Hello John, I am even less of an expert on dams 3G than I am on communications 2G. What I know, I either read about or saw and experienced firsthand. I trust the learning from what I see and experience firsthand more than what I read, and not 100%, if at all.
You have responded to a posting of mine that is comprised of a taunt, recap of what NatGeo presented, and what a badly written News article had to say. The taunt worked:0)
I respond to your speculations, technical minded to engineer thought framed, while I sit in my den, soy milk (I am done with Snapple Ice Tea and Starbucks Ice Coffee for a while, until I cannot resist anymore) nearby, windows wide open, and intruded upon by the bird songs from the forest fringed Chung Hom Kok Beach Bay below.
<<I suspect the environmentalists bemoan quite a bit more than the loss of scenery and historic sights>>
You are probably right.
<< There are unquestionably (i speculate confidently) potential (i hedge) ecosystem impacts from a project of this scale. The impacts go far beyond the loss of scenery (but you know this).>>
Yes I do.
<<To frame the issue as affluent do-gooders worried about losing a potential vacation destination vs destitute peasants worried about their next meal sounds (to me) like the transparent argument of the dam builder seeking to portray himself as the champion of the poor teeming masses as he attempts to discredit his opposition as self-serving extremists.>>
Maybe, but the spin works, so far.
<<"folks complain...but they are willing and happy...for the good of their kids"
Yeah, for the good of their kids. Just like J6P. We are all aware of how the common person intelligently weighs the pros/cons of huge, complex public works projects and, in the final analysis, makes a decision based on the long term impacts to the society in which he lives.>> Very true.
<<I suspect that the perceived near-term benefits (government cash, construction jobs, prefab housing equipped with the electronic opium of tv???) are probably more relevant considerations.>> Absolutely correct, for the near term.
<<"what the dam can bring...cheap power"
and what wonderful uses do people find for cheap power? (think las vegas...) "Cheap power" is, i'd argue, a matter of how you do your accounting.>>
Yes. But however accounted, the cheap hydro power is economically destroying the viability of coal-fired power plants all around. You know coal, also bad for the environment, especially used in the way they are in poor countries.
<<And i'll speculate again and suggest there are no lines on the dam builder's balance sheet for ecosystem and cultural destruction>>
and had you continued on about the tens of thousands of coal-fired plant being shutdown as a result of the hydro developments and progress, you would be even more correct.
Just think about it, all those newly kaput investments to be divested off:0)
I do not know what the right answer is. I do not have the resources to come up with the right answer. I do know that folks must be fed and housed and powered, else they revolt, causing terror, war against terror, and other environmental consequences, cultural destruction and all, scenery included.
I do not know that the ‘environmentalistic’ engineer’s answer is wrong. I do know decisions must be made, when most needed, has to be affordable, with money at hand (forget the perpetually disputed all-inclusive ledger), and what has proven to be good for one country may stand a better chance to be good for another.
The last two paragraphs are intuitively obvious to the most casual of passing soy milk drinking observers.
I generally do not engage in environment vs. economic progress debates, because it would be hypocritical of me to sit in my oceanfront apartment, amongst the chirping birds, to tell the teaming masses that they must keep burning coal, not build dams (or build small dams – size is so relative), and pay for actually more expensive power as opposed to some accounting-deficient cheap power; and also, because I do not know.
I really don’t.
What I do know is that if the NYT reported it, it is most likely biased, unless they suggest blowing up the Hoover Dam to restore environmental balance.
Chugs, Jay |
