Summary Of The New Oil By Jenen Interlandi

In 2010, Newsweek published an article, called “The New Oil,” that illustrated the economic impacts of water scarcity to express the need for government intervention in managing water resources. In order to prove government intervention is necessary, the author Jeneen Interlandi first describes the problem of water scarcity as a global crisis, asserting that globally, “rivers, lakes, and aquifers are dwindling faster than Mother Nature can possibly replenish them,” while “global population is ticking skyward” (2). In other words, the supply of freshwater on Earth is decreasing, and due to the trend of augmentation in population, the demand for freshwater will continue to increase. As freshwater is a human necessity, a lack thereof is detrimental

This will cause water to be marketed as a commodity that only the fortunate are able to afford. Another problem described by Interlandi is faulty water infrastructure and the lack of funds for repairment. This problem causes cities to consider privatizing, which, again, has consequences. Interlandi lists consequences, stating “private operators often reduce the workforce, neglect water conservation, and shift the cost of environmental violations onto the city” (4). To support her idea that privatization is negative, Interlandi provided the example of Camden, New Jersey’s expensive legal battle with a private water utility because of its poor maintenance and neglect of environment. To conclude, Interlandi suggests that the best course of action to take against these water issues is not privatization or increasing the price of water, but rather it is to increase the government’s influence over the management of freshwater. This would create jobs and discourage municipal governments to resort to private

Freshwater is essential to the irrigation of crops and the health of meat animals. With an increase in water scarcity, the supply of crops and meat would decrease because crops and animals would die. As humans rely heavily on crops and meat for food, it would not be reasonable that they would consume significantly less crops and meat and still be able to survive. This combined with the decreased supply of crops and meat would raise the price of food and cause an increase in quantity demanded. Therefore, the poor would begin to starve or be forced to resort to other means for food. It is also important to acknowledge that there are substitute goods for crops and meat, processed foods. For example, the Oreo cookie is vegan and basically made entirely from chemicals. Rather than starving from not being able to afford expensive grown foods and meat, poor people during a water scarce time would likely resort to eating foods like the Oreo. Because the price would increase in grown food and meat, the demand for processed food would increase. However, processed foods, unlike grown food and meat, can not provide all of the essential nutrients that a human needs to live, so it may not be considered a complete substitute for the healthier foods. Additionally, the farmers would be greatly impacted in this situation. They would not be able to grow as much food or as many animals. It