Estimating Future Costs for Infrastructure in the Proposed Canadian Northern Corridor at Risk From Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews current climate change projections for northern Canada and considers what these mean for infrastructure development in the proposed Canadian Northern Corridor (CNC). We focus on chokepoints along the corridor’s notional route and estimate future costs of infrastructure along the chokepoints. We draw upon climate change projections at the end of the century (2100) using information from several climate variables sourced on the CMIP6 and CMIP5 reports. Climate variables include means and extreme values for temperature, precipitation, wind and their indirect impacts on physical features: permafrost, freezing rain and wildfires. In terms of infrastructure costs, we investigate investment costs and the useful life of nine sectors within transportation, energy and buildings infrastructures. The findings of our analysis show that mean temperatures within the CNC area could increase by 10.9oC, and precipitation by 45 per cent by 2100. Climate change could create chokepoints along the CNC route, affecting key areas essential for transportation flow. Central regions of the corridor are projected to have a higher probability of receiving concomitant impacts on several chokepoints, including combined threats from the increasing frequency of wildfires, freezing rain and permafrost thaw. Adding a climatic layer to investment costs within CNC chokepoints can increase infrastructure costs by more than 101 per cent. Transportation engineering infrastructure, electric power infrastructure and the institutional buildings sectors are most likely to be impacted. Just considering a climate layer to current infrastructure increases costs by more than $12 billion for several hazards such as freezing precipitation (especially Alberta and BC), $7 billion for wildfires (especially BC) and more than $400 million for permafrost (especially Alberta and BC). Infrastructure built along the CNC route will need to be designed to remain functional under different climatic conditions that predominate today. Chokepoints will dictate how buildings and transportation infrastructure should be planned.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".