I don’t know that I’d call it ecoterrorism. Who or what was supposed to be disproportionately motivated to make political changes by a minor act of pinprick violence. That’s what “terrorism” is.
Eco-mismanagement, eco-destruction, eco-clulessness? Sure. Eco-hubris? Maybe.
But not even eco-vandalism applies because the point of GC dam wasn’t to wreck what was there. Some stuff got wrecked, but that wasn’t the goal. Some stuff gets wrecked building anything, even a backyard she-shed.
The difference is that in 1978, many of the problems that they discussed were within our grasp to solve. Climate change is a different beast; you can’t just pass a law that bans logging and make it all go away.
Climate change is a civilization killer - full stop. It’s a species killer - full stop. It’s possible that we might invent some new radical technology to rebalance the situation, but that would require the mother of all Manhattan Projects.
The West has vast quantities of water–and still will with climate change. The problem is that it uses vast quantities of water on low priority uses:
Maybe someone will recover the B-29 down there.
Exploring The Parks: The World War II Bomber At The Bottom Of Lake Mead (nationalparkstraveler.org)
OK calling it a civilization killer sounds slighlty probably. Climate change could put a lot of pressure on countries and cause them to collapse.
But a species killer? If you referring to the idea that the current climate crisis could cause the human species to go extinct I find that very unlikely. We survived the last ice age. I admit the current climate crisis at its worse could cause countries to collapse and a drastic drop in the standard of living for almost everyone but to say it would result in the death of almost all 7 billion humans is way over the top.
Saying that climate change would kill all life on earth might be over the top, but the idea that it would kill all of humanity is not at all a stretch. All the scientific evidence we have seems to indicate that rapid climate change kills off species - like more than 50% of them within the span of a million or so years. That the environment is changing isn’t in and of itself alarming; that it’s changing, that the air and sea temperatures are warming, that the oceans are acidifying, as quickly as they are, should be terrifying. Some of the conditions we’re observing now are mimicking those of the Great Dying (the Permian Extinction), which is as close as we’ve come in the last 500 million years to the extinction of all life on the planet.
It’s not just the climate change itself, it’s what the resulting problems might prompt the shaved apes to do to each other. Wars can break out over resources, and water is definitely a vital resource.
Although climate change that is severe enough certainly IS a species killer. We don’t really know where the current situation is going. If we continue to be stupid things will get dire.
Judging by the problems this tiny (by comparison) Tagus-Segura water transfer caused I guess the transfer you mention could spark anything from revolution to a new Civil War. Thank Godott it is unfeasible.
Some disagree on your hopes for next year. And the year after that as well. And the next one.
Just sayin’ that the problems in California remind me a lot of the problems in Spain. If I had something to say I would ban golf courses and private swimming pools in deserts:
https://imgur.com/gallery/qUkGTfs
This is a very small example of swimming pools in Maps, when you go to “Calle de Garajonay” / “Calle Tablas de Daimiel” in Madrid, Spain. All of the vicinity is like that, and if you go 2 mi. to the East you see what the dry earth looks like there.
You don’t need to do this: instead you can divert water from northern California:
I don’t know anything about the daily water usage in Spain, but filling my pool requires the US equivalent of one month’s water usage for a moderately water conscious family of four. It’s not nothing, but I don’t think it’s a large part of the problem.
It’s not the original filling. It’s the never-ending topping up to offset evaporation, leaks, and if you have kids, splashing. And the periodic drain and refill to do major maintenance like plaster resurface.
In a desert, much of that is likely valid. Where I live, I get enough rain that I haven’t topped off my pool yet and I’m about two months into the season and it was last refilled about 4 years ago due to maxing out the total dissolved solids limit.
Either way, since it was a comment about desert areas, I’ll agree that they can be a much bigger part of the problem than they are here in Georgia.
When I was a kid in SoCal our backyard pool needed about 5 minutes of full-bore garden hose each week to offset what was lost, at least in summer.
Plus of course each monthly filter backflush ran a WAG 50-100 gallons down the drain. This was the days of diatomaceous earth filtration. More modern filters may not need much or any backflushing and attendant water loss.
I can see civilization ending, but I doubt humans would go extinct. We have too many advantages, even if we assume our technology to be gone. We can survive in a broad range of temperatures. We can walk for long distances, further than almost any other terrestrial animal. We’re omnivores and could adapt our diets to survive on whatever is still available. We’re already located in every habitable location on the planet. These are all major advantages compared to the creatures that would go extinct because they can only eat one specific food, reproduce only in a narrow range of temperatures, have limited abilities to migrate, etc. In other words, I think it’s highly unlikely for the current problems with climate change to cause the end of the human species.
In an endorheic basin, it’s almost mathematically provable (barring depth and temperature differences) that you’ll need to top up your pool, because if there were enough precipitation to offset evaporation, the basin would have already created its own path to the ocean.
That’s a good point as a pool is a closed system. I’m not that familiar with Mead other than flying over it when I go to Vegas. I’m assuming the current low water level is what makes it closed, correct?
Speaking as a northern Californian - NO. At any rate the Klamath basin, which is already in use for irrigation and hydroelectric, is already suffering badly from drought effects as well.
No. Lake Mead is not closed. The Colorado river feeds first Lake Powell behind Glen Canyon Dam, then flows through the Grand Canyon which then empties into Lake Mead impounded by Boulder (née Hoover) Dam, then continues south to Lake Havasu behind Parker Dam then eventually trickles into Mexico down near Yuma AZ.
The whole point of Mead shrinking is that many years of excess water flow from the 1930s to 1960s was impounded behind it. But since about 1980 water has been being removed for local human use, for electricity generation, and to feed the downstream uses collectively faster than water has been being added from upstream. So on a net inflow/outflow basis the very big bucket is slowly being drained. Once in awhile a good rain year makes for a slight refilling. But the long term trend is definitely downward.
With no expectation that inflow will get bigger or that outflow will get smaller, all the manmade lakes will eventually being reduced to what they were before the dams were built: simply the Colorado River meandering around in the bottom of what were once the lakes. If we can’t get a handle on consumption all up and down the Colorado river basin, all the dams will be rendered useless as the supply dwindles and demand doesn’t.
@Ludovic said it was an endorheic basin, which denotes that it is closed, like a swimming pool, and thus provable that evaporation is exceeding precipitation. Since I’m pretty sure that Mead isn’t typically closed, as you noted, I assumed that Ludovic was saying it was closed due to low water levels preventing it from releasing water further along the path.
Not an expert on endorheic vs. exorheic bodies of water, so I’m happy to be educated.
I’m not sure I get what @Ludovic meant either, but I think he was speaking in generalities, not about the Lake Mead basin specifically.