• Omi
    My first thought about the 186 mile Canal from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea was: What negative impacts might this have on the Red Sea itself? This was answered in that the Red Sea's coral reefs could be greatly damaged, along with the freshwater aquifers along the way. Not even considering the high level of seismic activity in the area, a 186 mile canal through an arid- desert region is just so unnatural that I feel like there will be more negative effects than we can predict.
    It is obvious that something must be done, but I do not think the answer is this canal.
  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16510569680594318928 Russell Sticklor
    Omi, I tend to agree with you that the canal plan would involve potentially big environmental risks, not just in the Dead Sea itself, but in the Arava Desert Valley and the Red Sea as well. I think the feared ecological impact of the canal is one of the big reasons that after decades of deliberation, the proposal has had trouble moving forward. The fact that environmental groups in the region like FOEME have been outspoken in their opposition has played a significant role too, in terms of heightening public skepticism.

    The Red-Dead canal is the focus of this piece, but it actually hasn't been the only proposed canal link to help revive water levels in the Dead. Another one that has been considered off-and-on has been a canal linking the Mediterranean and the Dead. But that plan has proven hugely controversial in its own right — not just because it would pose a potential environmental threat, but also because it would likely have to run through both Israel and the Gaza Strip.
  • http://vincebeiser.com Vince Beiser
    Nice piece, Russell. For more details, take a look here: http://www.miller-mccune.com/environment/resurrecting-the-dead-sea-20011
Mobile Theme