Article

Tearing down dam goes against green argument

Can't anyone see the hypocrisy of acknowledging the crisis of global warming while at the same time advocating removal of functioning hydroelectric facilities, which quietly produce totally renewable electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions and, unlike wind turbines, with very little visual impact?

On Tuesday (Aug. 8), the lead editorial was all about getting on with the breaching of the Fort Halifax dam. There was an implied suggestion that water behind dams is somehow unworthy and devoid of life. If this logic made sense, perhaps we should drain the Belgrade lakes so healthy streams could flow across the former lake floors? I am sure it would make better habitat for brook trout.

Can't anyone see the hypocrisy of acknowledging the crisis of global warming while at the same time advocating removal of functioning hydroelectric facilities, which quietly produce totally renewable electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions and, unlike wind turbines, with very little visual impact?

Yes, there is an ecological cost; fishing for certain migratory fish (think salmon) is jeopardized, but compare this with the costs of global warming (think Katrina) and it won't be just fishing that is jeopardized.

If we as a public feel that the fishing is of the highest priority then it is we -- or perhaps the fishermen -- who should be footing the cost of fish ladders, and not the power companies.

Preserving our hydroelectric generation is in everybody's interest.

Let us first get our greenhouse... more [truncated due to possible copyright]  

On Tuesday (Aug. 8), the lead editorial was all about getting on with the breaching of the Fort Halifax dam. There was an implied suggestion that water behind dams is somehow unworthy and devoid of life. If this logic made sense, perhaps we should drain the Belgrade lakes so healthy streams could flow across the former lake floors? I am sure it would make better habitat for brook trout.

Can't anyone see the hypocrisy of acknowledging the crisis of global warming while at the same time advocating removal of functioning hydroelectric facilities, which quietly produce totally renewable electricity with zero greenhouse gas emissions and, unlike wind turbines, with very little visual impact?

Yes, there is an ecological cost; fishing for certain migratory fish (think salmon) is jeopardized, but compare this with the costs of global warming (think Katrina) and it won't be just fishing that is jeopardized.

If we as a public feel that the fishing is of the highest priority then it is we -- or perhaps the fishermen -- who should be footing the cost of fish ladders, and not the power companies.

Preserving our hydroelectric generation is in everybody's interest.

Let us first get our greenhouse warming under control; then we may consider the luxury of pulling down dams. To do otherwise is to play the fiddle while Rome burns.


Source: http://morningsentinel.main...

AUG 17 2006
https://www.windaction.org/posts/4001-tearing-down-dam-goes-against-green-argument
back to top