Sorry, you can try the PDF link on this page : Google Scholar
Or this URL: https://www.academia.edu/download/105201050/s10098-020-01826-x20230822-1-7efq5l.pdf
Otherwise you might have to access it through the original publisher (for pay or with an institutional login):
Perhaps, but the four largest producers of cotton are the states of Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Arkansas.
Correct.
The majority of U.S. cotton (about 65%) is currently produced under non-irrigated conditions.
True, Arizona is #11 (just ahead of California and behind Oklahoma). But it seems a silly crop to grow in the desert because of water usage, and in fact the planted acreage has dropped from a peak of 500,000 to 600,00 acres to under 100,000 acres. Of course the Arizona Farm Bureau spins the dependence on irrigation as a positive - none of that nasty rain to discolor the cotton:
Arizona cotton, along with California cotton, is some of the whitest, highest-quality cotton in the nation. One main reason is that Arizona and California irrigate the cotton fields. With so little rainfall in the southwest, the cotton fiber is not at risk for compromised quality due to wind and rain.
When them cotton balls get rotten you can’t pick very much cotton.
Thanks, the Google Scholar and the Springer links let me see the paper abstracts, and the latter includes a graphic of the cotton to t-shirt to refuse or re-use cycle and a table of environmental effects of the various stages of it. Interesting that the use of recycled cotton reduces the environmental impacts significantly.
Nitpick. One cubic meter is about 35 cubic feet, which is much larger than my good-sized refrigerator.
Factoids like these always make me think of the factoids concerning carbon footprints. Every industry seems to produce about 70% of the world’s carbon emissions, so about 70,000% total.
My head hurts with the random mix of imperial and metric units in many of these posts.
What is a gallon? What is a foot? Why can’t the US, particularly, embrace the metric system?
Just wait till you get to our natural resource measurements in acre-inches and board-feet and cubic feet per second, or when your utility gives you energy measurements in both kWh and therms. Impossible to do any math on them (maybe that’s the point, with how much we hate science). And our maps use locations like T3S R67W S28. It’s just a crazy country all around.
None of them let you see the full text (like the PDF link in Google Scholar)? It’s actually a really interesting paper with good tables and diagrams.
Let me see if I can find a better source… maybe I’ll email the authors for permission to share.
Is it … 4 times larger?
Firstly I think @Banksiaman’s estimation is probably a bit over-stated. If four fridges taped together are about 2700 litres in total they are a bit under 700 litres each and a quick google suggests that a fridge of those external dimensions is probably around the 300 litre internal capacity mark (11 cubic feet in American units) which is small fridge.
I think it’s probably more like 3 medium fridges taped together.
Secondly, @Exapno_Mapcase I think you are referencing fridge internal capacity while @Banksiaman seems (given the reference to taping them together) to be referencing external dimensions. My understanding is that a 22 cubic foot (interior capacity) fridge is about medium sized but has external dimensions around say 65x33x34" which is 42 cubic feet.
The number of hogsheads one can fit in a fridge 1 fathom high, 80 barleycorns wide and 1.5 cubits deep I couldn’t tell you however.
Making one albacore tuna wastes a substantial proportion of the Pacific Ocean.
For a definition of “waste” used by the article referenced in the OP.
Don’t make me use bushel equivalents. First and final warning.
What’s really stupid about it is that it doesn’t compare to other agricultural products.
Here’s a better comparison:
How much water is in common foods and products: USGS Water Science School
As it turns out, of that 2500 l of water, 45% is irrigation water, and 41% is rainwater that turns into runoff or evaporates.
This is also interesting. I get the distinct impression that cotton shirts aren’t all that horrible in terms of water usage.
Hey, there is nothing wrong with the PLSS (aside from the fact that the measurements used within are all in chains, rods, and links, based on one particular definition of the foot, which is not universal).
When watching family buy cotton t-shirts, water usage doesn’t come out as my no. 1 concern. I think more important is the fact that they are extraordinarily cheap which means someone is not being paid very much at all for their work. Secondly, because they are so cheap they get treated like disposable clothing. Clothing waste is huge, and that’s when X litres per garment starts to matter as a poor and unsustainable way of producing goods.
Not to mention- Nature provides this stuff called “'rain” which grows the cotton too.
I dont know how much water is used for
that would be the real figures.
So lets say 300 liters for a Kgof cotton. A cotton t-shirt has about 140 grams of cotton, so 7 t-shirts. Thus, the real figure is 43 liters per shirt. That is way way less than the totally bogus 2700.
It’s like how much water does it take to get a pound of beef- which includes grazing and silage.
Yep, almonds use up about the same amount of water by irrigation as all of CAs household use. CA’s household/residential use is 10% of total water usage. AG uses 80%. CA does not have a real water shortage issue- and it aint caused by lawns, either,
Regarding the lifecycle assessment of cotton shirts from above, I couldn’t find an open-access version of it (sorry). But below are some excerpts, if anyone’s interested. I just think it’s a pretty fascinating approach to systematically and methodically answering the questions “what does it take to produce X, and what are its outputs?”
Moreover, cotton is known as one of the most water-consuming crops with an average global water footprint of 4029 m3/ton (Mekonnen and Hoekstra 2011). In addition to the cultivation stage, a significant amount of water is required for processing as well. Water consumption of wet processing and the finishing stages of cotton textile production is 360 m3/ton and 136 m3/ton, respectively (Chapagain et al. 2006).
[…]
In the scope of this study, the functional unit has been determined as 250 kg shirt (1000 pcs.). In order to produce a shirt (250 g), 1152 g raw cotton is required with approximately 78% loss. Similarly, the weight of yarn and fabric required to produce one piece of shirt are 346 g and 292 g, respectively.
The various inputs they considered:
(A functional unit here is 1000 shirts, so divide everything by 1000 for a single shirt)
It then goes on to compare the manufacturing steps of new clothes manufactured traditionally, organic manufacturing, recycled clothes, and clothes with natural dyes. It breaks down the impacts on climate, water, air, health, etc. by each step of the processes.
The study is focused on the overall impacts, not just water usage, but they do paint the picture that cotton growing and production use up way, way, way more water per shirt (1 m^3, or 1000 liters) than dyeing (52 liters). Dyeing does have a lot of other environmental impacts, though:
In Scenario 3 [recovered cotton sorted and separated by color and shredded for reuse], the cotton cultivation stage is the same as the base scenario [new shirts]; therefore, for this production stage the environmental impacts did not change. The most important improvement in Scenario 3 was obtained in fabric production stage that included a different dyeing phase.
Using natural dyes instead of conventional ones decreased the overall impact of [global warming] (11%), [acidifcation] (18%), [eutrophication, fertilizer runoff] (23%), [human toxicity] (63%) and [marine pollution] (39%). Using natural dyes instead of synthetic ones eliminates the use of chemicals and decreases the temperature requirement of wet processing required for dyeing from 120 °C to 70 °C (Khatri et al. 2015; Batool et al. 2019).
And although that particular LCA isn’t easily available, these other ones are, in case you want to see more of the methodology (which is actually an ISO standard these days):
One of the sources for that LCA looks at this part in particular:
It’s a model of global water usage by crop. In their analysis, they estimate about 30% of cotton to be irrigated and the rest from precipitation. Green water is that made naturally available to plants by rain, blue is water piped in for irrigation, grey is recycled.
A lot of that data is sourced from the other source, an even more detailed study on cotton water usage.
About 53% of the global cotton field is irrigated, producing
73% of the global cotton production (Soth et al., 1999). Irrigated
cotton is mainly grown in the Mediterranean and other warm
climatic regions, where freshwater is already in short supply.
Irrigated cotton is mainly located in dry regions: Egypt,
Uzbekistan, and Pakistan. The province Xinjiang of China is
entirely irrigated, whereas in Pakistan and the North of India a
major portion of the crop water requirements of cotton are
met by supplementary irrigation. As a result, in Pakistan
already 31% of all irrigation water is drawn from ground water
and in China the extensive freshwater use has caused falling
water tables (Soth et al., 1999). Nearly 70% of the world’s cotton
crop production is from China, USA, India, Pakistan and
Uzbekistan (USDA, 2004).
But even water for rainfall isn’t “free”… depending on the area, using that to grow cotton means it isn’t available for other crops (the cotton takes it up and then evaporates it back into the atmosphere). It also creates an effect where water is made unavailable in one country for the benefit of consumers in another country. For example:
The total water footprint of an average US citizen
due to the consumption of cotton products is 135 m3
/year–more than three times the global average–out of which about
half is from the use of external water resources. If all world
citizens would consume cotton products at the US rate, other
factors remaining equal, the global water use would increase
by 5% [from 9800 to 10300 Gm 3 /year], which is quite
substantial given that humanity already uses more than half
of the runoff water that is reasonably accessible (Postel et al.,1996)
Water problems in the major
cotton producing areas of the world cannot be solved without
addressing the global issue that consumers are not being held
responsible for some of the economic costs and ecological
impacts, which remain in the producing areas. The water
footprint shows water use from the consumer’s perspective,
while traditional statistics show water use from the producer’s
perspective. This makes it possible to compare the water
demand for North American or European citizens with the
water demand for people in Africa, India or China. In the
context of equitability and sustainability, this is a more useful
comparison than a comparison between the actual water use
in the USA or Europe with the actual water use in an African or
Asian country, simply because the actual water use tells
something about production but not about consumption.
So while dyeing uses very little water comparatively, the production of cotton does take water (both direct rainfall and irrigation) away from other countries that produce a lot of it.
Cotton consumption is responsible for 2.6% of the global
water use. As a global average, 44% of the water use for cotton
growth and processing is not for serving the domestic market
but for export. This means that–roughly spoken–nearly half of
the water problems in the world related to cotton growth and
processing can be attributed to foreign demand for cotton
products
It’s not free, but like so much else in our lucky lives, much of the costs are outsourced to other countries and poorer people.
The other thing to remember is that water usage isn’t like petroleum usage; water is typically treated and released, at least in developed countries.
I mean, if this cotton textile facility was in my city, the water would come out of the river or one of the nearby lakes, be treated, put into the distribution network, and then used by the facility. Then it would be collected by the wastewater collectionnetwork, treated, and put back into the river.
It’s not like it’s used up or anything, and when it’s put back into the river, it’s actually drinkable. All sorts of tests and treatment is done to ensure that it’s at least as good as it was coming out.