I’ve been trying to find a way to connect this swine flu hubabaloo to my water blog. I decided I can’t but I’ll do it anyway. After all, Mexico City had a different concern three weeks ago: its water shortage, a deficit that affects close to 5 million people. But it took a few hundred cases of swine flu to draw global, daily attention to the region. Why? Because the problem hits home. Americans are susceptible to this problem, and the fear keeps on rising.

I fault the media. It has the nation’s attention and a moment to unearth the underlying problem, discuss solutions and calm the mania. Instead, it throws us redundant anecdotes, recycled official quotes and doomsday predictions. While it’s important to grill the directors of programs that deal with a possible pandemic, it’s also a golden opportunity to start a discussion about the issues at hand.

The news should seek to answer three questions. How secure is our public health system? Do we have the proper infrastructure (by that I mean hospitals, health care workers, medical equipment) to combat a pandemic on the size of the Spanish flu? How realistic is it that we create a vaccine against the flu? These are all questions that I’ve had but haven’t seen covered extensively in the press. I don’t know how feasible it is that scientists make a vaccine in what today’s New York Times op-ed guest said was a minimum of four months. My mind runs to the HIV and cold virus vaccines we’ve yet to make. But what do I know? I’m not a biologist. I don’t even know if biologists are the ones making the vaccines. All the more reason for the media, particularly network TV news, to step in and find those who can answer these questions. That way idiots like me aren’t telling some guy on the street what I think I know about the historical death toll of flu pandemics, thereby driving panic through un-based hearsay.

If only the Mexicans had the WaterBOB.

A company in Florida is marketing the tool as the cure-all for your water emergencies. The BOB, which consists of a plastic bag (known affectionately as a bladder) and a spigot, stores potable water for up to four weeks.

Before we all stock up on these crisis kits, let’s examine the logic. I’m not entirely sure how it helps in an unexpected disaster. If water flows are cut to homes, how do people fill up the bag? Beyond that, the company is hoping to profit from irrational fears of looming disaster. While I don’t deny that disaster’s possible, it’s more likely it will arise from our mismanaged resources and not our lack of WaterBobs. This product just represents all that is wrong with this world: it profits off of a global water crisis, costs more than it should, and probably won’t be used by most who buy it.

Simply put, don’t buy it.

Here’s an easy-to-read outline of some of the issues leading up to our water crisis. The author, Martin Sieff, is smart to point-out that this crisis was not made overnight. Instead, it is the result of years of mismanagement and unrestricted population and economic growth.

I learned about water when I was in kindergarten. My teacher placed a coffee can on the floor, and we sat cross-legged on the carpet as she filled it with blue and white straws. The blues represented ocean water and far outnumbered the white, freshwater supplies. Of the white straws, she said, we could only drink out of one. The amount of drinkable groundwater was perilously low compared to the total amount of water on the planet. That scene remains one of my most vivid memories and has governed the way I view water as a finite resource.

I wonder then, if a five-year-old can get it, why hasn’t the world? I was in kindergarten over twenty years ago and we still haven’t addressed this problem. Now we’re at the brink of a global water crisis and we’re dipping our toes into the pool of solutions.

This article, by Melissa Cody, argues for the use of hydrogen to power our cars. She outlines her logic through copious details of how to turn hydrogen into fuel. The reader is meant to infer that if the science is in, then water-fueled cars is the best solution to the energy crisis. But global warming is not the only issue at stake here. We also have a water crisis on our hands. It would be wrong to divert water for use in our cars when the southwestern United States rations its supplies.

Beyond that, I think she misses a critical point. The issue is not whether the methods to transform hydrogen into fuel aren’t sound. The issue is how we reconcile our obsession with cars and not degrade the earth.

Though I don’t think it’s fair to impute hydrogen-powered cars alone. Other ideas, like bio-fuel and even hybrids are half attempts at dealing with a full-size problem. Instead of turning to new ways to power our cars, we may need to question their existence all together. Not to say we should destroy all cars. But we must weigh our priorities when we consider using precious resources like water to maintain our inexhaustable hobbies.

Landscapers are finding their businesses depleted as consumers cut lawn care from their budgets and water restrictions force some homeowners to abandon their plants. The St. Petersburg Times reported on the recent slump in landscaping revenue.

There’s no better time than a crisis to back up, take a breather, and modify our behaviors to mesh with a more sustainable eco-system. What I find interesting is that this problem occurs in areas where green lawns shouldn’t be the norm, like Florida. Southern Florida has a tropical climate, one not conducive to lush, fertile lawns. So why do we force it?

Culture, for one. When I spoke with Professor Louise Mozingo of UC-Berkely she cited America’s proclivity for green grass as a hurdle in the way to more sustainable lawn practices. If ever there was a time to change our behaviors, it’s now. And the landscapers could help make those changes by educating their clients about native plants or collecting shower water to use on plants. They might even see a spike in their businesses as Americans continue to endure water restrictions.

It’s been a while since I’ve written. That’s because I was in Mexico for a week and attempted to have a true vacation by denying myself voicemail, text message, email and internet. It was bliss. Now I’m back and ready to discuss the world of water.

One of the most interesting stories this week is a combined effort by Jordan, Israel and Egypt to build a system that will allow water from the Red Sea to replenish the fast-depleting Dead Sea. Some scientists estimate the Dead Sea could vanish in 50 years, Reuters reported. What is known is that the highly buoyant sea loses about three feet a year from low levels of water in the Jordan River and others. So engineers plan to connect the seas via a tunnel from the Gulf of Aqaba through the Jordanian desert. It would also include the world’s largest desalination plant which would provide water for Jordan as well as Israel and the West Bank.

So an area with longstanding and unresolved diplomatic and violent tensions may be brought to its knees over water. Not surprising, considering it is a desert, but certainly intriguing. A counduit for Middle-East peace? Doubtful. Two things must be considered before the region breaks ground on the project. One is the environment. Desalination plants are disruptive, polluting, short-term solutions to a long-term problem. The other is distribution. Although Reuters reported that the Palestinian government hasn’t formally asked for water allotments from the project, they could. My worry is this will ignite more agression as distributions are unevenly weighted toward the more powerful nation. Just look at the U.S. The Colorado River runs dry before it hits Mexico. Americans are no more worthy of that water than Mexicans, but we are more powerful.

Last month, I spoke with Yoram Bauman, the self-proclaimed world’s first stand-up economist. Bauman spends his days teaching economics at the University of Washington and his nights performing his parody of [Harvard Economist] Greg Mankiw’s The Principles of Economics. He’s also an avid environmentalist and spoke eloquently about the virtues of carbon taxes. Here’s a portion of the interview, done for a class assignment.

How do you define yourself?

In the broadest sense, I’d say I’m a communicator, but comedian is probably a better way to put it. [Communication] is one thing that ties in the different parts of my life. Communicating economic ideas is a nice niche to have. It’s also something that’s not particularly awarded. Nobody ever gets tenured because they’re good teachers, but it’s important.

What’s the difference between a stand-up comedian and a stand-up economist? Why not separate the two?

Well, because I’m a comedian who tells jokes about economics. The challenge with doing stand-up comedy is difficult in itself. If you think about it from an economics perspective, there are fewer barriers to entry. It’s a very difficult business environment to be in, so one way to make money in that arena is to different your product.

Is that why you focus on the academic arena and not comedy clubs?

The reason why I don’t perform in comedy clubs isn’t because I don’t want to, but because I can’t. Sometimes I have a little bit of a hard time with comedy club audiences. One part is that a lot of it is economics related, and I use power point. If somebody were to invite me to a comedy club, I could only do 15-20 minutes with no projector. And at a comedy club on a Friday night, there are drunks in the audience and there’s a limited tolerance that they have for some of the jokes that I do.

Is Mankiw upset about your parody?

We’re actually buddies, really buddies. When I first published the parody I sent him an email and said hey I have this parody, just wondering if you have a sense of humor and he said go ahead and publish it. That struck up a correspondence. He put it on his blog and it went viral and he started getting thousands of hits. I went and performed in his class and we had coffee once. He’s been incredibly nice to me and has reacted in a good way.

One of your focuses has been using economic tools to protect the environment. Are you a climate change crusader?

I’d generalize and say it’s more about pricing carbon for me. The problem of global warming is to get the price of alternative energy down below the price of coal. The Chinese and Indians will adopt these [alternative energy] policies because they cost less than coal. It’s the most viable international solution, to avoid an international agreement and get the economics involved. The way to do that is to raise the price of carbon.

Do you think that will happen with the new administration?

I have a little bit of hope. I don’t really follow Washington politics super closely. I hope there will be. I hope I am wrong. My sense is that [people are] willing to do something about climate change as long as it doesn’t cost them anything or inconvenience them. It’s possible to make steps at the state level and then maybe later on the national level.

Do you use comedy as a way to get at the truth of these issues?

It’s a way of connecting with audiences and once you connect with an audience you can talk about all sorts of things. It’s a way to get people in the door. That’s one of the attractions. But I also enjoy just making people laugh. To the extent that I’ll be remembered for anything in this world it will be for my five minute Mankiw bit.

You teach, consult, write, perform and lobby. How do you do it all?

I rarely go to meetings. And there’s a lot of overlap in the things I do. Most of the things that I do with my life are high-value added. Most meetings aren’t high-value added. I teach my class and go home.

That’s right. California is in a state of emergency. Governor Schwarzenneger declared it today, saying the state faces nearly $3 billion in losses from the drought. The Governor called on the state’s urban residents to decrease their water usage by 20%. City officials may instate mandatory rations of water at the end of March if conservation efforts come up short.

The losses couldn’t come at a worse time for California, which just closed a $16 billion budget gap. But what should be emphasized here is the ability of the earth to halt any intentions we might have of using its resources to excess. There are limits to what the land can sustain, and a mass migration to the dessert is not at the top of its list. Let’s hope the state approaches this crisis with a long-term vision of conservation and sustainability and not short-sighted damaging options like desalination and water diversion.

I’m working on a Huffington Post type feel, hence the capital letters.

The line above is from Patricia Mulroy, manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority. Her quote is from an article posted by Bloomberg covering the dangerously low levels of Lake Mead. The reservoir is fed by the Colorado River and supplies water to Las Vegas. The lake is suffering from a record ten-year drought.

This article puts into words what I’ve been thinking:

Las Vegas, an adult-entertainment haven carved into the Mojave Desert, may not draw much sympathy as a poster child for water emergencies.

For decades, new residents imported their cravings for lawns, sprinklers, pools and golf courses to a region that receives 4 inches (10 centimeters) of rain a year, about 1/10 of what Chicago enjoys. Casinos and hotels with water slides and river rides sucked up limited groundwater.

But it would be stupid to leave it at that. It’s not just dessert dwellers that are to blame the region’s water troubles. The current water crisis is the result of constant and unchecked economic growth. Our current economic system fosters an environment that values growth. Indeed, growth is good, no matter what. When we fail to evaluate our growth, we end up in these predicaments. We never thought, maybe the dessert’s ecosystem can’t support the influx of people. No, we were fixated on the economic benefits of the housing and development booms. That short-sighted gratification clouded out judgment and we failed to live with restraint and admiration for our resources. The environment can only sustain so much.

For many years now, the nation has relied on a nationalized food system. Large farms in California and parts of the heartland grow and ship the food that feed most Americans. But with record droughts in the Central Valley of California, crops are coming up short. To deal with this reality, more Americans are turning to planting their own gardens. USA Today reported that seed sales are at their highest levels in 30 years.

The article cites the recession as the main reason for the spike, but I think the droughts are also to blame. People start planting seeds because the cost of food is too high and their wages too low, which is often the case during a recession. But this time is different. With demand low, prices are deflated, making the rise in home gardening more interesting.

The droughts in the valley caused farmers to leave 100,000 acres of about 4 million lie fallow, and there are estimates that this year the number will rise to 850,000 acres. That decrease in production will certainly cause a rise in food prices. When that happens, Americans will be wise to have their own garden to turn to.

Maybe Americans are simply being frugal. Pinching pennies during a recession is hardly new. But what I hope will come out of the drought is the realization that the earth can’t continue to support a nationalized food system.