|
|
|
|
|
by g0v
4188 days ago
|
|
I'm reading this article and Sratfor says: "It is worth briefly explaining why Stratfor fixates on navigable rivers as opposed to coastlines. First, navigable rivers by definition service twice the land area of a coastline (rivers have two banks, coasts only one). Second, rivers are not subject to tidal forces, greatly easing the construction and maintenance of supporting infrastructure. Third, storm surges often accompany oceanic storms, which force the evacuation of oceanic ports. None of this eliminates the usefulness of coastal ports, but in terms of the capacity to generate capital, coastal regions are a poor second compared to lands with navigable rivers." This is just after explaining all the economic benefits to a river system like that of the Mississippi. I am just wondering now about the time after which the ice caps have receded and the river system in question occupies more land; would it be wrong to think that this could possibly increase its potential economic output? |
|