The British government asked its citizens to delete emails and photos to save water.

The United Kingdom is facing a severe drought, with extreme, dry, and hot weather conditions not seen since 1976. The last six months up to July have been the driest in almost five decades.

Five regions are officially in drought and another six are classified as having prolonged dry weather. In response to this situation, the National Drought Group (NDG), which brings together the government, water companies, farmers, and conservationists, has declared the situation a "nationally significant incident" and has asked citizens to reduce water consumption.

However, one of the most striking and criticized recommendations from the British Labour government has been the suggestion to delete old emails and photos to save water. This measure has been strongly questioned by experts and media due to its minimal real impact on addressing the crisis.

An unusual and senseless recommendation.

The reason is simple: once data is stored, it barely generates heat and therefore doesn't require additional cooling effort. Ironically, the process of searching for and deleting old files can consume more energy and resources in the short term than leaving them as they are.

Added to this is the fact that, many times, the data centers where files are stored are not even located in the United Kingdom, which further reduces the relevance of this measure in the national context.

One of the most paradoxical points is the British government's open support for the development of artificial intelligence (AI), even though its massive use is what actually involves significant water and energy consumption.

According to an environmental report by Mistral AI, a single 40-token AI response can require up to 45 ml of water and generate 1.14 grams of carbon dioxide. In an era when millions of people use AI tools daily, this represents water consumption far greater than what is intended to be saved by deleting personal emails.

This disproportionate approach reveals an underlying problem: instead of focusing on structural policies that would truly make a difference, responsibility is shifted to citizens through unnecessary symbolic gestures.

If the Starmer's socialist government wants the population to cooperate, it needs to offer coherent, proportional, and evidence-based measures, not anecdotal recommendations that seem more like public relations strategies than effective environmental policies.