By: Aditeya Das
During the Republican presidential debate, candidate Vivek Ramaswamy made an absurd comment: "The climate change agenda is a hoax." Shockingly, his poll numbers soared in the aftermath. While this unfolded, the Panama government unveiled a $2 billion plan to manipulate rivers, in order to revive the dwindling Panama Canal. The Canal, responsible for ferrying 14,000 ships yearly, is at a critical point where it is drying up at significant levels. The economic implications are severe so it is of utmost importance to solve this issue.
The Panama Canal was built in 1914 by the United States to connect the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It relies on freshwater to open a series of locks that open the water flow in the canal. The source of this water comes from a man-made reservoir that has been experiencing a drought for the past 20 years. As a result, the water levels in the canal have decreased to the point that Panama authorities are forcing ships to reduce their weight, increasing wait times from one week to a week and a half.
Nevertheless, even half a week is crucial as the canal is responsible for 40% of world cargo ships. Furthermore, this trend in shipping times can snowball to a point where shipping times can even double. A bottleneck has been created. Around 200 ships have currently run aground at two ends of the canal, partially blocking the passage and leading to even higher amounts of congestion and travel times. This can mean disruptions of supply chains which many attribute to inflation. An example of this is the crucial Liquid Natural Gas trade between North America, India, and North East Asia. If there is a supply chain disruption, there can be skyrocketing gas prices which are detrimental to many households not only in the West but all over the world.
There are many ecological issues as well. The Panama Canal relies so heavily on freshwater that each ship uses up about 50 million gallons worth of it. The combination of this and the drought plaguing the reservoir nearby means that the government is forced to take away freshwater from rivers and lakes which can result in a spillover of effects on wildlife that rely on that water. The environment aside, the people of Panama will be highly affected. The freshwater that is being redirected is the source of the country’s drinking water. This means that a water crisis may also be imminent which is arguably more important than the economies of the superpowers.
To conclude, the Panama Canal drying up has implications on an economic, social, and environmental scale. The water levels are dangerously low leading to many ships running aground and longer travel times as a result of congestion. This can lead to an inflationary pull on prices due to supply chain disruptions so the Panama government feels that they should solve the issue through the redirection of more freshwater. Yet this also has a downside, affecting both the ecosystems in Panama and the people’s drinking water so officials should be urged to find the right balance between economic gain, and social responsibility.
Sources:
Comments