and several considerations
part 2
Part 2 continues to discuss considerations, in light of the ethic described in part 1, of the possible effects of an early beginning to the tipping point of AMOC.
2. Proximity:
Some peoples’ first reaction to AMOC may be panic: get away from others in order to protect themselves. Isolating or being in areas of small populations where everyone knows one another may be appealing, but if the new conditions make it difficult to access medical attention, or limit transportation of food or transmission of electricity or transportation of different fuels, being remote may be quite disadvantageous.
My own choice will be to remain in urban areas where, I hope, proximity to many people and services will make living easier.
We know from COVID lessons that many people who live in crowded quarters may suffer more from inadequate air circulation, heat, and air conditioning, and may find public transit not meeting their needs safely. These are problems for which provision should be made beginning NOW, not waiting for AMOC or any other next crisis. In the current times of extreme housing shortage, we are unlikely to be prepared for their sakes. Measures not yet tested may be in order, e.g., moving more people into more hotels at least to the point where extreme crowding is less common, even if it requires placing members of extended families in different locations. It remains to be seen whether the expansion of nursing homes together with improved working conditions and improved air circulation and prophylactic methods, will occur. I say that with a very heavy heart and in great doubt.
3.Supply chain:
It may be difficult to grow things we need in some places (think of the drought already in Alberta); there may be inadequate fuel to transport goods, and fewer able and willing people to grow food, as well as make things, and conduct scientific activities to produce things we need now (pharmaceuticals) and in the future. Again, I suggest that being in communities where many people of many abilities live and work, will ameliorate these difficulties. Highly infectious disease simultaneous with AMOC problems may make closeness a problem, but closeness may also make it likelier that solutions can be found.
4. Energy:
The immediate future of energy availability is murky. There are questions of sources and transmission. In Canada we have nuclear, gas, water, wood, wind, solar, and hydrogen. Even when sources are nearby, power must be distributed to other locations — nearness does not itself guarantee reliability, because it still comes through transmission lines. Those areas where lines are underground (some but not all cities) have greater reliability. Those with above- ground lines are more at risk because of bad weather or winds, or sometimes, animal activity. But the shorter the transmission distance, the less opportunity for long-lasting interruption. This doesn’t necessarily argue for greater reliability in cities than in rural areas, but it may, depending on how the distribution network is placed.
There are other considerations. Hot weather may evaporate lakes, reservoirs, and rivers, which could diminish power generation at water sources, and could also diminish cooling capabilities at nuclear power stations. On the other hand, severe cold can freeze water and perhaps cause difficulties. Frozen Great Lakes diminish transport of goods. Foul weather can slow transport of fuel and other supplies by truck or rail. Fuels are rarely extracted within cities. They require transport from other areas. Probably cities will be supplied more readily than remote areas because more people are served in cities.
Cloud coverage can diminish solar energy production, some winds can be too strong for windmills to operate, and there can be days without winds. Gas, oil and gasoline supplies and transport may be less susceptible to weather, except that they require energy to be extracted and refined, and at the end of the pipeline, must still be transported by truck. As I say, with changes in the environment caused by AMOC, the levels of risk are difficult to know.
5. Food:
This may be subject to the drastic climate change. Food grown in Canada may be more emphasized; and imported food less so, because of supply chain interruptions and higher costs, and, of course, perhaps less availability because of changing growing conditions elsewhere. Our attitude toward some crops, dairy products and meats may be changed because of paucity of farmed products, or unsuitable weather conditions for outdoor animals, or problems growing appropriate feed for the animals. Because growing areas are often distant from cities, particular attention to the growers’ needs will be emphasized, including communication, transport, and support services such as education and medical care. Distance from cities may therefore not be as isolating as might otherwise be supposed. But planning for these possibilities is necessary.
Pharmaceuticals represent the same problems as food, because so many medications come from and/or through India and China. Weather conditions interrupt transport and communications. Lack of support for local workers, inadequate research, basic ingredient availability and quality, and geopolitics, may interrupt the availability of medicines. Canada and the U.S. may have to emphasize more domestic origin and production of pharmaceuticals.
There is also the problems of distribution. Not all pharmacists, not even those in large chains, always have every medication on hand. Some medications can be dispensed only under supervised consumption, while others must be ordered several weeks in advance and kept in particular environments. Again, proximity to distribution locations will be important, and may well mean that living in cities is necessary for those who need particular medications.
6. Water:
The droughts in West Africa and South Asia, together with the cooling in Europe and North America, would affect food production as well as animal, human, and plant health, with unpredictable results during an unspecified length of time. Whether the world can reduce its heat and greenhouse gas production will have something to do with that. In Canada we will need to watch the effects on the St. Lawrence Seaway (out of concern for the fresh water/salt water exchange), and we and the U.S. will have be careful of the Great Lakes, with attention to which country uses how much water and for what purposes. We see that Alberta, and several U.S. states, already are having to adopt revised water usage standards, for agriculture, grazing, dairy, mining, residences, and manufacturing.
Ontario depends somewhat on local water power, and on water power from Quebec (which benefits from Newfoundland and Labrador’s water generating capacities) for electricity. Rivers depend upon melting snow, of which there seems to be less recently. Perhaps if we, like Europe, are colder, that will help. Nuclear energy needs coolant, so the water levels near generating stations needs to remain cool and deep enough for their purposes.
Adequate water for agriculture and pasturing, as well as for trees, shrubs and wetlands, cooking, cleaning, hygiene, and some industrial processes, must be made available in many places of scarcity (perhaps another reason to live in close proximity to reduce the distances for conveying water). But there will be uncertain snowfall, drought, pollution, and damaging weather.
More to consider in part 3.
Upon reconsidering... 