Water Saving

[Andy Hall]

Must be. There's no water shortage in central Wales and that isn't full of criminals :-)

[meow2222]

And that is precisely why it makes sense not to waste it. While we are bountiful in water, there is the energy and cost. However its fair to say that this most useful resource is still in plentiful supply in UK, and the cost and energy requirement for supplying it is not a lot.

Saving water now will make no difference to water supplise in 50 or 100 years time, it will not help our grankids _if_ things get drier then. In fact if anything it'll do the opposite, if we cut use now we'll have less reservoir capacity when the time comes.

Maybe we'll see pipelines stretching round the world some day. If so, this will change, we'll be able to sell water to dry countries, and British water will take on a much greater value. But not today.

NT

[manatbandq]

Which we dont. So how can you be so sure of the outcome?

Note the use of the language "probably", "in some scenarios", "in others". As usual no allowance is made for yet another scenario in which global warming will have minimal impact on the planet.

MBQ

[Capitol]

Are you sure? What if we move Dartmoor up there? No, bad example, Dartmoor has constant rain. Is Dartmoor an anomaly? Yorkshire?

AIUI, it's only the middle of Australia which is a bit dry. When the Antarctic ice shelf melts, they'll probably get too much rain!

The UK problem is local population density and lack of a good infrastructure. I am told that Loch Ness has sufficient water to cover the whole of the UK to a depth of 6", just move it about a bit!

Regards Capitol Regards Capitol

[Mary Fisher]

Yorkshire is an anomoly. And proud of it!

Not so.

Mary

>

[Andy Hall]

That wouldn't be any good. Where would Nessie go?

[daniel]

why dont people understand that water will dissapear in the future, some people dont care, they care if water is there, they can waste it until one day it will be scarced

So think about, LOOK AT THE FUTURE !!!!!

[Bob Eager]

[Douglas de Lacey]

Indeed: I'm not "so sure of the outcome". If you know of a model which does suggest "minimal impact on the planet" do let me know. All the models I'm aware of are scary, though in a variety of different ways.

Douglas de Lacey

[Peter Lynch]

If you are actually concerned about _wasted_ water supplies why don't you target Thames Water who are responsible for roughly 1/4 of the 3.6 billion litres per day that was lost last year (2004-5). In context, this total (3.6Bl/day) is the water usage of about

24 million people in the UK.

While fixing a dripping tap here, or not flushing the loo (yuk!) may make you feel you are contributing, it makes virtually no difference when you look at the bigger picture.

[source: Ofwat report for 2004 - 2005 , p28-29 $FILE/leakage_04-05.pdf]

[Douglas de Lacey]

Why does it have to be either/or? Daniel may not be in the strongest position to get Thames Water to listen to him (living as he does in the antipodes) -- perhaps *you* ought to? Anglia get the odd earful from me. It's a bit like this morning's R4 debate about green transport. It was all hyping bio-fuels, in the hope that a 5% bio-fuel mix could save 1.5% of emissions. We could *easily* save that much simply by persuading people to walk or cycle to work for just one week in the year -- but that doesn't mean we shouldn't encourage bio-fuels too.

Douglas de Lacey

[John Cartmell]

Whilst it's possible that one extreme of the range of probable futures may include minimal impact the far liklier scenario is something else. As the likely future requires us to take action now (it might have been easier had we started 100 years ago) to avoid unacceptable extremes, I cannot see any argument for taking note of only the 'minimum impact' model.

[Mary Fisher]

My approach was also to buy shares. That way I get the actual reports, not from the media (the editing and choosing of which I distrust). It also gives me a second string to my bow, I can ask questions or bend ears not just as a consumer.

As a result, to date I have no complaints of and plenty of approval for my water supplier.That wouldn't havebeen the case if I'd believed what seems to be the received wisdom.

That item exemplified my opinion of the media. I wouldn't have called it a debate. 'Today' gives a very short time to topics and the interviewers keep interrupting and putting their own views without allowing answers to their first questions. I wouldn't agree to be interviewed on there for anything.

Mary

[Doctor Drivel]

Harvesting water and building piplines between areas in the UK is not science at all. It is just sensible engineering.

The UK has more water than what it can use. So let's use it and stop acting like silly buggers preserving it.

[Doctor Drivel]

Exactly. You don't have water, we do. We are on about water shortages here in the UK, in a country with more water than what it can use. We should be looking into building reservoirs and pipelines, not putting buckets in showers.

[Doctor Drivel]

Wokingham?

[Andy Hall]

There isn't a large enough lake.....

[jimwatt]

If you water tastes foul, then check the plumbing as mine is excellent.

Indeed they blend in well water to give it some taste.

This year it looks like there has been little rainfall and with desalination there is no problem, Spain will suffer.

-- Jim Watt

[daniel]

millions of people waste water in UK but many of them care if water is there and they can use it for they daily issues.

The fact is , they have water now ,but later water it will be wasted because of there careless usage of water

the qustion i have longed for is "DO THE PEOPLE TODAY CARE ABOUT THE USAGE OF WATER?"

regards daniel

[Andy Hall]

In most cases, no.