The water problem seems to be coming under similar encompliification-for-profit, as "carbon", it is obviously taking more than a little inspiration from the idea of a carbon footprint.
Whole profit driven pseudo sciences are being created from these things, when they don't need to be complex, there are ways to simplify things down to make them crystal clear.
Water isn't actually consumed by plastics, just used in the process of creating it, in the same way as we use water to shower or bathe ourselves clean, it is quickly recycled by being converted to vapor and back again in the natural cycle of evaporation and rain, this is a kind of natural distillation of water.
The problem is the temperature rise, which we can't get around, as long as the energy we depend on for life as a species is extracted from Earth, this pushes more and more water to vapor, leaving less and less of it on the ground, so we see shortages.
Move to mathematically positive energy, and everything produced by it is beneficial to the planet, including the reversal of temperature rise, even plastics, when we get the technology to do that by hydrogen produced directly from the energy of the sun, I am willing to bet everything that plastic produced from this will turn out to be environmentally friendly, maybe even some cases edible, like "Solein", created from hydrogen.
The production of toxic plastic, which ends up as waste harmful to all of nature, distributed throughout the environment is a multiplier of mathematically negative energy, as is also the production of carbon based toxic waste, and even nuclear toxic waste, notice all of those are produced by use of mathematically negative energy, use of which also results directly in temperature rise.
Similar multiplers acting on mathematically positive energy have positive results, like all the others shown already. This is what I cover in my first e-book, "The Energy Polarity Multiplier Framework".
Reading it would simplify a lot of things for a lot of people, I think, if they want it to be simplified, rather than making a profit from it.
Part of an evaluation of any organisation claiming to be working for the benefit of something, but actually just working for profit, is to check right at the bottom of the website, to see what really drives them. At the bottom of the website of the water organisation you linkied to is the following: "© 2017-2023 GRACE Communications Foundation. All Rights Reserved."
Looks like a for-profit to me, even if their company formation is a legal non-profit, why are they worried about copyright?
