchen and prepare a weeks worth of virtual meals and report back on the 30th August.
Never know, might work a treat in places like…..hmmm… Darfur.
Seems it’s the word “virtual” that has some in a flap.
No Beowulff, You still don’t get it. The difference between a 7 tonne/ha crop and a 1 tonne/ha crop is not 7 times more water. It can be as little as 2 times the water input. The interaction of so many variables makes the whole concept of a water footprint an absurdity.
And your attempt to isolate this issue from the real world will not wash with readers here. If you are talking about the water footprint of primary produce, and seeking to apply it to any sort of public policy debate, then it will certainly have relevance to on-farm circumstances.
And lets not forget that the entire thrust of the WWF promo was focussed on UK consumers reducing their implied consumption of foreign water. It betrays a clear intention to induce people to make their purchase decisions based on this gonzo methodology.
Thank you for conceding that the major water input, rainwater, unlike irrigation water, is not discretionary. Yes, that too is a fundamental flaw in the WWF methodology but I have no intention of offering any advice on solutions because the entire concept is rooted in both ignorance and malice.
Indeed, I have yet to see any form of “footprint” based analysis that wasn’t riven with ignorance, misrepresentation and unambiguously malicious intent. It is the kind of voodoo crap that might serve as a barely plausible “stocking stuffer” in a unit of “planet nutter 101” but here in the real world it is just another form of green onanism.
Ian:
“The difference between a 7 tonne/ha crop and a 1 tonne/ha crop is not 7 times more water”
Doesn’t this just mean that different crops get different water usage footprints? I can even imagine that you should assign different footprints to “grain from Kansas” and “grain from Zimbabwe” due to differences in environment, climate and technology. Maybe you even want to give “grain from farmer Alice” a different score than “grain from farmer Bob”, even though they have adjacent farms. Nothing in the concept of virtual water prevents you from zooming in to the level of detail that you want.
“..but I have no intention of offering any advice on solutions because the entire concept is rooted in both ignorance and malice”
So you’re confirming that your problem is not just with “Virtual Water”, but with *all* forms of water usage tracking? Are you saying that we therefore should give up on tracking water usage?
No Beowulff, I am not against all forms of water use tracking, farmers monitor their soil moisture and utilisation on a continuous basis. If they don’t they go out backwards, fast. It is only at the retail product level that the so-called tracking becomes an absurdity.
The problem is that “farmer Bob” will have a completely different water footprint every time he plants a paddock. Sometimes he will not even produce a crop worth harvesting but he will have used up all his moisture profile on the early stages of a crop only to see it come to nothing without either follow up rain or an irrigation allocation.
And in that sort of situation, the used water cannot be allocated to any end product. But a retail level tracking system would need to account for it and the only way it could do so would be to apply a market place penalty to any farmer who’s crop has failed or even under performed. It is these crops that will exhibit the highest water footprint so the WWF is essentially promoting a system that will hammer the worlds most disadvantaged farmers at the very time they can least cope with it.
You must also retain the simple fact that the concept of virtual water can only ever be an average figure. But an average with such a significant standard deviation, as is exhibited by crop yields, is of zero value.