The Personal Politics Of Drought Shaming

<p>Don DeBold / <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ddebold/15097099631/" target="_blank">Flickr</a> (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a>)</p>
<p>Don DeBold / <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ddebold/15097099631/" target="_blank">Flickr</a> (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/" target="_blank">CC BY 2.0</a>)</p>

When the media first started covering the California drought it did so from the perspective of the specific foods we eat. Given that 80 percent of the state's water is used for agriculture, this would seem to make sense. Mother Jones crusaded against the water-hogging impact of nuts, especially almonds. Michael Pollan, seizing on an illuminating Los Angeles Times infographic, took to Twitter and declared California lentils verboten. I highlighted the disproportionate share of the state's water consumed by beef and dairy, specifically the alfalfa crop that helps sustain these industries.

The obvious benefit of this approach is that it empowers consumers. As a consumer, I feel good about not eating beef and a little guilty about the almond milk in my fridge. I feel compelled to purchase lentils from France but comforted by the fact that beer has a relatively low water footprint. I agree that much of the produce grown in the Central and Imperial Valleys should be grown in the Midwest, but until that happens (don't hold your breath), I'm motivated to make concrete choices that address California's water crisis. Hard data about specific foods helps me do this.

Read more.