• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future US-Canada Water disputes due to Global Warming?

CougarKing

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
360
I am aware there is already an old, whimsical thread about this, titled "Will Canada be invaded for its water?"  ::) at Radio Chatter, but here is a little article I spotted this morning that I thought some of you needed to look at.

Don't get me wrong. I am not taking sides in the ongoing debate between the "Prevent Global Warming" crowd or the "Global Warming is a Myth" side, but just thought I needed to post the article here.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070412/sc_nm/globalwarming_water_dc

Warming could spark N. American water scramble: U.N.
By Timothy Gardner
Thu Apr 12, 4:20 AM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Climate change could diminish North American water supplies and trigger disputes between the United States and Canada over water reserves already stressed by industry and agriculture, U.N. experts said on Wednesday.

More heat waves like those that killed more than 100 people in the United States in 2006, storms like the killer hurricanes that struck the Gulf of Mexico in 2005 and wildfires are likely in North America as temperatures rise, according to a new report that provided regional details on a U.N. climate panel study on global warming issued in Brussels on April 6.

Severe weather already costs North America tens of billions of dollars annually in productivity and damaged property, and those costs are expected to rise, the U.N. report said.

The broadest effects of climate change will be water problems across the entire continent -- including more frequent droughts, urban flooding and a scramble for water from the Great Lakes, which border both the United States and Canada.

"Water was an issue in every region ... but in very different ways and very different places," Michael MacCracken, a review editor of the report, said in a telephone interview.

Unlike many continents, North America has no east to west mountain ranges that limit droughts by forcing rapidly moving wet air to release rain, said MacCracken, also chief scientist for climate change at the Climate Institute, a Washington-based nonprofit group.

Cities will also be threatened as glacial melt leads to higher ocean levels. Late in the 21st century, severe flooding that occurs in New York once every 500 years could happen as often as once in 50 years, putting at risk much of the infrastructure in the New York region, the report said.

Droughts would also occur more often in the U.S. Midwest and Southwest as warmer temperatures evaporate soil moisture.

Those droughts could diminish underground supplies like the Edwards Aquifer in Texas, which supplies 2 million people with water, by up to 40 percent, and cut levels of the Ogallala aquifer which underlies eight U.S. states, the report said.

During droughts like the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, U.S. farmers pumped water from underground aquifers to save their fields through irrigation. "Much of that water is now gone," said MacCracken. "We've used up our savings bank."

Tight underground water supplies could kick off a scramble for large above-ground supplies in the Great Lakes, the report said. Spats have already occurred over diversion of the lakes' water for distant cities and farms, while calls have increased for channeling water to the Mississippi River to supply U.S. cities during hot summers.

Problems are also expected to intensify as warmer temperatures lower water levels through evaporation. "Climate change will exacerbate these issues and create new challenges for binational cooperation," the report said.

The tension could be heightened by the fact that a majority of the Canadian population lives close to the Great Lakes, while only a small fraction of the U.S. population reside nearby, MacCracken said.

Any thoughts to refute or support this?
 
Sure, some sort of conflict could arise over fresh water in the future.  But it isn't going to be as a result of the type of global warming and climate change the media and other interested parties are trying to hoodwink the public with.  Ahhh... I better stop now before I get all worked up.
 
Just as "global Warming" alarmism is caused and spread by ignorance of science and history, fears of mass water diversion and sales are driven by ignorance of economics and technology.

The short answer is water is a heavy and inert substance, which can only be transported great distances at great expense. This explains why every "great" hydraulic engineering project in history has always been a government project; the Pharaoh, King, Commissar, New Dealer etc. has no need to conform to economic reality (and the project silts up with the end of government subsidies......).

It is far cheaper and more economical to allow market forces to set water prices, which will encourage consumers to adopt meathods to minimize water consumption. Recycling water is an option as well, and becomes viable at certain supply/demand points.
 
a_majoor said:
Recycling water is an option as well, and becomes viable at certain supply/demand points.

And these points are starting to meet lower down on the graph than in previous years.  I look after our waste water treatment where I work, and the focus for me this year is to recycle the water through our processes instead of just preparing it for sewer.  The cost of the treatment equipment and chemistry is much higher than the cost of the equipment required to hold the water for return to the process.

In a few years, I expect that self cleaning pot fiters and UV purifiers will come down enough in price to allow for new home usage as well.  I am not sure that recycling will ever be practical as a retrofit to a house however.

 
Recycling can be done at many points in the chain, I can think of a number of emerging technologies which would allow clean, potable water to be extracted from the municipal sewage stream for example, but would really require the entire municipal supply to justify the capital cost.

On a much smaller scale, homeowners can use rain barrels and expended grey water from the washing machine to water their lawns and gardens, and there are intermediate systems for industrial use. Based on these known technologies and the presumptive introduction of market pricing and its effect on demand, the sky is neither falling or even lowering. People can invest in water import/export schemes if they wish, I am sure they will be very disappointed with the resulting ROI.
 
Canada and the US already have a number of agreements regarding water use that impacts both nations. Most of the states suffering water shortages are to far south to be helped by our water. Look up the “International Rivers Improvement Act”
 
The alternate solution is that people move to where water is economically available......The problem then becomes one of managing immigration and borders.
 
A long time ago I read about a proposed plan to dam the Fraser river and import the water south
to alleviate the water problems of California,an environmental disaster in the making,however the
Socreds led by "Wacky"Bennet thought it was a great idea.Does anyone remember more about this
plan?
                Regards
 
Is there not something like 5 or 6 dams already on the Columbia River?....Apparently, between the hydro and irrigation systems tapping it, it is just a puddle by the time it gets to its' outlet.
 
GAP,

I think you might be thinking more the Colorado river.  The Columbia river still have significant flow but the quality of that flow has drastically changed due to human activities...especially when dealing with fish populations.  Not sure how accurate the numbers are but I recall being told by a state official at a salmon hatchery down in Washington State that 50 million salmon used to spawn there...now less than 15 million do (this was in 1995). 

 
I stand corrected....you're right.
 
You may be referring to the North American Water and Power Alliance Plan (NAWAPA), which seems to be the US Army Corps of Engineers saying they can do things bigger and better than the Soviet Union (divert rivers fron the Arctic Ocean? HA! We will reverse the entire flow of the North American Continent!)

From an engineering point of view, everything proposed is feasable (i.e. does not violate the laws of physics), but from an economic or environmental point of view, the plan makes no sense whatsoever. It is perhaps the ulimate evolution of the "capstone dams" built during the great depression; Socialist/New Deal wealth redistribution where the taxpayers of the United States got to supply water at sub market rates to California. Now of course, we Canadians are also invited to pony up.......

The map (if it attaches), shows the extent of the proposed North American Water and Power Alliance Plan (NAWAPA), otherwise go to this link: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps2.html#nawapa
 
Living in Manitoba with the ongoing Garrison Diversion Project coming up regularly and the whole bio transfer issue, this could be a real nightmare. From the map, it looks like the North Saskatchewan River being entirely diverted to the central U.S., leaving "what" for Canada.

You want a North American war? Try implementing this.
 
Speaking of future conflicts over natural resources...

We should all hope it never comes down to this...

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,132519,00.html

Military: Global Warming may Cause War
Associated Press  |  April 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - As the world warms, water - either too little or too much of it - is going to be the major problem for the United States, scientists and military experts said Monday. It will be a domestic problem, with states clashing over controls of rivers, and a national security problem as water shortages and floods worsen conflicts and terrorism elsewhere in the world, they said.

At home, especially in the Southwest, regions will need to find new sources of drinking water, the Great Lakes will shrink, fish and other species will be left high and dry, and coastal areas will on occasion be inundated because of sea-level rises and souped-up storms, U.S. scientists said.

The scientists released a 67-page chapter on North American climate effects, which is part of an international report on climate change impact.

Meanwhile, global-warming water problems will make poor, unstable parts of the world - the Middle East, Africa and South Asia - even more prone to wars, terrorism and the need for international intervention, a panel of retired military leaders said in a separate report.

"Water at large is the central (global warming) problem for the U.S.," Princeton University geosciences professor Michael Oppenheimer said after a press conference featuring eight American scientists who were lead authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's climate-effects report.

Roger Pulwarty, one of the federal government's top drought scientists, said states such as Arizona and Colorado, which already fight over the Colorado River basin water, will step up legal skirmishes. They may look to the Great Lakes, but water availability there will shrink, he said.

Reduced snow melt supplying water for the Sacramento Valley in California means that by 2020 there won't be enough water "to meet the needs of the community," Pulwarty said. That will step-up the competition for water, he said.

On the East Coast, rising sea levels will make storm surge "the No. 1 vulnerability for the metropolitan East Coast," said study lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA. "It's a very real threat and needs to be considered for all coastal development."

Rising sea level can harm Florida's biodiversity and be dangerous during hurricanes, the scientists added.

A few hours later, retired Gen. Charles F. "Chuck" Wald focused on the same global warming problem.

"One of the biggest likely areas of conflict is going to be over water," said Wald, former deputy commander of U.S. European Command. He pointed to the Middle East and Africa.

The military report's co-author, former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Gordon R. Sullivan, also pointed to sea-level rise floods as potentially destabilizing South Asia countries of Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia and Vietnam.

Lack of water and food in places already the most volatile will make those regions even more unstable with global warming and "foster the conditions for internal conflicts, extremism and movement toward increased authoritarianism and radical ideologies," states the 63-page military report, issued by the CNA Corp., an Alexandria, Va.-based national security think tank.

Kristi Ebi, a Virginia epidemiologist on the scientific panel, said reduced water supplies globally will hinder human health. "We're seeing mass migration of people because of things like water resource constraint, and that's certainly a factor in conflict," she added.

Peter Glieck, president of the Pacific Institute, an Oakland, Calif., think tank, said the national security and domestic infighting over water comes as little surprise.

"Water is connected to everything we care about - energy, human health, food production and politics," said Glieck, who was not part of either panel. "And that fact alone means we better pay more attention to the security connections. Climate will effect all of those things. Water resources are especially vulnerable to climate change."

As water fights erupt between nations and regions and especially between cities and agricultural areas, Stanford scientist Terry Root said there will be one sure loser low on the priority list for water: other species.

"The fish will lose out and the birds and everything," she said.

Pollution will also worsen with global warming, the scientists said.

As places like the Great Lakes draw down on water, the pollution inside will get more concentrated and trapped toxins will come more to the surface, said Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider.

And even the air, especially in the Northeast, will become more deadly. More heat means more smog cooked and about a 4 to 5 percent increase in smog-related deaths, Ebi said. That's thousands of people, she said.

The scientists and military leaders held out hope that dramatic cuts in fossil fuel emissions could prevent much of the harm they are predicting. But they said the U.S. government - and the rest of the world - has to act now.
 
http://www.last.fm/music/R.E.M./_/Its+the+end+of+the+world+as+we+know+it+(and+I+feel+fine)

Edit: S_Baker - you know that you are wrong on this one.  You forgot a couple of Oceans and a fair number of seas.  I can't help but wonder what happens when all that water heats up due to global warming, evaporates and creates one giant cloud that blocks out the sun.  Do you suppose it might rain?

 
I can only imagine a board of this type in Elizabethen England crying disaster as deforestation engulfs the Kingdom. No wood for ships, no firewood and especially no charcoal for metal smelting.....Oddly enough, with the price of wood going through the roof, it becomes economically feasable to put more effort into mining coal.

Fast forward to the mid 1800's, when whale oil became scarce and expensive. Suddenly it becomes economical to drill for that icky stuff seeping from the ground in Pennsylvania.

Although there is no water substitute, economics and history tells us that when there is a demand for a product, a means will be found to supply that product. If you drive along the Pacific coast of Chile, you will see large screens of very fine netting hung in the air to collect the morning dew. Saudi Arabia distills water from the Persian Gulf, the Japanese collect rain water for gardening and washing and there are plenty of other examples out there. If things get really bad we can send a space ship to Europa (orbiting Jupiter) since that planet is 40% water  ;)

Maybe we should pack up the global warming alarmists and send them to Europa. It is nice and cool there and they should have little difficulty finding all the water they need...........
 
Let em come, I hope they like the taste of blood in there water.  >:D

But seriously, there are lots of other solutions to water shortages, you can boil or evaporate sea water and then recolect it, it would sooner become economic (or at least combined with moral reasons) to build large filtering plants like that then go to war.
 
Interestingly enough, the best way to avoid water shortages is through renewing urban infrastructure. Chennai, India (formerly Madras) loses almost 40% of its water through leaking pipes in the municipal system. Just so you see this isn't a third world problem, London Ontario discharges raw sewage into the Thames River during rain storms since the local infrastructure has been neglected in favor of flashy "urban renewal" projects. Since these projects have a uniform negative rate of return, taxpayers see their resources literally flowing into the river.........
 
a_majoor said:
If things get really bad we can send a space ship to Europa (orbiting Jupiter) since that planet is 40% water  ;)

What ship should we send?  DISCOVERY went there in 2001 (alternate universe), but didn't land.  Of course, later expeditions were turned away after Jupiter morphed into Lucifer!  :D  THOSE expeditions didn't turn out that well.....;D
 
a_majoor said:
London Ontario discharges raw sewage into the Thames River
Isn't London Ontario quite a ways away from the Thames? Or am I missing something?  :)
 
Back
Top