Comments | substitute: drip drip drip drip

substitute

drip drip drip drip

Jan 13, 2006 00:13

It's rare to see me supporting libertarian grumps against conservation rules, but I don't think that forcibly crippling the nation's showerheads is an effective strategy for reducing water consumption.

water, policy, environment, politics, conservation, wtf, government

Comments 5

mcpino January 13 2006, 16:25:19 UTC

You gotta FIGHT for your RIGHT to shooooooower!

springheel_jack January 13 2006, 16:27:10 UTC

I dunno, I'm kind of with the enviros on that one. Though I think standards should differ from place to place given the availability of water. Not sure why Seattle has a dog in this hunt.

I for one always support libertarian krumps threepunchstuff January 13 2006, 16:55:05 UTC

( ... )

Re: I for one always support libertarian krumps besskeloid January 13 2006, 21:49:36 UTC

Mr. Krump don't like it.

mendel January 13 2006, 18:06:17 UTC

I dunno -- before the low-flow requirement was introduced in 1992, showerheads passed 6-8 gpm or so. Figure the average person showers for 5 minutes, and the average household has three showers per day, that's over 24,000 gallons of water a year per household. That's not it, though -- about 3/4 of that had to be heated up with an electric or gas water heater before it went through the shower. Scale that up to the continent (Canada has the same restriction) and there's a pretty big impact. Showers are #2 in water use in the average household (toilets are #1), and #1 in hot water use, so it's a good thing to target. These are the sorts of tragedies of the commons that I'd expect regulation on ( ... )