Actually, there's a series of Canadian implications that aren't spelled out here (well, duh, it's the NYT, why would they...)
1) Water diversion. The "Great Lakes" looks like a huge pool of fresh water. But it's not actually self-replenishing, meaning that it's not actuall a renewable resource, meaning that any sensible public policy action is to ban water exports. Chicago has already messed with Lake Michigan. the St. Clair river drain hole (explained here) . Water levels are shrinking across the Great Lakes - adding exports will mess with the ecosystems (and boating, cottaging, fishing, the St Mary's River, the Soo Locks, etc.). Martin Mittelstaedt of The Globe had a great series on this... In fact, I'll steal a graphic from it below.
Actually, the CBC has a solid page on this as well.
And here.
2) Western Canada itself. Professor Schindler has written in the past of consequences to the West of the shrinking glaciers. As they continue to retreat, the western rivers become shallower - meaning warmer and lower in volume - and less reliable for drinking water, irrigation, or other industrial uses. This leads into the kinds of issues being confronted by the US states profiled in the NYT article above. In fact, the simple way of putting it is here. More here
2a) Energy patch vs. water. Some of the issue in the oilsands are spelled out in a report by U of A and U of T which can be found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment