“However Ludwig does not seem to accept that sustainability can be on a large scale.”

You’ve lost me there Bazz. I am very much concerned about large-scale sustainability, at the global level and most particularly at our national level, because that is the highest level that we (us lobbyers on OLO and elsewhere, and the populace and politicians that we are trying to influence) can really have an impact.

“We do not need to find a 5 acre plot and live in the 15th century.”

Of course we don’t. Please see my last post for the simple things that we need to do to direct the whole country towards sustainability

" 'Sustainability' is actually an ill-defined goal".

Yes Bugsy, it is hard to define in exact terms, which means we had better err on the side of caution. A lack of definability should not be used as an excuse to do anything other than strive directly for it.

“Which means to me: ‘well these ideas are fine, but if we can’t be sustainable, then I must support doing nothing until it is’ ”.

No. As I explained in my first post, if you support measures to reduce per-capita consumption of water, or whatever resource, but don’t address the continuous growth factor, you are effectively supporting the facilitation of the continued momentum away from sustainability, because with all else being equal, if we all use less then more people can draw from the same resource….. and you can bet your bottom dollar that this is exactly what is happening with water in Sydney, SEQ, Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne.

Pushing hard to reduce per-capita consumption and increase supply while not addressing the continued increase in the number of ‘per-capitas’ in these water-stressed cities and regions is simply beyond absurdity.

So it is not a matter of supporting nothing. Far from it. It is a matter of supporting a holistic approach, which entails a combination of demand stabilization and improved technologies and efficiencies.

“If you want a sustainability discussion, start your own thread on it, this one’s about WATER.”

Now this is just silly. If you cannot see that sustainability is intimately related to the water crisis then where are you at?

Bugsy, what is your problem with stabilizing the demand on stressed resources rather than just blindly letting it continue to increase? You are into recycling and presumably the whole ‘technofix’ side of the water issue. That’s great. But it is not the whole picture. In fact it is only half the picture, in a scenario where the pressure applied on water resources continues to increase indefinitely, overwhelming or at least greatly reducing efforts to improve per-capita efficiencies and supply rates and overall security of supply.

They could start with fixing the water pipes. There are more busts in the water pipes from the dams than ever before. How much water do we lose from a rusty old system?

OK, so I can drink bottled water. You know that over time there will be cost cutting in the filtration plants and we will end up showering in poo.

What hapens when your daughter shreaks "Ah, there's toilet paper in the glass".

Also, filtration cannot stop viruses.

Difficult times ahead.

At least NZ has clean water. Lets keep good relations with them, I can see many moving to the land of clean water.

Saintfletcher, agree with the need to fix the systems that we have.

Recycling of water happens now for anyone downstream on a river system. Obviously it is not causing too many problems.

One of the problems is that no-one ever foresaw the need to seperate our toilet water from our other waste water (shower, dishes, laundry). If infrstructure had been built to take this into account, recycling of other waste water wouldnt be so problematic. Too late now though.

Bugsy, teach them a lesson?? Yeah, I guess in a way. What's the difference to country folk who if they run out of water, have to buy it in by the truckload? One of the problems with our society is that we rarely have immediate personal impact from our wasteful behaviour. I dont necessarily think that letting Sydney's catchments run dry is the answer to our water woes, but I'd love to hear some suggestions on how to actively encourage people to curtail usage. Using price is not a fair tool, as you put lower earners at a distinct disadvantage.

I agree that pinpointing what is sustainable is very difficult. Water is more readily measured than many resources, as it is directly used, and we can work off catchment averages (or ideally, below averages so we dont come up short in dry years). We know roughly how many people are in a particular catchment. We also know roughly how much we want to allow for environmental flows. Surely there are people that are clever enough to put some figures around this for the various population centres in Australia.

Ludwig, of course water is a part of "sustainability", however is is just a PART. Thus, the original question was very specific, so I suggest that we keep it specific to water (esp. recycling), not a silly idea. "Sustainability" is a MUCH larger topic and so it could have it's own thread rather than hijacking this one.

Can anyone confirm whether London does actually recycle water?

I keep hearing the Premier rabbit on about the fact that London already recycles water - but as far as I can tell, it's a little different.

From what I'm told, in London, they pump a very, very small percentage of waste into some rivers.
This water is then treated - therefore, the final result, can be perceived as recycled.

Here in Queensland, the proposal is to introduce a large proportion (the premier appears to have ruled out any cap) of recycled water, directly into a stagnant supply (Wivenhoe dam).

Aside from the fact that the London water is treating water that is massively diluted with rainwater and river water, there is also the fact that it is running water - as I understand it, running water has an effect on water purity, as opposed to that which is stagnant.

If recycled water is safe, then okay, but if Queensland is to be the first to do it on this scale and in this way, then we should be told...