The NAFTA super corridors fit the bill quite well. Their stated objective is to facilitate supply, services and security through major trade routes and continental integration. Although the voices of opposition can be loudly heard across the North American continent from the southern provinces of Mexico to the northern territories of Canada…the super Corridors are quietly moving ahead.

Setting aside the conspiracy theories that abound, you have to wonder if there are any logistical or economical advantages to the concept of Super Corridors in the current environment?

Many regions in Canada and the US seem to think so. While Kansas City happily pursues its super hub career, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg hope to be included as inner ports along the Canadian Intelligent Super Corridor (CISCOR) route. Deep sea ports in Mexico (Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo) and Canada (Prince Rupert, Churchill) are being revamped with a view to expanding their capacity and attracting business from the more traditional ports of Los Angeles and Vancouver. Meanwhile, bids are being taken for the construction of the famous I-69 super highway in Texas and any opposition to the project had to be voiced before April 18, 2008.

The one factor that appears to be overlooked is global warming.

Recent studies have reported the severe impact climate change will have on transportation, coastal erosion, and permafrost instability. All repercussions that would directly affect the Corridors main components. But the top emerging issue is water.

Whether through extreme precipitation or drought, floods,evaporation or contamination, fresh water supplies are dwindling. Two of the United States main watershed basins, the Mississippi and the Colorado are experiencing prolonged periods of drought. Kansas City, which sits at the heart of the corridors system is itself either dry or subject to flooding.

Perhaps the time has come to re-frame the debate around water rather than CO2 emissions? Water being essential to life, this might go along way to clarifying the issues and defusing the battle lines.

Have the engineers of this great continental integration taken into account any of these factors? If not, many questions arise...

Can this massive plan withstand the impact of our new environment or does the impact of global warming underscore the need for rationalized trade routes? If so, should there not be global super corridors to supply the world with food and water? Are there any time frames set out for this grand plan? As Arctic ice melts at alarming rates will it jeopardize the safety of the planned super ports or would pipelines be beneficial to channel the melting ice caps? Should rail transport be privileged in this scenario; it is both more energy and emission-friendly, and a substantial grid of railways already exists within the super corridor grid.

All these questions and more should be the subject of public debates. As global issues intensify, as our food and water supplies dwindle, timelines must be agreed upon and best case scenarios developed to ensure the sustainability of any project we undertake. And if we have to change our points of reference, we should do so.

SUPER CORRIDORS- Part 1


More News on main site



WEEKENDER
Archives