• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Environmentalists cut off their nose to spite their face, again!

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
28,853
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
It really should be the motto of radical environmentalism. So what counterproductive shenanigans are they up to now? They gave an anti-hydroelectric power activist an environmental prize. Note, hydroelectric power is CO2-free, renewable and one of the cleanest power sources known to man.
Indigenous anti-dam activist in Peru wins top U.S. environmental prize
Reuters said:
An indigenous activist whose lawsuits helped derail plans to dam Peruvian rivers to supply electricity to Brazil has won a top environmental award in the United States, prize organizers said on Monday.
Ruth Buendia, a 37-year-old leader of the Ashaninka people in the Peru's central Amazon, will collect the Goldman Environmental Prize and $175,000 on Monday evening in San Francisco with six other recipients from different countries.
The article goes on to recount that the dam project this woman stopped would have created 7.2 GW of power generating capacity and of course thousands of much needed local jobs.
Needless to say, without the 7.2 GW of hydroelectric power capacity that demand will not just go away but will be met, most likely by burning coal and natural gas. Well done!

Justification for the opposition is Indian creationist mythology. Why should we take that any more seriously than the Christian variety:
According to traditional lore, a giant eagle once devoured people at the same swell in the Ene River where the dam would be built. The Ashaninka finally killed the monster, and his feathers floated down the river, giving rise to different Amazonian tribes.
"For us the Paquitzapango dam meant the eagle was coming back - this time not to eat us but to flood us out of existence," Buendia said.

This lends more credence to the charge that much of the environmentalist movement is like a watermelon - green on the outside, red on the inside. Opposition to environmentally sound power generation is being celebrated because it exemplifies one major tenet of American Left Wing orthodoxy which is special reverence of and support for special rights for Indians.
 
Environmental activists tend to recognize that climate change is not the only environmental issue. According to the OP, the activist opposed the dam for its direct negative effects on the local environment, not due to climate change. So unless the OP can show that the negative effects from the assumed substitution of alternative sources of energy are more than the negative effects of the dam on the local environment, the OP is more evidence of kneejerk pro-jobs reactionary blather than anything else.
 
New hydroelectric dams, particularly in heavily vegetated areas, are far from carbon neutral. When a valley is flooded by a new dam, the vegetation that is submerged decomposes, producing large quantities of methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. They are subject to silting, which means ongoing expense to keep them dredged; they are far from being 'set and forget' renewable power.

Dams are a poor choice for carbon neutral power generation. Particularly in the Andes, where silting is rapid, and earthquakes are common. Earthquakes and big dams are a very bad combination; just ask the Chinese.

The jobs issue is a total red herring; assuming that the plant is needful, someone, somewhere, will be generating this power for this area, and that will produce jobs - the guys who would have built the dam can build whatever kind of power plant replaces it; and hydroelectric operations typically require fewer staff than most generation options.

Of course the religious bullshit is not a good reason not to build the thing; but that doesn't mean that there are not other, very sound, reasons not to do it - and environmental concerns should rightly be high up that list. Presumably, Peru want to get in on the business of supplying power to Brazil, because the Brazillians want power up in the high Amazon - an area where the building of towns, cities and roads is an environmental catastrophe in itself. If limiting the available electrical power in that region - or making it more costly - limits the destruction of the jungle to make room for farms, towns, cities and roads, then that is also a good thing for the environment. Blocking the development may be considered counter-productive if you take a narrow perspective where economic growth is the primary goal of all human endeavour; but it is probably highly effective at achieving the goal of protecting the Amazon from further deforestation - not just in the immediate area of the dam, but in the adjacent parts of Brazil, too.
 
Of course the religious bullshit is not a good reason not to build the thing; but that doesn't mean that there are not other, very sound, reasons not to do it - and environmental concerns should rightly be high up that list.

Yes, what bibly said. Hydroelectric has a lot of negative environmental aspects.
 
Environmental activists tend to recognize that climate change is not the only environmental issue.
But the reason that Indian activist opposed the dam was not environment (at most it was a pseudoreason tacked on) but "indigenous privilege". I.e. they wanted special rights of being exempt from resettlement just because they are Indian.
According to the OP, the activist opposed the dam for its direct negative effects on the local environment, not due to climate change.
The only specific effect cited was that the valley would be flooded (duh!) and the inhabitants would have to be resettled, which is standard practice. No word about any significant environmental effect that would justify opposing/blocking the project. Remember, any development will have some environmental footprint - it's all about the extent of the damage compared to the benefits of the project.

So unless the OP can show that the negative effects from the assumed substitution of alternative sources of energy are more than the negative effects of the dam on the local environment, the OP is more evidence of kneejerk pro-jobs reactionary blather than anything else.
No, the burden of proof should be on those claiming significant environmental problems linked with this dam which would offset all the economic and environmental benefits of the project.
And jobs are very important for underdeveloped, impoverished areas. Although I will grant you, jobs are less important if you've just received $175k for opposing development!

New hydroelectric dams, particularly in heavily vegetated areas, are far from carbon neutral. When a valley is flooded by a new dam, the vegetation that is submerged decomposes, producing large quantities of methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
But that happens only once, as does the CO2 released during construction of the dam (both from machines and setting of the concrete itself). But afterwards, hydroelectric power plants can generate huge amounts of power with very little ongoing CO2 emissions. Look at this comparison:
co2.gif

You can see that hydro is much better than coal and gas (obviously) but also beats solar PV and sometimes even wind and nuclear. But even the worst case hydro is still pretty good.
Again, you will find no energy source to be completely non-polluting - that's "rainbows and unicorns" fantasy many environmentalists are guilty off when they are comparing real world technologies with.
They are subject to silting, which means ongoing expense to keep them dredged; they are far from being 'set and forget' renewable power.
What is "set and forget" in the real world anyway? Silting is an engineering problem which would have been part of any planning studies.

Dams are a poor choice for carbon neutral power generation.
They are actually one of the rather good choices.

Particularly in the Andes, where silting is rapid, and earthquakes are common.
Do you have any evidence that Andes are uniquely poorly suited for hydroelectric dams?

Earthquakes and big dams are a very bad combination; just ask the Chinese.
Really? A dam failure from almost 40 years ago due to a very rare, very strong typhoon (and probably substandard Mao era construction) is your best argument? And note that this particular dam has been rebuilt.

The jobs issue is a total red herring; assuming that the plant is needful, someone, somewhere, will be generating this power for this area, and that will produce jobs - the guys who would have built the dam can build whatever kind of power plant replaces it; and hydroelectric operations typically require fewer staff than most generation options.
But they won't be in that same impoverished area. That Indian activist is harming her own people's economic development.

Of course the religious bullshit is not a good reason not to build the thing; but that doesn't mean that there are not other, very sound, reasons not to do it - and environmental concerns should rightly be high up that list.
But the religious bullshit is what the Reuters article is focusing on together with complaining that some locals would have to be resettled. No word about any environmental damage that would offset the environmental and economic gains from the project.

Presumably, Peru want to get in on the business of supplying power to Brazil, because the Brazillians want power up in the high Amazon - an area where the building of towns, cities and roads is an environmental catastrophe in itself.
Imagine, people want to better and modernize their lives! The horrors!

If limiting the available electrical power in that region - or making it more costly - limits the destruction of the jungle to make room for farms, towns, cities and roads, then that is also a good thing for the environment. Blocking the development may be considered counter-productive if you take a narrow perspective where economic growth is the primary goal of all human endeavour; but it is probably highly effective at achieving the goal of protecting the Amazon from further deforestation - not just in the immediate area of the dam, but in the adjacent parts of Brazil, too.

I think economic development is an overall good. It has to be balanced with other concerns of course but knee jerk anti-development attitude that Indians share with radical environmentalists is ridiculous. It's not just energy projects like dams and Keystone XL/oil sands that ecomentalists and Indians are united in opposition but also much more innocuous projects like an observatory atop Mt. Graham.

Yes, what bibly said. Hydroelectric has a lot of negative environmental aspects.
Is there any large-scale power generation technology that is considered acceptable by radical ecomentalists?
 
Derec, if you want to decry greenpeace nutters, the far more obvious and
Problematic stances they have on GMOs and nuclear energy are more than enough. The carbon, deforestation, river-fouling, etc. caused by hydroelectric power are well understood to be problematic. The objection to hydro power often comes from real scientists who study river ecology. This is contrasted to the objections to 'nookular' power spewed by the frothing masses and DECRIED by the scientific community. I suggest a redirection of effort towards efforts to fix environmentalism rather than wholesale attempts to attack it.
 
New hydroelectric dams, particularly in heavily vegetated areas, are far from carbon neutral. When a valley is flooded by a new dam, the vegetation that is submerged decomposes, producing large quantities of methane, which is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
But that happens only once, as does the CO2 released during construction of the dam (both from machines and setting of the concrete itself). But afterwards, hydroelectric power plants can generate huge amounts of power with very little ongoing CO2 emissions.
The loss of the deforested area isn't a one time loss. It is an ongoing loss of CO2 to O2 production.
 
The only specific effect cited was that the valley would be flooded (duh!) and the inhabitants would have to be resettled, which is standard practice. No word about any significant environmental effect that would justify opposing/blocking the project. Remember, any development will have some environmental footprint - it's all about the extent of the damage compared to the benefits of the project.
Flooding the valley is a significant local environmental effect. DUH.

No, the burden of proof should be on those claiming significant environmental problems linked with this dam which would offset all the economic and environmental benefits of the project.
No, you are making specific unsubstantiated claims about the rationality of environmentalists. You need to show this particular action does not make economic sense. You have failed to do so because you have ignored the salient issues. Hence your position reflects ignorance and bias, not reasoned analysis.
 
Is there any large-scale power generation technology that is considered acceptable by radical ecomentalists?

I'm not a rabid ecomentalist (awesome word) but I suspect their thoughts probably start first with whether we need any more energy at all, or whether we should focus on using less. There's a LOT of room for that before we actually need to build more. So - I'm only guessing - but, probably not? Maybe methane recover from ranching?
 
Derec, if you want to decry greenpeace nutters, the far more obvious and
Problematic stances they have on GMOs and nuclear energy are more than enough. The carbon, deforestation, river-fouling, etc. caused by hydroelectric power are well understood to be problematic. The objection to hydro power often comes from real scientists who study river ecology. This is contrasted to the objections to 'nookular' power spewed by the frothing masses and DECRIED by the scientific community. I suggest a redirection of effort towards efforts to fix environmentalism rather than wholesale attempts to attack it.

Well I am in favor of nuclear energy as well but also hydroelectric power. Sure, sites should be examined on a case by case basis but good hydroelectric sites have so many advantages that they should not be unused. No power generation method is completely without environmental effect. With nuclear power you must mine and process the fuel and then dispose of it. And like with hydroelectric power, the effects look significant but you have to consider both relative to total energy generated over the lifetime.

If there are actual, scientific objections to this Peruvian site, why aren't they listed? Why are we reading about giant Eagles instead?

The loss of the deforested area isn't a one time loss. It is an ongoing loss of CO2 to O2 production.
It's not that simple as rain forests act as both a CO2 sink and source.

Flooding the valley is a significant local environmental effect. DUH.
Evidence that it is "significant" environmentally? Do you have access to any case studies for example?
Flooded valleys result from any dam project. Should all of them have not been done?

No, you are making specific unsubstantiated claims about the rationality of environmentalists.
No, that opinion is substantiated over a long time. I still remember environmentalists protesting against things like the Cassini probe launch because it carried a nuclear generator on board (nuclear == evil).
If they had any concrete environmental objections, why are they rambling about giant eagles instead?

You need to show this particular action does not make economic sense.
Oh, it does make economic sense - for the activist who pocketed $175,000.

You have failed to do so because you have ignored the salient issues. Hence your position reflects ignorance and bias, not reasoned analysis.

I did not ignore them. If there are any salient issues, let's bring them up. The Reuters article certainly did not list any. Had I read of any in the article I would not have posted the thread in the first place.

I'm not a rabid ecomentalist (awesome word)
Can't claim credit.
3xgdf4


but I suspect their thoughts probably start first with whether we need any more energy at all, or whether we should focus on using less.
Well underdeveloped areas (like Western Brazil) definitely need more energy, although the growth rate can be mitigated by improvements in efficiency. And with poorer areas cost matters more than in rich ones. And you can't beat hydroelectric power on price, which is why it is the first renewable sort of energy to gain widespread use. Hell, the first large scale power plant of any kind was the hydroelectric plant at Niagara Falls.
800px-Westinghouse_Generators_at_Niagara_Falls.jpg


Maybe methane recover from ranching?
Seems like a low-density endeavor. How much methane can even a large ranch generate? It could be worthwhile to supply the needs of the farm and maybe the surrounding village. Additional plus is that it removes methane which is a very potent climate change gas. So something that should be used for sure, and South America doesn't exactly hurt for available cow ranching, but I doubt it can really replace the need for large scale power plants.
COW2_1612057f.jpg
 
Evidence that it is "significant" environmentally?
Seriously you need evidence that the destruction of the flora and fauna in a valley due to permanent flooding is not significant to that local environment?
Do you have access to any case studies for example?
Just google dam studies. Here is one http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CDIQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fscholarworks.umass.edu%2Fcgi%2Fviewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D1015%26context%3Dedethicsinscience&ei=j7JhU9CWE4Le2AWa54CICA&usg=AFQjCNG_9ndaPv3kGIhvhXafaoS0bAjKQg&sig2=tkmE9m-5h7nEDZ2RyuI8DQ&bvm=bv.65788261,d.b2I
Flooded valleys result from any dam project. Should all of them have not been done?
I have no idea - I have not seen the studies on all dam projects. I do know that the World Bank no longer automatically approves loans for dam projects because of environmental effects (among other problems like corruption).

No, that opinion is substantiated over a long time.
Your illogical biases are not independent evidence of other people's irrationality.
 
Back
Top Bottom