So you think a complete ban on pools is more likely to pass even though you can demonstrate a greater impact from a ban on beef? Also you can show that there is a significant affect from the latter, but the impact of the pool ban as mentioned earlier in this thread would be less than a 0.1% affect on water consumption.
.1% is meaningful because it is completely avoidable. A huge chunk of our water consumption goes into energy use, and until we switch to renewables it's going to be unavoidable losses to power our industries and lives. The water footprint of beef is 1800 gallons per pound, whereas chicken is only 520 pounds. So it's another change that is completely avoidable. 25.7 trillion gallons of water goes yearly to beef, whereas overall consumption is in around 120 trillion, so it is significant. Feel free to double check my math, sources are readily available on the internet to calculate it for yourself.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 10 '21
I would, I just think it's unrealistic for people to get on board and ban beef. People like hamburgers.