Environmentally speaking, toilets that use water are pieces of shit. A water toilet requires 18 tons of water annually to transport feces into sewage systems, which sometimes empty directly into rivers or streams. The water that is used to transport the excrement is contaminated with pathogens and has to be treated before it can be safely released. Despite these environmental impacts, the developed world primarily relies on water toilets to get rid of waste. But with the rise of global warming and the corresponding decrease in our available water supply, this approach will become unsustainable for developed and undeveloped countries alike. If countries want to prevent severe problems with potable water availability in the future, or help to alleviate current water shortages, they must transition to a less wasteful, more environmentally friendly method to transport shit sooner rather than later.
Part of the reason people are so hesitant to adopt this method of disposal is the perception that doing so would be a downgrade from water toilets. Water toilets are a relatively new invention that were only adopted by the masses somewhere between 1970 and 1990. Previously, toilets that did not use water were responsible for contaminating drinking water, which in turn caused outbreaks of disease in cities and urban areas. This caused toilets that didn’t use water to garner a reputation as unclean and undesirable. On the other hand, toilets that did use water helped avert these disasters by safely disposing of waste. As a result they were considered safer and had a much better reputation than their disease-causing counterparts. The historical reputation for waterless toilets continues to some degree today, causing regular consumers who don’t do the research to dismiss them as unsafe. Their reputation is not helped by most of the waterless toilets that are used in public places today, such as outhouses at national parks, which exude powerful odors. However, their current reputation is based on antiquated designs that don’t represent the quality of current products, which have overcome the fragrance flaws that plagued their older brethren.
Another part of the equation why people avoid waterless toilets is the hassle associated with them. Many current models require people to clean them out after each use. Although this may seem like a chore, the advantages that the toilets offer outweigh this small inconvenience. These toilets will save people tons of money, especially if they live in a drought-stricken state like California, which enforces a tiered system whereby people pay lower amounts if they use less water. Hypothetically, If a person living in Irvine, Calif. saves 571 gallons of water per year and falls into the low volume tier instead of the base pay tier as a result, they would save $6.12 per year. That may not seem like much, but it would add up over the years. Although California is the exception in terms of the rate they charge for water, many states’ rates will come to resemble California in response to a decrease in the amount of available water and an increase in population. People can also use the byproducts of the process as fertilizer on plants, as long as people don’t plan to eat said plants.
One last, looming obstacle currently preventing widespread use of these toilets is the cost. A good waterless toilet costs around $1,000. With this price tag it’s no surprise people are hesitant to adopt this alternative. But that can change if the federal government offers subsidies to encourage people to use this new technology. This would ensure that more water is devoted to other more important areas, such as growing crops. Under Obama, the Federal Government has already helped other green technologies that have a positive impact on the environment, such as wind and solar power. There is no reason this intervention should be any different.