the river and current riparian and wetland environments are their entire livelihood and way of life.
Doesn't "let's just wreck it all to the degree it would be wrecked by global warming, so as to prevent global warming" seem kind of pointless?
Belo Monte's 668 square kilometres (258 sq mi) of reservoir will flood 400 square kilometres (150 sq mi) of forest, about 0.01%
It found that a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels, widely considered the best case global warming scenario and the target for ambitious international plans to curb emissions, would still see 20-40% of the Amazon die off within 100 years. A 3C rise would see 75% of the forest destroyed by drought over the following century, while a 4C rise would kill 85%. "The forest as we know it would effectively be gone," Pope said.
"Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." "There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe."
destroying the Amazon in the process isn't required. ... I can't believe some of the opinions I read on here nowadays unbelievable.
It's worth noting that the major native org in Brazil actually supports the dam, which comes sweetened with over $1.3 BILLION in extra funding, primarily to help them improve their communities and adjust to the changes.
The water being pooled and still in the sun becomes much hotter than it was in the freely-flowing river and I believe the level of the underground water table changes too, which has ramifications for the types of foliage that can grow. This all disrupts the balance between species and how they interact with each other; I think the latter two effects particularly can create a situation where invasive species will thrive much more readily than native ones and choke the native ones out, for example.
Also claims about the cost being massive, without taking into account that we're talking about roughly the same production, in megawatts, that the US once had as the final goal for Iraqi electrical production a few years ago... enough for about 20 million people.
Painted and feathered Amazon Indians waving machetes and clubs attacked an official of Brazil's national electric company Tuesday during a protest over a proposed hydroelectric dam.
Mobs of Indians from different tribes surrounded Eletrobras engineer Paulo Fernando Rezende minutes after he gave a presentation to a gathering debating the impact of the Belo Monte dam on traditional communities living near this small, remote city in the Amazon region.
Rezende emerged shirtless, with a deep, bloody gash on his shoulder, but said, "I'm OK, I'm OK," as colleagues rushed him to a car.
My mistake. It's actually $1.9 BILLION...
Well, the problem is those things need to be quantified, and balanced against the overall benefit to the whole world's ecosystem. It's not like there aren't already huge lakes around the Amazon river. I don't really get why this is supposed to be so terrible.
That's what I'm saying; adding a few GW of hydroelectric production, with no guarantee that it will actually be matched with a reduction in carbon emissions particularly
Brazil's carbon emissions are capped by law
Despite its ambitious targets, Greenpeace's top representative in Brazil, Sergio Leitao, called it merely a list of good intentions and accused Lula of using double standards in environmental issues.
unlike other top greenhouse gas emitting countries, the majority—over three-fourths—of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions are associated with deforestation, agriculture, and land use change rather than with energy consumption.
If we are actually going to have a chance of stopping global warming, we are going to have to switch to all renewable energy in a very short period of time. That's going to require a lot of disruption for a lot of people. The alternative is going to mean a lot more disruption to a lot more people. There's no way this works out with everyone coming away happy.
How about we shut down the mining industry worldwide and subsist entirely off of recycled minerals, mandating that the recycling must occur in the lowest-emissions way possible? I'll bet that even a partially-completed version of that measure would make a far, far larger difference than building a few hydroelectric plants in the Amazon would
nor is it even the method of achieving such a benefit with the lowest average cost per person, it's just the one expected to be the easiest.
How are we supposed to expand things like windpower to replace fossil fuel generators without mining additional copper?
Brazil set a goal, obviously they may not reach it. But they'll be more likely to reach it if this dam is built then if not.
the majority—over three-fourths—of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions are associated with deforestation, agriculture, and land use change rather than with energy consumption
Arguing that we shouldn't do some particular thing to reduce emissions because we can't guarantee that other emissions will happen anyway doesn't make a lot of sense.
First of all, why don't you actually do the math instead of making a bet?
If it were possible to build 33 of these at the same cost about $2,640 per citizen. What is the cheaper way and how much would it cost?
Amazon deforestation may undercut South American hydropower projects
Loss of forests reduce rainfall, cutting into generation potential.
How about recycling all of the copper in mining machinery and mining facilities and all of the power lines and communication lines that run out to mines?
the majority—over three-fourths—of Brazil’s greenhouse gas emissions are associated with deforestation, agriculture, and land use change rather than with energy consumptionThe dam and the attendant development it involves is something that is going to cause land use change and deforestation - it's not evident that your claim is true.
Because as I said in response to Mitheral, the exact math of how many times as much electricity could be displaced by giving up mining globally compared to the output of a few power plants isn't important - the point is how easy it is to come up with ways to get 11GW of reduced emissions or much more that don't involve destroying the environment to save the environment and don't require immense personal sacrifice falling entirely on the shoulders of a small group of easily-exploited people who don't themselves contribute to global warming.
I wasn't referring to a dollars-and-cents cost, I was talking about personal costs like being uprooted and resettled or the people who get to remain where they are but whose livelihoods depended on the health of the river or connected parts of the ecosystem losing their livelihoods.
That's what numbers are for, so you can compare them and see which is larger. The construction of the dam and connection to the power grid is expected to release 11.2 million metric tons of CO2. (according to the Wikipedia article). That's less then the emissions saved by one year of operation, which should be about 15 million metric tons. Each year.
The present analysis indicates that the Belo Monte Babaquara complex would not break even in terms of greenhouse gas emissions until 41 years after the first dam is filled in a calculation with no discounting, and that any annual discount rate above 1.5% results in the complex failing to perform as well as natural gas by the end of the 50-year time horizon used in Brazil’s assessments of proposed energy projects.
Except of course that your plan would put all miners out of work, destroy the economies of every city where many of the people work in mines. It would destroy far, far more people's lives then this.
The cost to stop all mining may be the government cannot afford to spend. So if this dam is stopped, in reality the likely replacement will be nothing.
How many people are you willing to harm to prevent this dam from being built? What's the number?
Or even offer some measure that's just really burdensome for everyone else, like giving up all air conditioning and refrigeration worldwide that isn't medically necessary - as far as I've seen nothing even at that level is being offered to show solidarity with these people who are being asked to give up their lives for totally-not-just-a-way-to-consume-more-energy, entirely altruistic dam-building purposes.
Whatever number you meant when you similarly talked about "a lot of disruption for a lot of people." Let's do the same number you are in favor of and just pick all of the people in the world who are the outliers making up the long tail contributing the most to global warming, and force the "harm" on them of living a life with their emissions cranked down to zero, resettled somewhere far away from their current lives which you say happens all the time and is immaterial.
simultaneously devastating the richest part of the biosphere we're supposedly trying to save.
this is a small portion of the total effort required to eliminate emissions just in Brazil alone,
why are we just debating some little incremental measure
Because solar powered air conditioning doesn't lead to greenhouse gas emissions, so banning it makes zero sense.
Because flooding 0.01% of something is not 'devastating'.
Well, it's true, there's no reason to debate it because it's going to happen and there's nothing you can do about it.
« Older Don't make fun of renowned author Dan Brown.... | NASA needs your help. Match th... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt