This episode starts with a proposition.
How about we rip the United States and Mexico apart
from each other,
Geographically speaking,
it would open up new trade routes that would make
a ton of money for both countries,
and it could create a whole new tourism industry for
cities along the canal.
But would that be worth the giant price tag,
and could it create political instability?
This is what if, and here's what would happen if
we built a canal between the US and Mexico.
the US Mexico border is
3111 kilometers in length. As of early
2019, approximately
2058 kilometers is unfenced, due in large part to the
Rio Grande River acting as a natural barrier between the
countries.
If we're going to go ahead and build a canal
along this border,
this giant river seems like a natural starting point,
don't you think?
But before we bring our big machines down there to
expand the river,
maybe we should stop and ask ourselves,
how is this going to impact the surrounding environment?
The Rio Grande provides water to 6 million people,
so having ships of all sizes passing through it and
creating pollution probably wouldn't be a good idea.
Plus, if we were to expand the Rio Grande along
the border,
we'd be crossing through six separate ecoregions
along this stretch. There are
62 species of animals and plants that are currently listed
as critically endangered.
Our Rio Grande Canal could just be enough to push
these species over the edge from endangered
to extinct. It could also wreak havoc with seasonal migration
for some species and severely limit food sources and mating.
OK, I agree this is starting to look pretty complicated.
So how about we look at an existing canal for
guidance?
The Panama Canal cuts across the Isthmus of Panama,
connecting the Atlantic Ocean with the Pacific Ocean,
using a series of locks to adjust the changing elevations
from ocean to ocean.
In total, 14,000 ships a year make use of it,
with larger cargo ships having to pay upwards of $1
million to use it.
That's a lot of money that could be funneled to
North America instead.
If we were to build a canal that matches the
width of the Panama Canal,
we'd have to move about
53 billion cubic meters of earth at a price of
$11 trillion.
And that number is just for the length of the
Rio Grande,
which is the shared border from the Gulf of Mexico
to El Paso,
TX.
The Rio Grande would need reinforced concrete walls and barriers
installed along its shores,
and it would need to be dug deeper in some
areas.
If we follow the operations guide of the Panama Canal,
a specially trained canal pilot would have to navigate any
large boat for the duration of its trip through the
canal.
This might present some issues since in the case of
the Panama Canal,
we're dealing with hours to go across the canal,
whereas here it would be days that another person has
charge of the ship.
We'd also have to find a way to deal with
border crossings on foot or by car.
There are 47 legal points of entry between the US
and Mexico.
Sure, we could replace those with bridges,
but each of those bridges would cost approximately $600 million.
Even though this project would bring a lot of benefits,
it seems like it would bring even more questions,
such as who would be paying for all this?
How much would be covered by the US,
and how much by Mexico?
It wouldn't be economically feasible for either country,
since it would cost trillions of dollars just to finish
construction across a couple of states.
To fund such a massive project could mean taking that
money from more vital social or medical programs,
anything deemed expendable by those with interests in the canal.
The political fallout from this could also be significant.
We'd literally be making a cut through North America.
This could create a new source of global instability,
something that may be viewed as an US against them
mentality by other countries.
Maybe all this international trade talk would be easier if
we just didn't have those pesky oceans dividing us all.
But that's a story for another
What if?