if i lived in california and there was a drought, should i cut my water usage? would it change anything? i'm thinking not because there's millions of people living in california. if i wasted 1000 liters, that would amount to like a drop when divided amongst all the people that lived in california. it makes no difference
Use as much as you actually need. No more and no less. The government pays people to ensure you have your water and you pay taxes so that the government can pay those people.
But if you waste water then I hope you get cervical cancer.
yeah, but my question is whether there's a way to model this in which it can be concluded whether the amount of water i waste has a significant impact, given that i don't waste millions of liters
You cut down your water usage by [math]x[/math]
There is now an extra [math]x[/math] amount in the reserves for everyone else to use. Thanks to your contribution, everyone else gets [math]x/y[/math] extra water, where y is the population who get their water from the same place you do.
That number will be really small, but if you assume that other people do the same then it becomes significant. If you actually care then just put up posters in the streets telling people to cut their usage as well.
If you save up but others keep wasting then your contribution is basically null. Talk to politicians. This is not a math problem.
>But if you waste water then I hope you get cervical cancer.
Then you should hope that many major corporations get full-blown AIDS since citizen waste makes up a mere 5% of all waste.
This isn't science so much as economics. This is where policymakers could put supply-side free market economics into good use by slapping a variable, hefty tax on water consumption.
If it impacts a person's pocketbook, they will reduce usage.
That said, the vast majority of the water use in californa is for growing crops. California grows all the vegetables for the entire country and why they decided single fucking desert is the best way to do this is another result of government subsidies.
>and civilians dont contribute to scientific research, making/selling/distributing products and services, etc
Uh, that is exactly who does that though. A civilian is anyone not employed by the military or government enforcement agencies. Most of what you said comes from private corporations and educational institutions.
obviously meant citizens, not civilians, but so much more high level research is done in national labs than industry. industry yields shit like better manufacturing processes, products and shit, govt research yields science/tech advancements. and educational institutions arent all private, in fact most are state run, like berkely, purdue, michigan, gt, vt, etc
I don't think research labs are consuming a shitton of water in californa. A research lab is basically just offices.
Not even heavy industry, if anything is surviving Californias emissions standards and taxes, consumes much water. It almost all goes to agriculture.
So that head of lettuce in your fridge you forgot about 3 weeks ago is the reason why California is going to be an uninhabitable desert in 50 years.
cali not only has berkely but LLNL, a huge national lab, its like the biggest national security lab. i was just making the point that muh corperations use more because they provide more than regular people
Nobody is talking about that.
Muh Corporations don't even use that much water. It's people growing fucking melons or whatever using it all up. Nobody fucking cares about LLNL even if they were to have 1000 scientists all with their own personal waterslides and continuously flushing toilets and mixing their breakfast whiskey with tap water, they'd not put a dent in the issue.
So who fucking cares? Use your logic to argue juicy melons in Quebecquoi grocery stores are more important than sustainable places for people to live in Cali, because that is more of the issue.