Although the people of the World Bank have been dealing with the issue for more than two years, to this day there has been no reference to the environmental risk in the project, despite requests and warnings from all the green bodies, those involved in the promotion of the project have not bothered to address the environmental issues in a professional manner
I read in NRG News item: The Jordanian authorities announce that "they will only be able to invest in the "Peace Canal" project five percent of the original plan".
When I saw the title I thought hallelujah. Apparently there are also those who understand the negative points of the megalomaniacal and environmentally irresponsible venture.
I looked for the original news in the "Jordan Times" and did not find it, yet with reference to the news as it appeared in NRG, it is appropriate (in my opinion) to congratulate Jordan's decision, even if it was made for the wrong reasons, since there are good reasons for "stepping down the ladder" that many climbed , great and good,
The first reason is the enormous environmental risk about which much has been said and written, among others also by the HM HERE, HERE And here
Although the people of the World Bank have been dealing with the issue for more than two years, until today there was no reference to the environmental risk in the project, despite requests and warnings from all the green bodies, those involved in the promotion of the project did not bother to address the environmental issues in a professional manner.
The World Bank, which "poured" millions into examining the project, did not come to clear conclusions, not even on the economic issues, to date no clear assessments of the economic feasibility of the project have been published, meaning that even good investors and senior officials do not guarantee the economic feasibility of the "magnificent" project.
All this does not confuse the Minister for Regional Development and does not prevent him from making announcements that only intensify the feeling that the project is being pushed due to being megalomaniac.
Later in the news it is written that the Jordanian government has decided to "reduce the project"... and divide it into three phases. What parts? How do you reduce? The source of the news and its authors have solutions.
One can only hope that the solution (the three stages) is not the same "experimental project" announced by the Minister of Development. Since an experiment will cost many millions, it will not give a correct picture of the chances of success, but it will create a multi-system environmental risk. Perhaps this is the reason why the President's Office (Peres) was silent while the Development Minister's Office denied?
Later in the news, the Jordanians claim that "the cost of (desalinated) water will be high for the Jordanian citizen", and indeed this is a partially correct claim since when you calculate the cost of desalinated water at the end of the project, it is much higher than desalinated water in any plant intended for desalination only.
It is worth remembering that the initial excuse for "running" the project was to "save the Dead Sea", later the "realizations" came that while "saving the Dead Sea" it is possible to provide drinking water to the Jordanians, "develop" the Arabah and, of course, strengthen the Peace, that's why the project got the name "Tealat HaShalom".
Will the "warners at the gate" come and ask where the Jordanians will get drinking water from? "How do you save the Dead Sea"? Two problems that trying to combine prevents a correct solution, since the cost of desalinated water is decreasing. Already today, the cost of Kinneret water that reaches the south is higher than desalinated water. The Jordanians can extract desalinated water from the Gulf of Eilat (as in Eilat) but more than that, in the depths of Wadi Ram there are "fossilized" water reserves that have not been used to this day. Those who want to supply water will find many solutions without dangerous and unnecessary ventures.
The task of saving the Dead Sea remains: I have already written in the past that when a problem is created, the correct solution to the created problem is to stop its production, the Dead Sea is drying up for two main reasons: one is the activity of mineral extraction on both sides of the border, the second reason is the stopping of the flow in southern Jordan, so what is the solution ? Lowering the mineral extraction activity and resuming the flow in Jordan, is there anything simpler than that?
As for reducing production activity, only the government has solutions. The renewal of the flow in Jordan brings us back to the one who predicted the Sea Canal...Herzl, since the Sea Canal is a positive idea if it is carried out properly, Herzl predicted a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea. In the XNUMXs, with the help of an American Jewish magnate, an experiment was started to dig a canal from the Mediterranean Sea, the development of a future tunnel was seen near Ma'ale Yair, about one hundred million dollars were collected that were wasted in delusional attempts and thus the project was buried.
On the other hand, when Peres began to push the renewed project, the "Peace Project" and when it became clear the possibility and the risk that the project would start, alternative proposals began to emerge, one of which was brought here https://www.hayadan.org.il/1108093/ for some reason No alternative has been tested by the World Bank. The alternative presented here is two-thirds cheaper than the "Peace Canal", the environmental risks are small and few, but there is a "thorn in the side" in the proposed alternative, there is no need for the consent of the Jordanians and/or the Palestinians, that is, it will not be a project that will strengthen regional peace, so the chance is small to receive international funding for it.
It turns out that in order to produce a positive project that will benefit all parties, it is necessary to join it to "regional peace", so maybe you will find the initiative and a way to show that a canal from the Mediterranean that will flow water to southern Jordan will benefit all the neighbors and thus everyone will come to their satisfaction?
11 תגובות
The correct route should be through the Kiryat through the Emek to the north of the Sea of Galilee when desalination needs to be done along the way another option is to build a power plant such as Redding near the sea and use the energy to filter the turbines to desalinate the water and transfer it to the north of the Sea of Galilee A second option is more expensive than the first option
to a red man
It's just worth knowing that: when they promoted the Sea Canal project from the Mediterranean Sea
(in the late 60s) the main reason was indeed "creating cheap energy",
But according to the entrepreneurs' calculations, the canal would have contributed to the energy economy...
only 5%. And this was one of the reasons for stopping the project,
(In the "Shalom Canal" the electricity generated was intended for water desalination)
Ami
All your arguments are correct except for the fact that also for: people, tourism, industry,
Agriculture, infrastructure and towns are available in the vicinity,
Although in many cases they are hostile factors, they are also part of the ecological fabric,
and therefore there is an obligation to consider them (even as negative factors),
The Dead Sea and its surroundings for me and for many of my colleagues (and others) is unique and special,
Without the knowledge of his uniqueness, without the understanding of his uniqueness,
the need to save him would not have arisen,
The Dead Sea is an important source of tourism and brings billions to the country plus the electricity and desalination the investment will be repaid within a few years. But without the Dead Sea, many tourists will not even come to Israel. That is, there is a dilemma here between a profit of billions and a loss of billions.
Assaf Shalom,
Industry and tourism are something related to humans and not nature conservation. This cannot be your ecological case. Everything related to the well-being of humanity, families, industrialists, farmers, hoteliers, etc. is a bad case. They are not a reality there. And if they are there then let them face the reality they chose for themselves.
The only case you bring up, and it is very true, is the nature reserves. They must be treated in such a way as to compensate for the loss they suffer due to the drying up of the sea. in which there is real interest as an ecosystem.
You claim that the Dead Sea is a unique place. This is true. But Petah Tikva is also unique because there is no other like it. There are similar ones (unfortunately) but nothing like her. So is the Dead Sea. There are more salt seas in the world. There are more and there are less salty than our sea. He is not the extremist in the Dead Sea. There is nothing there that will be lost forever, probably, if the sea level keeps going down and down - until one day, probably, it will be filled again.
It seems to me that your arguments start well, like an ecologist who cares about nature, but when a mirror is placed in front of you with opposing ecological questions, you are suddenly the politician who cares for hoteliers and industrialists and in general for humans wherever they are there. If you care about people wherever they are there, you will do everything you can to promote the canal project, which of course will bring a lot of work and money to a lot of people. It's politics and industry. If this is your case then this is the right thing to go for. Will it harm or not harm nature? It is already a matter for ecologists that nature is at the top of their minds. But if you are talking about nature conservation and nature values, you have to give answers in the same currency.
At least in my humble opinion.
Best regards,
Dr. Ami Bachar
It is possible that the respected writer does not remember the main reason for the Sea Canal project: the creation of a cheap source of energy for the State of Israel as a result of the height differences between the Red Sea (or the Mediterranean Sea) and the Dead Sea that would drive turbines that would generate electricity. And because of this, the main reason for building the project no longer exists because the discoveries of the Tamar and Levitan gas fields solve the energy problems of the State of Israel.
Since the gas from Tamar will start flowing in March 2013, the cost of energy to the electricity company will be much lower than it has been so far and hence any investment with grandiose scopes in this canal of the seas are not worthwhile. More than that, the State of Israel is planned to achieve energy independence within 5 years and become an energy exporter (liquefied gas through the liquefaction facilities that will load ships that will sail to the Far East and Europe and/or alternatively a gas pipeline to Cyprus and from there to Europe).
Regarding Jordan: it cannot invest in the project for a very simple reason: the Hashemite kingdom is in heavy deficits and in a difficult economic situation in general, and the "spring" of the Arab nations is blowing in the back of the country's ruler, so that the excess money that the kingdom will already find, he will be forced to invest in the Jordanian people by lowering fuel costs and basic products (reminiscent of the Egyptian problem, although on a much smaller scale).
The delays in starting this project, which was supposed to save Israel from dependence on oil and coal, turned out for the better. The same tycoon, Yitzhak Tshuva, who announced that he would promote this project with his own money, discovered gas in the Mediterranean Sea and no longer sees the point or need for the sea canal.
Except for the fact that tourism (and industry) is developing around the Dead Sea
which provides a livelihood for thousands of families,
Except for the fact that the sinkholes damage and endanger hotels, tourism projects
and agricultural fields (see the date plantations and the parking lot in Ein Gedi),
With the exception of the fact that Pescha and sauce are drying because the water is flowing
and rowing through narrow canyons,
Except for the fact that all the wadis that flow into the sea merge (backwards)
and become narrow mud canyons (see the bridge that was destroyed in Nahal Arugut),
Except for the fact that the Dead Sea and its surroundings are a unique and special system in the world...
Your'e right .
The Dead Sea can disappear completely - nothing will happen
What do we do today with all the salty water that comes out of the springs at the bottom of the Sea of Galilee? As far as I know, at least in the past, they would be flowed in Jordan together with effluent from the surrounding area. The surface fresh water is pumped for drinking and the lower water is discharged into the Dead Sea. And what happens when the Sea of Galilee dries up? It is necessary to balance the civil water needs with the water needs of the Kinneret and the Dead Sea.
I just don't understand one fundamental matter: let's say the sea level drops in another 100 meters. What's that? What is the exact ecological balance we are trying to save? Ein Gedi and Ein Pesha reserve? So we will invest efforts in preserving these reserves. And the sea itself? Dolphins are long gone... the bacteria will already find new ways to survive the change. What about sinkholes? and tourism? And salt mining? Well, this is already a problem for industrialists. They create the problem so they will also pay for it.
The Dead Sea used to be lower and was also 100 meters higher. Either way, we live around him and he doesn't around us. The ecological problems in the Dead Sea are minimal compared to other places where there are food chains of more than one cell. You have to see everything in the right proportion.
The price of the resulting desalinated water (if it is indeed decided) to desalinate water should not be burdened on the consumer. The price of water for the consumer is uniform and the feasibility of water desalination in this project should only be checked against the project itself. This means whether the establishment of the desalination plant will make the establishment of the entire project cheaper (including its maintenance over the years).