The central points in Chris Wood’s article (“Melting Point,” October) are both valid: Canada is threatened by impacts of climate change due to emissions of greenhouse gases, and US thirst for Canadian water could result in large-scale dams and diversions. However, these points are not connected in the way the table of contents suggests (“Thanks to global warming, Canada will be awash in water”). The reality, as Mr. Wood attests, is entirely the opposite. Due to climate change, Canada will experience water shortage. Environment Canada assessments of climatic impacts have concluded that the most significant impact of a twofold increase in atmospheric carbon would be loss of water in both quantity and quality.
The fact that climate change will result in persistent droughts on our prairies and reduced water levels in the Great Lakes is a good argument against engineering water transfers south of the border. We are fighting for an annex agreement to the Great Lakes Charter that will prevent diversions, with climate change cited as a reason. Adapting to climate change will certainly mean keeping our water within natural watersheds and basins. All the more reason that we cannot risk diversions or megadams, and why we must reduce fossil-fuel emissions.
Elizabeth May
Ottawa, Ontario
While I’m flattered that Chris Wood calls me an “ecological champion” and “America’s leading water advocate,” he has distorted my position. I’ve been a leading proponent for many years of the “soft path” to water, which requires refocusing management from supply to demand, from infrastructure to water use, from centralized decision-making to community-scale actions. I’ve always noted that the soft path does not mean abandoning dams and reservoirs; rather, it means smarter use of such infrastructure and applying far more careful rules and guidelines to evaluate where new ones may be appropriate, especially in developing countries. Mr. Wood mangles this distinction by implying I support building new dams in the United States and Canada. This is false. As I’ve regularly argued, I believe that conservation and efficiency improvements can produce far more water, far faster, and with far less environmental destruction than new dams in both of our countries.
Even more disturbing was Mr. Wood’s implication that I support delivering Canadian water to American users. I do not support this nor do I believe economic, legal, or political conditions would permit such deliveries. I stand by my statement that “We can no longer afford to pretend these international watersheds are separate.” But Mr. Wood’s interpretation that this inevitably means mandated water deliveries from Canada to the United States, or that I support such deliveries, is wrong. In fact, unless we get better at jointly managing the watersheds we share, the likelihood of international disputes over water will grow.
Dr. Peter H. Gleick
President, Pacific Institute
Oakland, California
Chris Wood argues there will be irresistible pressures for large-scale transfers of water within Canada and to the United States. But there are good reasons to resist such moves. First, transferring water from one watershed to another is a serious disruption of our natural systems. This argument has no connection to nationalism, but merely reflects the fact that manipulating the natural world for our own ends can often produce unforeseen negative consequences.
Second, the United States has squandered its water capital by drawing down aquifers and rivers, especially in western states. In effect, the current generation has stolen water from their children, who will have to bear the consequences. Canada’s capitulation now would only encourage the belief that technical solutions offset global warming, when we ought to be combating it at its source.
Comments