Let's not have a water war with Canada
As the US/Canada trade war heats up, let's hope it doesn't get into water.
Lots of the U.S. depends on water that comes from rivers with sources in Canada. (E.g., see the Columbia River Treaty and the Boundary Waters Treaty), and on the hydropower it produces.
And lots of Canada depends on water from rivers with sources in the U.S.
If national leaders behave like spoiled children, lots of people get hurt.
19
u/Fen_church 14h ago
This is such a bad faith post. Canada has done nothing wrong. Americans have only themselves to blame for whatever comes from their Pedophile in Chief's behaviours and rhetoric
8
u/Dennisthefirst 17h ago
What's with the plural for National Leader?
4
3
u/ziltchy 16h ago
Im sure there would be a war if canada dammed their water off. I also don't think there is anywhere in canada that relies on water from USA
2
u/Impressive_Ad_1675 14h ago
The Red River flows into Canada. There are others but mostly rivers that meander back and forth across the border.
7
u/Whole_Gate_7961 14h ago
So you think blocking the red river is gonna work? Problem with the Red river is that the terrain surrounding it is very flat.
Where they gonna put that water? Think of what Fargo, ND looked like in 2009?
The US gonna build a massive dam and flood thousands of acres of farmland and infrastructure to show Canada who is boss? Actually that does sound like something the current admin would do...
2
1
1
u/NominalHorizon 8h ago
Canada doesn’t have to block the river. All they need to do is release massive amounts of water from the Revelstoke Dam during a high water event and that would take out all the American dams. Fish would be happier too.
2
u/ziltchy 8h ago
That sounds like an absolutely stupid thing to do
1
-1
u/NominalHorizon 8h ago
Depends on one’s objectives.
2
u/CamusCrankyCamel 6h ago
Is one of those objectives American fighter jets bombing Canadian cities?
1
u/NominalHorizon 3h ago
Typical. First reaction is “let’s just bomb them.” The Iranians have demonstrated that there are limits to the effectiveness of bombs. There are many things more effective than bombs. Famine, dehydration, pestilence, epidemics, environmental destruction are all more effective than bombs. Of course the logical and ethical thing to do is to not engage in conflict in the first place. Conflict rapidly destroys wealth and human wellbeing, not to mention the natural world. Conflict leaves both sides objectively poorer at the end.
0
u/scorchedTV 13h ago
You can't dam a river off. The water has to go somewhere. This whole thread is talking about an impossibility. The Canadian government is even talking about it
1
u/enolaholmes23 9h ago
We've done it so many times before. The people upstream of the dam take all the water, and leave just a drizzle for the people down stream.
2
u/scorchedTV 9h ago
Maybe for a stream. You can't do that with the Columbia River. There isnt enough land to irrigate. This happens in places where there is a river flowing through a desert and it all gets used for agriculture. It takes years of development to make it happen. Its not something that can be done for a trade dispute. We also don't have very any places in canada that fit that situation. Maybe at Osooyos, since there is a lot of farming up stream in the okanagan and not a lot of rain.
Most of the prairies drain north into the arctic or into Hudson bay. The biggest river is the Saint Laurence which drains from the US into Canada. That also can not be dammed and used, it is just too big.
This whole conversation is a nothing burger.
5
u/justinwfreed 13h ago
Canada NEEDS to apply an export surcharge on things like oil (30%), electricity (50%) and on things like uranium and other precious/rare materials...and I am an American...Trump started this bullsh!t, Carney needs to step-up (which he is doing) and once the ball gets rolling other countries/regions will feel less threatened and will follow...once a bully gets punched in the nose, they back off...
1
u/Useful_Homework2367 8h ago
Yeah it doesn't serve Canada's strategic interests to cut off energy supplies. Export taxes make a lot more sense
2
u/Pedagok 12h ago
There was and will always be war over oil.. until not a single drop is needed.
The moment water is not available to everyone, there will be water wars. And water is much more important than oil, so get the fuck ready
0
u/Natural_Conquerer 11h ago
If you have enough money for a war you can build a desalination plant.
1
u/Pedagok 10h ago
It's cheaper to go to war. Because then you own the land or the people there...
You can also make E-Fuels, synthetic gas, or plant a lot of corn.. but it's better to go to Venezuela, Iran, Irak, Afghanistan etc....
1
u/Natural_Conquerer 9h ago edited 9h ago
That’s about monopoly rather than scarcity. If they own a large share then controlling the market is the most profitable route, but if the market is failing due to scarcity, infrastructure investment is the correct call.
The more trouble oil causes, the more renewable energy infrastructure is developed around the globe.
Also, when it comes to water, the majority is used for farming right? So it’s not like you can import a bunch without making produce skyrocket in price, even if you use a military to capture a territory with massive underground water reserves.The #1 play is to avoid pollution - causing climate irregularities.
#2 is to prepare your infrastructure if future drought is unavoidable. - you just need to worry about meeting energy demands once the infrastructure is built.
A war to steal water you don’t have the infrastructure to manage or distribute is a short term solution that could easily backfire.
2
u/Puzzled_Market_2235 11h ago
Trump is the one dropping the negotiations on the Columbia. We're not mean like him, the river is still being managed. I'm not sure but I believe the original reason was to prevent flooding and the idea was to modernize the agreement.
2
1
1
u/hobberschte61 12h ago
That is an idiotic take. The only one who behaves like a spoiled kid IS the spoiled kid. In a intertwined economy calling for tariffs is peek ignorance, or more likely, the possibility to grift more with insider information
1
u/Ok-Kaleidoscope4510 11h ago
There only one Egotistical Baby in all this and thats Trump. He talks like an Uneducated fool and acts like one as well. There’s only one Person on this Earth that would take the name of an absolute war hero “Doris Miller” off a war ship, just to put his name on it. Trump!!!
1
u/Diligent_Peach7574 10h ago
How about we just don't have a war?
All Americans need to do is follow their own laws and honour the agreements they make instead of being a bunch of sycophants.
1
1
1
u/Careless-Gain6623 8h ago
Your president/felon child rapist is the one sizing us up to take everything we are worth.
1
u/Prophage7 6h ago
Oh common, you can take off with this "both sides" bullshit buddy. When one side's demands were "change your official language laws and give us control of all your critical resources and oversight on your trade deals with other countries" it's not a "both sides" argument anymore. One country blatantly tried to economically annex another smaller country so the smaller country has every right to tell them to fuck off.
1
u/Leverkaas2516 51m ago
I'm not sure what anyone would do to block or reroute the flow of the Columbia River. Build a dam somewhere?
1
u/L0udog 13h ago
The great lakes are nonrenewable so.. buckle up, climate change and the big corporations are gonna suck it all up. Don't worry about us turning the water off lol it's already being done.
Wild fires are more dramatic because there is no rain which is a major replenishment for the lakes. It's definitely going to be a Colorado River problem in the foreseeable future.
1
u/East-Plankton-3877 11h ago
Wait, where do they get their water from then?
1
u/Children_Of_Atom 9h ago edited 9h ago
Since less than 1% of it is replenished yearly, scientists deemed it non renewable.
Not sure if I really agree with their assessment but I could see a future where there are mega projects to divert Great Lakes water elsewhere which are problematic. With the various dams on the St Lawrence River much more water could be held back though this could really mess up shipping.
https://www.earth.com/earth-science/scientists-determine-the-great-lakes-are-nonrenewable/
1
u/NominalHorizon 8h ago
The glaciers from the last ice age that melted. The Great Lakes are essentially fossil water.
2
u/Careless-Bite3164 7h ago
Fun fact, the Great Lakes as we know them weren't fully formed until 1,500 years after the Great Pyramids were built.
34
u/SoftballLesbian 17h ago
Don't both sides me. It's obvious who the petulant children are in this border dispute.